Great book review. If I had more time, I would snap up the book immediately. The review left me wondering if the book elaborates on the above ^^^. I might make the time to read it.
This might not be a deliberate reference to Nagel (as mentioned in the article) but at least it's thematically appropriate.
I don't think we'll ever be able to fully explain it in scientific terms, because not everything is in the realm of scientific knowledge.
Define it rigorously and show a physical basis and you might have something to work with.
What we can do however is experience qualia first-hand, and prove to ourselves that they exist. While we may never know if we're experiencing them the same way as each other, the fact that we can experience qualia at all is undeniable, and the question of why we can do so is the real question being asked here.
What I find special about the TNGS is the Darwin series of automata created at the Neurosciences Institute by Dr. Edelman and his colleagues in the 1990's and 2000's. These machines perform in the real world, not in a restricted simulated world, and display convincing physical behavior indicative of higher psychological functions necessary for consciousness, such as perceptual categorization, memory, and learning. They are based on realistic models of the parts of the biological brain that the theory claims subserve these functions. The extended TNGS allows for the emergence of consciousness based only on further evolutionary development of the brain areas responsible for these functions, in a parsimonious way. No other research I've encountered is anywhere near as convincing.
I post because on almost every video and article about the brain and consciousness that I encounter, the attitude seems to be that we still know next to nothing about how the brain and consciousness work; that there's lots of data but no unifying theory. I believe the extended TNGS is that theory. My motivation is to keep that theory in front of the public. And obviously, I consider it the route to a truly conscious machine, primary and higher-order.
My advice to people who want to create a conscious machine is to seriously ground themselves in the extended TNGS and the Darwin automata first, and proceed from there, by applying to Jeff Krichmar's lab at UC Irvine, possibly. Dr. Edelman's roadmap to a conscious machine is at https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.10461
My personal favorite is the open worm project. The sentience (not really sentience) of the worm emerges from the arrangement of the neuron models in the physics engine. The muscle models are similarly connected, and the worm model swims as if alive. The human connectome project may be the closest relatable thing in a more intelligent sphere. The hcp is also laughably far away from the resolution required to equate it to the open worm project.
Your reply strikes me similarly to my personal fascination. Also, it’s similar to me in that there is no reason to select the Darwin automata as the most likely path towards artificial consciousness. Even the recent article you linked has the classic language of “it’s possible” and not “it’s reality”.
This circles back around to why I enjoyed the book review. I do believe what you portray as incorrect (that we don’t really know much about the fundamental element of consciousness), and the different perspectives tickle my brain. I’m open to changing my opinion if you can put these things into simple ideas and terms. If you can’t put them into simple terms, though, I rest my case that we’re no closer to real understanding than Descartes was.