The discussion is interesting, but we are no longer progressing. I obviously believe that the evidence is far stronger for a metaphysical, spiritual causal mechanism for life as we know it, and you obviously believe the natural explanations are sufficient causes for what we see. It's apparent that no further conversation will either persuade or dissuade either one of us.

Let's talk about the ontological argument for the existence of God. (Go to that heading on the website, still under the category of "God")

[b]Reliability of a naturally evolved brain.[/b]

> You countered that "since reliability is a positive evolutionary trait and would be selected for, we can say that the brain is, largely, reliable," but there is neither logic in that nor evidence for it. How can reliability come from a system that is concerned only with reproductive success.

Reliability is beneficial to reproduction. If a brain is more reliable, then it is more capable of making "good" decisions that help it survive and reproduce.

> And also remember that natural selection either selects for the entire organism or against it. It can't be selective about specific components.

Only generation-by-generation. Over the course of thousands of generations, though, specific components can easily be selected for or against, by weeding less efficient organisms out of the population.

> To claim that reason is reliable because it evolved as reliable is a circular argument. You are presupposing reliability to draw the conclusion of reliability.

Evolution evolves reliable features because evolution strives for reproductive success. Reliable sight, reliable digestive tracts, reliable claws, reliable limbs, and reliable brains. If an organ is not reliable, then it is a waste of energy. It is not 100% successful, but it will trend towards reliability as much as possible.

> Speaking with the voice of naturalism, intelligence is only helpful for survival, and only as much is needed as contributes to it.

Yes. This is why most animals are not intelligent. However, at some point, homo sapiens had such a form, and were in such an environment, that intelligence became a very helpful trait that was naturally selected for.

[b]Requirements for Informational Data[/b]

> I think there is confusion over terms, and possibly for the sake of progressing in the argument we need to leave the "intelligence" part behind. My real point is that informational data only comes from previous informational data.

Which terms, though? I think intelligence is really the crux of the argument, but I would say that "informational data" is the only unclear term. The problem is that I cannot see a way to causally deduce intelligence from informational data, if you consider DNA to be a part of that set.

> This is not a worthy analogy. Two rabbits make new rabbits, but they're still rabbits. They have roughly the same genetic code, but always with some mutational changes. They are still distinctively rabbits with 22 chromosomal pairs. What you are claiming is that in the broad view, things resulted from components not previously in the system.

So which components am I assuming that were not previously in the system? Can you give me a few examples? As far as I can tell, I'm only assuming rearrangements of the same components, in which case the rabbit example is apt.

[b]Rationality of a determined brain[/b]

> But it is in conflict with it. If all things were determined, then science and logic should be able to answer all questions, even regarding who will win a sporting event or how the stock market will behave. For determinism to be truly determined, all things become able to be calculated and concluded. But this is not the case. In addition, lest you are already objecting, QM is particularly indeterminate. In QM we don't get a prediction of a unique configuration for a system at a given time, but only a distribution of probabilities across many possible outcomes.

I believe these things can be calculated, given enough information. However, we don't have all the information about the psychology of the economy, the physiology of each individual sports player, etc. It's simply too much information to reasonably calculate.

Issues in quantum mechanics are a bit different, but there is no proof in QM of a deterministic or non-deterministic universe. I'd rather not get too deep into this, because I doubt either of us has a full understanding of even basic quantum mechanics, but pretty much all applications of QM in armchair-philosophy are based around fundamental misunderstandings of how the experiments work. Example: The double-slit experiment does not show that electrons are "aware" of being observed, but that they are difficult to measure, yet we get videos like this all the time.

[b]Likelihood of Abiogenesis[/b]

> Suppose we're playing poker, and I deal myself four aces. You'd by suspicious, but possibly OK with it. But suppose it happened again. You would be angry. But I could say that given the number of cards in the deck and the random process of dealing, it's possible—which you would have to admit. If it happened a third time, you'd come after me. But couldn't I claim that given the probabilities, it was bound to happen some day? How would that explanation sound to you??

The probability of that happening is about 1 in 5.37e21. So if we were playing that many games and it happened once or twice, I would not be suspicious at all.

> You claim life and "fine-tuning" (an environment suitable for life within very small parameters) was bound to happen, but that just cries out for explanation, and we have to infer the most reasonable conclusion.

