azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: No, the brain is too complex.

Okay, some people are being raised with no intellectual development. This has no impact on people as a whole, or those who don't fit that condition. While your dystopian idea is interesting (and pretty much true), it doesn't really have much bearing on this argument. It's more about the potential of the human brain.
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: No, the brain is too complex.

One of the critical aspects of the human brain is self-awareness. Until machines are able to become self-aware, artificial intelligence will not be able to catch up to the level of performance of the human brain.On the other hand, if this debate is about sheer number-crunching then there really is no debate: machines have already won.
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: Yes, eventually.

I think that the question here is whether computer will eventually become self-aware. Obviously this is a goal that is far off and has some major ethical and moral implications that need to be considered before it is attempted. But I think that most people can conceive of a computer with the same level of complexity as the human brain and with that complexity (and a healthy amount of emulation) it is entirely possible that an AI will develop the same self-awareness that we find in ourselves.
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: Yes, eventually.

As long as it can improve itself, its knowledge and power will be practically limitless. I don't think you're talking about self-awareness, as that would give no advantage to cognitive performance. Something like Intuition could be the trump you're thinking of; Maybe computers will only be able to solve problems, and will be unable to innovate.
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: Yes, eventually.

Computers already can solve a great number of problems. Innovation would be a primary requirement for artificial intelligence in my opinion.
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: No, the brain is too complex.

There's more to the human brain than just performance. There's the ability to understand that we're conscious and to self-reflect. We're going to pass the number of neurons in connections in the next 10 years on computer chips, but the problem is figuring out how to put everything together and give it that spark of life. It might be that while computers are stronger processors of data than we are, even in strategy processing, that they never have that self-awareness that defines consciousness.
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: Yes, eventually.

In reality it's not the hardware that is the limiting factor in this field but the software. The computer that will house a true AI may have already been built but it could be another fifty years before someone writes the program that runs the AI. Then again it might take building an exact model of the human brain in electronic form. In the end it's a matter of determining what actually gives humans that spark of self-awareness.
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: No, the brain is too complex.

Computers have already proven that, when it comes to processing data, some computers are superior to some brains (not all brains are equal - but then I suppose that not all computers are equal either).What makes this a tough question is that "level of performance" is not fully defined. There is much more to the human brain than processing data or making decisions based on that processing.A very interesting aspect of the human brain is this: two (more or less) equally intelligent people can examine facts and data, and come to quite different conclusions based on that data. In this scenario, is one person's brain functioning better than the other's (one is right and another is wrong)? Or is it possible that more than one conclusion can be correctly drawn from one set of data? The real question, as it pertains to this debate, is what quality of performance is exhibited by this characteristic of the human brain?My argument is this: the human brain is only one aspect of the human mind, the human mind is part of a life force that I would call "spirit" - some might call soul. This spirit or soul is much more than mere self-awareness. This power of the mind allows us to connect to other humans (and even to other living creatures) in ways that science has not yet been able to exactly define or quantify.No matter how adept at "computing" we build our machines, I doubt if we can imbue them with the "spirit of life" that is truly what makes the human brain unique.
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: Yes, eventually.

Most of the arguments against strong AI revolve, as yours does, around the idea that there is something "special" about self-awareness or consciousness. But if the human brain or indeed the Universe itself is simulable (see below), then the only possible reason that "consciousness" could be special is if naturalism is wrong - if there is something supernatural and extra-causal about the human mind. There is no evidence to suggest this, and I see no reason to believe it is true. Discussion of this proposition could however take up a debate all to itself.Then the question merely becomes: is the Universe, or at least the human brain, "simulable" - meaning, does the Church-Turing thesis apply to it? Can the physical laws of the universe, or the neural functioning of the brain, be phrased as an "algorithm"? Our current knowledge of the laws of physics says it probably can, although the Copenhagen interpretation of QM would suggest we need a true source of randomness for this simulation; thankfully this is not only possible but nearly within our grasp given the developments being made in quantum computation.
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: Yes, eventually.

