• RedDawn [he/him]
    ·
    4 years ago

    I really just disagree with a lot in this essay, it seems like most of the “the brain is nothing like a computer” argument comes down to strictly limiting the definition of a computer to only include certain digital computers already developed by humans. At least the author seems to acknowledge that his opinion about consciousness being impossible to ever replicate with technology is one that a lot of scientists disagree with.

      • RedDawn [he/him]
        ·
        4 years ago

        Yeah, I can’t say I really agree with that one either, but I am a materialist and that one is by an author who says he wrote a book called “why materialism is baloney” so I wouldn’t expect to agree with him.

        Short of becoming the machine at least for a brief moment, we cannot know whether there is anything it is like to be it.

        This is, again, something I could just as easily say about any human that isn’t myself.

      • RedDawn [he/him]
        ·
        4 years ago

        In reply to your edit, I appreciate the links and the conversation. I’m not really equipped to defend my position in the way the article writers have defended theirs at the moment, I will just say that my basic argument is that matter is what is real, and human consciousness arises from the way physical matter is arranged to make a human, so it’s something that is replicable even if we don’t have the means to replicate it yet (and even if we might never).