Debunking the exclusive anthropocentric and/or supernatural mind

## Could a computer have a mind?

He claims no (for legal reasons I didn't include his text). He doesn't though explain if he accepts that the mind is procedurally yielded. He unwittingly (without knowing at all that notion) rejects the notion of the term computer (not necessarily the common machine we call a computer) as a hypernym of the brain = personhood-yielding computer.

He speaks about the importance of consciousness (as defined in the philosophy of neuroscience), claiming that morality, ethics and emotional standards are some of its ingredients, but he doesn't clarify how they're shaped. He uses "mind theory agnostic" arguments, not to promote and conclude on "mind theory agnosticism" (unknowability of how minds are formed), instead he concludes on clearly and strongly rejecting computerised minds. This is contradictory because he used statements of different type (unknowability-based/agnostic), to conclude to a different type answer (absolute rejection).

### Answer:

You didn't present and analytically debunk the view that the term computer (but the hypernymic computer isn't necessarily a common computer but any computational system) is for other thinkers a hypernym/superordinate term to the brain (a deeply important information theory view on the matter), and that the brain is a personhood-yielding computer with specific regions (which can be mimicked by future generations programmatically, electronically [with task-specific GPUs], and by other procedural means invented in the future). You are correct for mentioning that the environment and its provided inputs are totally necessary for a brain to yield personhood and become the mind of a person (personhood-able doesn't always mean personhood-manifesting). Steelman (present in a strong form the opinions you reject); and analytically debunk them. The Windows example was straw manning (straw manning: rejected views presented in a weak, unconvincing form), because mind researchers don't have high hopes on it, and if you mention operating systems you'll have to mention all the "levels of programming languages" (according to the information theory view, the human brain can also be examined under those criteria). Don't judge only according to nowadays knowledge and be open to thought experiments supportive of views you oppose. Study better the ideas you reject, not necessarily to change your viewpoints, but to expose specifically the fallacies of the views you reject. You didn't mention if you accept or reject procedurality (physicalist rigorous logic/mechanism: probabilistic [sub-views exist like Copenhagen, Everettian, nonquantum probabilistic, etc.], deterministic [sub-views exist, like a deterministic full spectrum of probabilistic alternatives per different universe = Everettism]) versus supernaturalism (its a fundamental; hierarchically basic omission not to mention your analytical view on procedurality [in general; not necessarily on bioprocedurality, computoprocedurality, soul-procedurality, etc. but if everything is procedural or not, and what else then holds true] because other arguments follow). On the other hand you mentioned that we don't know everything about our mind which is a "mind theory agnostic" view (based on neuroscientific facts), but you use "mind theory agnosticism" to promote the rejection of digital minds; this is contradictory because the unknowability of something isn't a strong tool for rejection. You have an absolute opinion (the impossibility of digital/computerized minds), based on "mind theory agnosticism". This is contradictory. Agnostic views are based on agnostic facts. Pure rejections are based on stronger ideas. Some people for example believe that the personhood-yielding "true" mind (which isn't a philosophical zombie) requires a supernatural force to exist (soul theory). Using agnostic/unknowability-based arguments to support a strong rejection is contradictory. The majority of your arguments (not necessarily all) should have the same stance with the final conclusion (you did that). You recognised the importance of consciousness for creating a true mind of a person, and you stated that morality, ethics and emotional standards cannot be met by a machine. You didn't elaborate on the mechanism (or other causal provider) of morality, ethics and emotional standards which is also the result of external factors as you correctly mentioned. Agnostic arguments cannot be the basis of absolute rejections.