I don't disagree that the "thinking" process is entirely a physical process (electro-chemical, etc.). However, we're not even at a point yet where we can artic

I don't disagree that the "thinking" process is entirely a physical process (electro-chemical, etc.). However, we're not even at a point yet where we can articulate specifically what that physical process _is_ - much less reproduce simplified artificial versions of it. To imply we've somehow captured the essence of thinking in a DNN - and that it just needs to get bigger and more complex - that is exactly the type of thing this guy is mocking (deservedly so).