In summary, we have reduced existence of consciousness to the
existence of a computable process which takes no input and no
output—and just is “conscious”.
Your concatenation argument leading to this conclusion mixes context
and content, obscuring the consciousness abstraction within the
whole. There are many obscuring perspectives like this and so they
are very weak evidence. You would be more convincing if you can define
and attack the consciousness hypothesis directly.
There just remains one detail: There is, necessarily, absolutely no
way to determine—given an algorithm—whether it is conscious or
not.
This may be a statement of current capability, not a fundamental
limit.
… consciousness refuses to be phrased formally (it is subjective,
and computation is objective).
Again, this may only be a statement of current capability.
Unfortunately you haven’t even attempted to provide evidence for this
statement.
Your concatenation argument leading to this conclusion mixes context and content, obscuring the consciousness abstraction within the whole. There are many obscuring perspectives like this and so they are very weak evidence. You would be more convincing if you can define and attack the consciousness hypothesis directly.
This may be a statement of current capability, not a fundamental limit.
Again, this may only be a statement of current capability. Unfortunately you haven’t even attempted to provide evidence for this statement.