Peer Reviewed Journal via three different mandatory reviewing processes, since 2006, and, from September 2020, a fourth mandatory peer-editing has been added.
Many philosophers, computer scientists, and cyberneticists still consider it possible that a computer, described as a Turing machine, can effectively have intelligence. They are not talking about the present but the future of a possible computer to have the same properties as human intelligence. In this brief paper, I will provide some basic arguments that prove the impossibility of such a thinking machine. These arguments will be presented in four parts: the mental experiment of the Chinese Room, the argument from exactness, the argument from phenomenology, and the argument from abstraction. The first argument proves that mechanical manipulation of symbols is not understanding. The second argument proves that logic and mathematics are exact, which is a quality of understanding missing in the material world. The third argument proves that logical laws are unconditional, while physical laws are relative to material conditions. Finally, the last argument proves that abstraction is an operation of the intellect that is required for creative decision making. Neither animals nor any material system manifests abstraction.
