And where do you get the notion that digital machines can't be self-aware? What, exactly, are you basing this theory on? Are you claiming that some form of quantum state is required, or are you saying that intelligence needs to be analog?
"Intelligence" is neither digital or analogue (or maybe its a quantum artifact) -- we don't have a clue what it is. That's the point. It appears to be an emergent property of organic systems that must evolve over the development of that system but we still can't prove that we are intelligent or self-aware. But we can be certain it doesn't appear in purely deterministic machines who's every parameter can be assessed at the fine grain level.
Clearly there's no theoretical difficulty; with a large enough lookup table you could simulate every action an individual could take. Whether this lookup table can be considered conscious is academic if we have no way of defining consciousness.
So the question becomes: is there a more efficient algorithm that can be executed by a machine that it is feasible to build?
Because you're apparently certain that there isn't, you must have a mathematical proof that this algorithm cannot exist, right?
And even if your "certainty" was merely hyperbole, perhaps in lieu of proof you could provide some compelling evidence of your case?
Oh dear. That's Artificial Intelligence Day 1. It also doesn't work. That isn't an AI. There's also the slight dual problems of Nyquist and Shannon limits which dictate why this can't physically work in a digital system. But never mind. You seem to know that it is possible and it that's how to do it. No amount of prior research since 1948 onwards will be of any use to you.
You already have the answer. Its all just a matter of brute-force computing power and nothing else. Its that unsubtle, is it? Geee -- what a waste of time! All these years and it was just a matter of a big enough look up table. What a fool everyone has been not to just realise that!
So c'mon then, where is your fully functional robotic AI? Keeping it a secret isn't fair to the rest of us.
Did you consider any of these:
http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=artificial+intelligenc...
And this one's a doozy: http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=0&...
And they're just scratching the surface of a very deep field of research.
I don't know why you think this statement doesn't apply to humans. We're deterministic machines as well. More complicated perhaps, and less is known about the "fine grain level", but there is no evidence that we are anything more than complicated meat machines.
Humans are machines. But we (and other living things) appear to exhibit defined properties that are not present in complex digital machines. It also seems that what we refer to as self-awareness is an emergent property that living things have, although in theory, not specifically limited to living things.
That set of properties is what is formally defined as having a mind. Whatever that means, and I agree its far from clear what that is.
But -- and its a big but -- digital processes don't seem to be able to mimic or model it (that could be our shortcoming -- the models are not any good) and it isn't just a matter of more memory/processing power/a big enough look-up table. These are not the problem nor the answer. It isn't just a CompSci issue. If it were just that, we would have it licked by now and we would all have interchangeable minds that we could simply reprogram and upload with new sets of skills and belief systems (yes, Robots would definitely need them too, by the way).
We have a long way to go and for a while now we've been heading down the wrong road. But don't take my word for it.
http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/nagel_nice.html
He makes a distinction between subjective understanding of consciousness ("What is it like to be X?") and the objective understanding (What are the atoms and neurons doing? What is the structure of the mind?) I think this distinction is a big part of why you, and society as a whole, dismisses AI.
We have a much deeper objective understanding of computers than we do about our own brains. But comparatively, bats are as familiar as our own siblings next to our subjective understanding of "what it is like" to be a computer. We simply have no basis for comparison. We can't put ourselves in a computer's shoes. And without this subjective, gut feeling comparison, people in general find it difficult or impossible to assign the word "intelligence" to any non-humanoid entity, be it whales, robots, or computers.
I also am a great believer in things being more than just the sum of their parts -- or at least to have that potential. I just don't believe there are any sentient machines. Yet. And I'm not going to waste my time anthropomorphising them.
Because that's not going to make them happen any sooner.