and output to sense organs and muscles, then we would reproduce, in a physical artifact, the observed manifestations of natural intelligence. Nothing observable would be missing. As an observer, I’d have no less (and no more) reason to ascribe consciousness, creativity, or evil to that artifact than I do to ascribe those properties to its natural counterparts, like other human beings. Thus, by combining Crick’s “astonishing hypothesis” in neurobiology with powerful evidence from physics, we deduce that natural intelligence is a special case of artificial intelligence. That conclusion deserves a name, and I will call it “the astonishing corollary.” With that, we have the answer to our three questions. Since consciousness, creativity, and evil are obvious features of natural human intelligence, they are possible features of artificial intelligence. A hundred years ago, or even fifty, to believe the hypothesis that mind emerges from matter, and to infer our corollary that natural intelligence is a special case of artificial intelligence, would have been leaps of faith. In view of the many surrounding gaps—chasms, really—in contemporary understanding of biology and physics, they were genuinely doubtful propositions. But epochal developments in those areas have changed the picture: In biology: A century ago, not only thought but also metabolism, heredity, and perception were deeply mysterious aspects of life that defied physical explanation. Today, of course, we have extremely rich and detailed accounts of metabolism, heredity, and many aspects of perception, from the bottom up, starting at the molecular level. In physics: After a century of quantum physics and its application to materials, physicists have discovered, over and over, how rich and strange the behavior of matter can be. Superconductors, lasers, and many other wonders demonstrate that large assemblies of molecular units, each simple in itself, can exhibit qualitatively new, “emergent” behavior, while re