Martin's follow-up

Martin Lessard, whose blog I couldn't find when writing my previous post, has committed a follow-up on the said previous post. Here is the english translation of my own summary of his text. I think I have extracted all of his arguments. I could probably have fused some of them, though.

1. I was the only one at the RSS meeting defending AI. Anything that only one person defends at a RSS meeting is wrong. Therefore AI is impossible.
2. Even though all the other attendants were trying to find a common agreement platform, I was not receptive to what they had to say. An unconvinced person is always wrong. Therefore AI is impossible.
3. The ideas that I expressed are in the line of other people's ideas from 150 years ago. I am very naive to ignore the past. Therefore AI is impossible.
4. There is no absolute, objective meaning. Will AI be able to interpret, participate and understand a community's moving, fuzzy consensus? No. Therefore AI is impossible.
5. Any attempt to formalize language, in the past, has failed because communication and formalization tend to be mutually exclusive. AI cannot work without an extreme lexical AND grammatical formalization of the signs existing in a given context because it can't successfully deal with communication errors. To base an interpretation concept on a definitive signified is to negate the way we (humans) are reasoning. AI's concept interpretation is based on a definitive signified. Someone (maybe Russel or Husserl) said that scientific truths are beliefs. In the sense that they are temporary truths before being invalidated. Therefore AI is impossible.
6. A semantic web malformed-query interpreter hyperGoogle that would pass the Turing test is trivial and would only satisfy a novice. Therefore AI is impossible.
7. "Unbearable inevitability of discretization", really? Therefore AI is impossible.
8. Martin wishes not to paralyze research. He only wants to prevent researchers to repeat their predecessors' mistakes. I should be grateful. Therefore AI is impossible.

Am I convinced? You bet! :) Am I wrong to not consider this as an attempt for reconcilliation? I don't think 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 need any comment from me and I won't reply to 4, 5, 6 today because I'm not done with the second part of my post. Notice that the title was The unbearable inevitability of discretization (1/2). That second part was meant to be my personal answers to the questions that end the first part.

Despite what it may look like, I'm trying to get to peacefully agree on some sort of common ground. So, please be nice. Okay? BTW, Martin, I can't trackback your post.