[armitron]

Prompted on your reply, I finished reading the article. It seems like the author is arguing from false premises in that he's desperately trying to come up with a justification for consciousness that is not tied to epiphenomenalism (I laughed out loud at the Nobel prize bit).

Since science can't do that, enter his hunches and intuitive "feelings" which are nothing but wishful thinking for a universe where consciousness matters (to whom?). I feel that one could find his "what I had been missing" finale in any number of new-age self-help books.