Hi Natesh, Thank you for your very kind comments. Goldenfeld and Woese is a fine read and we thank you for your reference. Having a quick look at it, it certainly looks consistent with our argument. Yes I came across your extremely well-written essay some weeks ago on the minimal dissipation hypothesis (but have yet to digest the details!) for manifesting learning like phenomena and enjoyed your engineering perspective.
From my particle physics background, the use of 'top-down' confused me at first (as it means underlying microscopic theory in my field) whereas in this context it is quite the opposite. The ideas of top-down causation certainly appear in some of the literature we surveyed, but my understanding is that it is a feedback mechanism of the macroscopic structures imposed on the microscopic, when the reductionist would usually study the inverse. I would personally have to read and think about it more to appreciate it, but the approach is usually very absent in particle physics so I was quite intrigued.
I'm glad you agree with our stance that consciousness is a distinct phase transition. While we do not develop this idea very deeply or concretely given the constrained scope, it does not seem far-fetched. And yes we thought quite a bit about how we wanted to distinguish consciousness from 'lower intelligence'. We used the Legg-Hutter definition of intelligence, which seems somewhat independent to perhaps the integrated information theory of consciousness, so we settled for now on them being separate concepts. One might imagine a somewhat sophisticated AI on our phone, but at least intuitively it doesn't seem conscious. I think this is far from unambiguous though.
And thanks for your suggestion to that question - we'll certainly think about it!
Best,
Jesse
