As a result you get a lot of "What does it look like from the perspective of a photon?" or "What does the inside of a black hole look like?" The real lack of knowledge is boring, and there are enough such excitable people to keep some magazines (on and offline) profitable. I think it's also important to remember that most people, even technical people, who aren't into physics simply don't understand the topics in question well enough that the headline in question, 'Is Matter Conscious' doesn't turn them off immediately. The difference there, between largely uncritical (if intellectual) wide-eyed curiosity, and science is pretty stark.
The truth is though, that it's a matter of interest, and most people (whatever they claim) aren't really interested in physics, they just like "the cool stuff".
But I agree that there are too many such articles, with too little original content.
But statements like "The possibility that consciousness is the real concrete stuff of reality", or none-the-less quite fun to unpack and discuss. Even if unintelligible due to aforementioned limits of human reasoning. :)
I think if you find yourself always looking at the world 100% through rigorous logic/methodologies, and don't allow your mind to wonder and explore new possibilities, then I think it's safe to say that human reasoning will absolutely remain bounded.
(also, the comments section was fun to read as well)
but I don't think it means we can't try, or hypothesize...
I have a hard time getting this point. Mathematics began as something concrete. In fact, abstract mathematics is one huge accomplishment of the human mind.
In general, I find all the article hard to read. Maybe I lack the expertise to fully grasp what is this about. But it looks like there is no attempt to explain the ideas in clear terms.
I will suggest that if you want to know more about consciousness Daniel Dennett is a better read.