Whether consciousness explains anything the script leaves unexplained is an explanatory-residual test, and it acquits humans as well. If experience is identical to the computation there is no residual by construction, and if it merely rides along there is none either. A behavioural gap is predicted only by interactionist dualism, which nearly nobody holds. So the test returns nothing in the one case we are sure of. What remains is structural matching against a theory of consciousness, and no such theory is confirmed. The bound is not missing evidence. It is a missing theory to say which evidence counts.

The outflow of human consciousness radiates through the vast vacuum of space — like a drop tiny cream on a blanket of espresso. That is something, I hope, that one day we will achieve.

Penrose's claim that consciousness relies on non-computable quantum mechanics has been dismissed for decades: quantum states, critics say, collapse far too fast in a warm brain to matter. But neuroscientist Mike Wiest argues new evidence of stable quantum states at much higher temperatures means we must take the idea seriously again.

It’s the self consciousness and stuttering which makes a it for me. Apologetic western supplication in the face of the truth. The grasshopper media have no idea how to interview a man armed with a set of his views.

Schmidhubers argument for consciousness in LLMs: - the one constant in training and during RL rollouts that influences the next token prediction is the model itself, so models should learn to model themselves to better predict what comes next claiming that this results in conscious AI is silly I think at best this gives you self-awareness/some metacognition which models already have, but not consciousness