>>13673514>What would you call the exact position and combination of the atoms that make up an object? Information.I wouldn't call it anything. "information" is a human language way to describe the motion of the system, there is no actual "information" in the system. There is just the motion of the particles.
When you write down a mathematical description of a particle, that isn't the same thing as the actual particle. A simulation of a particles' orbitals is not the same thing as an actual particle and it's orbitals. This is a fact.
The "margin of error" is simply the fact that the actual atoms and their combination are a little different. And those slight differences produce different behaviors, the eyes do not act EXACTLY the same way, and people don't see in exactly the same way, because they aren't the same, which is my point.
You, in actual reality and not your idealized fantasy, need an exact atom by atom replica. Imagine saying you don't need an exact H20 combination to have water. Yes, you do. An eye is a little more complex, but it's the same idea.
>I do not see why you believe that only a narrow range of arrangements of atoms can produce consciousness.Never claimed this once, if you're confusing me for the OP I don't see why, we don't write in the same style at all.
My point is that YOUR "consciousness" can only exist on that specific set of atoms. "consciousness" isn't even a real thing, it's just the evolution of different systems of atoms and their unique combos. You aren't the "information" being "computed" on your "neurons", you ARE that set of atoms in that combination, and if that structure were to change to wildly from what it is now, you would die, even if you tried to "map" the electric signals exactly to some other structure of atoms. There is no way to do such a thing, even in principle.
Of course a machine can be conscious, but it will not have any sort of perception similar to us.
