The arguments in the article (and repeated here by some HNewsers) are familiar: "If a computer does it then it's not a mind." Well, if that's the definition of

The arguments in the article (and repeated here by some HNewsers) are familiar: "If a computer does it then it's not a mind." Well, if that's the definition of mind for the sake of discussion then there isn't much to discuss. I see it differently, I feel that mind is a property of a working brain and that someday we may say that mind is also a property of a working AI program. I don't believe in magic. I don't believe that there is spooky stuff in my head. I think that my brain is an amazing biological machine. The idea that there is some fundamental insurmountable barrier that will prevent strong AI from succeeding (eventually, if humans survive) would mean that there is some magical property of brains (human brains, whale brains, chimp brains, dog/cat brains etc.) that we will never have access to. This seems so unlikely that I prefer to believe that there is no magic and that AI will succeed. And I'm not saying that we need to mimic brains to have thinking machines. The mind and its thinking, feelings, emotions, and so forth may simply be emergent properties of advanced enough artificial or natural computing structures (e.g. brains). If space aliens landed on earth tomorrow, would we say "Oh, but they can't think. They don't have brains like we have here on earth so they don't really think. They just process inputs into outputs." I've enjoyed many books on this subject, but two older ones I recommend are: Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid by Hofstadter and Society of Mind by Minsky.