I'm always surprised how such an obviously smart man like Brian Greene appears to fail to understand basic things. For example when he proposed we're likely to understand consciousness as a result of the constituents of nature. I am quite sure we won't, in the same way we don't even understand the patterns produced by rule 30. Wolfram's concept of computational irreducibility makes it so very likely that there will be no explanation beyond the observation that the emerging pattern, consciousness in this case, is just something that follows from the rules of nature without any explanation other than the observation that it does. Brian doesn't even hint at having an understanding that something like this might be the case.,(reply>), Good, you might wanna get a phd now