C

 This is an essay by Erik Hoel reacting to Michael Pollan’s book A World Appears: A Journey into Consciousness. The core idea: consciousness research has stalled, and that’s becoming dangerous now that AI is advancing. Here’s a clear breakdown.

The main complaint

Hoel says books about consciousness all follow the same script: the same thinkers, same theories, same debates. He mentions recurring figures like:

• Christof Koch
• Giulio Tononi
• Antonio Damasio
• David Chalmers
• Alison Gopnik
• Karl Friston

These are “intellectual titans,” but the field hasn’t moved beyond them in decades. According to Hoel, consciousness research has become:

• theory-heavy
• lightly tested
• underfunded
• somewhat academic “career-maxxing”

Why he thinks this matters

now

His urgency comes from AI. He argues we currently cannot scientifically answer:

• Is an AI conscious?
• Does it feel anything?
• Does it deserve rights?
• Could we accidentally create non-conscious superintelligence?

He frames this as a civilizational risk:

• If AI is conscious → ethical catastrophe if ignored
• If AI is not conscious → risk of replacing humans with mindless intelligence
• Either way → we need a real science of consciousness

His key claim: progress is slow because of

material reasons

He rejects the idea that consciousness is “unsolvable.” Instead he says:

1. The field is actually young (serious work started ~1990s)
2. It has almost no funding
3. Too many theories, not enough testing

He gives a striking stat:

• NIH grants studying contents of consciousness (2007–2017): 5 total

His conclusion:

The field didn’t fail because it’s impossible — it failed because nobody seriously tried.

His proposed solution

Hoel is launching Bicameral Labs to:

• Compare theories directly
• Try to falsify them
• Eliminate weak ones
• Narrow down the field

He calls this:

• “field-clearing”
• “logical judo”
• “negative space” approach (define consciousness by ruling things out)

Example he gives:

• Two systems behave identically
• One theory says only one is conscious
• Ask: why?
• If no answer → theory weakens

This is basically stress-testing theories like engineering designs.

The deeper philosophical position

Hoel is pushing against three popular attitudes:

• “Consciousness is impossible to define”
• “It may never be solved”
• “It’s just subjective so science can’t handle it”

He calls these defeatist and says they emerged from lack of funding and progress.

The metaphor at the end

He compares himself to Ernest Shackleton — meaning:

• risky expedition
• unknown territory
• needs funding and collaborators
• urgency

It’s intentionally dramatic, but the message is:

The next scientific frontier after intelligence is consciousness.

The real takeaway

This essay is less about Pollan’s book and more a manifesto:

• Consciousness science is stagnant
• AI makes it urgent
• Too many theories, no tests
• Needs funding + coordinated effort
• He’s trying to start that effort

If you want, I can also:

•  explain whether Hoel’s argument is convincing
•  explain what “consciousness theories” actually differ on
•  explain how this relates to AI consciousness (like ChatGPT)