You can use arrow keys to navigate in the map.
We don't know if computers will ever be able to contemplate its own existence; this level of cognition has never been reached to this day.
As long as we don't reach it, there is still a possibility that consciousness can't be based on a mecanism.
there are also no proof that computer didn’t already do that.
"to contemplate its own existence" could be independent of a particular level of cognition. (it doesn’t seem to require any complex thinking.)
Sorry, but what does it mean to "contemplate", and "having enough time" for a merely computing agent? What is this agent going to contemplate about (compute if you like) all that "time"? :D
Consciousness cannot be reduced to computing, to mathematical calculations and such, computers will never contemplate or question anything, unless programmed by a conscious being to do so. Because a computer can't evolve itself, it must be created by a conscious being.
Computers aren’t abstract mathematical objects, they are physical objects.
Then "consciousness cannot be reduced to computing, to mathematical calculations and such" could be true, but it doesn’t imply computers can’t have consciousness.
A computer can evolve itself without being created by a conscious being.
A computer can evolve itself, but it has to be created by something in the first place; and created in a way that allows it to evolve by itself.
According to Evolution theory, that's exactly what happens with life : life appears in a way that allows it to evolve by itself. If not, we can't explain scientifically the diversity of species.
It is indeed currently the only way we can explain the evolution and creation of life; for all that, it doesn't make it valid.
The theory of evolution, and how life appeared are two very different things.
We almost don't know how life appeared, and prebiotic chemistry is widely controversial.
We have no proof consciousness is entirely based on a material mecanism. Since we haven't solved the mind-body problem, we can't affirm that kind of statement.
There's also no evidence to show that it isn't a physical process. The burden of proof falls on those who claim an external mind/soul exists. Burden of proof is on the positive claim.
The mind-body problem is solved, there is no problem: Dont skip drinking and eating for long, or you will have nomind. Or, consciousness is based on material relations (mechanism s too cognitive), yet those relations are morethan dynamic and complex. Batter ways to counter mechanists than metaphysik
The mind-body problem isn't solved at all since we don''t know how those two entities are linked. We know they are linked, but we don't know how.
And we have no proof consciousness is based on material relations.
This proof fetishism tastes like burned pumpkin. What proof do you need? We know a great deal about the emergent qualities of mind, and that it can only emerge from a body. Mind is nothing but a capacity of bodies. There are bodies, ideas strolling around, and some obsessed with boring dualities.
Mind is not an entity
I agree with you, but you've already made this point, and you offered no further explanation. This just taints the statistics on the argument.