Here’s the relevant section:

The Pentagon’s promotional material doesn’t mention whether the
contract for the Future Combat Systems, said to be the biggest in
American military history, includes a line item for philosophers. But
they may be best equipped to judge whether computers, despite their
faster speeds, greater bandwidth and bigger memories, are inherently
different – less trustworthy than the gut feelings and hunches of their
keepers.

John Searle, the philosopher at the University of California at
Berkeley whose most recent book, “Mind: A Brief Introduction,” came out
last year, has argued for decades that the brain is not just a computer
strung together from neurons. Whatever is happening in the head – and
nobody really knows – it is not computation. Confuse reason with
calculation, he argues, and disaster lies ahead.

But that has become the minority view. Attend a conference of the
Society for Neuroscience or the Cognitive Science Society and you would
be hard-pressed to find anyone who doesn’t assume deep down that the
brain is some kind of information processor. For the time-being, people
excel at certain tasks, like recognizing faces and making sense of
ambiguous data, but that may be only because of wiring details and
variations in the algorithms – things that eventually could be
simulated electronically. The result would be machinery that can do
anything a person can, but faster and better.

–

I think it’s an unfortunate situation that the popular media is setting up this artificial incompatibility between the idea of mind as computation and “gut feelings.” Of course, to a neuroscientist, gut feelings are just the result of some very fancy computations…