> You are contending that, given enough time, enough components, and enough trial-and-error/cause-and-effect, eventually a universe with a life-permitting set of parameters and the right sequence of events (without any guiding intelligence or purpose) would arise.

Not necessarily (although it's pretty likely, if you believe there are multiple universes). I'm saying our universe has some pretty basic building blocks, and we have about 700 million trillion planets alone. If life has a greater than 1 in 700,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance of occurring on any given planet, then it's very likely that it will occur.

> Then we have to deal with what makes more sense: a universe that somehow eeked itself into balance and life despite infinitesimally (to the point of miraculous) small odds, or the universe coming from the design of a powerful, purposeful, personal cause? If there is a God, the chances of there being a universe such as ours is fairly reasonable; if there is no God, the chances of it are ludicrously small, perhaps even prohibitively improbable. Theism is more probable than naturalism.

Except that those chances are not infinitesimally small. Take a look at some estimates for the Drake Equation. We don't know everything, and our numbers are almost certainly off quite a bit, but we have a surprisingly good idea of what those chances are. At least enough to know that it's finite, and is pretty likely to happen in a large enough universe. The probability of abiogenesis is very difficult to determine, with a sample size of 1, but there are many ways to give reasonable modern estimates with our current knowledge of microbiology.

> Your claim was that a naturally evolved brain cannot be reliable.

You're right. The whole conversation is about causality, but we are dipping into many other areas. My point was that a naturally-evolved brain cannot be counted on to be reliable. I still hold to that, based on the argument I gave previously along with the quotes from Nietszschsche, Nagel, Stroud, Churchland, and Darwin. You countered that "since reliability is a positive evolutionary trait and would be selected for, we can say that the brain is, largely, reliable," but there is neither logic in that nor evidence for it. How can reliability come from a system that is concerned only with reproductive success. And also remember that natural selection either selects for the entire organism or against it. It can't be selective about specific components.

To claim that reason is reliable because it evolved as reliable is a circular argument. You are presupposing reliability to draw the conclusion of reliability.

> You're still not directly addressing the question of intelligence. Why is it necessary?

Speaking with the voice of naturalism, intelligence is only helpful for survival, and only as much is needed as contributes to it. I think there is confusion over terms, and possibly for the sake of progressing in the argument we need to leave the "intelligence" part behind. My real point is that informational data only comes from previous informational data.

> When two rabbits mate and have a litter, the babies are new "processes and parts" that did not previously exist. In fact, nothing like them previously existed - they have an entirely new genetic code.

This is not a worthy analogy. Two rabbits make new rabbits, but they're still rabbits. They have roughly the same genetic code, but always with some mutational changes. They are still distinctively rabbits with 22 chromosomal pairs. What you are claiming is that in the broad view, things resulted from components not previously in the system.

> Dynamic isn't the opposite of deterministic.

But it is in conflict with it. If all things were determined, then science and logic should be able to answer all questions, even regarding who will win a sporting event or how the stock market will behave. For determinism to be truly determined, all things become able to be calculated and concluded. But this is not the case. In addition, lest you are already objecting, QM is particularly indeterminate. In QM we don't get a prediction of a unique configuration for a system at a given time, but only a distribution of probabilities across many possible outcomes.

> It's not luck - in a large enough universe, it was bound to happen

Suppose we're playing poker, and I deal myself four aces. You'd by suspicious, but possibly OK with it. But suppose it happened again. You would be angry. But I could say that given the number of cards in the deck and the random process of dealing, it's possible—which you would have to admit. If it happened a third time, you'd come after me. But couldn't I claim that given the probabilities, it was bound to happen some day? How would that explanation sound to you??

You claim life and "fine-tuning" (an environment suitable for life within very small parameters) was bound to happen, but that just cries out for explanation, and we have to infer the most reasonable conclusion.

You are contending that, given enough time, enough components, and enough trial-and-error/cause-and-effect, eventually a universe with a life-permitting set of parameters and the right sequence of events (without any guiding intelligence or purpose) would arise. Then we have to deal with what makes more sense: a universe that somehow eeked itself into balance and life despite infinitesimally (to the point of miraculous) small odds, or the universe coming from the design of a powerful, purposeful, personal cause? If there is a God, the chances of there being a universe such as ours is fairly reasonable; if there is no God, the chances of it are ludicrously small, perhaps even prohibitively improbable. Theism is more probable than naturalism.

> life has probably happened many times throughout the universe.

This is quite speculative and unfounded.

