It's curious how it tries to insist I adopt a very discrete state in regard to thinking the brain is an infinite state thing. "Like it just is! It's a binary, okay! That the brain isn't binary! That is definately just true!"
And again it seems more putting of a homonculous in the machine (to latter take out for ourselves again, perhaps?) - sorry, why on earth are the causal relationships in a computer independent of it's physical details? Now computers have dualism as well?
rather than the one-off physical objects they really are...
The one off objects which aren't like computers, because computers causal relationships have nothing to do with their physical details?
It's almost ascribing some mysticism to us by making computers dualist, somehow operating beyond their physical material, then saying we aren't like the dualist computer. They aren't saying computers have souls and we don't - so it seems it's saying it the other way around - that computers have souls, but we don't have that - we have something even more mystical!
Sorry, it seems blind brain problems projected onto computers, then the blind perception is used as a baseline argument. Were talking blind to how a computer works - the author simply says how it doesn't work (and ignores stating how it DOES work), ie 'he causal relationships which operate within a computer are independent of its physical details'.
How does that computer work, if we were to talk about that?