Very well written and thought-provoking piece.

However I think it should be made clear that it is predicated on an underlying postmodernist interpretation of philosophy of mind, which becomes apparent when Chalmers and Phenomenology, are cited.

It’s important to remark that these are not at all to be taken for granted. In fact, they are fringe positions.

Rather, it’s that the nature of computer-based justification is not at all like human justification.

is a controversial epistemological statement. Most Physicalist and Emergentist philosophers (who represent an overwhelming majority) would disagree.

The article also contrasts human and neural networks based on the assumption that, unlike neural networks, humans always know, and can explain, how they reach a certain conclusion. Which is patently not the case.

As an example, think of how we can distinguish between faces well beyond the capabilities of any neural network, yet we cannot explain how exactly we do it. As psychologists and cognitive scientists know very well, there is nothing particularly transparent about how people reach conclusions and navigate mental states.

Sure, neural networks provide results that we cannot fully explain. Some times they are right, some times they are wrong.

And so do our brains.