> The only "design" I can see is easily explainable via evolution

Michael Behe has expounded some formidable arguments about irreducible complexity that challenge this thought.

[b]Reliability of a naturally evolved brain.[/b]

> Correct. And since we're talking about causality, that is the most important piece: How did it get started?

> Yes, you have simulated this, but it didn't cause itself. You programmed it to do this and let it fly.

> It was given a genetic algorithm. All this time I'm talking about causality. An intelligent being programmed in the generation algorithms. What put the system in motion?

Yes, the system was put in place. If you look back a few comments, though, you'll see that this section of our debate was relating to the evolution of thought through natural selection, not about the initial cause that put the system in place. Your claim was that a naturally evolved brain cannot be reliable. I think I'm going to go back to labeling the sections.

[b]Requirements for Informational Data[/b]

> OK. It sounds like you are claiming that what we have now came from causes that did not have these characteristics, from parts that didn't have these capabilities, and from processes lacking these necessary pieces—in other words, that the sum is far greater than the parts and that the resulting product has components that didn't exist in previous iterations. To me that's a less-than-sufficient explanation for the realities I see. When I see a carpenter using a hammer and nails in wood, I assume that the source of his materials was a sufficient cause for the product in hand. It is not sufficient that my total evidence includes causes and components that were not somehow in the system to begin with. Eventually, on a lack of a sufficient cause, you are left to claim, "Well, obviously it just happened out of processes and parts that didn't previously exist." My case, on the contrary, is that the sufficient cause is greater than the resulting product, which to me makes more sense. What has come is from what was, not from what wasn't.

You're still not directly addressing the question of intelligence. Why is it necessary? I really don't understand where you make that leap. I'm not even trying to use it as a "gotcha" question—I literally don't understand how that conclusion results from the premises, when we know that informational data can come from an unintelligent source.

I also don't understand how the carpenter analogy applies. What represents what?

> Eventually, on a lack of a sufficient cause, you are left to claim, "Well, obviously it just happened out of processes and parts that didn't previously exist."

When two rabbits mate and have a litter, the babies are new "processes and parts" that did not previously exist. In fact, nothing like them previously existed - they have an entirely new genetic code. So, yes, I suppose I am claiming that. Can you clarify your argument, or show me why this interpretation is wrong?

[b]Rationality of a Deterministic Brain[/b]

> There is evidence that a human brain is dynamic, not static and determined. It is able to create new neuronic patterns, new junctions, even new blood vessels creating new paths, new potential thought patterns, new memories, new processes. It can create its way around stroke injury, for instance. It isn't determined like a broken Chinese satellite under the power of gravity, but it can learn to do things all by itself because it was designed to learn, not just to respond. That's why thinking cannot be predicted like gravity.

Dynamic isn't the opposite of deterministic. AI is also dynamic in many ways, but it is also deterministic.

> The point is causality. Is it more reasonable to infer that "Aren't we the lucky ones! All this just happened", or "This surely has too many elements of purposeful design to have just happened"? We've been coursing through this conversation for a long time now, and I'm enjoying it, but it's difficult to fathom that you can think that all the complexities and marvels of the universe and life just happened and we're the beneficiaries of it. To me, obviously, it makes far better sense to think that there was a sufficient cause.

It's not luck - in a large enough universe, it was bound to happen, and life has probably happened many times throughout the universe. The only "design" I can see is easily explainable via evolution, even if we don't understand every step. Evolution is our purpose. That's why we exist, why we think the way we do, and why we were made the way we are.

> Only in that we put the initial building blocks in place, and designed the environment in which they evolve.

Correct. And since we're talking about causality, that is the most important piece: How did it get started?

> "It doesn't create itself randomly, haphazardly, or by chance occurrences." Yes it does.

Maybe I didn't communicate well enough. By "it didn't create itself randomly," I'm not talking about adaptation or learning, but causality. It didn't create itself. Yes, you have simulated this, but it didn't cause itself. You programmed it to do this and let it fly.

> It comes out of random number generation, followed by a genetic algorithm that mimics natural selection. It "comes out of nowhere" just as much as real-life evolution "comes out of nowhere".

It was programmed to random-number generate. It was given a genetic algorithm. All this time I'm talking about causality. An intelligent being programmed in the generation algorithms. What put the system in motion? Once it has been set in motion, yes, it "comes out of nowhere" just as natural selection, but it had an intelligent causal mechanism before it could fly on its own, learn, adapt, and reason.

