Originally Posted by Steve Jordan
You and Acid are wrong. I am not calling it magic... I am saying the design and function of the brain is fundamentally different from the design and function of a computer processor, and that centuries of scientists have as yet not managed to figure out the exact workings of the brain (and since scientists who have been working on these concepts for quite some time haven't figured it out yet, I challenge whether either of you know the workings of the brain better than they do).
If you want to call a lack of knowledge "magic," in accordance to Clarke's Theorem, that's up to you. I call it "as-yet-undiscovered knowledge."
No Steve, you are wrong. What we refer to with "magic" is your claim that a human brain has "ability beyond mere number-crunching that allows a human brain to output something that was not input" - we are not referring to not completely understanding the depths and workings of the human mind. Although you might be surprised at the advances in neuroscience - I frequently am.
Of course the design of the brain is different from a processor. So is an artificial neural net. But we can EMULATE a neural net on a traditional processor. Barring magic pixie dust, there is no good reason why we could not emulate a human brain in the same way, eventually.