[baddox]

The claim that the human brain is entirely physical in its behavior? That's an extremely common (albeit contentious) viewpoint held by AI optimists, as well as many general humanists. (In fact, to argue against it is by definition to argue for the existence of the supernatural.) I have always assumed that the vast majority of computer scientists would believe that the brain (and indeed, the Universe) is computable (in theory, of course—we obviously would have trouble creating a computer big enough to actually do it). The popular CS books "Gödel, Escher, Bach" and "The Lifebox, the Seashell, and the Soul" both discuss the idea a lot, and the latter claims it as its central hypothesis.

[politician]

> In fact, to argue against it is by definition to argue for the existence of the supernatural.

There was a relatively recent HN submission regarding a proposal that our memories are stored in molecules that outlive synaptic connections (more or less). One commenter pointed out that the principle author advocated a theory which says that at some deep level our brains interact with quantum mechanics and that this is the source of our consciousness.

Therefore, it seems that there are 3 possibilities depending on your beliefs - physical, quantum, supernatural.

I tried to find the article, the author, and the comment, but my Google Fu is weak when it comes to searching HN.

[fhars]

Quantum is physical. Just because some popular writers don't understand the math behind it doesn't turn it into a mystical "get out of causality and reason" card.

[taudelta]

You misunderstood my (unclear) question.

Whether the human brain is entirely physical is for a philosophical debate which I am not interested in.

I was merely interested in "there's no reason why an algorithm couldn't output equivalent or similar results". The truth is, we don't know yet. I personally believe in what you claimed. I was just asking for any papers that supported your claim, because I would be really interested in those.