We will eventually see the rise of artificial intelligence, and even artificial consciousness.

First of all, thank you for accepting the challenge of this debate. Hopefully, this will be an interesting topic to explore from both sides. I apparently need to clarify something, though - it was not my intent, in writing the topic as "We will eventually see the rise of AI" to set a particular timeframe for this; I meant the "we" in the most general terms, as in "mankind will eventually see." I certainly did not mean to imply that I expect this to happen in the next 40 years. I would not be surprised if it DID occur in that time, but I'm not expecting it. I mean the debate to center on the possibility of AI/consciousness, not whether or not it will turn up per any particular schedule. Fortunately, I don't believe either of us have said anything yet that is particularly time-dependent, so I hope we can continue on under this clarified topic. Now, as to my opponent's arguments, which he summed up as follows: "1) AI is a complete failure. 2) AI is impossible. 3) There is not "artificial" intelligence. There is only intelligence. 4) You cannot simulate the soul." These are certainly strong assertions, but so far that is all they are; I am afraid I was expecting a bit more in terms of reasons, beyond simply saying "It's impossible" or "You cannot do this." Like my opponent, my career has been in the computer industry; in fact, that's where I have spent my professional life for nearly 30 years. If there is one thing that experience in the technology field has taught me, it is the truth of Arthur C. Clarke's first two Laws, to wit: 1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. 2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible. A bit tongue-in-cheek, perhaps, but they make some very good points. Throughout the history of scientific and technological development, it has always been very risky to label something "impossible" without some very good reasons for doing so. And do we have any reason for considering AI or artificial consciousness to be impossible? No, we don't, for the simple reasons (as given in my opening statement) that we do not as yet understand the nature of either very well. But would not that also mean that we have no reason for considering these things POSSIBLE? Not at all - on the contrary, we know that both intelligence and consciousness ARE possible, for the simple reason that each of us is an example of an intelligent, conscious entity. Unless it can be shown that there is something "special" about humans which means that ONLY human beings (or even ONLY living creatures) can be conscious or intelligent, we can only assume that these qualities CAN, somehow, be duplicated through artificial means. The human brain is indeed a wondrously complex and poorly-understood thing - but we can make several incontrovertible claims regarding it. First, it clearly can support both intelligence and consciousness - and equally clearly, the human brain is a finite entity. What we experience as consciousness or intelligence goes on within a space of about a liter and a half, a mass of a bit under a kilogram and a half, and with a power consumption less than that of a typical desk lamp. We do not know how this biological thinking machine works, but we know that it does, and we know that while it is extremely complex, that complexity is not infinite in extent. The brain itself is an "existence proof" of a thinking, conscious machine. But we then run into the objection that there is somehow more to intelligence and consciousness than this organ we call the brain. Again, as was noted in my opening remarks, this brings up the question of a "soul," some ineffable quality or aspect unique to human consciousness which simply cannot be duplicated by artificial means. This assertion, though, raises a number of its own problems. First, does this not confuse the terms "intelligence," "consciouness," and "soul"? The latter two might be merged, but then are we saying that ONLY those creatures with "souls" can be "intelligent?" On what grounds? At that point, the debate clearly leaves the realm of reason and science and becomes a matter of theology - and unless someone can bring objective evidence to the table regarding such things, there seems little that they can contribute to this debate. In the absence of such evidence, the notion that "intelligence" or "consciousness" requires a "soul" is merely unsupported assertion. My opponent suggests that AI is "impossible" because of the lack of positive results to date. This is somewhat akin to someone in late 1903 looking back over the hundreds of years of attempts to create flying machines, and concluding from that history that the Wright brothers would be better off sticking to bicycles. My opponent saying: "Let's do the math: 40 years has gotten us 0% of the way. So, at this rate we're going to finish in an infinite number of years!" is an example of just this sort of unjustified pessimism. First, there's no basis for saying that we are "0% of the way" - the simple reason that we do NOT know how to create AI at this point also means that we can't possibly know just how far along "the way" we are. So this isn't a case of "doing the math" at all - it's a case of trying to make an unsupportable assertion look stronger by hanging some numbers around it. We have NOT been idle for 40 years in this regard. The rate of progress in the fields related to AI have been staggering. Certainly no one would have expected computers of the very limited nature seen to date to support anything remotely resembling real intelligence; it is not unreasonable to expect that an artificial intelligence will require a level of complexity similar to that of the only intelligent machine we know, the brain itself. And we are making very rapid progress in those areas; this past decade has seen significant developments in the areas of quantum computing and molecular-level devices, which are just starting to come out of the lab and to permit practical computing hardware of a much higher level of sophistication. This is not to say that I am expecting AI-capable hardware to turn up next year or even in 10 or 20 years. But if you look at the rate of development which has happened in the last 40 years, it's very difficult to argue that we will not see computing hardware which today is unimaginable at some point in the future. I would also suggest that we not try to make too much of the term "artificial intelligence," as in "there is no such thing, there is only intelligence." While I agree that a truly intelligent machine would be "intelligent" without any additional qualifiers needed, it is conventional to use the term "artificial" in such discussions not to mean a "simulation of intelligence," but rather in the proper sense of the word - that said intelligence would be a product of "artifice," i.e., a man-created thing. Call it what you will. The appeal to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem as an argument against the possibility of AI is invalid. Godel's theorems simply state that it is possible in any axiomatic system to create valid statements which cannot be PROVEN valid within that system; but that does NOT mean that those statements are not valid, simply that they cannot be proven so. If this ruled out the possibility of artificial intelligent machines, it would also rule out NATURAL intelligent machines (e.g., the brain itself), UNLESS something unique to those "natural" intelligences can be demonstrated to exist. My opponent is certainly free, as noted above, to argue that a "soul" (or the equivalent) is somehow necessary for intelligence, but I believe he will find it difficult to back such an assertion with evidence.