I agree with Searle insomuch that Life and Death is the real contingency with which gives a reality meaning. If the simulation had some arbitrary cellular-autom

I agree with Searle insomuch that Life and Death is the real contingency with which gives a reality meaning. If the simulation had some arbitrary cellular-automata ruleset, there is no guarantee that the simulation would ever evolve into something isomorphic to our reality. I have a strong belief that 3D physics + collision/contact forces, conservation of energy, linearity of perspective, and a nutrient cycle are important pieces. If thought is indeed "intrinsically dependent on biochemistry...", then we have a hard journey ahead. However, AI philosophers should try their own medicine and present claims with real contingencies, i.e. make claims that are experimentally falsifiable. Put another way, I'm less interested in debating what "understanding" is and more interested in figuring out how to build a Chinese room to begin with. Once we have such a system, perhaps we might realize that the Chinese Room thought experiment was ill-posed to begin with.