The nastiest typos are autocompleted similarly named (and correctly typed) variables, functions, or types. Which is why it’s a good idea to avoid such name clashes in the first place. If this is impossible or not practical, at least put the part that differs at the start of the name.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I don’t really disagree with anything you laid out here.
I’ll just add that I think we don’t yet have the conceptual frameworks to fully describe (and by extension - understand) the problem in the first place.

Yes, strong emergence seems like magic, as does dualism. But if there is no magic, consciousness feels like the closest thing to it; so who knows?

I can see what points you’re making, but it’s unclear what you’re arguing for. It would be helpful if you made that explicit, too.

My best guess is that you don’t think that consciousness is emergent. What then, do you consider the nature of consciousness to be? Are you perhaps agnostic on the matter?

I agree that strong emergence sounds like magic and I’m therefore highly sceptical of its existence. I find consciousness one of the most intriguing and mysterious phenomena we know of - I don’t really think I understand it to a degree where I can make confident claims about its nature. But dualism sounds like magic too, so weak emergence seems to me the most reasonable and likely mechanism, not least because it’s one we actually observe in reality.