This fails twice: It’s self referential (consciousness is the way you’re aware of what it’s like to be you) Yeah dumbass what we’re trying to define is that very thing.

And falsifiability: What’s it like to be a rock? List ten qualities of a rock. That’s probably what it would feel like to be a rock. Great, you’ve just ascribed consciousness to a rock. (Which I don’t necessarily think is wrong— I just don’t think that’s what the author intends)

What we don’t know is what precisely it is, who has it and who doesn’t. A jumping spider probably has it. An ape probably has it. Does a turkey have it? Probably less so. They don’t recognize their own reflection, but they certainly feel things when they see it. Can we really say they don’t experience anything if they react to stimulus? Is reaction to stimulus enough? Woah now chemical reactions are conscious.

Ok too far again. Do I have it? What would it look like if I didn’t but just appeared to have it? It would look exactly like an LLM. Ok but if you claimed to have it you’d have it right? (Again LLMs). Ok what if it’s like a combination of persistent self and vivid…

What are we doing again?