[Geoff332]

There are several threads to this debate -- some of which we've covered in other threads.

1. The origin of consciousness (the mind) -- materialism v dualism.
2. The nature of intelligence -- computation v connectionist v symbolic v a bunch of others (and, yes, I know these aren't necessarily mutally exclusive options)
3. The nature of knowledge -- basically Kant v Ayer (for want of a better option -- I can't think of a decent epistemology since positivism that required on objective certainty)
4. There's a hint of science as the priviledged source of knowledge.

So, my answers:

1. I tend towards a more complex materialism -- that is consciousness emerges from material process (al la Searle or Dennett).
2. No-one, to my knowledge, has adequately demonstrated that cognition/intelligence is exclusively computational, so I am not convinced of this. If pushed, I would adopt a connectionist/symbolic framework. But I couldn't tell you if this was an actual discription of how cognition works, or a useful metaphor for understanding human cognition.
3. Kantian all the way -- we can never be certain of anything outside of ourselves (Rebel's arguments are the standard niave responses to Kant/Hume that are entirely falicious and don't actually come close to touching the core of Kant's philosophy). However, certainty isn't necessary for most practical situations.
4. I think I've hinted at this elsewhere. I do limit science to the material realm (there is no logic of science for uncovering non-material knowledge -- using science to uncover spiritual truths is like using a hammer to put in a screw: it might work, but not very well). There are two important provisos on that: i) science is incapable of dealing with anything non-material; ii) science is not the only valid method for acquiring knowledge.