Why atheism is irrational

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

the nature of how an abstraction layer would look in a computer network, as opposed to a mind.

Are those two that different?

As far as we can tell, the brain is a massive network of neurons.
Some artificial neural networks try to emulate this behavior of the brain... albeit... with much much less neurons, due to hardware restrictions...
Maybe one day, we'll get there.
And then we may have all the proof required to show how a sufficiently complex neural network gives rise to the high level phenomenon that we call consciousness. Or not... We'll have a neural network much larger than any brain and it will just be a stupid thing...
We'll see.
My bet goes to the first option, but I bet little. I don't like to lose.

The two are fundamentally different, yes. Because every operation in a computer is wholly reducible to a common type, or kind of function.

This is not true of a mind.

And artificial neural networks emulating brain behavior resolves nothing of the problem. This has been a well-accepted philosophical possibility for a long time.

Rather, the issue is nothing you have said, not even an abstraction layer, can explain the irreducibility of qualia to the functioning of the brain. Before you deny this, think about the sentence carefully. The answer is not "qualia is reducible to neural behavior", because qualia is not chemistry, it is sense experience.