I said machine consciousness might be possible. You said it will never happen. Pointing out that intelligence does not entail consciousness doesn’t establish th

I said machine consciousness might be possible. You said it will never happen. Pointing out that intelligence does not entail consciousness doesn’t establish that machines cannot be conscious. Nor does naming “substrate independence” refute its possibility: you need an argument that consciousness requires physical properties these systems cannot possess. You haven’t supplied one. When I said "we don't know what consciousness is", I didn't mean humans literally don't know what the experience of consciousness is like, or of its existence. I meant that we don't know by what mechanism the phenomenon arises. I know what is meant by substrate independence. I quoted it back to you because I didn't know why you were mentioning it; I still don't. And I have read Tsimerman’s paper when it came out. Curious, I went back and checked - it doesn't even mention consciousness. So no idea why you mentioned that, either. I think you're deliberately trying to waste my time, so I'm ending it here.