> The evidence is that it understands and can respond with human language which arose from purely biological processes If you don't understand how this isn't e

> The evidence is that it understands and can respond with human language which arose from purely biological processes If you don't understand how this isn't evidence, I honestly don't know what to do. > So until we understand how this happens we can’t say for sure that these things are not statistical models of part of the human brain. I never said that. I said you can't affirmatively say they are, and further, that because we don't understand how the human brain works, the fact that we can make computers perform tasks that humans can is not evidence in favour of the idea that those computers are in some way modelling the way the human brain actually works. And that is the claim I've seen many people make. In fact that's the claim you just made. > We just don’t know. On that we agree.