Well certainly, in some sense they are fundamental to the universe. But in this situation it’s a bit like saying the photon isn’t going away. Sure, but the stro

Well certainly, in some sense they are fundamental to the universe. But in this situation it’s a bit like saying the photon isn’t going away. Sure, but the strong link to consciousness isn’t there. However, the universe doesn’t run on math, it runs on itself. Math is the best way we have to describe it at the moment. It used to be that divination was the best method. Why are you so certain math in it’s recognizable form today will be the method used to describe the universe in 100k years? Our brains certainly do not run on binary. I think you might be confusing the information content, represented in bits, with the actual implementation. At the very least dendrites take in and mix signals of various strengths. The threshold for triggering and strength of the action potential are dependent on many chemicals signals. And that’s even a dated understanding which gave rise to the ideas of artificial neural networks. I’m sure the current understanding is much more complex and nuanced. You brush off the analog parts as an implementation detail, when it could have very real implications for the computability of consciousness. The thing is, we don’t know. But even all that is besides the point. The main point is, we don’t have the slightest idea how consciousness works. To the point that no one can even figure out how to ask the right questions about it. In the face of such great uncertainty, it is anti-scientific to state with such conviction that you have the correct model. It’s fine to present it as a hypothesis, but the certainty is unfounded.