> I don't see why a sufficiently advanced artificial system as complex, capable and sophisticated as a human brain could not also have experiences. Neither doe

> I don't see why a sufficiently advanced artificial system as complex, capable and sophisticated as a human brain could not also have experiences. Neither does Searle. He says that humans are such machines. Per Searle, if you want to build a system that has subjective experiences of consciousness and understanding, it would have to have physical parts that correspond to some degree to the physical parts that give rise to our subjective experiences (or an animal's subjective experiences). It couldn't be a list of instructions to be executed. I don't know if Searle is right about this but I find myself unable to dismiss his argument as obviously wrong.