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

Sigh. I had hoped that we would be able to have a civil discussion regarding the reasoning and evidence available on the likelihood (or not) of the development of artificial intelligence/consciousness. Apparently that will not happen this time around, but perhaps I will re-start a debate along similar lines in the near future. In the meantime, let's wrap this one up. First of all: "I'm sorry, but I feel that "we" as a general rule includes me. Although I'd be free to note that we might very well wipe ourselves out tomorrow and certainly fail to succeed in any such projects. In fact, with world affairs as they are today it might be exceedingly optimistic to suggest we'll last the 40 years I proposed. I'm fairly certain that despite your claims to the contrary, you cannot suddenly change terms in mid swing. The same claim has been made for decades that "we will see the rise of AI" and it has consistently meant "we" as in "us" will see this event within our lifetime." You're certainly free to make that interpretation if you like, but again it is not what I had intended in this debate and I can hardly be accused of "changing terms in mid swing" merely on the basis of how YOU view one particular two-letter word. If the subject as stated was unclear to you - and apparently there was some question there, as you felt it necessary to state your interpretation at the start of round 1 - then you should've asked for clarification via a comment prior to starting. As it is, I clarified my intent - which has been consistent all along - as soon as I was asked. Now, on to where we stand at this point. My opponent's objections to the notion of AI and/or artificial intelligence seem to wind up equating to three very simple statements: 1. We haven't succeeded yet, therefore we can't. 2. This is a very hard problem, therefore we can't solve it. 3. We can't possibly give a machine a "soul," therefore we can't have AI/consciouness. Regarding the first two questions, my opponent quotes AI pioneer John McCarthy of Stanford as saying that "it [AI] may take five years, and it may take 500 years" - but conveniently neglects to quote the next part of the article containing this comment, which is: "Nevertheless, the computer scientist remains confident that creating artificial intelligence is an achievable goal. This confidence, he acknowledged, is rooted in his materialist worldview. 'Human intelligence is carried out by the human brain. If one material system can exhibit intelligence, why can't another?' he said." McCarthy is hardly alone in this opinion. Significant research into the field continues at practically every major university in the world, with McCarthy's own Stanford and the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) probably being the two most widely-publicized and well-known. I had the good fortune to visit CSAIL myself last summer - while I am not in the AI field directly myself, it has been an ongoing interest of mine - and they are certainly doing some extremely interesting and significant work there. If interest, readers may see much, much more about this at: http://www.csail.mit.edu... Suffice it to say that there is a very large number of very good people who believe AI is a problem that is capable of being solved so as to devote their entire professional careers to it. Of course, though, they could be wrong, and I have no intention of leaving this with a mere appeal to authority on the subject. My opponent accuses me of arguing in favor of AI based on mere "possibility, that "we don't know what the future holds, so it holds AI." Not at all - clerly, any argument in this area has to be based on probability, not mere possibility. But my fundamental argument here is the same as McCarthy's above - we ALREADY KNOW that intelligent machines are possible, simply because each of us has one in our heads already. That the machine in question is biological rather than electrical or mechanical in nature is irrelevant; it is quite clearly a finite physical device which exhibits all the characteristics that we associate with "intelligence" and "consciousness." There is no reason whatsoever to assume, therefore, that intelligence arising in other systems, at least those of similar complexity, is either impossible or unlikely. On the contrary, we would expect such to be virtually inevitable, given the regularness with which we see this occuring in biological systems. The only remaining objection my opponent can raise to counter this, in fact, is an appeal to "the soul" - the notion that there simply IS "something special" which humans, or at least living creatures, possess which a "machine" (an artifact) for some reason cannot. I dealt with this issue in round 1, but we can certainly revisit it here. In this argument, my opponent is doing precisely what he accused me of in round 2 - attempting to "shift the burden of proof." I make the claim that intelligence is virtually inevitable, based on an existence proof - we already see it arising in finite bioloical systems - to which his only recourse is to say "but there's no soul there, so it can't happen!" The burden of proof is not on me, though, to show that a "soul" exists and/or is responsible for intelligence or consciousness. I made no such claim at any point in my arguments, and in fact have noted that there is absolutely no hard evidence or reasoning which would lead one to conclude that there ARE such things or at least that they would for some reason be required in an intelligent system. I am firmly in the camp of such people as philosopher Daniel Dennett who, in such works as "Consiousness Explained," has made a very strong case for the phenomena of consciousness and intelligence being explainable on purely physical grounds. If my opponent wishes to make the claim that there is "something else" required, whether we call it a "soul," a "spark," or even magic pixie dust, the burden is upon him to show why would should believe this requirement exists, and that in fact the supposed "something else" exists in the first place. He's correct in saying that IF there is a soul, then it would be impossible to expect consciousness to arise in a "soulless" machine (well, at least if he can also prove that machines are by necessity "soulless" - do we in fact HAVE any sort of unambiguous test for the presence of "souls?"). But in that case, his entire argument rests on his ability to demonstrate the existence and necessity of said "soul." Absent that ability, we would have to conclude that not only is consciousness possible, it is very likely inevitable - since we see it happening all the time in biological systems. And please note that I have at this point separated "consciousness" from "intelligence." There is clearly some fuzziness between the concepts of "consciousness" and "self" and the supposed "soul" - but my opponent has given no reason whatsoever for extending this link to "intellgence." As noted originally, we have no tests for "intelligence" beyond those based on external appearances; a machine which demonstrates intelligent behavior on the same order of that of a human must be considered "intelligent" (and, as my opponent already pointed not, not merely "artificial" or "simulating" intelligence) in precisely the same manner as the human. But there is clearly nothing in this external behavior which requires or demonstrates the existence of a "soul" or even "consciousness." (If there were, we would have unambiguous tests for these as well.) So the whole "soul" argument fails completely when we restrict the question to intelligence, and has little independent place in the question of "consciousness." And since there IS no evidence or reasoning to say that a "soul" exists in the first place, this whole line of argument is meaningless.