> Even if I accept this as true, all you have managed to prove is that, at some point, there was informational data. Where do you make the leap to conclude that the FC was intelligent?

OK. It sounds like you are claiming that what we have now came from causes that did not have these characteristics, from parts that didn't have these capabilities, and from processes lacking these necessary pieces—in other words, that the sum is far greater than the parts and that the resulting product has components that didn't exist in previous iterations. To me that's a less-than-sufficient explanation for the realities I see. When I see a carpenter using a hammer and nails in wood, I assume that the source of his materials was a sufficient cause for the product in hand. It is not sufficient that my total evidence includes causes and components that were not somehow in the system to begin with. Eventually, on a lack of a sufficient cause, you are left to claim, "Well, obviously it just happened out of processes and parts that didn't previously exist." My case, on the contrary, is that the sufficient cause is greater than the resulting product, which to me makes more sense. What has come is from what was, not from what wasn't.

> There is no evidence that a human brain is any different.

There is evidence that a human brain is dynamic, not static and determined. It is able to create new neuronic patterns, new junctions, even new blood vessels creating new paths, new potential thought patterns, new memories, new processes. It can create its way around stroke injury, for instance. It isn't determined like a broken Chinese satellite under the power of gravity, but it can learn to do things all by itself because it was designed to learn, not just to respond. That's why thinking cannot be predicted like gravity.

The point is causality. Is it more reasonable to infer that "Aren't we the lucky ones! All this just happened", or "This surely has too many elements of purposeful design to have just happened"? We've been coursing through this conversation for a long time now, and I'm enjoying it, but it's difficult to fathom that you can think that all the complexities and marvels of the universe and life just happened and we're the beneficiaries of it. To me, obviously, it makes far better sense to think that there was a sufficient cause.

> All I was saying is that AI is the product of design and intelligent input.

Only in that we put the initial building blocks in place, and designed the environment in which they evolve.

> It doesn't create itself randomly, haphazardly, or by change occurrences.

Yes it does. That's exactly how those programs work. I have simulated this myself many times.

> That capability doesn't come out of nowhere.

It comes out of random number generation, followed by a genetic algorithm that mimics natural selection. It "comes out of nowhere" just as much as real-life evolution "comes out of nowhere".

> As far as we have evidence, informational data only comes from other informational data. We have no evidence of informational data coming from any other source.

Even if I accept this as true, all you have managed to prove is that, at some point, there was informational data. Where do you make the leap to conclude that the FC was intelligent? You've said nothing about intelligence in this paragraph. This is what I'm talking about when I say you're not giving me straight answers. Informational data can come from non-intelligent sources, so what evidence do you have that the FC was intelligent?

> As far as "Why do you say that a determined brain is not truly thinking?", I explained that. You didn't respond to my denial of your premise.

Which of my premises did you deny, and where? I must have missed that.

> A determined brain can only think in the patterns in which it was designed to think.

There is no evidence that a human brain is any different.

> AI is designed to be dynamic and to create new patterns of thinking, just as I believe the human brain was designed to be dynamic, and therefore to reason. But determination, such as my laptop, doesn't allow for those processes.

I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you trying to say that AI is not deterministic? Is that what you mean by dynamic? Because AI brains are entirely deterministic. Neural networks are complicated and determined by chaotic RNG, but they are exactly as deterministic as your laptop.

I sense that we're starting to spin in circles. I am repeating things I have said previously, as are you.

You say I haven't been giving straight answers to your questions, but I have. All I was saying is that AI is the product of design and intelligent input. It doesn't create itself randomly, haphazardly, or by change occurrences. Possibly it is able to increase in functionality on its own recognizance, but it is able to do that because it was programmed to be able to do that. That capability doesn't come out of nowhere.

As far as DNA coming from other DNA, you yourself said that no one knows that origins or process of development of DNA, which is all that I was saying. As far as we have evidence, informational data only comes from other informational data. We have no evidence of informational data coming from any other source.

As far as "Why do you say that a determined brain is not truly thinking?", I explained that. You didn't respond to my denial of your premise. "Why do you say that a determined brain is not capable of reason?" A determined brain can only think in the patterns in which it was designed to think. AI is designed to be dynamic and to create new patterns of thinking, just as I believe the human brain was designed to be dynamic, and therefore to reason. But determination, such as my laptop, doesn't allow for those processes.