Godel´s Incompleteness Theorem shows that given a computable set of axioms of the natural numbers there are statements that are true of the natural numbers that are not provable from this set of axioms. In the proof of the theorem Godel constructs such a statement. It seems as though this is a pretty strong argument that there is something more to human intelligence. Specifically, that we can prove things about the natural numbers that computers will not ever be able to. Computers are not able to make deductions from Peano´s second order axiomatic system of the natural numbers but we can.
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: Yes, eventually.

In any sufficiently complex logical system, there are statements that are true but unprovable, yes. But this is not "unprovable by computers", this is "unprovable within the system, period". Godel's incompleteness theorem says nothing about humans and human consciousness being special. Yes, we can show that these theorems are true, "proving" them in a fashion - but only in a metasystem, not within the rules of eg. Peano arithmetic itself. Likewise, so could a computer prove a statement about Peano arithmetic, from a system outside it.
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: No, the brain is too complex.

Computers work with computable systems of axioms. The Peano axioms of arithmetic, that is the complete set of them, are not a computable system. A computer would not be able to deduce the results from the strong system of Peano axioms that are not computable. Well, so I believe.
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: Yes, eventually.

[quote] But if the human brain or indeed the Universe itself is simulable (see below), then the only possible reason that "consciousness" could be special is if naturalism is wrong - if there is something supernatural and extra-causal about the human mind. There is no evidence to suggest this, and I see no reason to believe it is true.[endquote]I had to look up the word naturalism. It is defined: the doctrine that the world can be understood in scientific terms without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations.Your argument that consciousness is special only if naturalism is wrong if flawed. Scientific knowledge and terms are continually advancing (the world is no longer flat, as the best scientific minds once assured) and therefore the explanations of today must be incomplete and inaccurate. Our understanding of the world today is more complex and complete than it was 100 years ago, and our understanding 100 years from now will undoubtedly dispel some "truths" of today.As I understand your use of the word special, it simply means that science has not yet found a method of rationally explaining it. The entire history of science suggests that, most likely an explanation is forthcoming - knowledge is just now incomplete. Of course, my rebuttal is NOT evidence, and gives no reason to believe that consciousness is indeed special.For a "reason to believe", I would humbly suggest that you examine your own life experiences for a few occasions, a few happenstances, a number of occurrences that were indeed special, and beyond scientific explanation. If you cannot find any, well - without meaning any personal attack of any kind - I honestly believe you should go on a journey to find some.Life IS so much more than mere science can explain. To deny the wonder of life is perhaps to miss it. Science may very well build a computer that surpasses the level of performance of the human brain, but I suspect that the contraption will lack the ability to marvel at its own creation.
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: No, the brain is too complex.

<3 DaedalusAre you saying they have found a theoretical way to create true randomness in a computer? Link?
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: No, the brain is too complex.

We still don't know the full performance of the human brain yet. I think AI will be able to mimic human nature, but not be equal.
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: Machines can never catch up to people

Computers are an essential part for modern day life. However, to compare the human brain to a computer is like comparing a heart to a CPU. In some ways, computers do outperform people (like very difficult math problems). But a computer can never outperform a person in a lot of ways. For example, free will. You can do whatever you want. For a computer, you need to enter commands through the keyboard and mouse. It has no free will whatsoever. What a computer does is predetermined by algorithms. We are the puppet masters, while the computer is the puppet.A computer cannot express human emotion, nor does it have the power of creativity. Emotions are one of the most fundamental qualities that define us. How can we be compared to a machine without the machine having such fundamental qualities? Creativity also plays an important role. Without this special quality, there would be no art, advertising or inventions. Without inventions, we would not be where society is today.No machine can hope to have succeeded like we have. People have built economies, governments, cities, laws, all of which are crucial to civilization and a fair society. A computer, no matter how big or powerful, will always require an operator and cannot achieve such feats. Think about all the achievements you have made in your life so far. Think about the achievements that mankind has made (everything you have the chance enjoy today). Now look at the computer you are using right now. Can this possibly achieve what the human race has done for hundreds of thousands or years and the accomplishments I have made in a lifetime?
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: No, the brain is too complex.

