Consciousness is not computation
I find this argument completely unconvincing. The mapping in a case like the iron bar is entirely ephemeral, pertaining only for an instant. For this argument to be valid you’d have to be able to persistently map the iron bar, or waterfall, to all ongoing transformations of states in the running program, using one single consistent mapping. Otherwise all you have is a snapshot of state, not an ongoing process. To achieve a persistent mapping for a significant time you&#x27;d probably need an iron bar something like size of the observable universe, at which point we&#x27;re in Boltzmann&#x27;s Brain territory.<p>This argument is in the article as well and I’ve seen it from Searle too:<p>“A simulation of a brain cannot produce consciousness any more than a simulation of the weather can produce rain.”<p>This is making the unstated prior assumption that consciousness is not a computation. If it is a computation then conciousness is not like weather itself, it’s like the simulation. Me imagining having a shower doesn’t make anything wet either. So is my imagination more like the weather, or more like the simulation of it?<p>As for doubting the field of rocks can be conscious, that’s redundant, you might as well say a 3D field of atoms cannot be conscious, such as a brain for example. Talking about computation and consciousness is a sideshow, this is anti-materialism by the back door. Nothing more.