[Arn_Thor]

I disagree about where the burden of proof lies. If we start off firstly with the assumption that humans have consciousness, and secondly the decently supported claim that animals exhibit what to us appears to be consciousness on a spectrum, and thirdly that we don't exactly know how or why consciousness exists, then the conclusion that seems obvious to me is that we cannot rule out that it could emerge in a network similar to that in human and animal brains. To me the best explanation we have now is that consciousness is an emergent property of a brain. And since a brain is neurons firing, as far as we've been able to determine, then there's no particular reason why certain types of networks can't have the same emergent properties.

[Planktonne]

> the conclusion that seems obvious to me is that we cannot rule out that it could emerge in a network

Not being able to rule out consciousness through computation is a far more cautious claim than 'consciousness is computation'.

[epgui]

That is strictly true, but if you define computation as any physical process which involves information, as I do, then defending any other position than "consciousness emerges from computation" is extremely difficult.

[Arn_Thor]

Sure. But I was responding to the statement "The burden of proof is on the claim that you can get there through computation, not otherwise."

[thom]

I think it’s important to note that the article isn’t saying that if you build a brain-like thing, it can’t be conscious. It’s arguing that if you simulate a brain-like thing purely in software it can’t be conscious. I’m not saying one argument has more merit than the other (not that anyone is going to be able to prove anything is conscious either way).