When we get complete neuronal connection maps (which we are getting close to for mice and humans will be done within a decade or two), we could in principle simulate a brain on a computer or on paper too. Unless you assert something magical like a "soul", these connections are what determine human consciousness. It is one thing to argue that LLMs don't resemble brains and if they could be "conscious"
they wouldn't be conscious in the sense we are, but asserting that anything understandable can't be conscious won't age well.
replythe problem with this is I'd strongly argue that you could do this pen and paper process with the human brain and our consciousness too; we just lack enough understanding to put pen to paper in that case
replythe notion of consciousness being something an experience that other animals/humans share is entirely faith based.
the only person with evidence of ones consciousness is the person claiming they're conscious.
> the problem with this is I'd strongly argue that you could do this pen and paper process with the human brain and our consciousness too; we just lack enough understanding to put pen to paper in that case.
replyYou're basing your premise on a lack of understanding[1], the GP's premise is based on an exact understanding[2].
You don't see the difference between your premise and the GP'S premise?
-----------------
[1] "We don't know how brains actually come up with the things they come up with, like consciousness"; IOW, we don't know what the secret ingredient is, or even if there is one.
[2] "We can mechanically do the following steps using 18th-century tech and come up with the same result as the LLM"; IOW, every ingredient in here is known to us.