Nitpicks: there are lots of grammatical errors, egregiously out-of-place usage of emojis and emoticons, and it could be argued that Gödel's incompleteness theorem is hardly "obscure."
I wouldn't really call these nitpicks. No offense to the author, but this is one of the worst articles I've read in a while...
> The previous part of this essay introduced a framework pioneered by known physicist Dr. Michio Kaku to evaluate consciousness in four different levels.
In Dr. Kaku’s theory, Level 0 consciousness describes organisms such as plants that evaluate their reality based on a handful of parameters such as temperature. Reptiles and insects exhibit Level 1 consciousness as they create models of the world using new parameters including space. Level 2 consciousness involves creating models of the world based on emotions and the relationship to other species. Mammals are the main group associated with Level 2 consciousness. Finally, we have humans that can be classified at Level 3 consciousness based on models of the world that involve simulations of the future.
This entire excerpt could be removed and the article would only be improved. He's just restating the past couple paragraphs! I spent far too long reading before the author made his points and ultimately I just decided to give up half way through
> The previous part of this essay introduced a framework pioneered by known physicist Dr. Michio Kaku to evaluate consciousness in four different levels. In Dr. Kaku’s theory, Level 0 consciousness describes organisms such as plants that evaluate their reality based on a handful of parameters such as temperature. Reptiles and insects exhibit Level 1 consciousness as they create models of the world using new parameters including space. Level 2 consciousness involves creating models of the world based on emotions and the relationship to other species. Mammals are the main group associated with Level 2 consciousness. Finally, we have humans that can be classified at Level 3 consciousness based on models of the world that involve simulations of the future.
This entire excerpt could be removed and the article would only be improved. He's just restating the past couple paragraphs! I spent far too long reading before the author made his points and ultimately I just decided to give up half way through