Clearly, building a functioning artificial brain by copying the physical characteristics of a human brain should settle this one.
You state this as if replicating a human brain would be like buying a new Lego set and following the instructions. I think we should first nail down the theory on why we sleep. You are aware that scientists still can't fully explain the most common mental process that takes up 30% of our lifetime?
The human brain will never be perfectly replicated in this lifetime or any lifetime, in the same way that a group of toddlers would never 100% figure out the full technology and complete mechanical blueprints if they were handed a Ferrari.
Regardless of the question of sleep, the lack of a human known answer does not mean something else must exist that knows the answer. Perhaps the answer is unknown in the universe.
If you believe otherwise, where did the intelligent being who knows this information come from?
However, in your same vein of logic, the incapability to prove the existence of a designer does not invalidate the existence of a designer in the equation.
This same flimsy logic is applied within scientific naturalism, where we assume that because the existence of a designer is not capable of being proven, that the only way we can conclude something "coming about" is by inferring from only what is empirically given.
Surely you would not try to argue with me that because a child is not present (and thus logically unprovable to exist) that the existence of a sand castle on the beach could only be explained by the waves and functions of the ocean.
Obviously in that example we have external information to invalidate our faulty logic (i.e. seeing prior children build sand-castles), but it serves to highlight the absurdity that comes about when trying to infer from what is only empirically given. Now take that simple sand castle example and apply it to the insane complexity of trying to explain the creation of the universe. Not to mention remove the external information that enables us to validate/invalidate our claims.
I hope you can see why I choose to merge my intuition for recognizing intelligent design with empirical science.
To create a neural net, a framework is created that sets up layers of neurons and sets their weightings (often randomly). The framework runs the net against batches of data, measures the level of success, and changes the weightings. Eventually this process produces a "brain" that can, for example, recognize letters.
The framework's creator can't explain how the generated neural net functions because no one designed it. To someone not familiar with the process, the neural net would trigger their intuition for recognizing intelligent design.
You just went in a big circle to tell me that my intuition about the neural network was correct -- that there was a designer (the framework's creator) outside of the neural network who set the boundaries and then let that unique neural network run its course.
It doesn't matter if we know how the neural network works (and so forth), because this argument becomes logically invalid the moment you inject a designer (The framework's creator) into an argument to prove the lack of one.
Edit: Even if your comment was trying to show how an intuition for recognizing design can be "fooled", it still fails out because the intuition was correct.
>> I think we should first nail down the theory on why we sleep. You are aware that scientists still can't fully explain the most common mental process that takes up 30% of our lifetime?
>> The human brain will never be perfectly replicated in this lifetime or any lifetime
The other item I was addressing with the example is your implication that we can't create something until we understand every aspect of it.
And finally, adding an intelligent designer can't do more than push the argument back a step and leave you saying "who created him?"
The human brain will never be perfectly replicated in this lifetime or any lifetime, in the same way that a group of toddlers would never 100% figure out the full technology and complete mechanical blueprints if they were handed a Ferrari.
I don't think that's clear at all. I might agree with your first point, that we don't understand the internal mechanisms very well, but in some cases it's a lot easier to model a system than to understand how it functions. This is particularly true of emergent behavior, which pretty much anyone in the field acknowledges the brain is largely driven by.
Even in fields as concrete as physics, there are plenty of emergent results which can be verified to arise from the small-scale behaviors that we can observe, whereas a full "understanding" of how that emergence happens is beyond our grasp.