>The paper's called Why Computers Will Never Read (or Write) Literature: A Logical Proof and a Narrative.. That reminds me of a more serious approach of that p

>The paper's called Why Computers Will Never Read (or Write) Literature: A Logical Proof and a Narrative.. That reminds me of a more serious approach of that proof. Roger Penrose's books, The Emperor's New Mind and the two sequels The Penrose–Lucas argument based on Gödel's incompleteness theorem. From the theorem we know any mathematical system has sentences that the system itself cannot prove. So computer algorithms, based on mathematical systems, cannot prove them either. (just like the Halting problem) But humans can prove them like Gödel did. Thus human intelligence is noncomputable and inherently superior to AIs. That would also be true for novels, since novels can contain character talking about such proves. But, Penrose takes it to the next step. The laws of physics are also a mathematical system and fully simulatable by a computer. But since the computer cannot simulate human intelligence as proved before, this proves that human intelligence is not described by physical laws. That raises the question, if consciouness is not described by physical laws, ? Essentially it would appear as a random influence to physics (even though it is not actually random, just noncomputable). Now there is a completely random process in physics: quantum wave function collapse. Then he goes on, that consciouness comes from features embedded at the Planck scale in the spacetime geometry. >4. Causal reasoning cannot be performed by machine-learning algorithms because those algorithms run on the CPU's Arithmetic Logic Unit, which is designed to run symbolic logic, and symbolic logic can only process correlation. And I just wrote my PhD thesis about causal reasoning algorithms :/