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

The Pro Argument has Failed. He never met the burden of proof problem. My arguments that if there is a soul AI isn't possible and perhaps we simply can't solve the problem due to human limitations are attacks against the argument he never made... the argument that we will eventually see the rise of artificial intelligence. He NEVER defended the core claim, rather he suggested based on assumptions that it *MIGHT* be possible. Let me bring forward an analogy: -- Topic: We will eventually find BIGFOOT. - Argument in favor: There is nothing which suggest BIGFOOT is biologically impossible. - Argument against: We've spent more the 40 years of consistent time LOOKING for BIGFOOT and our efforts have produced nothing! Further, BIGFOOT might not even exist and thus will never be found. The Pro conceded that "Of course, though, they could be wrong," with respect to AI researchers. How then can one conclude the topic statement with such a concession. At best one could only conclude that We will PERHAPS see the rise of AI. Just as we will PERHAPS find BIGFOOT. My point about the soul, the human spark, isn't that I have conclusive evidence on the subject, rather it should be taken on faith, the point is that it *MIGHT* be true. And even if it *MIGHT* be true then then such a conclusive topic will certainly fail. As my opponent conceded that "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" -- I need not meet the burden of proof on the suggestion, because simply the possibility that the suggestion is true suffices to refute the topic. This is the reason why the Pro must actively disprove the soul and prove materialism in order to conclude that the "rise of AI" is an "eventuality". Despite his claim that the "burden of proof is not on him... to show that a 'soul' exists" -- it is, so long as he wants to conclude something more than "we might see the rise of AI". ----- Credit where credit is due: Pro offers that: "On the contrary, we would expect such to be virtually inevitable, given the regularness with which we see this occuring in biological systems." This is, admittedly, an argument in favor of the strong claim made in the topic. Though, he does couch his words with "virtually" which is a far cry from "absolutely" which would be needed. Secondly, spontaneous AI creation should be reserved for science fiction... outside of Skynet gaining conciousness out of the blue for no reason at all or computers suddenly gaining absolutely amazing abilities they aren't programmed for and are architecturally limited from doing this defense falls spectacularly short of meeting his burden. ----- Allow me to address his last post: I don't know where you got this idea that this wasn't civil, or are you saying it doesn't address the likelihood? I still find it hard to believe that "I" will see the rise of artificial intelligence *beyond* my lifetime. That seems the logical interpretation. You didn't state that as a term in the intro and I'll leave it up to the readers to decide. Though, my case is pretty strong anyhow. You attempted to sum up my argument as: 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. These are made to appear overly pessimistic and do not represent my opinion. I do not conclude that it can't be done, rather that we very well might not be able to do it. We are, ourselves, limited in a number of ways. It might be that we simply are overlooking an amazing little trick of how intelligence works, but it might also be that we are too limited to understand ourselves on that level, it could be that the number of processes trivially done by the human brain is too great to be accomplished I didn't neglect that part of McCarthy's quote, it just wasn't relevant to the point I was highlighting. Again, we have the materialist assumption and still allow for the possibility that we might not be able to understand it even if it is entirely material. I never suggested there wasn't research into AI. In fact, I have repeatedly used the fact that we've had pretty straight forward and consistent research into AI for the last 40 years and have failed even the most rudimentary processes. Some of the "outcroppings" of AI have been fantastic. Prolog in it's own right is a fantastic program. Clearly a failure as AI but a shining success as a programing language. A large number of people have dedicated their lives to AI only to wind up old with nothing to show for their efforts. It's an interesting problem, but we don't even know if it can be solved so jumping to the conclusion that it will be solved is a bit of a stretch. AI research has been vigorous as has research into Bigfoot... they have been equally as fruitful. Am I to accept that a naturalistic possibility of Bigfoot meets the burden of proof for the claim that we WILL EVENTUALLY see Bigfoot? ----- Thank you, Lazarus, for the debate. Thank you the readers for reading the debate. Thank you the voters for registering your opinions. Tatarize.