Not that it really invalidates your point in any way, but for the sake of accuracy I note that the electrical currents in our neurons are not made of electrons, but rather atomic ions, such as sodium and potassium, and that communication between neurons happens (mostly) via neurotransmitters, which do not really carry current at all (or do so only incidentally and over short distances).
I guess you could say "two different ways to shuttle information around", but even that isn't quite right in the biological case. The way information is stored and retrieved in our brains is quite different from the way it is stored in today's computer memory, as demonstrated by the recent article posted on HN talking about how accessing a memory in one's brain involves recreating it from scratch, modifying it in the process. But that's not to say that we can't create a computer that more accurately reproduces the mechanisms of our brains, or that doing so is necessary to create a conscious computer.
we could also say we dont communicate with current but with signals. electric charge flow is rather different thanelectronflow.
there is indeed still debateabout whether our nervous system is fundamentallyelectric..... its certainly part of it, and cambeused to influenceit, but there are other chemicals and steuctures at work as well, as you say.
the point of theturing test is really to say that if you cant tell whether you are talking to a man or machine, and you believe a man is sentient, the you must assumethe machineis as well.... we haveno other mechanism to decide this. we caneven debate how we canprove ourselves to. ese tient.
I guess you could say "two different ways to shuttle information around", but even that isn't quite right in the biological case. The way information is stored and retrieved in our brains is quite different from the way it is stored in today's computer memory, as demonstrated by the recent article posted on HN talking about how accessing a memory in one's brain involves recreating it from scratch, modifying it in the process. But that's not to say that we can't create a computer that more accurately reproduces the mechanisms of our brains, or that doing so is necessary to create a conscious computer.