The noble anti-AI approach The human mind is not a machine. There are issues about the understanding of the fundamental physics of matter, touching on things which could relate to mind, if you study how Louis de Broglie (co-author of the core quantum theory) diverged from David Bohm's causal interpretation of quantum theory (which was rejected by de Broglie's pioneering friends) by rewriting half of it, in 1956 (in a manner ignored by the other authors of quantum theory) and onwards. In sum: the grand questions, also about what the mind is, are still open. There is no proof -- anywhere -- that the human mind and its intelligence and its empathic intelligence can ever be reduced to any chip or algorithm or manipulation of quantum mechanics in a laboratory or any combination of such. There are on the contrary core works which indicate that artificial intelligence is and will be a blatant illusion, and that the risk is solely that this illusion is not seen for what it is. (For some of these core works, cfr other texts linked to by the anti-AI search engine portal.) Humanity must take an anti-AI stance; journalists must refuse to use the scifi notion "AI" casually, as if it refers to a fact; and in general, we must prefer such approaches to computing which do not mimick mind and thus can contribute to a generally stupification of mankind. In this, we must stand up and assert that it is better to use mind and do things perhaps sometimes slightly slower than to not use mind and live by the dictatorship of machines. This is about believing in mind, insight, intuition, and a spontaniety which goes beyond mere machine, -- also as love, as action, whether in business life or in relationship or in sex. This is the noble anti-AI stance, and it gives great energy to live by it. In order to practise the anti-AI approach and yet use computers and robots, we need to first sift through our vocabulary and our images of these things, and then decide on what are the right, wise uses of these things. VOCABULARY A computer can 'match patterns' but it doesn't 'recognise patterns'. Avoid the psychological term. A computer can put something in its (digital) memory. It can -- by stretching the vocabulary -- engage in what we can call "machine learning", but when we use this psychological term 'learning' we should normally put it in quotes. A computer has no awareness. It may be programmed to be "responsive" or even to "relate" to certain events, but it isn't aware of these events. A computer doesn't know anything. At most, it "knows" -- we can put it in quotes. A better phrase is simply to say that the computer has been programmed to handle such and such. A computer doesn't understand anything. That's surely a term we must only use jokingly or by means of quotes -- the computer "understands" all this. It means, really, that it has a program which relates accurately, or correctly, or precisely, or meaningfully, to such and such. A computer doesn't "want" anything. It doesn't have intentions. It may have a certain technical type of machine-goals. We might say that the computer has a "goal" -- the robot has a "goal" we can say -- in quotes. We can also say that it has a task-goal, or something that sounds more digital, more technical. A computer or a robot doesn't have values, nor feelings. A computer or a robot can have 'task-priorities', or 'priority objectives', and it can have ways of 'measuring success-rate relative to objectives.' Nor, of course, is there any 'like' or 'dislike' in the machinery of a computer. PROGRESS IN SCIENCE? Now, when we argue for this by means of physics in the middle of the 20th century, and number theory along the lines of Kurt Goedel and Alan Turing's work also from this period, it may be said: hasn't science progressed since then? It is very easy to say that science has progressed in these areas since then, and indeed this is one of the most-encountered claims in pseudo-scientific popular TV channels that aim to propagandize certain notions by using the prestige of science. In reality, however, most developments by far in physics since the clash of the giants -- Niels Bohr, Albert Einstein, and later on, Louis de Broglie's own alternative standing on the shoulders of David Bohm's attempt, and the various sifting through of something of all this by J S Bell, and the empirical experiment by A Aspect on something of this -- most developments since this phase in the 20th century have been on the engineering level, and in terms of number crunching. The foundational concepts laid out in terms of thinking about physics clashed then, as they do clash now, and a new wholeness or coherence in physics cannot be reached by leaving the ideas at the confused level the 20th century discourses on physics left them, and focus on solving things by means of putting numbers into and getting them out from equations. At the idea level, there has been a total stagnation in physics since the 20th century as far as all fundamental themes go. And all this must concern biology since whatever physics raises as conceptual difficulties propagate upwards from the atomic level to the larger atoms such as those composing our brains and bodies. As one example. And at the idea level, there has hardly been any evolution at all on the number theory level, connected to the questions of infinity and computability as unleashed by the works of Emil Post, Kurt Goedel, Thoralf Skolem, Alan Turing and many others. An attempt to say: we are now entirely beyond that level where mathematics says of itself that any mechanical axiomatic system is severely incomplete -- is illusory, and not scientific. IN PRAXIS In praxis, we can still use computers, and robots, and even extent the use, but we must engage wholeheartedly all our organs of thinking and feeling to find out how to do so in ways which do not stop human thinking nor confuse the human mind with impulses from machines which are apt to delude. The machines, moreover, must be tighly controlled. They must work WITHIN contexts, and not be given trans-contextual tasks. --A.Tacoma, May 2015, with an extension July 2015 (feel free to reproduce this when unchanged.)