> "People who say humans are not similar able have a vague faith that humans are far smarter than they really are." Prenote: I apologize in advance if my entir

> "People who say humans are not similar able have a vague faith that humans are far smarter than they really are." Prenote: I apologize in advance if my entire response is off-topic, because my English parser was completely unable to take anything meaningful from this sentence. When you have a system of axioms, both consistent and complete, which proves all useful properties of arithmetic and algebra, let us know. Whether or not you are able to understand the deepness of connection between Godel's theorems, formal systems, self-similarity, and intelligence, you can't deny that the more statistical / 'organic' AIs are overwhelmingly more successful than rigidly logical ones. For example, try implementing voice recognition analytically, and let us know your results (have fun with that). The point is that although some people would like to believe otherwise, human brains (and nonhuman brains) are NOT logical reasoning machines. Humans are not rational agents. It still surprises me how many people are desperately grasping to rational agents and similar frameworks to try to build general intelligences entirely from logic. I point out Godel's theorems as one type of insight into why this road will lead you nowhere. You're free to pursue it as much as you like, just as animals are free to run in circles chasing their tail. You can't build an AI capable of thinking outside the box, by specifically building that AI in the box of a particular logical framework. Logic itself has limitations. Logic is powerful, but not entirely in of itself -- logic is powerful as a tool extended by the mind of its creator(s). The more meaningful question in AI, is how do we create logical concepts to begin with?