I strongly disagree. First, on the grounds that LW readers have strong reason to believe this:
("[the mind] could be a physical system that cannot be recreated by a computer").
to be false, and so treat it similarly to a proof that 2=1.
But instead of just being a grouch this time, I decided to save you guys the effort and read it myself to see if there's anything worth reading.
There isn't. It's just repetitions of skepticism you've already heard, based on Sharkey's rejection of "the assumption that intelligence is computational" (as opposed to what, and which is different and uncreatable why?), which "It might be, and equally it might not be".
Other than that, it's a puff piece interview without much content.
(Phase 1)
Agreed, I don't see why the mind isn't a type of "computer", and why living organisms aren't "machines". If there was something truly different and special about being organic, then we could just build an organic AI. I don't get the distinction being made.
(Phase 2)
technological artifacts that have no possibility of empathy, compassion or understanding.
Oh: sounds like dualism of some kind if it is impossible for a machine to have empathy, compassion or understanding. Meaning beings with these qualities are more than physical...
I declare this Open Thread open for discussion of Less Wrong topics that have not appeared in recent posts.