Some scientists tend to paint their conception of reality with the colors that are popular at a given time. When Isaac Newton was the reigning savant, the peak of technology was the mechanical clock; therefore, the human mind was deemed to be a clockwork mechanism, deterministic and mechanical. Computers are the technology du jour; therefore, RayKay thinks consciousness is something like a computer program -- a program capable of running on any appropriate platform.
I beg to disagree.
As for Moore's Law: expecting a computer to become conscious simply because it has more processing power is like expecting a car to fly because it has more horsepower. "In accordance with Ford's Law, autombiles are becoming faster, more powerful, and cheaper at an ever-increasing rate. For example, ten years ago, in 1913, most automobiles had four cylinder engines producing fifty horsepower or so at a cost of five hundred dollars. Today, eight cylinders, one hundred horsepower and $750 is the norm, and plans for cars with sixteen-cylinder engines developing more than two hundred horsepower are on the drawing boards. These fantastic machines will cost only eight hundred dollars in today's money. By 1963, we can expect to see cars being sold at a cost of $843.75. These cars will be equipped with 128-cylinder engines cranking out an amazing sixteen hundred horsepower, enabling them to fly, drive across water, and travel through time. At that point, mankind's ability to comprehend auto travel will come to an end -- a sort of "autopia" will come into being, beyond which nothing about driving can be known."
Riiiiiiiiiiiight.
The two concepts are equivalent. (Any "clockwork mechanism" can be simulated by a Turing machine, and vice versa). The fundamental question is whether consciousness is a physical and non-supernatural phenomenon. If so, then a computer with the appropriate software would be conscious according to any standard by which humans are. Of course, creating that software is a bit of a challenge.