Scientific claims are not necessities. I'm not saying I can prove consciousness is a biological process only that its overwhelming reasonable to suppose so.
Emergence is a result of causal interactions between parts of a system being different than the internal causal interaction within one part. It doesnt mean "complexity" and it really has nothing to do with a machine.
The oscillating electric field acquires no new causal interactions as the program complexity increases. Adding more H20 to a single H20 creates new causal interactions (eg. wetness).
> That's because the machine has no receptors for the comprising molecules - not because it has no thoughts
Right, so you're supposing a contrary entirely bizarre ontological view: that thoughts are something independent of a biological process.
Of all the known things in the universe which think, to remove their nerves is to destroy their capacity to think. I cannot see any reason to suppose thinking is not merely their activity.
Emergence is a result of causal interactions between parts of a system being different than the internal causal interaction within one part. It doesnt mean "complexity" and it really has nothing to do with a machine.
The oscillating electric field acquires no new causal interactions as the program complexity increases. Adding more H20 to a single H20 creates new causal interactions (eg. wetness).
> That's because the machine has no receptors for the comprising molecules - not because it has no thoughts
Right, so you're supposing a contrary entirely bizarre ontological view: that thoughts are something independent of a biological process.
Of all the known things in the universe which think, to remove their nerves is to destroy their capacity to think. I cannot see any reason to suppose thinking is not merely their activity.