[Groxx]

>... since the human obviously has both intentions and goals ...

You're just arguing past people.

Humans obviously do this, computers obviously don't, therefore computers cannot do what humans do.

There's nothing "obvious" about this. It's a completely subjective interpretation. How do you respond to people who say humans obviously do act precisely like a very-complex computer?

[vidarh]

In fact one of the reasons I bothered answering him on this, is that the more I learn about how humans respond, the less I am inclined to consider the possibility that we're not machines, and I find it extremely fascinating how someone can feel so sure we're not.

More and more, I am coming to terms with seeing humans as far simpler machines in many respects than what we'd like to think, on the basis of how many response patterns appears to be largely "hard-wired" and require little to no higher thought processes, even though we often make up elaborate explanations after the fact if challenged (as can be demonstrated by asking people why they did <insert random thing that the person in fact did not do, but wouldn't remember conclusively they didn't>)

[Groxx]

I suspect people can "feel so sure" because they can feel, and see no evidence that computers can.

But that's a dangerous edge to walk regardless. Humans feel, computers don't - most would agree. Humans feel, animals don't - many would agree, many would not, many would draw a finer line between e.g. mammals and others. Humans feel, inferior-race-X does not (frequently argued about slaves) - many would disagree, but obviously many do think this is true.

For myself: I've seen nowhere near conclusive proof either way, and continually-increasing evidence in favor of human == machine.