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)