@lagenost I don't know that paper, or this area very well. I'm prepared to be convinced. I think that my main worry at the moment is that I thought that we started with a property, being conscious, that, intuitively, not everything has. So it's odd to be told that everything has it. That everything has a property from which it might emerge doesn't seem controversial, but much less interesting.

@twsh Galen's point is that it would be unintelligible how experientiality could emerge from wholly non-experiential entities. Other known cases of emergence (such as solids emerging from liquids) aren't really analogous, because they can be rendered intelligible by way of objective language, whereas the emergence of _subjective_ experience cannot in principle be given a full explanation in objective terms. Or something like that...