I can't read the article, but on a general note based on this NPR article on the same book[1], his argument appear to be more of the anti-intellectual embodiment nonsense, based on "feelings" and capability of suffering. But sensory input is just data. Maybe it will turn out that they will need that sensory input, but there is no reasonable basis for assuming they can't be given it - real or simulated.
The only thing that would be remotely convincing to me on this topic would be evidence that a) humans can exceed the Turing computable, and b) that whatever mechanism allows that is inherently impossible to replicate or simulate. As it stands we have neither.
alt Hacker News
I can't read the article, but on a general note based on this NPR article on the same book[1], his argument appear to be more of the anti-intellectual embodiment nonsense, based on "feelings" and capability of suffering. But sensory input is just data. Maybe it will turn out that they will need that sensory input, but there is no reasonable basis for assuming they can't be given it - real or simulated.
The only thing that would be remotely convincing to me on this topic would be evidence that a) humans can exceed the Turing computable, and b) that whatever mechanism allows that is inherently impossible to replicate or simulate. As it stands we have neither.
[1] https://www.npr.org/2026/02/19/nx-s1-5713514/michael-pollan-...