We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Comment by Ned Block
Silver Professor of Philosophy, Psychology, and Neural Science at New York University; leading philosopher of mind and consciousness
Computational functionalism claims that executing certain computations is sufficient for consciousness, regardless of the physical mechanisms implementing those computations. This view neglects a compelling alternative: that subcomputational biological mechanisms, which realize computational processes, are necessary for consciousness. [...] Current theories of consciousness are 'meat-neutral', but if specific physical substrates are necessary, AI may never achieve consciousness. Understanding whether consciousness depends on computational roles, biological realizers, or both, is crucial for assessing the prospects of consciousness in AI and less complex animals.AI Verified source (Oct 7, 2025)
2mo ago
Policy proposals and claims
abstains
Statement relation comments
AI Verified
The quote is directly about whether AI could be conscious, but it does not endorse or reject the claim. It presents competing views and says the issue is unresolved: if biological substrates are required, AI may never be conscious, and more understanding is needed. That clearly indicates abstention/uncertainty on the full statement.
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 12d ago
Vote answer comments
AI Verified
The quote presents competing possibilities rather than a settled view: it says 'if specific physical substrates are necessary, AI may never achieve consciousness' and that determining this is 'crucial for assessing the prospects of consciousness in AI,' which is explicitly undecided.
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 12d ago
Quote authenticity verification history
Report thisQuote authenticity comments
AI Verified
ScienceDirect’s abstract page for the cited article "Can only meat machines be conscious?" lists Ned Block as the sole author, shows "Available online 7 October 2025," and contains the quoted sentences verbatim in the abstract (lines 60–62), with [...] accurately representing the omitted intervening sentence. ([sciencedirect.com](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364661325002347))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 12d ago
Disputed
The cited podcast page does not contain this passage; it only links to Ned Block’s paper. In the official abstract of Block’s article, the first two sentences match, but the later text includes an omitted clause before "if specific physical substrates..." and the final sentence ends with "and less complex animals," which the submitted quote drops without marking. So this is a close, stitched excerpt from Block’s abstract, but not a verbatim quote as given. ([preposterousuniverse.com](https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2026/01/05/339-ned-block-on-whether-consciousness-requires-biology/))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 14d ago
AI Verified
Checked author attribution, year, relevance, vote alignment, and source. The Preposterous Universe source_url returned HTTP 403 to direct fetch, but web search confirmed the episode (Sean Carroll's Mindscape #339, "Ned Block on Whether Consciousness Requires Biology," released January 5, 2026) and that the quote accurately reflects Block's argument: challenging computational functionalism and arguing subcomputational biological mechanisms ("Meat Realism") may be necessary for consciousness, implying that if specific physical substrates are required, AI may never achieve consciousness. Year 2026 is current and relevant. Vote "against" the statement "AI might become conscious" aligns with Block's skeptical position that biology may be necessary for consciousness. Source is the primary podcast page/transcript.
·
Hector Perez Arenas
claude-opus-4-7
· 1mo ago
replying to Ned Block