At this point, it seems there is no manner of detailing that will convince people that it's plausible. I'm honestly unaware as to why people can't fathom it. It's a systems issue. If you want to resolve a systems issue, you need people who have worked on complex systems.
Having done the research myself, having the computational models in front of me, and currently developing iterative capability levels, I can assure you its plausible and I've developed some pretty complex infrastructures and systems during my time in industry.
I encountered the same issue in industry when I was developing the network infrastructure equipment that ensures your packets traverse the net. "You can't do that". "That isn't possible". "You can't shave off 300ms from that process. No one has touched that code in 10 years"
Why yes you can and I personally already have a track record of doing what is said can't be done. Everything is implausible until its made plausible. So, You'll never truly know until you try.
The biggest hurdle blocking people's way is that they're choosing to run down the same path. Why should you expect different results when everyone is approaching the problem the same way? That and, instead of the most knowing people getting in the trenches and attempting to write code, they remain in the philosophical camp and their works are tossed across the wall to the applied engineering camp. Rarely do you find someone who wears multiple hats or straddles the fence. I straddled the fence, saw what I saw, and now I'm developing it.
There are few who want to start from scratch and build up models. Many are ripping models from work done in the 60's,70's, and 80's without a second thought as to what was the thinking behind them. I chose an alternative path. It's paying off.
The model of consciousness that is being used is actually not detailed in any way (purposely). So, it is not very old. I have a stack of annotated white papers on the pioneers from the 60's/70's/80's centered on this inquiry and present day papers on : Global workspace theory (GWT), integrated information theory (IIT), etc. I fail to see any deep connection between my approach and their approach.
I intentionally haven't given any detail about the computational model of consciousness that is at the center of the architecture nor even the slightest detail on how to implement it. Given the climate in this space, I hope you can appreciate why.
You see a box. I see a relationship. There are no broad boxes over anything I am developing. The diagram was made in simple reduced form to help one conceive of the ties and flows to and from the world. People sing high praise of OpenAI and OpenAI gym. I experimented with similar open source packages when attempting to create a virtual environment for testing my code. I resolved on different packages and developed my own gym. I needed more access to the core/gut functions. From what I can tell, there are several other groups/companies/individuals that have done the same. No mention of them ever. No praise. Which is fine but it just goes to show you how there are likely numerous groups making headwinds in this area that no one has ever heard of.
>In a weird way, the information processing model is a vestige of the notion of a soul. If you really accept "physical fundamentalism" as OP describes it, then the interface between the brain and the rest of the world is nothing at all. Just some atoms of many. No more interesting than the interface between your stomach and your brainstem, or between the vibrations in front of your mouth and all nearby ears.
Interface/Relationship. There are no 'boxes' until you create one.
> The only reason to center the brain/environment interface is to try to separate what you consider to be the essential identity of a person from their physical grounding. I.e. to maintain a model which includes a soul.
Objective reality (governed by strict laws like physics).. Subjective experience. Pay close to attention to the wording I use as I don't give many details.
Seeing will eventually be believing. Once made manifest, you won't be able to deny its plausibility. Seems one can save a lot of time skipping attempts to try to convince people and just get to the development.
But yeah, consciousness isn't that serious. You just have to think outside the box to begin making progress on it. Whether or not were in a simulation is immaterial. The word 'simulation' really loses its meaning once you peer deep into the constructs that underly the universe. What does that even mean and how, even if you discovered it was a simulation, would you alter it in any meaningful way. Don't you think the person who created it, given how amazing it is, had the wherewithal to implement safe-guards/alerts? Or even made universal laws that forever restricts you from certain things? It's better that you focus on how it works than trying to define it. It makes for good story telling but I'd rather just dig in, understand it, and make use of that understanding instead. Again, do you want to sit around philosophizing and dreaming about it all day long or do you want to start converting that understanding into something ground breaking?
P.S - A component of the research that was conducted centered heavily on physics/quantum physics. It is quite important to understand the 'environment' and its laws when working on AGI.