Definitely not for a general audience, he regularly talks about things like parabrachial network or thalamic nuclei without explaining it. At the end there's an appendix where he goes through all the terms he was using throughout the book. I didn't see that part so completely missed it and had to just try figure it out based on what I already knew about the brain structure. Who would explain all the technical terms at the end of a book?
Despite not explaining those things properly, he manages to sometimes over-explain things, like when he spend almost a chapter explaining what an organism is, repeating really obvious things that everyone will know about what makes an object distinct from its surroundings. Even on other parts he talks around in circles sometimes never just saying directly what he's talking about. Generally, throughout the book, the issue is that things aren't explained clearly, it's not like the guys argument is so difficult to understand, it's just never laid out simply like 'this is what I think, 1, 2, 3 and here is my evidence for it.' He also never clearly goes through what I thought what his key point. that consciousness can't exist without emotion, he seems to hint at this throughout the book but never actually goes into it. Maybe this was explained in a previous book? If so, it's certainly not an advertisement for this book.
On evidence, he spends big chunks of the book laying out his argument without giving any evidence, it's only at the start when he's explaining what consciousness is not, and then later in the book at like chapters 8 and 9 that he starts going through evidence for things. Even then he never explains the evidence in an easy-to-read manner (this is part of why I say it's not for a general audience), he basically just says 'yes we have evidence for this' and leaves a footnote number, though in my version there were no footnotes, maybe I have to go online to get them.
Overall I don't know if this is a good argument or not for what consciousness is, because his argument is not clearly laid out nor is his evidence for that argument. If I had the footnotes it might be a good compilation of the studies that support his argument if I was going to read all of them, which I'm not. I'll look for another book on the subject, maybe Edelman or Koch. Stay away from this version unless you just want to read every possible theory of consciousness, even then, I'd advise looking for someone else writing about this theory if you can find it.