Hi, Bob Klahn!   
   I read your message from 14.11.2014 16:08   
      
     BK>>>>> So, my musing analysis leads to this question, when you reach   
     BK>>>>> the point where you can't actually tell if a computer's   
     BK>>>>> response is just a program line, or actual intelligence, can   
     BK>>>>> that be considered the dividing line between programming and   
     BK>>>>> artificial intelligence?   
      
     AK>> Suppose you have two logical tasks. They can be done both by a   
     AK>> human or a robot. The dividing line that exists between a human   
     AK>> and robot lies not in the logic. A live being can feel happiness,   
     AK>> emotions, love -- in short things that cannot be programmed or   
     AK>> defined as an algorithm.   
      
     BK> I don't know whether or not they could someday be programmed,   
     BK> however, I do see where an artificial intelligence could be a   
     BK> sociopath.   
      
   Robot will never enjoy to kill humans. But it can be erroneously    
   programed and make mistakes. For instance, in its program there can be    
   stated that if someones kill people by thousands they are terrorists and    
   must be killed. And this robot can make a mistake and kill a pack of    
   American soldiers. ;-) Or a robot can decide erroneously that the    
   country under the nuclear attack and start a nuclear war. But all this    
   have nothing to do with bad behavior or evil intelligence of the robot.   
      
   Intelligence cannot be evil. Human feelings can.   
      
     AK>> So, there is no difference between programming and artificial   
     AK>> intelligence. And we can also say that human feelings have nothing   
     AK>> to do with intelligence, and human   
      
     BK> That is a possible part of the definition.   
      
     AK>> feelings never will be programmed in robots. Because the   
      
     BK> If you programmed the responses to mimic human feelings to the   
     BK> point where no one could tell the difference, would there be a   
     BK> difference?   
      
   If a wax copy of a human resembles him very much -- does it mean that    
   there is no difference? If this wax puppet move its brows and lips will    
   it make it more human? No, of course.   
      
     AK>> core of the matter is a human consciousness, that is an   
     AK>> incorporial thing. More of that, nobody understand it, not   
     AK>> speaking about reproduction.   
      
     BK> That is why I am musing on the questions. We do not know much about   
     BK> it, thus how do we judge it?   
      
   There are some great mystical facts that cannot be either explained or    
   understood by humans. For instance, human cannot explain eternity and    
   eternal things. A human thinks that there must be the beginning, and in    
   the same time he affirms constantly that every form of matter is born by    
   another form of matter.   
      
     AK>> Making robots is easy. They can do (repeat) any intelligent tasks.   
     AK>> But nobody knows how to create consciousness and awareness of   
     AK>> self. Or to understand what is inspiration....   
      
     BK> Not yet. Does intelligence require awareness of self?   
      
   No it doesn't. Every computer program can be called an intelligent object.   
      
     BK> All that I don't believe anyone knows, but a lot of self anointed   
     BK> philosophers will proclaim their truths as if they were truths.   
      
   It seems to me that many good philosophers just conjectured things.   
      
   Bye, Bob!   
   Alexander Koryagin   
   fido7.debate 2014   
   --- FIDOGATE 5.1.7ds   
    * Origin: Pushkin's BBS (2:5020/2140.2)