This book is basically my catnip, as shown by how much of the bibliography drew from all three of my quals. I love a good investigation into the nature of consciousness and I particularly love debunkings about how little the field actually knows. (Turns out most of the things that people thought we know about the brain are likely artifacts of small sample sizes. This is fun.)
I genuinely struggle to evaluate things I agree with but don’t know enough to fully defend or reject. The arguments Hoel advances for both the power and limits of science are interesting and match my epistemic sense, but what do I know? (Beyond what’s in the book and the overlap between my bibliography and quals. There’s a joke somewhere about quals and qualia.)
But I keep thinking about the importance of the openness of our systems. 
Also this felt like an interesting follow-up to last year’s read of Labatut. 
You would think by now I could do a better job explaining why I like things beyond they match the way my brain brains. Given my facility in articulating why I DON’T like things, this is a frustrating mismatch.