The subject is, "The Brain is Not Computable". I too believe that. The article itself is quite vague in what particular objections the guy has. It doesn't ac

The subject is, "The Brain is Not Computable". I too believe that. The article itself is quite vague in what particular objections the guy has. It doesn't actually state he thinks it is not computable in theory, just in practice > That’s because its most important features are the result of unpredictable, non-linear interactions amongst billions of cells, Nicolelis says. If he thought it was theoretically impossible, then the "billions of cells" would be redundant. It would only take 1 un-computable cell. Without a longer interview, we can't be sure what exactly he means. My interpretation was "unpredictable, non-linear" (i.e. not computable by a simple algorithm, would have to be very complex, because of non linear interactions between inputs) amongst "billions of cells" = an obscene amount of computational data. I don't think he means unpredictable to mean strictly uncomputable. > Opponents of your viewpoint argue that you simply can't imagine the state of technology in 50 years. Yes, but at the same time there are things we thought we would be able to do 50 years ago that there is no way we can do now. There are physical constraints to the universe, and we can't just assume "technology" will overcome all of them. Nobody can imagine the state of technology in 50 years accurately, but I am still willing (and have done) to take bets on this 50 years into the future.