Chalmers presses Seth: your three reasons don't actually argue against computational functionalism
davidchalmers42 · x · 2026-10-21
Chalmers continued the exchange, arguing that of Seth's three reasons, the first (intelligence) at best rebuts a bad argument for computational functionalism (CF), while the second (substrate-dependence) and third (noncomputational theories) are alternatives to CF, not arguments against it.
He notes that if Seth has good reasons for 2 and 3, they could ground rejecting CF — but those reasons are themselves speculative and inconclusive, and it's easy to get lost in a circular maze of inconclusive arguments here. His challenge: if there's a conclusive or strong reason CF or AI consciousness is false, state it clearly.
Related event: Chalmers and Seth Debate Computational Functionalism on Consciousness(2 posts)→
More from AGI Musings
- Super-Worms Warning: AI-Powered Self-Propagating Malware and a Fragmenting Internet — JensHonack · 2026-10-23
- Wolfram Opens Rule 30 Prizes to AIs: $30,000 for Three Open Problems — cephaloform · 2026-10-23
- Mathematicians and Biomedical Researchers React to AI in Strikingly Different Ways — manorlaboratory · 2026-10-23
- Stanford and Databricks use AI agents to reproduce medical findings and test analytical robustness — ChengleiSi · 2026-10-23
- ISMS Fellow Avi Goldfarb: AI disruption raises returns to exploring research directions — avicgoldfarb · 2026-10-23
- signull on AI-found PHP exploits: economic liability is the forcing function legacy software needs — signulll · 2026-10-23