We’re often seduced by the idea that the mind is a computer, and that consciousness is just a matter of running the right code. But philosopher Peter Godfrey-Smith, renowned for his work on octopus minds, disagrees. Fresh research into animal minds—from bees to jellyfish—suggests that consciousness arises not from software but from electrical oscillations moving rhythmically across cell membranes in living brains. And those oscillations, Godfrey-Smith argues, are unlikely to be reproducible in artificial hardware. Perhaps, then, only living brains can truly be conscious.
Late in the previous century, there seemed to be good reasons to think that the physical make-up of a system could not matter much to whether that system had a mind. The organization of the system is what matters, people thought, and physically different systems can be organized the same way. As a result, artificial minds making use of ordinary computer hardware should be possible. This whole discussion was hypothetical, because there weren’t any convincing possible cases of artificial minds to worry about.
Since then, two things have happened. From around 2022, we’ve been confronted with candidates for artificial minds that are disturbingly impressive. These are the LLM systems, such as ChatGPT. But reasons have emerged to doubt that the physical make-up of a system is irrelevant and minds are “substrate independent.” A view sometimes called biological naturalism holds that the biological details of nervous systems might make a difference to whether a physical system has a mind. (The term was coined, with this sense at least, by John Searle.) But if nervous systems and brains are special, what is it that makes them special?









