> In the following, I briefly review three a priori arguments that purport to demonstrate that “computation” alone can never realize human-like understanding, a

> In the following, I briefly review three a priori arguments that purport to demonstrate that “computation” alone can never realize human-like understanding, and, a fortiori, no computational AI system will ever fully “grasp” human meaning. So on the one side we have science and engineering, backed by lots and lots of working applications, saying „let’s try and find out“, „let’s see how far we come“. And on the other side, we have philosophy, with a priori arguments which say this and that must or must not be so. Clearly I’m on the side of a priori arguments, they have a history of working well. Remember when Kant proved that empirical space must be euclidean [1]? Or Hegel that there can only be seven planets [2]? /s [1] http://jur.byu.edu/?p=9200 http://jur.byu.edu/?p=9200 [2] https://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/01/17/hegel-does-maths https://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/01/17/hegel-does-maths