Getting back to this whole A.I. thing for a minute....I find it totally discouraging and an utter lack of comprehension that we define a well written data-base algorithm such as Watson as 'intelligent'. If these software programs were truly A.I. in the sense that human being had intelligence then Watson would be randomly thinking about the boobs of it's fellow competitor if it were male or the types of shoes they were wearing if it were female. Watson can't do that, and neither can a chess playing computer because it's not in the software. It's not A.I.
Software will never be able to produce a truly non code origin A.I. All it can produce is something that mimmicks what we think is A.I, because we're preceptually too lazy to care.
I don't agree. What exactly constitutes intelligence? We humans are composed of non-living, non-intelligent constituent parts, mostly carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, and other trace minerals. And yet here we are, collectively tooting our own horn about how smart we are. I'm more of a funtionalist - if it seems intelligent then it is. It may be limited in scope, but still intelligent.
As for your assertion about non-code AI, what exactly do you think humans are? We definitely have code, and our intelligence is directly based on it (consider the intellectual capacity of a human vs. cat for example)
Facebook
Twitter