Maybe if you read the article that the Slashdot summary refers to, you would also read a little about the criticism about the claim that human consciousness is not computable. The criticism pretty much destroys this and it appears that the "definite proof of non-computability" translates to "err..me thinks its not possible for humans to make it" (to mimic the function of a human brain). Maybe I should point some out:
*The neural network of human brain can be atomized down to neurons and their connections. It is not magic. Do you believe in magic?
*“Memory functions must be vastly non-lossy, otherwise retrieving them repeatedly would cause them to gradually decay,” What BS is that? Retrieving a memory strengthens it, and encoding a memory in brain is lossy or non-lossy only based on what you consider the information being stored - if we consider everything that the human sense neurons fire then of course most of it gets lost and also the chemical composition of a neuron changes over time which affects the info it contains. You could achieve a non-lossy encoding of couple of numbers through a lots of redundancy.
*"You can't remove the smell of a chocolate from a brain" - why not? You just don't know which neurons exactly contain the information and how to target them exactly but you could erase the memory from your brain by using a shot-gun.
*The cs guy only says that according to his research the human consciousness either does not fully fall under the definition or being perfectly integrated or it does not compute. So the bad journalism automatically picked the second.
* Why does the word science appeal so much to the biggest morons on Slashdot? Ironic, isn't it?