[zeroonetwothree]

> The burden of proof is on people who claim that human cognition can be simulated by computer, not the other way around. To me, it seems far more likely that it can't.

C-T makes a claim about computable functions on natural numbers. It seems strange to argue that humans can perform such computations on a fundamental level better than a computer, thus we might assume the same is true of more complex computations. So while I suppose you could take the position that the burden of proof is to show every individual method of computation is equivalent, since there are infinitely many methods this seems a bit unfair.

[mannykannot]

I don't think anyone is claiming that humans can compute computable functions in some way better than a computer, the claim is that minds can do things that are not reducible to computing computable functions. See, for example, the Lucas-Penrose argument:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose%E2%80%93Lucas_argument

Note that I am not suggesting that I concur with it.