Plinz argues biological naturalism may need new biology, and maybe new physics
Plinz · x · 2026-07-27
Plinz argues that current biology does not suggest any information-processing mechanism that could not, in principle, be functionally recreated. From that view, biological naturalism is not disproven, but proving it true would likely require new biology and perhaps new physics.
This is a philosophical claim about consciousness and substrate dependence, not a concrete technical proposal.
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