[Retric]

There’s nothing to suggest it shouldn’t.

Keeping consciousness undefined means the requirements to form it are also undefined. There’s no way kizzip can arise from computers, there’s no way kizzip can arise from anything other than computers.

[sarchertech]

If you agree that nothing implies that it should and nothing implies that it shouldn’t. Picking one side or the other and declaring that should be the default is an unsupported statement of belief.

It is perfectly fine for you to adopt that belief. My issue is in declaring that belief to be self-evident support for calling someone a crank.

[jibal]

Indeed there is nothing to suggest that it shouldn't and in fact everything suggests that it should. There's a reason that Penrose goes to such lengths to try--erroneously--to prove that Godel's theorems are beyond the grasp of computers ... which is bizarre since they are theorems of arithmetic and as such can be mechanically derived. The default position is that consciousness, whatever it is, is a physical process of the brain, and the default position is that the processes of the human brain are subject to the Church-Turing thesis. People who say otherwise frankly have no idea what they are talking about. And when they proclaim that they are in "the camp that says that TMs cannot produce consciousness" then it's intellectually dishonest to an extreme to deny that they are acting on faith, and to later pretend that they have an open mind and that it's the people who actually have an education in this arena who have a faith-based position.

[manic_monday]

The default position only matters if we have no proof of any position.