>> Ah really? Which ones? And nope, physical agility is not "solving a physics problem", otherwise a soccer players and figure skaters would all have PhDs, which doesn't seem to be the case.
Yes, everything that has to do with navigating physical reality, including, but not restricted to physical agility. Those are physics problems that animals, including humans, know how to solve and, very often, we have no idea how to program a computer to solve them.
And you're saying that solving physics problems means you have a PhD? So for example Archimedes did not solve any physics problems otherwise he'd have a PhD?
> Those are physics problems that animals, including humans, know how to solve
No, those are problems that animals and humans solve, not know how to solve. I'm not the greatest expert of biochemistry that ever lived because of what goes on in my cells.
Now, I understand perfectly well the argument that "even small animals do things that our machines cannot do". That's been indisputably true for a long time. Today, it seems that the be more a matter of embodiment and speed of processing rather than a level of intelligence out of our reach. We already have machines that understand natural language perfectly well and display higher cognitive abilities than any other animal- including abstract reasoning, creating and understanding metaphors, following detailed instructions, writing fiction, etc.
Yes, everything that has to do with navigating physical reality, including, but not restricted to physical agility. Those are physics problems that animals, including humans, know how to solve and, very often, we have no idea how to program a computer to solve them.
And you're saying that solving physics problems means you have a PhD? So for example Archimedes did not solve any physics problems otherwise he'd have a PhD?