There is always the possibility that the human mind is more than the collective behavior of a bunch of neurons. It is conceivable that part of the human mind occupies some sort of astral plane like many people believe.

I'm not saying that it is. Science does not concern themselves with such theories (yet) because of Alder's Razor ("what cannot be settled by experiment is not worth debating") [1].

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Alder

If AI cannot learn and humans can, then this is experimental confirmation that humans are not AI, and the matter is settled. Therefore, the issue is worth debating.

I submit that AI cannot learn, per my previous comment. Furthermore, I submit that humans can learn, evidence being school, science and math. Ergo, humans are not AI.

Matter settled, debate over.

Not at all.

1. Current AI is a miniscule subset of the set of all AI, so you need to argue why the observation generalizes to all possible AI.

2. The statement "AI cannot learn" is too ambiguous because you fail to define "learn".

1. My statement applies to any computational approach to AI. If AI is possible it needs a halting oracle.

2. Learning is being able to recognize ever increasing levels of complexity. All axiomatic systems have a complexity recognition limit.