If intelligence and consciousness are properly understood as processes, it makes more sense that it would emerge from unconscious constituents like atoms. But it also means that arguments like Searle’s Chinese Room are wrong because consciousness doesn’t arise from the program/rule book, but from the physical execution of it. And indeed the execution couldn’t have been done without a consciousness. In the case of the Chinese Room argument it was in the person.
Searle makes a distinction between syntax and semantics but perhaps semantics is a non-sensory perception that purely comes from conceptual associations that can be reduced to syntax and the way information is organized
If intelligence and consciousness are properly understood as processes, it makes more sense that it would emerge from unconscious constituents like atoms. But it also means that arguments like Searle’s Chinese Room are wrong because consciousness doesn’t arise from the program/rule book, but from the physical execution of it. And indeed the execution couldn’t have been done without a consciousness. In the case of the Chinese Room argument it was in the person.
Searle makes a distinction between syntax and semantics but perhaps semantics is a non-sensory perception that purely comes from conceptual associations that can be reduced to syntax and the way information is organized