/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>28973369
We do know. There's zero evidence that there's anything else going on other than molecular interactions.
Evidence to the contrary would be one of the biggest advancements in science and technology, and would overturn three hundred years of scientific knowledge progress.
We're about 99.9999999999999999999% certain that the fundamental forces of nature is all that's taking place.
>Who knows, consciousness and sensations are pretty mysterious stuffs. Regardless there's no saying it is actually possible to replicate it with machines, maybe it has to be organic cells.
The brain is intelligent because of the way it processes information (the alternative being magic or voodoo). It's an exchange of electric signals. Everything matters when it comes to the inner workings of it, but pattern recognition, learning and so forth happen at the highest level involving statistical processes. We don't need the finer details, just the math behind these processes.
The argument against the feasibility of strong AI is one of the three logical fallacies people commonly use when talking about the topic. It's not salvageable through any meaningful scientific or technological lens.
What is a meaningful argument though is how hard of an engineering problem it actually is. That's an open question.
On the other hand, humans are borderline intelligent. I mean just look at those around you.