A lot of assumptions we make about the world, baked in so far down that we can barely see them, are completely trashed by Bell’s Theorem. So I’m not prepared to assume that all physical processes are computable, either. Plato’s Cave is how it is and there’s only so much we can reasonably infer from the shadows we see on the wall.
No, it only means that science has limits on explaining the natural world. See Colin McGinn's argument for cognitive closure. He thinks we can't solve certain problems in philosophy because we lack the correct cognitive machinery. Consciousness being a primary example since it proposes a subjective/objective split where science only explains the objective. Nagel argued along similar lines in his paper, "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?".
There's no need to invoke the supernatural. It just means some natural things may be beyond our capability to understand. Why would we have evolved to understand everything?
Science can't and won't ever be able explain why being conscious feels like this, but it should in principle be possible to figure out what is physically going on in the brain while it's happening.
What I find special about the TNGS is the Darwin series of automata created at the Neurosciences Institute by Dr. Edelman and his colleagues in the 1990's and 2000's. These machines perform in the real world, not in a restricted simulated world, and display convincing physical behavior indicative of higher psychological functions necessary for consciousness, such as perceptual categorization, memory, and learning. They are based on realistic models of the parts of the biological brain that the theory claims subserve these functions. The extended TNGS allows for the emergence of consciousness based only on further evolutionary development of the brain areas responsible for these functions, in a parsimonious way. No other research I've encountered is anywhere near as convincing.
I post because on almost every video and article about the brain and consciousness that I encounter, the attitude seems to be that we still know next to nothing about how the brain and consciousness work; that there's lots of data but no unifying theory. I believe the extended TNGS is that theory. My motivation is to keep that theory in front of the public. And obviously, I consider it the route to a truly conscious machine, primary and higher-order.
My advice to people who want to create a conscious machine is to seriously ground themselves in the extended TNGS and the Darwin automata first, and proceed from there, by applying to Jeff Krichmar's lab at UC Irvine, possibly. Dr. Edelman's roadmap to a conscious machine is at https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.10461
Isn't this assumption actually arguing AGAINST human exceptionalism? I feel like there are only two options to what consciousness can be explained by (the idea coming from another HN comment sometime/somewhere that I have forgotten, so I can't claim originality)
1. Consciousness ultimately arises out of a physical process, albeit incredibly complicated, but could be computed given a sufficiently powerful computer, or
2. The concept of a human soul is true, or
3. There is no third way, pick one of the above.
For human consciousness to be "exceptional"... we would have to have some undefiniable "other" quality that could never be explained by science and is therefore necessarily supernatural?