> You've missed the point. I didn't claim that the organism was intelligent, but only that DNA comes from other DNA: informational data from other informational data.

What point have I missed? You said, "We have no example of informational data that doesn't come from an intelligent cause." I disproved that. You dodged the question. Where do you make the leap to conclude that the FC was intelligent?

> Even the first step is highly questionable. Dr. James Coppedge says, "The probability of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is 1 in 10^161 using all atoms on earth and allowing all the time since the world began ... For a minimum set of the required 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life, the probability is 1 in 10^119,879. It would take 10^119,841 years on the average to get a set of such proteins. That is 10^119,831 times the assumed age of the earth." The simplest conceivable form of life should have at least 600 different protein molecules. The mathematical probability that only one molecule could form by the chance arrangement of the proper sequence of amino acids is far less than 1 in 10^450. And yet Harvard scholar and professor Ernst Mayr admits that "A chance of one in a billion is almost a miracle."

These numbers sound like they assume complete random chance. There are many different estimates of the statstical likelihood of life occurring, assuming different conditions. Ideal conditions improve the chance of life occurring, it can't simply be calculated by counting the number of protein molecules. We also don't know what the simplest forms of life looked like, because they didn't leave any fossil record, so we have no way of knowing how complex they were.

> I'm not sure we have ANY evidence of a single transitional sequence from one species to another. Not ANY, and we have a fairly complete geological record.

We've literally seen it happen. Look up observed evolution. There's a fairly recent example of a new species of bird found to have evolved in the Galapagos—a hybrid of two previous species. We've also seen it happen quite a bit in bacteria. The problem is the very concept of transitional fossils—there is no way to clearly draw lines between species besides the ability to reproduce with each other, and that cannot be observed in fossils. Therefore, "transitional fossils" are impossible. Missing link arguments just don't hold any weight.

> While I don't doubt that there are occasionally some accidental beneficial mutations, they are much too rare for genome building.

That's exactly how AI are created.

> AI is created by purposeful, intelligent design. It doesn't help your argument about causality.

No. AI are not created by purposeful, intelligent design. (Except for Deep Learning AI, but that's a different topic.) AI are created using exactly the same principles as natural selection. They are randomly mutated, and the successful ones are selected for. As this process happens, the AI becomes more and more reliable. This is literally what I do. I have created AI myself. I know how this process works. These AI are not designed, they simply come about through random number generation. Some AI are given structured neural networks before this process, but the ones I've created have even random structures. Natural selection increases reliability.

Even if you did successfully convince me that beneficial mutations are rare, the only thing that proves is that evolution is slow and inefficient, but that's already a known fact. Evolution takes many, many generations for anything significant to change. Eventually, the successful mutations take control of the gene pool, simply because they are successful. Detrimental mutations die out, because they fail to reproduce.

Again, I literally work with this stuff as a hobby. I've coded it myself. I know how it works, and you're only showing a poor understanding of what evolution is and what AI is.

> Reasoning, rationality, decisions, and true/false information are all used by computers, which are deterministic machines that only follow their programs. So why is it untenable? Why do you say that a determined brain is not truly thinking?

> Computers are created by purposeful, intelligent design. This doesn't help your argument either.

You dodged the question. Again.

[i]Why do you say that a determined brain is not truly thinking? Why do you say that a determined brain is not capable of reason?[/i]

I was using their determinism and rationality to respond to: "Determinism is untenable. If you were determined, you are not truly thinking."
Which you have yet failed to defend. You can't dismiss all of my arguments involving AI with "they were created" — I know that's true, but they're an excellent analogy for intelligence that we can actually understand, and so they're incredibly valuable in a debate about intelligence.

> We do, though. DNA can proceed from unintelligent animals. In fact, it almost always does.

You've missed the point. I didn't claim that the organism was intelligent, but only that DNA comes from other DNA: informational data from other informational data.

>We may never know all the steps required to evolve from chemical goo to humans, but we know many of them and have strong theories about the rest.

The problem is not that some of the steps are missing but that there are huge gaps everywhere. I'm not sure we have ANY evidence of a single transitional sequence from one species to another. Not ANY, and we have a fairly complete geological record.

