Abstract

We respond to Vandervert's critique of our paper "The Only Objective Evidence for Consciousness" by refuting each of the three points he makes. Namely: he improperly faults our defining of "consciousness"; his complaint that we do not provide "at the outset an explanation of the philosophical-theoretical interpretation of quantum mechanics" misses the crucial point that the evidence we present is wholly empirical; and his claim that we suggest data from "impossible experiments could be treated as non-theoretical 'facts'" is a misreading of our paper