Trying to prove a priori that AI can neither think nor understand is an endlessly alluring fools errand. But in the end, the arguments all seem to me to assum

Trying to prove a priori that AI can neither think nor understand is an endlessly alluring fools errand. But in the end, the arguments all seem to me to assume their conclusion. AI is entirely computational, and human understanding clearly requires understanding that can't be computed, therefore AI can't achieve human-like understanding or thought. But none of the efforts to describe what happens in human cognition that is not computable are remotely convincing. In this particular article, after reciting a litani of such unconvincing arguments, Bishop ends with nothing more profound than "current AI doesn't demonstrate understanding, which is because understanding is non-computable (why, not answered), hence no AI can understand. Just show me what the magic that is can't be computed that is going in in the wet lab of our brain, but nowhere else is, and I might by their conclusion.