Maybe there will come a point where it's in the gray area but not today. We know that people act in ways that we cannot explain even a little bit.
Also, the bet is friendly. It's just a way to express their different underlying opinions. Neither one is put out by it. They will likely enjoy some of the wine together.
I cannot tell you how tired I am of people arguing about the merits of string theory, where effectively none of the people involved know even the first thing about it. It's not that people shouldn't get involved, but involvement should be more than just cheerleading as if it were a sports game.
Maybe that's inevitable. Maybe the public engagement will always produce 99 dunces shouting and one young scientist who goes on to study it for real. But it can be disheartening when it looks as if 100% of the public discussion is both ignorant and mean.
Then how can you follow that with "... it's still clear that the bet is lost. We do not understand in 2023 how neurons give rise to consciousness"?
The neuroscientist wagered that he or other neuroscientists will achieve something in 25 years. They did not. If the goal was poorly specified or impossible to achieve, that is on the person starting and accepting the bet.
There was certainly the possibility that they could have disagreed on the outcome. But there is really no dispute.
The possibility of disagreement would have mattered if the bet itself were significant, but it wasn't. It was always a tiny stake.