Why the Universe might be conscious.

The word essence is most telling.  In older cultures the "blood" of humanity carried an "essence" that made the character and being of a person.  This essence was passed from parents to children.  It was quite universally believed - and at some unconscious level it makes sense.  Now, we know this is the coded instructions of DNA/RNA/Ribosome systems.
 
Today in the information age -- if we want to know the essence of something or person -- we look to the associated data and what it tells us about actual output  generated in the surrounding environment.  The essence of a machine is its functional output.  This is formalized as its capability ratio's like Cp or CpK.  Processes are modeled so that simulations tell us what will be the potential faults and advantages.  A computer sim is the classic information object.

Likewise, people are rated as to individual output, in school, on the job, as partners and online.  Big data collects it and sells your "essences" to anyone who pays.  Information is essential in making commerce go 'round.  Intentions and will-power are measurable as outcomes.   This is not to address anything qualitative where morals are parsed.

Math concepts are abstracted (drawn out) from the patterns we observe.  So it is fair to call them abstractions and immaterial.  However, if both observable aspects of information: its semantic (meaningful) activity and its formal structure as bits and bytes both - are just as REAL as forces and materials - then information objects are just as influential as physical ones.  And minds generate information objects, with which they navigate life.

The hard problem can be generally explained in quantifiable terms, in the framework of understanding that information science describes a parallel generation of reality in concert with physical sciences.  Bodies interact with environmental materials, minds interact with environmental information. Messages and responses cause changes in probability as the output of mind.

"The essence of a machine is its functional output.....Likewise, people are rated as to individual output, in school, on the job, as partners and online."
..........
"And minds generate information objects, with which they navigate life."
..........
"The hard problem can be generally explained in quantifiable terms..."


This argument is saying, people are rated on their physical output, informational and otherwise. This physical output of among other things information objects is the basic nature of a machine. And human minds "generate information objects". All true.

Following this, the argument goes, then the essence of their human inner nature and consciousness must also be machine-like, informational and of the nature of data processing. Thus the "Hard Problem" is explainable in quantifiable terms.

The problem with this argument is that it in no way logically follows from the premises. This argument from the beginning assumes what it is trying to establish.

This is an invalid debating tactic closely related to "Begging the Question" and "Affirming the Consequent". An example of the latter from Wiki:

If Brian had been thrown off the top of the Eiffel Tower, then he would be dead.
Brian is dead.
Therefore, Brian was thrown off the top of the Eiffel Tower.
This does not follow, because being thrown off the top of the Eiffel Tower is not the only cause of death, since there exist numerous different causes of death.

l Following this, the argument goes, then the essence of their human inner nature and consciousness must also be machine-like, informational and of the nature of data processing. Thus the "Hard Problem" is explainable in quantifiable terms.

That could be someone's argument - just not mine.

While believing that there are constraints to reality such as the laws of motion, chemistry, biology and logic - my argument is that mind is creative and that it changes real-world outcomes by acting directly with predictive information.  The opposite of determined behavior.  Plans, when conceived, change the wave-like informational space.  Plans, when enacted, may change physical space and embed the plans within the informational environment.

Plans are a direct perception of affordances in information space.  Seeing with the mind's eye is better for planning than looking with the physical eye.  The context is that of Ecological Psychology, where living things work in societies.  Rather than a "machine" outlook to mind - my argument is for extended mind.  Mental events that interact - not with the physicality of an outside object - but with the propensity of it's possible future outcomes.

 Two key concepts of the ecological perspective help to identify intervention points for promoting health: First, behavior both affects, and is affected by, multiple levels of influence; second, individual behavior both shapes, and is shaped by, the social environment (reciprocal causation).

The actual evidence points to there being two separate kinds of "stuff" (mind and matter) that still interact with each other via the brain. This at least superficially looks like some form of interactive dualism. It does require postulating that there must be some sort of underlying commonality between the two substances in order for them to be able to interact. They are not totally separate in their basic natures. 

So be it - surely the overall resources of Reality as a whole can accommodate this requirement. It certainly doesn't seem to break any of the basic laws of logic. Whether this can be termed some sort of soul/body duality or interactive substance dualism seems more a matter of semantics.

Well if they aren't separate in their fundamental nature then it becomes easier to make the argument about what the evidence is showing - namely a soul/body distinction.

The actual evidence points to there being two separate kinds of "stuff" (mind and matter) that still interact with each other via the brain. This at least superficially looks like some form of interactive dualism. It does require postulating that there must be some sort of underlying commonality between the two substances in order for them to be able to interact. They are not totally separate in their basic natures. 

The topics of dualism and neutral monism are highly developed in the literature, as well as highly controversial.  I have nothing to add, except to say that in terms of substance dualism, my limited view is shaped by Ian Thompson.  Sci recently posted a citation to his position.

As to neutral monism, it was espoused by several thinkers whose worldviews impact mine.  A. N. Whitehead and Kenneth Sayre, in particular, have looked to unification of mind and matter, at some deeper level.  The pregeometry of Wheeler and those who have developed the idea of "it from bit", can look to underlying structure that manifests as both information and physical.

 Where geometry could describe the properties of a known surface, the physics of a hypothetical region with predefined properties, "pregeometry" might allow one to work with deeper underlying rules of physics that were not so strongly dependent on simplified classical assumptions about the properties of space. - Wiki

My own thinking is that if there is a "background level" of deep interaction, it should incorporate at least three or more types of substance.  Physical and informational levels of analysis - account for a lot of reality.  Not all.  Ethical, seeker or spiritual levels are not addressed by the quantification of activity and outcomes.  The substance of a person's essential information can easily be called their character.  Character has standing in law and in the courts.  Exploring the information processing of humanity will sort a lot out.  I think Psi is one topic it will legitimize.  Character can be analyzed from data of living life.  Maybe even the depth of emotions in terms of bio-chemistry. 

Measuring the depth of experience and quality of soulfulness are of a different type to me.

If there is a Divine substance, it would have to fit in the underlying universe as well.

There are far too many contradictory articles, misleading and misinformed assertions and sensationalised studies (that often have nothing to do with consciousness pertaining to 'the self' at all, and are instead relying on blatant wordplay) for my taste when it comes to neuroscientific research. Mark Mahin's blog Head Truth does a good job at explaining evidence against materialism IMO. I don't agree with him completely in some areas but he makes some good points that I feel are often overlooked. 

Also, as others mentioned, neuroscience is quite clearly conflicted on the matter. I'm not sure where you're getting the impression that there's a common consensus, especially given the neuroscientists such as those mentioned in the article, as well as the likes of Mario Beauregard and Donald Hoffman, who are not materialists.

Ah I'd not looked into what Beauregard has been up to in some time.

While I don't recall if he ever practiced, Sam Harris - the New Atheist Horseman who has a PhD in Neuroscience - also agrees materialism is nonsensical:

The Mystery of Consciousness | Sam Harris

Consciousness—the sheer fact that this universe is illuminated by sentience—is precisely what unconsciousness is not. And I believe that no description of unconscious complexity will fully account for it. It seems to me that just as “something” and “nothing,” however juxtaposed, can do no explanatory work, an analysis of purely physical processes will never yield a picture of consciousness. However, this is not to say that some other thesis about consciousness must be true. Consciousness may very well be the lawful product of unconscious information processing. But I don’t know what that sentence means—and I don’t think anyone else does either.