> "Why do I think that? I claim that a brain is purely an information-processing machine. (If you disagree, your counter-argument should probably start by outli

> "Why do I think that? I claim that a brain is purely an information-processing machine. (If you disagree, your counter-argument should probably start by outlining some proposed input or output of the brain that it would not be possible to encode numerically)" A 'model-constructing machine' has to be included as a submodule of the 'information-processing machine', doesn't it? The information coming in is all sensory - signals from optical nerves, auditory nerves, and tactile and olfactory and gustoroy nerves. The information going out is signals to the eye muscles (where to look to get more important information), the vocal cords (to communicate), and all the other muscles - to move around, to use tools, and so on. However this output is all based on the ability to construct a coherent internal model of the world around you (this is perhaps clearer if you consider the difficulties blind people have to overcome). This occurs at a low level in all animals (as for example, hand-eye coordination, or a bird catching a fish). Consciousness could even be defined as one's own awareness that one is constructing a model using sensory information, and that it's possible we could be getting the model wrong (due to poor information inputs, i.e. reading unreliable historical narratives etc.) Thus an artificial human-level consciousness would have to be aware that it was constructing this model of reality using information sources that might or might not be entirely reliable - and it would also certainly require some degree of autonomy, i.e. the ability to use that internal model to have agency in the world - to move about freely, speak, decide what to look at and - perhaps most alarmingly for some - decide freely what instructions to follow and which to ignore.