There is a recent preprint, What is a Pseudoscience of Consciousness? Lessons from Recent Adversarial Collaborations, discussing "the recent adversarial collaboration on testing theories of consciousness (ARC-Cogitate). A group of 124 researchers made the joint statement that the integrated information theory (IIT) of consciousness should be considered pseudoscience. Panpsychism is the empirically untestable philosophical view that consciousness is ‘everywhere’, including in objects that entirely lack cognitive functions. Templeton World Charity Foundation. The global neuronal workspace theory (GNWT), science journalism, publicity and the state of consciousness science research."
What should a consciousness theory cover? Whatever explains consciousness must decipher the human mind and its divisions. If seeing color means consciousness, then seeing color must also mean memory. In a way, it means thought because the experience can be thought about. It may also mean emotion, if it can bring some past feeling about it. It may also mean physical sensation if that emotion is quite negative or positive.
A theory of consciousness should explain mental health, addictions as well as subsume the recent advances in generative AI. There are so many existing observations from studies in neuroscience that theories should connect or explain beyond an arena. Theories as theories not theories that are themselves observations like predictive coding or processing, as a theory that is interchangeable with an observation. There are so many explanations in brain science that now depend on predictive coding that cannot be called a theory. How do electrical or chemical impulses carry out what is explained as predictive coding or processing?
How should consciousness be defined? What it feels like to be or subjective experience. But what is common between those? Also, ripping off those cloaks, what centralizes consciousness? Can consciousness mean the mechanism, without the output? If the processes that drive being and experience go on in the brain, without the output, does it indicate consciousness?
If something else has a segment of the output, but not the [biological] mechanism, can that thing have a comparative estimation to the full measure of consciousness in humans, or 1? Can consciousness be everywhere, or can most things be neglected in consideration of consciousness, except those with proportionate comparison to humans?
It is theorized here that across the brain, all electrical and chemical impulses interact as a set or within a loop. Some of those loops are available within clusters of nerve cells or others by corrugated segmentation. A reason for this possibility is because the sets or loops of impulses are the structures that provide the formations for which functions are determined. For example, a specific taste is a formation, so is a specific smell and so forth. It is within these loops that those formations are made. Loops often change as well as get made, defining neuroplasticity. All formations have fractions for the sense of self. There is access to some of those fractions, becoming the provenance for control, intentionality or free will.
There are features that these impulses have when they are in loops, explaining some of the common observations. It is known that electrical impulses leap from node to node, over myelin sheaths, in what is called saltatory conduction. It is postulated here that in a loop, some electrical impulses go-before others, or have an early-split from others, to interact with chemical impulses like before, to ease processes. This explains what is observed as predictive coding, processing and prediction error.
There are other features, like sequences, principal spot, prioritization, rotation that can explain several observations, including for the human mind, mental health, addictions, consciousness, the role of the cerebral cortex, cerebellum and so forth.
It is proposed here that most of the interactions between electrical and chemical impulses across loops in the brain are similar, only with differences in their structures or formations. Some of these formations define 'consciousness', others do not. Most of the mechanisms are constant, with or without awareness.
When electrical and chemical impulses in loops interact, using their features, they do so to produce 'knowing' or 'states'. Simply, when electrical impulses, in a set, strike chemical impulses, in a set, they may expand, check, take, channalize and so forth, in a mechanism that is summarized as states, knowing, or formalization.
When it is said that [internal or external] sensory inputs, data or information come into the brain, their interpretation is given by the formations available, from loops of impulses. This means that what defines what comes in are the formations provided by loops and their arrays, internally.
Some of the existing formations are useful for outputs, like language or writing, but the key destinations are the loops from which formations are provided. Formations could be genetic, but they are also mainly made, learned or encoded from a young age.
When internal senses relay inputs, it is the formation from modulatory loops [of impulses] that formalizes working normal, as well as change quickly, when there is an incoming data that heads for different vertices in the formation, for example, a pain sensation and so forth. Simply, it is the impulses that understand that there might be aberrations. Anomalies may stem from those loops of impulses, or when they are affected, directly or indirectly.
Modulation of internal senses is within limits and extents or for what is known, this applies to memory, emotions and so forth.
Consciousness can be defined as the rate at which an organism can know, with humans having the highest at 1, since the extents of human knowing are the most, across species. Other organisms have a lower rate, but sentience is present so long an organism has life, even if the rate is diminutive.
An automobile, a factory machine, a fan have motion, but cannot be said to know, since what they do is displacement with no awareness or dynamism. A table has molecules but they do not provide anything dynamic to it, neither do they help it have any known outcome. These objects are negligibly conscious, refuting panpsychism.
Generative AI can provide answers within the realm of human knowledge, albeit without genuine comprehension. Instead, it can be assessed for the extent of its stored information, which, while limited, may occasionally match or even surpass certain minimal levels within the human context.
Generative AI may have a total of around 0.1, for what it outputs for knowing. Ants may have something close as well, for their total, since they have biological mechanisms, even without a kind of advanced language, defining the intelligence of humans.