As it happens, there’s a pretty good synopsis in The Spike: https://medium.com/the-spike/the-crimes-against-dopamine-b82b082d5f3d

There are a couple of related articles that don’t explain it quite as concisely, because their aim isn’t to do that specifically but to examine it in the context of a different phenomenon, but, when you’ve read the first, you’ll recognise it when you see it and they are, in and of themselves, quite interesting —as I said, albeit more for the interested/informed layperson than those pursuing a Ph.D. in the neurochemical underpinnings of behaviour, The Spike can be quite a good place to learn about the fundamentals of (neuro) Psychology to a level that is superior to the swathes of pop Psychology magazines and sites that, sadly, litter the knowledge landscape today and I’ve found it useful on more than one occasion to point people in the direction of for more informed articles than they might otherwise find

The first explores the function of a ‘reward’ system: https://medium.com/the-spike/why-does-the-brain-have-a-reward-prediction-error-6d52773bd9e7 — although you will now find the focus on ‘reward’ inappropriate (because, as you now know, it isn’t a ‘reward’ measurement system, is it?) 😉. Be wary, also, of the concept that ‘ dopamine neurons encode’ <anything at all>. We don’t actually know how these things are encoded … or even if they are encoded as such at all. All we actually know is that the brain functions in certain ways that appear to result in certain emergent properties such as memory, motivation, consciousness, etc.¹ The problem with theories, derived from AI research, about the mind/brain is that there is a propensity for its apologists to forget that the map is not the territory. AI is a fascinating tool for exploring how the brain/mind (might) function, but it has its limitations: just because John’s utterances can be modelled on a computer that doesn’t mean that model is therefore how John’s mind/brain works — I can take a different route and mode of transport to the shops than you and we both still end up at the same supermarket, as it were (that’s a bit of a mixed metaphor, but you take my point).

The second is concerned with what it tells us about how consciousness might arise in/from the brain’s biochemistry: https://medium.com/the-spike/your-brain-is-smarter-than-you-how-it-tells-you-when-you-made-a-mistake-30f523571042

As for the wider issue of consciousness itself, you might find the following interesting as well:

http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/

https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/12/28/is-the-sky-blue/

https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/08/05/language-culture-and-color-a-visit-with-the-himba/

—
¹ For all that the criticism of Behaviorism … that it is tautological insofar as it doesn’t tell us anything about psychology, merely about behaviour … is correct, there is a certain useful truth to it vis-à-vis the epistemological limits of knowledge ².

² Spend enough time studying the brain and the mind and you too will likely find yourself leaning increasingly toward the hardcore solipsism of Descartes as the only tenable position ³.

³ If you experience anything at all then you, the one doing the experiencing, are by definition real, are you not?

That’s the very definition of real … the only one possible.

Nobody else needs to know you’re real … not even the person who thinks you’re a simulation … for you to be real — all it takes is for you to think it.

After all, if you’re questioning whether or not you are real, then who exactly is asking the question in the first place? Even if you are being simulated by technology rather than living in a human brain, you are still real — cogito ergo sum.

So …

Given that my experience of something is itself real … that what I experience is as real as ‘real’ is ever going to be for me … that I’ll never know any different … Epistemology and Ontology are bunk: quite apart from the fact that, philosophically, until another position is proffered that is more logically unassailable, I have no choice but to be a solipsist … as a psychologist, I know that, if Descartes was wrong and it is all externally real … really real, so to speak … then, by the time I become consciously aware of anything, it has been so mediated by my brain that I’ll never know to what extent my neurocognitive model tallies with the external stimulus (remember that 500 millisecond delay I mentioned?) — and Descartes was, therefore, right even though he was wrong.

Furthermore, I have in my life experienced things that I knew not to be real even as I experienced them. I still really experienced them, however.