i see what you're saying, but i disagree with your premise. particularly in light of both the article and the parent comments. consciousness is a defacto catego

i see what you're saying, but i disagree with your premise. particularly in light of both the article and the parent comments. consciousness is a defacto categorisation because we cannot point to a distinct thing which defines it. we have a shared understanding of consciousness which is separate from 'just' life (ie.apes are conscious but plants are not) but also separate from merely categorisation (ie.we think there are fundamental differences between conscious and not conscious). like when a syndrome becomes a disease.. we are looking for some thing we can point to and say this why we have this set of symptoms. but this article is suggesting is that possibly there actually is no difference between conscious and not conscious, and that perhaps we are looking for the wrong thing. that is, they are suggesting that consciousness is not a thing, but an emergent illusion / experience.