That would mean that the dependence of consciousness on physics is impossible.
No, it wouldn’t. Consciousness depends on the pattern, which, in turn, depends on physics. “Depending on physics” is a very vague phrase. It’s possible to define it in a way that will make it false for what I said, in which case consciousness doesn’t “depend on physics.” There is no point in using very vague phrases to check if they apply to a particular ontology of consciousness. That’s worthless—it gives us no information.
Instead, let’s concentrate on what’s actually the case. That’s the important thing. Not the semantics used (like “depending on physics”).
The Blockhead experiment (the way Wikipedia describes it) can’t pass the Turing test. The response to every sentence doesn’t depend only on the last sentence, but also on all sentences before that (and on all responses, but those might be deterministic). We can’t build anything that has all possible responses preprogrammed (like a giant lookup table) and only takes as its input the last sentence in the conversation (well, we can, but it wouldn’t pass the Turing test).
If you meant it in the sense that’s not true for what I wrote, then it’s not true. That’s why I recommended not relying on ill-defined phrases, and instead concentrating on the topic itself.
No, it wouldn’t. Consciousness depends on the pattern, which, in turn, depends on physics. “Depending on physics” is a very vague phrase. It’s possible to define it in a way that will make it false for what I said, in which case consciousness doesn’t “depend on physics.” There is no point in using very vague phrases to check if they apply to a particular ontology of consciousness. That’s worthless—it gives us no information.
Instead, let’s concentrate on what’s actually the case. That’s the important thing. Not the semantics used (like “depending on physics”).
The Blockhead experiment (the way Wikipedia describes it) can’t pass the Turing test. The response to every sentence doesn’t depend only on the last sentence, but also on all sentences before that (and on all responses, but those might be deterministic). We can’t build anything that has all possible responses preprogrammed (like a giant lookup table) and only takes as its input the last sentence in the conversation (well, we can, but it wouldn’t pass the Turing test).
But obviously not in the sense I meant.if I meant in that sense I wouldn’t be disagreeing with you.
If you meant it in the sense that’s not true for what I wrote, then it’s not true. That’s why I recommended not relying on ill-defined phrases, and instead concentrating on the topic itself.