I read Judea Pearl's The Book of Why, in which he mentions that deep learning is just a glorified curve fitting technology, and will not be able to produce human-like intelligence.
From his book there is this diagram that illustrates the three levels of cognitive abilities:
The idea is that the "intelligence" produced by current deep learning technology is only at the level of association. Thus the AI is nowhere near the level of asking questions like "how can I make Y happen" (intervention) and "What if I have acted differently, will X still occur?" (counterfactuals), and it's highly unlikely that curve fitting techniques can ever bring us closer to a higher level of cognitive ability.
I found his argument persuasive on an intuitive level, but I'm unable to find any physical or mathematical laws that can either bolster or cast doubt on this argument.
So, is there any scientific/physical/chemical/biological/mathematical argument that prevents deep learning from ever producing strong AI (human-like intelligence)?