Comment Re: What I don't like about Dawkins (Score 1) 302
You misunderstand the argument. The argument is that the computer + software + data is a fully deterministic automaton. The claim is that you could find out that it has consciousness. But finding that out would mean that computer + software + data would need to behave differently than computer + software + data + consciousness. If they behave the same, you cannot detect consciousness because it makes no difference.
You presume without evidence computer + software + data cannot embody consciousness. Then you complete the circular argument by asserting computer + software + data != computer + software + data + consciousness.
But computer + software + data is already fully deterministic and would immediately crash if consciousness were to change its behavior. Computers are like that on a very extreme level.
The only thing that has crashed here is basic logic.