I still haven't read the paper but will do so tomorrow. Since I haven't read it at this point it might not make sense for me to ask any questions now, but I would like to ask what the referent of 'its' is in the construction "can’t explain it’s ability to know/perceive using its “language” of knowing/perceiving." Does 'its' refer to a proposed "language of knowing/perceiving" formed and existing in neural nets that trade in 'representations' of the environing world not originating in the presentational experiences of conscious beings? The Clark paper sounds like a challenge and I look forward to reading it now. I didn't do so today because I had to take a brain-cleansing break by immersing myself in Brazilian music for eight hours. I haven't taken an extended music break since the beginning of the Covid-19 crisis and the political catastrophes going on in this country every day. I'll link one of the performances that most blew the cobwebs out of my neural nets:I think @Michael Allen would take a stronger position and say a knowing/perceptual system can’t explain it’s ability to know/perceive using its “language” of knowing/perceiving.