> Maybe it starts as 19 out of 20 Chess games that are uncommon, but splinters progressively into an intricate collection of threads navigating among the remaining possible game-options till you get the last move in every possible game: now you have every game remaining is divided as single units of uncommon ground (as every game by definition is different that still survived to the end of the requirement "only keeping non-common ground".)
> Wow you have found something!
So it's likely that what we need for artificial consciousness is prediction, not only restricted to chess, but in every possible environment. In order to predict in different environments we need dynamic system what is theoretically able to predict, this is why my system can be proposed as a mechanism for artificial consciousness. Well, it should not necessarily be the only solution, but other known systems either are not theoretically able to predict, or don't theoretically have enough dynamism to do this in every possible environment. When we include prediction then we could define artificial consciousness like this:
"An artificial consciousness is an artificial system theoretically capable of achieving all known obectively observable abilities of consciousness including the ability to predict the external events in every possible environment when it is possible to predict."
The question of prediction is very important because according to the papers many don't admit that consciousness includes prediction. Why they don't want to mention prediction is that they want to define consciousness as awareness what often in essence is restricted to perception. So much so that I couldn't find any scientific paper what argues that consciousness is not restricted to awareness, though some papers don't exclude that possibility. Prediction is a problem in that sense because it is not only necessary for perception, but also to control the external events. If we define perception as "the ability of the mind to refer sensory information to an external object as its cause" (Oxford dictionary) then this ability is by far not enough to control the external events. It's not that I am not scientific because I suggest that consciousness includes prediction because it is not in accordance with the papers. There just were no systems before theoretically capable to predict in every environment etc, so even argument that consiousness is restricted to perception was not in contradiction with any known study. But in spite of that, better scientists were smart enough not to directly argue that consciousness is restricted to awareness in their papers. Most of the scientists involved in consciousness studies are neurobiologists who may been studied nerves and synapses, but never studied exactly what happens inside the neuron. So if we don't study that aspect anyhow, then the simplest understanding if we look at the macrostructure of the brain is indeed that it is just some kind of electric circuit of nerves. Now what we know about such circuit, even if neuron has not much more functionality than that of the capacitor, is that such system has some ability of image recognition as neural networks do. Thus we may try to fit everything into "what is known". So if we restrict science to this, then trying to argue that your consciousness has an ability to predict is almost impossible.