A swindle?

Given that the author claims to have a PhD in bullshit I suppose that explains it.
Pretty low quality argumentation of some sort of pseudo eliminativism.

Ironic that he calls philosophy bullshit not realizing his position is not outside of it... But hey, he's got a PhD in that...
Scientists who study the brain understand that “consciousness,” with a lowercase c, is not a “thing” with a “location”, but is instead the abstract process of being self-aware, or a relative measurement of general self-awareness. When you talk about consciousness with a lowercase c, then it becomes easy to see that consciousness is not mysterious at all, it is a description of our everyday waking life.
I don't see that this makes things any clearer. How does matter become 'self-aware'?
I don't see that this makes things any clearer. How does matter become 'self-aware'?
He's not attempting to explain how biological matter becomes aware. He's arguing philosophers perpetuate an unfounded argument in the first place. This one
The central myth of this theory is that consciousness is a “thing”, and that consciousness “exists” in some “place” that we can’t see.


It's a rant from an angry young man who hasn't read the data thoroughly. Wilder Penfield's work, alone, without any of the vast amount of experiences is enough to show this type of reasoning is too simple.
Pretty much this.

In any case Penrose is not a dualist in terms of believing in an immortal soul, AFAIK he's a Psi skeptic as well. So that's the first part of the paper that's wrong. In fact Penrose's theory of ORCH-OR is minimally panpsychic at best, if not a fully materialist theory.

The rest of Kent's childish temper tantrum follows from there.
That post is from 2012? Oh okay. No wonders he doesnt know that research suggests that there could be something to penrose's idea (microtubules and stuff).

And idk about firing neurons that are "clearly" creating consciousness. Alright, hes denying penrose's theory, i get that - but there is no respected scientist out there who would say that we know for sure about that(It usually comes down to 'we believe it is like that' and 'research suggests that it is like that'. What pretty much means that they dont know shit). Consciousness is still one of the biggest mysteries out there.
But that guy isnt open-minded about that anyways:
Consciousness is material, it is a material thing that relies on material neurons and material fuel and material stimulus to work correctly.
I mean like, really? So much material. What exactly is material? Is it relying on neurons? Well, who knows. The only thing we know for sure today is that consciousness is somehow connection to neurons. That doesnt imply that neurons create consciousness - if it would be that easy there wouldnt be any mystery anymore and science would have told us about it in a clear and triumphant way.