Searle identifies with his specific neurons much more than with what those neurons, by their nature, do.
I find that reasonable but I identify with what they do.
Perhaps my bias is that I professionally produce programs not circuits.
Perhaps it is because I have a freezer contract.
I suspect that he and I might nearly agree on what it means to be an explanation of consciousness, and that it is by no means hopeless.
When is a simulation of something equivalent to that thing?