There is no behavior in our universe that exists outside the laws of physics. So whatever we are, it is a product of our physical form. If that's true, then we can build something else that also exhibits our same behavior but is a purely non-biological organism.
You've made the assumption that the laws of physics allow for something that also exhibits our same behavior but in a purely non-biological organism. I see no reason why this must be so. The laws of physics are not entirely understood and neither is the brain.
Even granting your premise that the laws of physics allows for such a thing you've also made the assumption that humans are intelligent enough to "built something else that also exhibits our same behavior but is a purely non- biological organism". You presumably don't think a dog could invent such a thing but are assuming evolution has given humanity the ability to do so.
Agreed. In a sense, that is kind of my point: Can physicists explain in extreme detail how the mind physically implements omniscience (instances of which are on display in this thread)?
Your “laws of physics” are just a verbal representation of what has been observable to you. It’s not a fundamental property in the deepest sense and there’s no guarantee that they may not change.
It's not a fundamental property in the deepest sense
What do you mean by "in the deepest sense"? If the actual laws of physics were to change, then our world would instantly change - perhaps in such a way that we no longer can exist. If our understanding of the laws of physics were to change, that doesn't undo what we already know. For example, apples won't start falling up from trees. Greater understanding of the laws of physics refines our knowledge, for example what, exactly, happens inside a black hole? As far as the physics governing our daily lives and even our biology, it appears to be rather mundane and well-known. It's not apparent that resolving QFT with GR is going to answer the question for how life arises.
I think it therefore stands that we could, in principle, build something equivalent to a human being - I just see no reason why we would choose to do so. After all, we're already pretty good at building new human beings!
Can you solve a system of coupled Schröedinger equations and know what my wife will want for dinner? I’m only partially joking of course. What I mean is that physics conveniently formalizes what is most conveniently formalized, thus giving an impression of all-encompassing knowledge and predictive ability, when in fact it’s only a small fraction of what is. And I’m saying this as a PhD in chemistry.
Do you believe consciousness doesn't fall under the laws of physics or are you saying the laws of physics as currently known don't yet go far enough to explain the working of consciousness? You probably know Roger Penrose and Douglas Hofstadter have been going round and round on this issue, in a good-natured manner, for decades now. Penrose is convinced QM is required to explain consciousness, whereas Hofstadter maintains consciousness can be modeled with mathematics. It really boils down to can you create an AI that's conscious (which Hofstadter believes) or do you need a physical structure like the brain (which Penrose believes). Neither one is arguing though that consciousness isn't subject to the laws of physics, one just believes the laws of physics as currently known are insufficient to explain consciousness. That appears to be the camp you're in?
