Artificial Intelligence is impossible

"It was not related to the resolution, however. Therefore, it did not need to be debated." If a point is brought up in a debate, even by semantics, you must refute it. You refused to do so, therefore you have conceded it. "However I never stated that I could prove existence, I merely attempted to." Do I need to explain this again? You TRIED to prove existance. You could not. Simply trying alone leads me and everyone who may read this debate, even yourself, to believe that you CAN prove existance. Hence, you said you could prove existance. "And to be illusory, there must be illusions!" That's obvious and irrelevant in the point you tried to make. "Actually, I would be backing up my point that there are, at least, SOME things that we know to exist." No, because you would be proving existence itself as illusory therefore, you would help my case. "However, you still used the word 'anything', and, as I have stated before, that allows me to stray from 'true AI'. When you just say 'AI', or something similar, I will then assume that it fits into the rule of 'true AI'. However, you allowed me to stray from 'true AI' by your word choice." Like I said, If a rule is set in place (I.E. that True AI is meant by Artificial Intelligence) We must apply that to each of our cases. By saying anything, according to your rule, I was saying "Anything with true AI." "Some humans are, in fact. While else would those people labeled as 'mental retards' have to live with a relative? Can they not take care of themselves by learning how the world works like a seemingly 'normal' person does? Apparently, not. There are very few cases, if any, of a 'mental retard' taking care of him or herself. Also notice that it does not have anything to do with their physical limitations, as it is called 'MENTAL retardation'." That makes no sense. Computers are limited by the human programming, limitations of the human itself that prevents it from creating true AI. Retardation is caused in two known scenarios: 1) at birth 2) at some point in their life. Ergo, This is not a man made AI reference. In this reference, though not nearly as complex, a computer programmer strays from one code. This causes the computer program to be somewhat unresponsive in areas. This does not mean that AI is achievable if there is a flaw in mankind. "Again, you used the word 'anything'. Let's look at the word 'anything', shall we? The first definition (from dictionary.com) says "any thing whatever; something, no matter what" The second says "a thing of any kind." The third says "in any degree; to any extent; in any way; at all" Now, upon seeing the third definition, you may think that it proves your point, however, let's look at the example of the third definition: "Does it taste anything like chocolate?" And, using the definition, we can see that this means "Does it, to any degree or extent, taste anything like chocolate?" Yes but, again, you set a rule. That rule is implied. I don't need to waste characters to explain true AI each time I reference, it's all limited within the preset rules. "However, Deep Blue still has understanding and logic, although it may be only of chess." Thank you for conceding that point. You say Deep Blue only has understanding of chess. I have yet to meet a human whose entire logic and reasoning is about, centered around, and rationalised by chess. This is not true AI or "Like or close to human intelligence." It is chess. "Now, that all depends on what one considers 'human-like' to be. I think 'human-like' intellect means it can do something intelligently. And it can, it can play chess intelligently. And, as such, Deep Blue has "human-like" intelligence by my standards." You set the terms. I will elaborate as I know you were thinking this as well: human-like: Having almost or exactly the characteristics of humans. Merriam-Webster: intelligence as: "the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria" Deep Blue can only react to chess. This is not applying knowledge or thinking abstractly, it is quite the opposite as it is in no way abstract or intuitive. It is chess. Merely this and nothing more. We cannot match the intelligence of a human as a whole with a computer. The human obviously wins. "If they do not read the debate aside from commands, it is useless debating. We may as well spend all of our rounds saying "Vote XXX"" 1) I never said they were stupid 2) I never said they could only go by the final command, I am saying that the final post sticks in your mind the most, and therefore probably influences you the most. This does not mean that you posting "VOTE PRO VOTE PRO VOTE PRO" twenty times in your last post means they are going to vote for you. I'm just saying that, in many cases, the last one encounters is what influences them the most. In the "VOTE PRO" case, it would probably influence one to vote for me. 3) If so, why don't you just say the latter quote instead of misleading people with the former? 4) See 2)." 1) You're right. Neither of us called them stupid and I never claimed you did. 2) You missed my point entirely. I was saying they should vote on logic, not because I say to vote for whomever I want them to. I also said they haven't been paying attention otherwise. 3) Because I am confident enough to let people know that my case is the most logical, is that a problem? 4) This one was unnecessary. "Once again, that all depends on what your definition of human is. Humans can be caring people, or they can be mass murders, or they can be limited because of some condition, or they can be a child, etc." Yes but all of those things are far more complex than the "AI" they have out today. There is no real AI and I doubt if there ever will be. A mass murderer still can reason, as can a child (Though maybe flawed). They can also do so in corresponding situations that make them human. Deep Blue, the robot you mentioned, and the Gamecube cannot reason to any corresponding situation minus deep blue and the robot (But theirs do not compare to human response and intelligence.) "I made much sense. Also, your existence contention does not represent half of the debate, and I did refute it. Look it the past arguments, you'll see." You have failed to refute ANY of my points you simply began repeating yourself over and over again then, in R4, you brought up a new point that wasn't in your original contention that still did not prove your point. I will not look at the past arguments. It is your duty to supply me with evidence that you refuted my points. "I say I have and I can back it up... but maybe you should find it because I don't A) feel like it 2) think I can 3) have any evidence to support my claims." My opponent has made no sense, conceded to half of my contentions, and applied logical that would have been accepted if not for his initial ruling. For the above reason, logic, and common human intellect, you must vote PRO. Thanks, -EG