The raging controversy over Artificial Intelligence (AI) continues.
The debate is sure to be stimulated with the opening of a new university that has a proclivity to favour AI.
Roger Penrose, Alan Turing, and Kurt Godel have raised contrary implications directly and indirectly over the years.
I once owned a book entitled "What is Intelligence?", which was a series of essays on the subject. It is not to be confused with a book under that name by another author. Nor should it be confused with the "intelligence" that got us into the Iraq war.
No, the book attempted to define human and other intelligence. What intelligence is, not what intelligence is like.
So naturally artificial intelligence came up in that book as well as the notion that if you don't know what intelligence is, you don't know what artificial intelligence is either.
One essay in that book was written by Roger Penrose. His position was that AI is limited to realms that can be mathematically calculated.
He goes on to show that, since our language of mathematics is fundamentally flawed at this juncture (Godel Theorem extrapolated), AI is bound by that imperfection.
In other words since you can tell a lie (falsehood) using either the English language or the language of mathematics, AI is likewise impaired.
My position that there are two types of intelligence, "calculational intelligence" and "mystery intelligence", and that human intelligence is composed of both types.
I think computers are limited to calculational intelligence, and therefore so is AI.
The scientific world is split (dualism or not) on this, because there is controversy and debate on whether or not the human mind is composed exclusively of brain (matter, atoms, cells, etc.), or whether a non-material component also exists in that composition.
Penrose came down on the latter side, and he certainly is a scientist.
Evolution we can believe in suffers from this controversy too, because if we don't know what has actually developed (what is mind, what is intelligence), we can't know whether or not it evolved or was created or how it evolved or was created can we?
If I do not know what something is, I can't profess to you its genealogy can I?
It seems to me that we are primarily left to belief, not knowledge, under those circumstances.
At any rate, the implications are profound, because under one of those scenarios mathematics, and by extension AI, can conceivably be used to predict the future as some have advocated.
You might want to consider machine evolution and mutation a bit further.