It's an interesting subject for sure, dating back to Plato Vs. Aristotle. I used to believe futurists like Ray Kurzweil etc. but now I am not so sure. While we will no doubt continue to simulate larger and more complex brains, we have yet to properly define intelligence let alone self-awareness (humans primary driver).
Nature itself does not seem particular intelligent, it relies on crude trial-n-error (survival-of-the-fittest) and tracer-bullets (mutations) rather than up-front design. Indeed, modern agile processes looks an awful lot like a step back to nature. The fact that you can hire 100 teams to solve a problem* and they will all get to very different solutions, suggests to me that it makes little sense to equate computer intelligence and human intelligence. When all 100 teams start to arrive at the (very near) same solution, then we may be more ready to define "intelligence". /Casper *Not a pure algorithmic problem a la TSP. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
