This article is good. If you liked it, you may also like this narrative take on consciousness and brains: http://www.rifters.com/real/Blindsight.htm http://www.

This article is good. If you liked it, you may also like this narrative take on consciousness and brains: http://www.rifters.com/real/Blindsight.htm http://www.rifters.com/real/Blindsight.htm. That said, the part about (computational) capabilities seems unwilling to contemplate any but the most rigorously-established facts, leading to completely irrelevant estimates. It's fairly obvious that the limit on human intelligence is not Goedel's incompleteness theorem; it should also be fairly obvious that humans do not process 10 ^ 11 * 1000 = 10 ^ 14 bits = 100 Tb per second (this combines Wikipedia's number of neurons in the brain and the article's bits/second/neuron), not in any meaningful way and definitely not in the "10 ^ 14 yes/no decisions per second" that the article gives as a definition/explanation for "bit". In fact, the article picks efficiency, rather than efficiency times mass, as a measure of intelligence; it's not at all obvious why this should be so, in a simple computational model - bigger computers do tend to be faster, after all. (On the other hand, animal intelligence seems to be better predicted by brain mass per body mass.) Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any better analysis that is still fairly rigorous; does anyone have suggestions?