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.

🚨 WHAT IF YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS IS JUST AN ILLUSION? You can see the red of a sunset, feel the sting of pain, hear a song, remember a childhood moment, and feel completely certain that you are experiencing these things. But some philosophers and scientists argue that there may be no private inner experience behind them at all. This idea is known as illusionism. Philosophers such as Keith Frankish and the late Daniel Dennett have argued that the brain may not contain a hidden “observer” experiencing everything that happens. Instead, the brain could be an incredibly complex biological system that processes information, responds to its surroundings, stores memories, and keeps track of its own activity. According to this view, the feeling of seeing red is not necessarily a special inner sensation produced somewhere inside the brain. The brain processes information about color and creates a representation of what is happening. The same could apply to pain, emotions, thoughts, and even the feeling that there is a continuous “self” inside your head. Critics have an obvious question: if consciousness is an illusion, who is being fooled? An illusion normally seems to require someone who experiences it. Illusionists argue that this assumes exactly what they are questioning — that there must be a separate conscious observer inside the brain. There may be no such observer. There may only be neural processes that create the strong impression that one exists. This challenges one of our deepest assumptions about ourselves. We normally treat subjective experience as the most certain thing we have. Even if we doubt the outside world, we still feel certain that we are experiencing something. Illusionism asks whether that certainty comes from genuine subjective experience or from the way the brain represents its own activity. The question also matters for artificial intelligence. If consciousness comes from particular forms of information processing rather than from something uniquely biological, then an advanced machine could potentially reproduce some of the same processes. But would that machine actually experience anything, or would it simply behave as though it does? We still do not have a settled answer to what consciousness fundamentally is. But illusionism offers a radical possibility: perhaps there is no hidden inner world waiting to be discovered inside the brain. Perhaps the brain itself creates the impression that there is one. Source: Keith Frankish, Illusionism as a Theory of Consciousness, Journal of Consciousness Studies, 23(11–12), 11–39 (2016).

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.