

What I imagine to be the “true” answer to the question is that “consciousness” isn’t really real, but if it’s thought of as a result of physical/chemical properties, then there’s no dividing line between what reactions count as consciousness (ie, a waterfall or tectonic plate could also be conscious).
You can’t prove that you experience that sort of intangible experience and it can’t be measured or well-defined, so I’m personally inclined to not really believe in it at all.
OR if we do accept that it’s a result of chemical reactions and we want to define it in terms of those, then there’s not a strong reason to differentiate a human experience from rocks or computers or waterfalls.
I think people are inclined to think that such a thing exists because we have the abilities of memory and communication, but the concept itself I think is not very useful. Which is why I suspect that a magically True answer would say that the physicality of the brain itself is as close as you can get to that idea.


Sigmund Freud reading this and exploding 🤯💥