Yes, most things written are either obvious, duplicated or wrong.<p>There&#x27;s an enormous quantity of correct, novel and insightful content. So I filter harshly and don&#x27;t bother with it.<p>Title of the article led me to believe that it would be a essay about what the present generation of researchers of consciousness are doing differently than previous generations. That I would be presented with a new strategy to attack the problem of consciousness.<p>I personally don&#x27;t believe there is a &quot;problem of consciousness&quot;. But I still was willing to give the article a chance.<p>I became dubious when I read<p>&gt; for while any spectrometer can register blue precisely on a dial, few of us would say that it is conscious. A spectrometer does not perceive blue.<p>Already the author is starting to set up a contrast between inanimate systems and animate ones. Which I reject. A complicated response to stimulus isn&#x27;t a different thing from a response which is simple to causally explain.<p>Eventually I read<p>&gt;physicalism contains a logical flaw ... something more is needed, beyond the laws of nature, to account for conscious subjective experience<p>And I stopped because I don&#x27;t agree and have no need to read the inferior versions arguments for dualism when I&#x27;ve already reject the better versions.