Even the first step is highly questionable. Dr. James Coppedge says, "The probability of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is 1 in 10^161 using all atoms on earth and allowing all the time since the world began ... For a minimum set of the required 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life, the probability is 1 in 10^119,879. It would take 10^119,841 years on the average to get a set of such proteins. That is 10^119,831 times the assumed age of the earth." The simplest conceivable form of life should have at least 600 different protein molecules. The mathematical probability that only one molecule could form by the chance arrangement of the proper sequence of amino acids is far less than 1 in 10^450. And yet Harvard scholar and professor Ernst Mayr admits that "A chance of one in a billion is almost a miracle."

> "Beneficial mutations occur at a rate less than 1 in a million, so low as to thwart any actual measurement." I'd love to see a source on that one.

Kimura, in 1979, showed that most mutations are negative, even though near neutral. But his estimate was even a minimal estimate. In all probability, the situation is worse than he has calculated. Muller, in 1964, showed that many of the mutations make proportionately more of a genome's nucleotides unselectable. Beneficial mutations are so rare as to be outside consideration.

Bergman (2004) reviewed the topic of beneficial mutations, doing a simple literature search. He found 453,732 "mutation" hits, but among these only 186 even mentioned the word "beneficial" (about 4 in 10,000). When those 186 were reviewed, the presumed beneficial mutations were only beneficial in a very narrow sense and consistently involved loss-of-function (loss of information) changes. He was unable to find a single example of a mutation that unambiguously created new information.

While I don't doubt that there are occasionally some accidental beneficial mutations, they are much too rare for genome building.

> That's exactly how AI are created.

AI is created by purposeful, intelligent design. It doesn't help your argument about causality.

> Reasoning, rationality, decisions, and true/false information are all used by computers, which are deterministic machines that only follow their programs. So why is it untenable? Why do you say that a determined brain is not truly thinking?

Computers are created by purposeful, intelligent design. This doesn't help your argument either.

> So I think we're reaching the end of this argument here.

So would you like to move on to the next theistic argument—Ontology?

> We have no example of informational data that doesn't come from an intelligent cause, including (as in many of your examples, the capabilities of computers.

We do, though. DNA can proceed from unintelligent animals. In fact, it almost always does.

So, again, where do you make the leap to intelligence?

> The missing links are abundant, especially the first jump into life, but also the transitional forms between species, where only a few possibilities have presented.

My point is that missing link arguments are flawed. We may never know all the steps required to evolve from chemical goo to humans, but we know many of them and have strong theories about the rest. There are no steps considered impossible, only unlikely, and thanks to the law of large numbers, those steps will almost certainly occur given enough time and space (such as, for example, our universe.)

> In most cases, we have abundant evidence of evolution within a species, but very little between species.

If you want to show evidence that macroevolution does not happen, feel free to. I'm not a biologist, though, and I don't feel the need to take the burden of proof on that one. The scientific consensus is that it does happen, and I've never heard a good argument against it.

> Beneficial mutations occur at a rate less than 1 in a million, so low as to thwart any actual measurement.

I'd love to see a source on that one. Mutations are normally small structural changes - it's difficult for one to necessarily be detrimental. It's not like you're introducing new bacteria or completely rearranging the system.

Your entire argument against the evolution of intelligence is preposterous. That's exactly how AI are created. They are selected by performance, just as in natural selection, and then randomly mutated and selected again in the next generation. They grow more and more reliable each generation. This is a testable fact. If brains were to grow less reliable, they would be selected against and not contribute much to the gene pool.

> I didn't ignore your point. I did answer that. Determinism is untenable. If you were determined, you are not truly thinking. You are only following unalterable patterns. There is no true reasoning, no rationality, and no decisions, but rather only following a course from which there is no diverting. There is no such thing as right or wrong, true or false, reason or absurdity. There is only following the program.

Reasoning, rationality, decisions, and true/false information are all used by computers, which are deterministic machines that only follow their programs. So why is it untenable? Why do you say that a determined brain is not truly thinking?
...

So I think we're reaching the end of this argument here. It's been boiled down to some simpler principles. However, you're now depending on some blatantly false premises.

> Informational data can only come from intelligence

Informational data can come from reproduction of unintelligent species.

> Reliable intelligence cannot come from random evolution

AI becomes more reliable through random evolution. Evolution is guided by success.

> Deterministic machines cannot reason

Computers can reason, and are deterministic machines.

> There is no such thing as right or wrong, true or false, reason or absurdity.

Computers can distinguish between true and false as well, and they, too, are deterministic.