Why should “mind”, “understanding”, etc be continuous in time, space and even enclosed into a “whole box”? Claims like this are very everyday-centric, so to say, as well as counter-arguments.<p>If we assume that “mind” isn’t driven by pure chaos (e.g. quantum effects) and operates above it, just like a chair acts as a chair, no matter how random it is at microscopic level, shouldn’t be there finite algorithms which describe humans and chairs in a way useful to interact with it? (E.g. h-algo can chat in a textbox, and ch-algo can squeak in a 3d simulation). Imagine we’ve got such an algorithm and a computer or an operator that executes it. Does that make it less “understanding”, given that it correctly represents its subject?<p>If we do not assume such relative determinism, then the answer lies in chaos, where such claims can barely survive, because all the subjects they are reasoning about also lose deterministic sense. How can anything have “mind”, “understanding” etc if it doesn’t abstract from pure randomness enough for its own system to emerge?<p>I think the whole question about “consciousness” is just wrong and is a pointless philosophical debate about something that doesn’t exist.