The hardware of computers may soon rival or surpass that of the human brain but WE have to write the software and I'm pretty confident that we will never be able to create a program as awe-inspiring as the human genome and no language to write it in better than DNA/RNA.
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: No, the brain is too complex.

If we compare every computer, cell phone, laptop and server that is connected to the internet today, to the human brain, there are some similarities at the moment, there is 8 terrabytes per second of data going around the internet, that is the whole of the library of congress every two seconds, it would have 9 exobytes of storage space (1,000,000,000,000,000,000 bytes) there is 55 million links on the internet, that is close to the amount of synapses in the human brain.. So my point, to even closely mimic the human brain, you would need all the power of every piece of electronic equipment in the world, and 5% of the world's power.. A hefty price?However, artificial intelligence can take shortcuts, what we perceive as artificial intelligence will always just be lines of code, executing one after the other and computers today will only do what is told of them to do in their code, it doesn't matter even if you did get the required computational power -you would still need to write a code-Science today has only just begun to understand the human brain, and is nowhere near certain on how it all works, how are we conscious? why do we think? why do we have emotions? Science cannot currently understand that, so we would have no hope of replicating it with ones and zeros!You could say that in the future we will understand our brains perfectly, and computers will have become much smaller and more powerful, but even then.. How do you tell a computer to think?
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: Yes, eventually.

You're talking about now. What do you think of the future? Design can be steered endlessly. Our brains have for the most part stopped evolving.
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: No, the brain is too complex.

No machine or robot will replace or imitate what abilities the brain have.We humans have something that ordinary robots don't and that is called self-awareness and consciousness.We have our past lifes and future ones and our present in front of us.We are not just living beings in this life, we have been living beings in the past lifes.And we have the potential to discover our past life and perhaps our own future maybe even communicate wiith our future self. Artificial Intelligence doesn't have self-awareness or consciousness and it doens't have a past or a future.Creating Robots/Machines that does the basics of human beings is possible but creating feelings for Artificial Intelligence is totally impossible. Maybe there is a chance to create robots like them but creating robots that are creative in their own ways is impossible.
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: Believe it when I see it

While I believe it's technically possible, scientists are no closer now then they were 50 years ago. We really little idea just how the brain works.
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: Yes, eventually.

On what basis are you founding the statement that they're no closer? Have you studied the history of psychology, or of the development of AI?
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: No, the brain is too complex.

I have my doubts. Artificial Intelligence will always have its limitations.
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: Yes, eventually.

Human intelligence has a lot of limitations. Artificial intelligence has the potential to have no limits.
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: No, the brain is too complex.

"level of performance" needs to be defined here. As somebody else pointed out machines already destroy us when it comes to specific processes such as mathematics. However, if you mean to be just as intelligent and versatile and conscious as humans, which I assume is the definition in this case, then no. It is not even known as to whether or not consciousness is a product of the human brain (I'm not saying it is or it isn't, I'm indifferent so far), and therefor it may actually be impossible. However, assuming that it is eventually possible for someone to create such AI, I still don't think it will happen simply because humans won't allow it. There would be no need for an AI so advanced that it needs to be conscious, and the risks involved with building such a being would not be worth it.
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: Yes, eventually.

When have risks to humanity ever stopped scientific progress?
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: No, the brain is too complex.

Ok, if no one can think of a time...That's bad.
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: No, the brain is too complex.

It may not be possible to fully understand the workings of our own mind, since our thinking and understanding is constrained/shaped by that mind.If we can't fully understand our own intelligence, how could we hope to replicate it?
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: No, the brain is too complex.

Have we not made tremendous progress in understanding it in just the past 100 years? I don't think there's a rule that says an intelligence can't fully understand itself.And it's not so much about replicating it, but building a superior version. And it's very possible that this could consist of simpler parts and processes; thus, it is possible, even if we cannot comprehend the workings of our own minds.
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: No, the brain is too complex.

