It won’t happen. We will destroy our current civilisation before we can ever get that far.

Just some notes:

(1) Evolution not in the sense of optimization (as it’s usually applied), but adaptation (Darwin’s theory is a simple and elegant algorithm);

(2) Solving the full Hodgkin-Huxley set of equations demands extreme computational power, but that won’t be a problem in the future. For the time being we can stick to simpler models and we’re well served;

(3) Yet we don’t know how to wire the network, and our best guess is: let artificial evolution alone take care of it;

(4) Embodiment: intelligence (i.e., adaptive behavior) is an emergent process (following the view of the New AI) and can’t come to existence without a body and its interactions with the environment;

(5) We must begin to study simple artificial organism before going to the more advanced ones (bottom-up approach).

These are just some points I’m currently working on.

As to human intelligence and thinking, I wonder if there’s any kind of real (human) intelligence without the understanding of language too? And to understand language, in an intelligent way, one also has to understand human culture, values etc.

Of course, also animals like dogs, parrots or even cuttlefish have some kind of ability to solve simple problems, without the need for real language. Maybe that kind of “dog” intelligence could be a better goal for AI researchers than trying to make machines understand human thinking?

Weaker AI in the sense of expert systems etc. does work, but expert systems have nothing to do with real thinking. Those computers and programs are just tools that people use, a bit more complicated calculators combined with human made databases of information collected by people.

I seriously doubt man-made machines could ever reach the level of strong AI. Even if they came a bit closer - theoretically - they would probably still depend on their human programmers so much that they could be described only as tools that people use and that depend on people. Movies or games may simulate things in life rather well - but they are still just movies and games, made by people.

A classic (and funny) long two part article “Artificial Stpidity” by John Sundman still shows how far we are from simulating human mind with computers. Read it, be educated, and have a few good laughs too:

Artificial stupidity (part 1)
The saga of Hugh Loebner and his search for an intelligent bot has almost everything: Sex, lawsuits and feuding computer scientists. There’s only one thing missing: Smart machines.

Artificial stupidity, Part 2
Can chatterbots be as dumb as a box of hammers and still pass the Turing test? Go ask ALICE, she might know.

I just found another good article on the same subject too:

The Dream of A.I.: There is no substitute for man by Derbyshire, John