I was hoping for something mind-blowing that synthesised Godel, Whitehead and Church-Turing into a startling, elegant knock-down proof of computational consciousness.

I braced myself ready to be moved....

It contains no definition of consciousness, no substantial mathematics and no compelling argument for the possibility of consciousness (let alone its inevitability - which the PDF paper repeatedly emphasises in bold).

It is also difficult to read because it is tediously footnoted such that the actual prose occupies a minority of each page.

I think they just wanted to use the word inevitable a lot. Is that a "high impact" term in academia these days?

If it's so inevitable why has nature only managed to do it once? (I'm leaving the dolphins and mice out of this discussion. --HGG)