@mattsheffield@mastodon.social
2026-10-21 22:41 UTC
The piece also argues that since there are no validated examples of non-biological consciousness (whatever that means), there is no alternative base to compare chatbots to.
This is true, but the premise can be flipped around against the authors:
We have no empirically adequate demonstration that biology is necessary for consciousness, so they are basing their skepticism on inference from an n of 1. Therefore, it is reasonable to claim that disembodied entities could be conscious.
Replies (1)
-
@mattsheffield@mastodon.social 2026-10-21 22:43
The authors reference various observations that brain cells have functions beyond biological computation, & I think this is relevant. The autopoiesis argument is the soundest of these, but it's barely referenced. But none of the observed behaviors of biological neurons have been established as necessary for recursive selfhood (a better word than consciousness). What's more important is that cellular computation is necessarily based upon alteration of the substrate. Digital computation isn't.