The way I see it, the crux is not in a deep structure being definable—functionalism is perfectly compatible with definitions of experience on the same level of precision and reality as elements. And the research into the physical structures that people associate with consciousness certainly can be worthwhile and it can be used to resolve ethical disagreements in the sense that actual humans would express agreement afterwards. But the stance of QRI seems to be that resulting precise definition would be literally objective as in “new fundamental physics”—I think it should be explicitly clarified whether it’s the case.
The way I see it, the crux is not in a deep structure being definable—functionalism is perfectly compatible with definitions of experience on the same level of precision and reality as elements. And the research into the physical structures that people associate with consciousness certainly can be worthwhile and it can be used to resolve ethical disagreements in the sense that actual humans would express agreement afterwards. But the stance of QRI seems to be that resulting precise definition would be literally objective as in “new fundamental physics”—I think it should be explicitly clarified whether it’s the case.