That certainly isn’t my argument since i clearly said that i believe for any immaterial process there has to be at least some material information to give it a foundation first for it to exist.
If you believe that material input causes the immaterial mind, then we definitely don’t agree, and I don’t see how such an idea could be backed up philosophically. You seem to be saying something different, however.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you are simply saying that material input is required in order for the mind to function. If that is what you’re saying then we certainly agree. When I said that the ability was innate I wasn’t saying it was automatic. I was saying that the ability itself is not based on material input, though its function is. To use a computer analogy, a processor has the innate ability to run programs, but software must be installed for it to actually run anything.
The hurdle in creating A.I. that functions as a human mind would remains apparently insurmountable at this point, and I see no reason to believe it will ever be overcome. If it were simply a matter of making faster and more advanced technology then I would agree a true A.I. could be made. As it is, however, the evidence points to human-like intelligence not being merely a highly advanced computer, but actually operating on a whole other dimension (the immaterial). Trying to make an A.I. would be like trying to build a box with only two dimensions: it simply can’t be done by definition.
Peace and God bless!