You don't know how to elaborate on your claims? > I already wrote that even under the assumption that intelligence is a purely biological phenomenon, it does n

You don't know how to elaborate on your claims? > I already wrote that even under the assumption that intelligence is a purely biological phenomenon, it does not follow that computation can produce intelligence. See this demands definitions because I do not understand how you can say this. If intelligence is an emergent property of a physical process then I'd feel insane to assume such processes can only happen in certain meats but never in artificially created computers. I fail to see any way they can be fundamentally separated without a non-testable, immaterial "spirit" bestowing intellect on the meat computer. They're just different substrates for computation. > We know what computation is, because we defined it as such and such. As what? This is the cornerstone of your entire argument and you've left it as an assumption. I can infer you define computation as "those processes which happen in non-biological systems and which do not lead to intelligence." But that would be worse than useless.