But this is just the off-topic discussion of the nature of skepticism. If the only "evidence" is a leap that can only be made sense of by the reader accepting an implicit intervention by supernatural forces, then you've not written a good paper. Or at least, as TFA's intro hints at, not one that is appropriate for the realm of science.
I constantly marvel at how much we can't verifiably prove we know about the nature of the brain. I'm optimistic we're going to learn things steadily, but compared to so many other things, good lord, we've got a long way to go.
Ouch. Just. Ouch. No. Noooo. NOOOOO.
There is so much wrong with this statement I don't even know where to start. It implies that the memory is overwritten with the memory of recalling the memory, which is a huge and ridiculous assumption. Memory likely works much more like ant paths. The details that are recalled more frequently are reinforced, and can be remembered longer. It could also be compared to a caching algorithm; details used more often are less likely to be lost, or need fewer hints to retrieve them.
And then using this assumption to declare something as non-computable demonstrates a lack of understanding of the concept of computability. The only way that conciousness could be non-computable would be if there is a supernatural element to it. Otherwise, the fact that it exists means it must be computable.