PhilArchive
open access
Why I am not a biological naturalist
Commentary. I make three claims: First, denying biological naturalism does not logically require computational functionalism. Second, while Seth’s arguments establish biological naturalism as a view worth taking seriously, they fail to make it more plausible than the view that AI can be conscious. Third, there are independent arguments suggesting the overall more plausible view is that AI can be conscious.
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Consciousness without biology: An argument from anticipating scientific progress#713498
- Naturalisms#703661
- THE BIOLOGICAL ZOMBIE AND THE DIGITAL MACHINE: A Critique of Darwinian Continuity through the Lens of Artificial Intelligence#725817
- Why science as we know it can’t explain consciousness#718654
- Hydropsychism: A Water of Mind#76471
Record · ID 729932
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive