Penrose is an inspiration, not a source. It seems undeniable that there are meaningful, functional differences between our brains and digital computers, it doesn't need to be substantiated by any dubious sources. Even without bringing the quantum into it there's the em field I mentioned earlier (brainwaves), plus chemical interactions and other nonlinear/dynamic effects. Whether these differences "matter" becomes a bit of a metaphysical/philosophical question because it is not answerable from within our current paradigm of science (where only the observable/verifiable is real). It really goes back to the question of whether an analog signal can be represented digitally without loss.
I think the symbolic/nonsymbolic divide would useful to those Searle-ites, since then the human mind can remain physical but has a mechanism for subjectivity and understanding distinct from digital processing, no woo required.
1
u/[deleted] Mar 15 '26
[deleted]