It's a logical principle. Ever read Flatland? It's about a 2-dimensional world with little, 2-dimensional people running around. Well, who has a better understanding of Flatland - the natives, or us 3-dimensional beings?The people who live in Flatland aren't even aware of their limitations of perception - they can't even conceive of them. Just as we can't conceive of higher order dimensions.Anyway, that's my analogy. Flatland is our consciousness which actually exists within a third dimension that we aren't even aware of. The third dimension isn't our brain, although it would exist according to the limitations of that brain. I can't say what the third thing is; that's the point. Know what I mean?
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: No, the brain is too complex.

I see your point. But I don't think it's congruent to an extra dimension. Just because we believe there's something special in our mind doesn't mean there is. That "extra something" could just be the gestalt of the brain's baffling complexity.
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: No, the brain is too complex.

The thing that sets humans beyond the potentials of artificial intelligence is morality and spirituality. Humans are special because we can think on a plane beyond that of our immediate environment. We can have faith in a higher power. This ability to think spiritually sets us far above even a conscious AI machine. Even if self-awareness is possible for AI, the presence of spirituality in machines will not be possible.
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: No, the brain is too complex.

I believe the brain is too complex. A robot can't learn emotions and how to deal with things like stress it can't copy a human brain ever
Debate: Does playing too much video games have a negative effect on a young mind?
Side: yes

"Too much" of anything can have a negative effect on any mind."All things are poison and nothing is without poison, only the dose permits something not to be poisonous." - Paracelsus
Debate: Does playing too much video games have a negative effect on a young mind?
Side: yes

There are lots of good games! Some videogames are educative (even unintentionally), others are just fun (Fun is good!), many are art masterpieces.The problem is excess.Some links:Educational gamesVideo games 'stimulate learning'Videogames seen good for childrenThe Top 10 Most Influential Educational Video Games from the 1980s
Debate: Does playing too much video games have a negative effect on a young mind?
Side: No

Are you using quote from a medieval physician about toxic substances to try to make a point about psychology? There are so many things wrong with that it is shocking.
Debate: Does playing too much video games have a negative effect on a young mind?
Side: No

the only bad thing about video games is probably your eye sight and you can fix it by just wearing glass
Debate: Does playing too much video games have a negative effect on a young mind?
Side: Yes

Was you trying to make a joke of this??? Guess what.... it works LOL
Debate: Does playing too much video games have a negative effect on a young mind?
Side: No

That doesn't make sense as too much of anything can have a negative effect on people-including food, water and anything else people need to live- so that argument doesn't really have anything to do with video games
Debate: Does playing too much video games have a negative effect on a young mind?
Side: yes

I feel it does. A child's mind is like a sponge. It picks up concepts and learns new things readily. Video games, although entertaining, are taking time away from a child's learning. Instead of killing zombies, etc, a child can be learning new things, reading books, and finding out the secrets to his favorite things. I am very interested in learning new things, especially in the areas of the sciences. When I get started learning things about the human body, I can spend hours on the subject. This is what a child should be doing: finding a topic he is interested in and discovering new facts about it he had not known before.
Debate: Does playing too much video games have a negative effect on a young mind?
Side: No

Yes, But What If The Child is interested in medieval time's or space travel, there are many game's nowday's that can inhance the child's understaning of the big world we all live in today, just because it has the few changes in the games, doesent mean the child doesent learn anything, also gaming is a great way for children to socialise through the web, without having to go on harmful websites or pornography, they can play their games and you shall know they are safe upstairs shooting or driving virtual things with there school friends online :)
Debate: Does playing too much video games have a negative effect on a young mind?
Side: Yes

Tell this to the children, no to the parents. There are out children that just go to the computer or x- box , JUST TO PLAY GAMES.. We are talking about games , no educative or scientific materials, that by the way there are excellent stuffs and they could learn something good for their education.