> There is no compelling argument or evidence that machine intelligence is impossible. This is proof by assertion, but let's define what we're talking about fi

> There is no compelling argument or evidence that machine intelligence is impossible. This is proof by assertion, but let's define what we're talking about first. I was referring to Strong AI. If you are also referring to Strong AI, then I can prove you wrong with not just one but two examples of compelling arguments against the possibility of Strong AI. Roger Penrose argues computers are unable to have intelligence because they are algorithmically deterministic systems. According to Penrose, rational processes of the mind are not completely algorithmic and therefore can not be duplicated by any sufficiently complex computer. Another compelling argument against the possibility of Strong AI is John Searle's Chinese Room thought experiment, and we know it is compelling for the Herculean amount of effort put into trying to prove it wrong for the last 40 years. > Physics tells us that machine intelligence is in fact very possible. This is more proof by assertion. You are asserting and not supporting your assertions in any way. > All finite volumes contain finite information, per the Bekenstein bound. Therefore a human being can be fully described by finite information. Therefore a human being can be fully simulated by a Turing machine (technically just a finite state automaton). It does not remotely follow from the Bekenstein bound that it is even humanly possible to perfectly describe a human, even if it sets an upper limit on the amount of information if it were possible, which it isn't, nor that perfectly describing a human will produce consciousness. A description is just that. A description of a book is not the book itself, a description of a human is not a human, and a description of consciousness is not consciousness, nor indeed could a description of consciousness itself be conscious. Further, the Bekenstein bound "implies that non-finite models such as Turing machines are not realizable as finite devices."[1] > The only way to escape this conclusion... More proof by assertion. You are asserting and not supporting your assertions, thus your argument is fallacious. Another way to escape your conclusion is to point out that you are misapplying the Bekenstein bound to falsely suggest that the limits it sets are or will ever be realized by humans, which they won't. We simply aren't capable and never will be capable of perfectly describing a human down to the quantum level. > The current state of the art machine learning systems are still a few orders of magnitude away from the synaptic complexity of a human brains. A lot can happen over a few orders of magnitude, and we're closing that gap fast. More proof by assertion. Assertions are not proof, nor are they valid argument. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound