This is the standard reductionist position, and the standard strawmannirg of people who don&#x27;t agree with it.<p>To explain it crudely, yes, it all ultimately reduces to the neuronal substrate and no one in their right mind disagrees. The point is that only looking at this level ignores the important and large set of data that is humans&#x27; first-hand observations of consciousness, what you&#x27;re able to perceive, study, and observe about conscious experience, the kind of observations that Searle makes. To just write off first hand observation data as irrelevant strikes me as anti-scientific if not ideological. I mean, why wouldn&#x27;t you try to develop a system of consciousness that starts with this data, in tandem with neuronal studies (there&#x27;s no inherent contradiction)?