Eric Schwitzgebel @eschwitz on biological naturalism, and how artificial systems (beyond current AI) might come to instantiate 'biological' properties relevant for consciousness. Eric provided an excellent commentary on my recent @BBSJournal piece, and this blog post expands usefully on it: schwitzsplinters.blogspot.co…

🎇 Good news! 🎇 The kind people at @BBSJournal have made the new collection on "Conscious AI and biological naturalism" completely #OpenAccess for a limited period. This include the target article, all 50 commentaries (many of which disagree with me), and my response. Go to the link and click 'save pdf': DOI.org/10.1017/S0140525X250… For easier ways into the debate, try my @NoemaMag essay on "The Mythology of Conscious AI" (winner of the 2025 @berggruenInst Essay Prize), and this 2026 main-stage @TEDTalks: noemamag.com/the-mythology-o… ted.com/talks/anil_seth_why_…

In case useful, here's a (temporarily) #OpenAccess @BBSJournal collection on 'conscious AI and biological naturalism', with a target article, 50 peer commentaries, and my author response. Hopefully a decent representation of where the substantive debate is at: xitter.cf/anilkseth/status/21089…

In case useful, here's a (temporarily) #OpenAccess @BBSJournal collection on 'conscious AI and biological naturalism', with a target article, 50 peer commentaries, and my author response. Hopefully a decent representation of where the substantive debate is at: xitter.cf/anilkseth/status/21089…

Hi @michaelshermer - thanks for posting the essay 🙏🏽 To clarify, my arguments against computational functionalism (substrate-independent computations being sufficient for consciousness) do not depend on biological necessity. So, indeed, I am not suggesting a theist (or a vitalist, or a carbon chauvinist) argument. The longer version is in @BBSJournal - target article, 50 (!) commentaries, and my response: DOI.org/10.1017/S0140525X250…

We have a perfectly adequate working definition of consciousness, sufficient to distinguish it from intelligence and other forms of cognition. I'm sorry the discussion hasn't been helpful to you, though I agree that neuroscience is often insufficiently incorporated. Can I suggest the below @BBSJournal collection. Even if you don't agree with my position, there are plenty of different perspectives - drawing on neuroscience - in the (50) commentaries: DOI.org/10.1017/S0140525X250…

The "time" argument, developed here by @MiTiBennett via @Noahpinion, is one among many arguments against computational functionalism. The UCLA neuroscientist Dean Buonomano has persuasively made a similar case (philarchive.org/rec/BUOTIO-2). FWIW my @bigthink article and part of my @BBSJournal author response also follow this line: for standard Turing computation only sequence matters, but for neurophysiology and for consciousness the continuity of physical time matter too. Brains (& conscious experiences) are not just embodied and embedded, they are also *entimed*. See bigthink.com/neuropsych/anil…) and pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4275… - snippet attached 👇🏽

"I can tell you this, though: Every single person who thinks that machines cannot be conscious, is making an argument that humans are special. Everything they say just boils down to blah blah blah, "nooo, we're special." From there it's just rationalization." This is very far from the truth. There are many (IMO compelling) arguments against (silicon, digital) machine consciousness that in no way depend on human exceptionalism, or even on carbon chauvinism. To get a good sense of the current debate in academia, have a look at this just-out @BBSJournal paper, along with 50 commentaries (from all perspective), and my response. You'll see a much richer debate than you describe. cambridge.org/core/journals/…

Thanks for your advice. I've been working on these issues for ~25 years, but I'm always open to learning more. See this recent @BBSJournal collection for a summary of where I stand now (with 50 peer commentaries, all from smart people with relevant experience): cambridge.org/core/journals/…

Thanks @davetroy - appreciated 🙏🏽. FWIW the key entry points in my work are (in order of accessibility) my TED talk (ted.com/talks/anil_seth_why_…), my @NoemaMag essay (noemamag.com/the-mythology-o…), and - just out - this @BBSJournal collection (cambridge.org/core/journals/…)

Hi @clairlemon. I've been thinking about the possibility of 'conscious AI' since 2009 (worldscientific.com/doi/abs/…). I am a vocal skeptic, but I don't think it helps to characterise those who think AI might be conscious as 'insane'. Polarisation is dangerous, and the question of 'AI consciousness' is scientific, not political. There are good arguments on both side. IMO the sceptical arguments are far stronger, but others disagree & I respect and engage with their views. For a representative take on the state of the debate in academia, see this just-published @BBSJournal collection, which has my target article, 50 peer commentaries, and my response. cambridge.org/core/journals/…