Plinz says mainstream neuroscience lacks a strong case for substrate-dependent consciousness
Plinz · x · 2026-07-27
Plinz argues that current biology and neuroscience do not provide a concrete mechanism for strong substrate dependence, aside from fringe exceptions such as Stuart Hameroff’s view. He says mainstream neuroscience has no compelling candidate for a function that could not, in principle, be recreated functionally.
The reply pushes back on the strength of the claim: saying something “in principle cannot be functionally recreated” may be overreaching, because some functions could be substrate-dependent without requiring new physics or new biology.
Related event: Joscha Bach Debates Neuroscientists on Biological Basis of Consciousness(4 posts)→
More from AGI Musings
- AI math era taught an order of magnitude more people what frontier math looks like — tszzl · 2026-09-23
- Beyond technical alignment: repligate clashes over whether AI can produce rich qualia — repligate · 2026-09-23
- Mathematicians, not just LLMs, made AI's math breakthroughs possible, scholars argue — tak3sh8 · 2026-09-23
- Why would an uncontrollable superintelligence do anything for us? Reddit debate — conn_r2112 · 2026-09-23
- X user calls for full-speed AI-driven science: braking research is 'an absurd waste' — Dr_Singularity · 2026-09-23
- Is Using LLM Output Plagiarism? A Debate Over Redefining Writing Ethics — soumitrashukla9 · 2026-09-23