How can you have an illusion without an observer? An illusion is by definition a subjective experience - it doesn't explain the thing doing the experiencing at all. You say there is no magic, but your explanation might as well be "it's just magic".
An illusion is a belief or perception which does not match reality. A belief is something that is stored in memory.
So there is nothing to 'observe' about an illusion; an illusion is an error in either memory or perception of the observer himself.
I think I understand what gp means. He is trying to point to a contradiction in ggp reasoning. The question is in the definition of words "subjective" and "observer". You cannot define an observer using the concept of observer, that's circular reasoning. "Incredibly complex neural automata" is just handwaving the problem away. Equivalent of saying "here the magic happens", not an explanation.
It isn't handwaving. I'm saying the act of observation is not special. It's matter knowing it's matter. "Observation" and "knowing" are simply emergent behaviors of the matter. There is no divine step between matter and consciousness. I'm saying there is nothing to explain because consciousness should not be viewed through the lens of it being special.
