I'm not sure anything has been made more clear at all. In fact, the paper appears to contradict itself, as it uses the most complicated possible everything to make this "simpler to understand"

Was that not the intent??

I think you went around in circles too much.

Consciousness theories must be falsifiable and inputs non-trivial - that is maybe the worse way to say that. Much of this could have been said better.

It reads like you are flexing your disciplines special words and language for normal shit -> a plumber can talk at you and you'll have no idea what they said too, especially if they try to do that.

As an intelligent person, who apparently understands this topic, an article like this can only be a flex for "job security" (like the plumber who describes plunging a toilet as the act of: "Hydrodynamic Pressure Rebalancing accomplished by a manual, oscillatory pressure-differential induction cycle.")

OR... they cannot simplify further due to lack of understanding of the subject matter.

I honestly am unsure what this is.

That is the nicest thing I can say.

I also want to know what substitute can swap in that can hallucinate the absolutely insane things we've all seen AI do??

I can't come come up with one (unless we program something to hallucinate ;)

Is that a failure of the example or the rule in neuroscience?

I extremely disliked that "rule" immediately, I'm quite sus on it.

is that first sentence entirely broken or am i having a temporary lapse in cognition?