Comment by CPLX
2 months ago
When two things are obviously radically different (a squishy mass of trillions of interconnected carbon based blobs fed by some sort of continuous oxygen based chemical reaction, and a series of distributed transitors on silicon wafers) then the burden of proof shifts to the other guy to provide the clear and convincing evidence that they should be considered functionally the same thing.
But I made no such claim. I was explicit that my position is "humanity is currently unable to definitively answer in one direction or the other".
Two things being physically different does not exclude their also having functional similarities. The argument presented amounts to A and B have large physical differences, A does X, therefore B does not do X. That doesn't follow.