Comment by benzible
13 hours ago
That philosophers still debate it isn’t a counterargument. Philosophers still debate lots of things. Where’s the flaw in the actual reasoning? The computation is substrate-independent. Running it slower on paper doesn’t change what’s being computed. If there’s no experiencer when you do arithmetic by hand, parallelizing it on silicon doesn’t summon one.
The same is true of humans, and so the argument fails to demonstrate anything interesting.
> The same is true of humans,
What is? That you can run us on paper? That seems demonstrably false