The burden of proof is to show that there is any real or substantive similarity between the two beyond some superficial comparisons and numbers. If you can't pr

The burden of proof is to show that there is any real or substantive similarity between the two beyond some superficial comparisons and numbers. If you can't provide that, then you can't answer those questions meaningfully. (Frankly, this is all a category mistake. Human minds possess intentionality. They possess semantic apprehension. Computers are, by definition, abstract mathematical models that are purely syntactic and formal and therefore stripped of semantic content and intentionality. That is exactly what allows computation to be 'physically realizable' or 'mechanized', whether the simulating implementation is mechanical or electrical or whatever. There's a good deal of ignorant and wishy-washy magical thinking in this space that seems to draw hastily from superficial associations like "both (modern) computers and brains involve electrical phenomena" or "computers (appear to) calculate, and so do human beings", and so on.)