[necovek]

Note that I was responding to a comment claiming:

  > What you really mean is is there any meaningful difference in what can be processed by biological computing and non-biological computing.
  > The answer to that would appear to be, no.

So specifically to "appear to be, no".

  > i would rather ask one to think, what evidence is there that we cannot do brain on non-gooey stuff?

Because we haven't practically done it despite decades of trying?

I don't think this should stop us from trying, and it's pretty obvious it won't. But there is no proof either way — potentially the problem is so complex that we never get there in practice?

(Also note that proving a general negative statement is pretty tricky and usually avoided — we usually look for counter-examples, evaluate a full finite/countable set of scenarios, etc)