Žižek

Seems like a lot of this hinges on their unique interpretation of words

1. makes a whole lot of assumptions in that last paragraph for something that doesn't exist and might never exist.

2. this is a semantics game about the definition of natural not actually addressing the point that was made.

3. where do we draw the line here? Are animals natural surely they are effected by the events and environment around them.

Smells dumb to me.

I fail to see the relevant difference between "human intelligence" and the intelligence of a gorilla, dolphin, octopus, chicken, or firefly for that matter.

You could argue there's nothing natural about any of those, but then where does it stop? If we make this argument I'd say the same goes for DNA itself. In the end it becomes an argument that the natural world is not natural. And at that point it seems pretty obvious that one is working with flawed definitions rather than brilliant insights.

This sounds like its still grounded in a computational theory of mind. The idea that our brains work on the same principals that a computer does. We don't actually know enough to say for sure, but since there's a lot of expertise and familiarity with computers, a lot of people would like for it to be true.

Makes sense, "natural human thought" certainly seems like an awareness and analysis of fundamental input processing rather than only input processing.

If we create a functioning virtual human brain with the same number of neurons and connections, there's no basis to consider its awareness and analysis any less than "natural human thought".