I think that if you don’t have a phylogenetically (history of species) and ontogenetically (development of individual) sensible approach to consciousness, how it evolved, and how it develops… then you are shouting at ghosts.

This is the most cogent and satisfying account I’ve found:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36937548/

Hope it’s ok to share sus dropbox link?

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/niz2t7kzl0av4wp9nqw2r/a-biphasic-relational-approach-to-the-evolution-of-human-consciousness-un-enfoque-relacional-bifasico-para-la-evolucion-de-la-conciencia-humana.pdf?dl=0&rlkey=x0mapqjo4ohzbbw2w5rigtzw3

[edit] There is a whiff of ableism when the authors discuss extensions of their model to “developmentally delayed” children. I think they are mistaken here; and I don’t think this mistake undermines the core argument.

In other words, I think it’s easy to take the core argument and use it in a neurodiversity affirming (even celebrating!) way.

But just a heads up that most folks here interested in science and philosophy, I imagine, will delight in 97% of this, and cringe / get pissed off at 3%.

At least that’s my reading.