I don't know what you're getting at (I haven't read everything). Of course, consciousness is our window to the world and therefore the most important thing. But a theory of consciousness has to integrate everything, including the 1st and 3rd person perspective, otherwise you can't measure anything. Both perspectives are usually correlated in studies.

Something general: The brain and our consciousness are so complex things that I believe you have to study the entire spectrum intensively for years in order to be able to make reasonably meaningful statements. I know that philosophy often leads you to spontaneously develop plausible thoughts. But that usually leads to pure speculation. I have discussed the methodic and methodological errors that can be made in this portal, but also on my medium page.

The first person perspective, the "being", it is impossible to experience in another human, let alone in a computer.
... But also ChatGPT has an image of itself, you can ask it about itself and it will answer. — Carlo Roosen

If it's impossible to experience the first person experience in another, how do you know that ChatGPT has an image of itself? It certainly reproduces forms of words that humans have used to describe having an image of themselves, but in what way is that evidence that it does indeed have an image of itself, and isn't simply obeying its instructors and owners by plagiarising material that has been used to 'train' it?

Finding the correct words is very difficult. When I say "an image of itself" I mean its output shows that it can draw conclusions about itself. I do not mean that it is aware of that, it still could be "mechanical". And yes, it most likely is learned behavior.

But isn't the same true for the self-simulating that has been referred to?

What I am saying is that consciousness can only be perceived in 1st person. We cannot define it objectively. And certainly we don't know how to build a module that generates it.

its output shows that it can draw conclusions about itself — Carlo Roosen

I suppose I would say, its output demonstrates that it can have the appearance of drawing conclusions about itself. Human beings have a long history of letting metaphorical descriptions blend into the non-metaphorical. The notion that AI can draw conclusions is a metaphor, in my view.

The problem is terminology.
1. Consciousness in the sense of acting responsively/intelligently
2. Consciousness in the sense of being self-aware.

What I believe is you automatically assume 2. when you see 1. But, 2 is a first-person perspective. That is, "I am aware that I am conscious" (which is a tautology of course). But I cannot truthfully say: "I am aware you are conscious" or "you are aware I am conscious".

(and I use 2)

But a theory of consciousness has to integrate everything, including the 1st and 3rd person perspective, otherwise you can't measure anything. — Wolfgang

I made this distinction:

1. Consciousness in the sense of acting responsively / intelligently
2. Consciousness in the sense of being self-aware.

Consciousness in the 2nd sense is a 1st person experience by definition. To me that is what consciousness means. The 1st sense might always come with the 2nd, or not, but it is not the same thing.

I only use the word consciousness in the 2nd sense. To me that is what consciousness means. I have also ideas to build a computer that does 1., even becoming more intelligent than us. Let's assume I am successful. Would that computer be self-aware, conscious in the 2nd sense?

The answer is: we have no way to find out. I cannot even prove my brother to be conscious, in the 2nd. sense.

Okay, if you want a definition of consciousness that is measurable, go ahead. But it will not be type 2. consciousness. And you will have a hard time to prove that type 2. consciousness automatically follows your personal definition of it.

So, no, you cannot measure it. There are more things we cannot measure. A theory of consciousness is impossible. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15512/logical-proof-that-the-hard-problem-of-consciousness-is-impossible-to-solve
So what?

Of course, consciousness is our window to the world and therefore the most important thing. — Wolfgang

You guys are so caught up in thinking that even your own consciousness becomes "a window to the world", in other words, an object.

Do you ever feel yourself being conscious without being conscious of something in particular? Just being awake? And then a thought pops up, and you let it go? Without that experience, we will never understand each other.

you have to study the entire spectrum intensively for years in order to be able to make reasonably meaningful statements — Wolfgang

That is only true if you believe consciousness can be captured conceptually. I say you can't, not in the 2nd sense. Simply because it is defined as a first person experience.

I'm out...

That's a pity. I would've loved your reaction on this. In a discussion like this, it is important to try out other person's perspective as well. At least, if the aim is to get to a higher understanding of things.