> Right. That's the "humans are magic" argument. It's a rehash of the "first cause" argument from theology for the existence of a creator. ("But who created God

> Right. That's the "humans are magic" argument. It's a rehash of the "first cause" argument from theology for the existence of a creator. ("But who created God?" "Shut up, kid.") I don't think that's a fair summary of the argument. The conclusion of the argument is a dilemma: either (i) humans are not conscious or (ii) humans are conscious but so are lots of other things (like rocks) that we don't usually take to be conscious. If you aren't willing to accept (i) or (ii), then you can either look for flaws in the argument that led to the unwelcome conclusion, or consider the possibility that there is more to consciousness than just executing a particular program. We know virtually nothing about consciousness, so we can't confidently eliminate the possibility that certain physical properties of neurons are a necessary prerequisite for it. Being sensibly open-minded about this possibility is not akin to a belief in magic. I would rather say that the magical thinkers are those who have an unwavering faith in the ability of computer programs to conjure up conscious experience in the absence of any known causal mechanisms.