> I’d urge you to not keep insisting consciousness is a total mystery.
But don't want to get into the philosophy of it. I'd urge you to consider the definition of conciousness (as specified by the original question) wasn't just about biology. And it is 100% very difficult to define.
> We do have entry and exit conditions. We can disrupt it and study the dynamics of the disruption.
We've known life and death for quite some time. Even from the biological perspective, there's nothing new there in the largest sense. All we've done is refine it. Animals are aware of it.
> but seems to want to hold to the belief that we’ve solved consciousness with LLMs
Quite the contrary, much like everything else, the more we learn, the more questions we have.
> Seems more productive to compare the physical dynamics and see what’s different and what’s similar, no?
ok but....
> how is that not logically distinct from a system that is outside of regular time, needs to check a clock to locate itself in time, and then do whatever dynamics it does to solve the problem at hand?
We only check clocks because we have an internal molecular dynamic that directs us to do so, and it is tied to a similar system as everything else.