But, I wonder if the various scientists and philosophers are talking about the same thing. I sensed a subtle dissonance in the definition of “consciousness”.

In my take, the elephants playing on the video and my own dog are clearly conscious…Not just awake and aware of others, but likely to appreciate their own existence, were they to somehow be directed to think about it.

The dissonance in the various researchers and pundits is this: Does the fact that I cannot find a way to direct my dog’s attention to his sense of self (or perhaps I can succeed, but I have no way to know if I have succeeded) — Does this fact mean that she is disqualified from being considered conscious? That seems a bit human-arrogant. In fact, it is reverse anthropomorphism!

Gestalt and Inverse-Gestalt Theory as a two-state theoretical system also utilizes the computational ability of symbol-value calculation and representation comprehension meaning syntactical proper and accurate computation and operation of given symbol values in global or concurrent sets as a possible answer to the proposed Systems Reply of Searle’s Problem.

The complexity of computation retention mechanics and scaling in the pyramidal model of Moravec’s paradox and in distributed memory and [Shannon] information inequality computation and relay challenges parameter delimits in discrete Quantum Neural Networks [QNN] in Theoretical and Applied –Physical methods where DenoteS ≡ progressionSi(⊥S).