What would be the best argument against such an interpretation
If you require consciousness to supervene on the actual physics of the brain , you can rule out Boltzmann neuron along with various other kinds of consciousness.
I understand. Yet it is still unclear to me what would be going on with consciousness if we cut the brain in two and create a situation described above.
I agree. What I think is that under the computational theory of mind, or some similar approaches, like integrated information theory, possibly under the broader spectrum of views, assuming consciousness emerges from information being processed in certain ways, the interpretation I’ve described can be more solid. For now, it is rather assumed some form of computationalism has great chances to turn out to be true, that’s why I think it can be important to determine its possible implications.
If you require consciousness to supervene on the actual physics of the brain , you can rule out Boltzmann neuron along with various other kinds of consciousness.
I understand. Yet it is still unclear to me what would be going on with consciousness if we cut the brain in two and create a situation described above.
Why would it be clear? We don’t understand consciousness.
I agree. What I think is that under the computational theory of mind, or some similar approaches, like integrated information theory, possibly under the broader spectrum of views, assuming consciousness emerges from information being processed in certain ways, the interpretation I’ve described can be more solid. For now, it is rather assumed some form of computationalism has great chances to turn out to be true, that’s why I think it can be important to determine its possible implications.