Claim that X is inevitable for consciousness (without explaining why).”
Note that this still works as a “might be” claim. Abstract computationalism isn’t a necessary truth, so dependence on physics, chemistry or biology is possible truth.
In other words, as long as we cannot clearly describe what exactly consciousness is, we can make up arbitrary statements about what is a necessary ingredient, and use them to win debates. I am not impressed.
I don’t see why being able to define “consciousness” would tell you how it works.
Note that this still works as a “might be” claim. Abstract computationalism isn’t a necessary truth, so dependence on physics, chemistry or biology is possible truth.
I don’t see why being able to define “consciousness” would tell you how it works.