[Evan]

^my argument goes more like this:

p) Everything is made up of functions (only)
p) We are made up of functions
C1) Therefore, everything we do can be ascribed to functions
C2) We can define the things we do as functions

p) Computers implement functions
C3) A computer could implement the functions we use (given that they are defined, which is obviously the hard part)
C4) That computer would literally fit the definitions we have for certain things we do, such as "feeling", "thinking", "living" if it implemented those functions because of C2.


"Everything is functions" is a basic assumption of science. The point of science is to formally define phenomena in terms of functions. The better science gets, the better the definitions get. We may never entirely break down humans into functions, but as we get closer, we'll get closer and closer to building computers that we will ascribe human characteristics to.

Anyway, if we fully defined "consciousness" as a set of necessary and/or sufficient features, we could build a computer that had those features even without having to copy all the functions that make up humans.