I don't know if we can or cannot. I suspect that we will continue to work at mimicking the human mind in limited and controlled conditions. A chess computer doesn't work anything like the human mind does when playing chess (unless they've become that much more sophisticated in the last dozen years) but the end result may be convincing, because it's a single circumstance with controlled variables. Though to be fair, the computer would need additional modules to mimic the psychological nuttery that Kasparov and Fischer displayed at times.
I think we will be able to really play with advanced AI after we figure out quantum computing. As one of the articles Napoleon linked explains, the human nervous system isn't a gated on/off system running at XX GHz. You can't really mimic how it works until you can, uh... mimic how it works. But hey, unreachable goals are what keep us learning, and along the way we discover other useful stuff.
I think we will be able to really play with advanced AI after we figure out quantum computing. As one of the articles Napoleon linked explains, the human nervous system isn't a gated on/off system running at XX GHz. You can't really mimic how it works until you can, uh... mimic how it works. But hey, unreachable goals are what keep us learning, and along the way we discover other useful stuff.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
-Stephen Jay Gould
