You posit your position as being strictly rational, but do you have any evidence that the machines we built to emulate a component of human thought aren’t a lit

You posit your position as being strictly rational, but do you have any evidence that the machines we built to emulate a component of human thought aren’t a little conscious? ...what, precisely, is the mechanism by which networks of neurons conveying electrical signals given rise to consciousness, but networks of metallic fibers conveying electrical signals do not? It seems to me that you’re telling people they’re wrong based on your opinion — and not a scientific conclusion. Similarly, the human proclivity to invent “gods”, “spirits”, etc is because that’s the historic mechanism to discuss the behavior of complex systems — in analogy to our own complex behavior arising from the chemical and electrical interactions of brain regions. This is actually an effective mechanism, as we see that it semi-routinely identifies a phenomenon faster than a strictly “rational” approach. (I put that in quotes because it’s mostly a religious claim; it’s neither a rational conclusion such things don’t exist nor a rational approach to not use semi-accurate estimators when doing analysis.) Let’s talk about a forest. Do you have any support for the position that the complex interplay of chemistry and other signaling along mycelium networks, etc in a mature forest doesn’t give rise to some form of consciousness in the same way that our brains do? ...what precisely is the distinction in your mind between neuronal networks and mycelium networks, which indicates that while both give rise to complex feedback and behaviors, only one has any kind of consciousness? It seems to me that the minimal position is any system based on signal passing of a certain complexity begins to develop an awareness, given the huge diversity we’ve seen across the animal kingdom. What’s the support for your position?