Dear Dibakar Pal

I would say that humans are AIDED by emotions, not typically guided (in a strong sense).  I would say that major human learnings and major cognitive developments are GUIDED BY (strong sense) innate action patterns (the sort of perceptual/attentional shifts I indicate in "A Human Ethogram ... " (AND now researchable)).  

Robots have to be programmed by humans in order to function.  Humans don't really NEED robots for anything.

the main differences are

Consciousness

Deliberation and Intentionality

Ethics and responsibility

Choice and autonomy

Imagination

Emotional feeling

Pleasure/Pain

The problem is in the original question. Which are, and which are not, useful human capacities, and who gets to decide? This requires more than empirical evidence, because it implies non-empirical judgements including moral judgements. And it's not just our "useful" capacities (however decided) that are involved in being human. Further, usefulness is both a function of the capacity and the context. But suppose for the sake of argument an artefact could be produced which had "all useful human abilities and human capacities", it would still not be human, and there wold be a struggle to obtain for it (note "it" not him or her - even our pronouns give us away) the rights and responsibilities of a human. We actually have little difficulty distinguishing between human and non-human. So we have no difficulty in claiming that infant and old people with dementia are human, while mature chimpanzees are not. Some have of course questioned the categories (eg Singer in his animal rights work). And maybe we need new categories. If so, the question you ask is the wrong question. Big issues, short(ish) answer.

soul; a robot will never have a soul.

The problem is the cloudy question. What is meant with human abilities or human capacities? To speculate differences we need clear definitions of human abilities. The human mind always is a black box. 

 @Sotirios

Soul is not part of natural science.

The problem breaks down into distinct philosophical and technical design issues.

Firstly, I subscribe to brain-mind parallelism, that every nuance of the human mind (save the quality of inner experience, which is not open to scientific measurement) is reflected in neurological activity. Secondly, all such activity must be replicable in software, that is what we mean by human-like AI. An AI robot without this functionality would not meet the terms of the question.

Would such an AI have inner experience, be "conscious" as we are? That is a philosophical question beyond the domain of AI engineering. It is not clear whether the question includes this issue. My view is that a human-like AI would experience consciousness.

The only reason the current generation of AI do not have emotions is because they have not been programmed in. A few examples of emotion-like behavior are beginning to appear and there is no reason not to assume we will get there.

Ultimately, the only differences between a human mind and a human-like AI will be the differences we build in, the ones covered by that "-like" suffix. How "like" our bodies and senses will we care to make its body and senses? How much "like" our ability to innovate at the expense of making the odd mistake? etc. etc.

Remember, philosophers may make bad scientists, but scientists make even worse philosophers!

Dear Paul C Knox and Wilfried Musterle  

I am willing to take responsibility for the difficult and cloudy question.  What you really need is a credible "fully containing" empirical (fully testable) system, which is correctable.  I am big on DIRECT empirical evidence or a direct empirical basis for each and everything -- if it's possible and credible, try that, do that.  That is what I have tried to provide. 

The important thing is to start correctly; one cannot expect to well-cover everything or cover the things expressly covered, totally correctly from the beginning.  I "believe in" and advocate self-correcting systems:  the SUBJECT (the human) always fully informs AND corrects -- that is what I mean, and that is what must be the case with the system.  See if my system can be seen like this or make one (a proposal) yourself.  THE MAIN THING IS DOING IT AND 'SEEING' EMPIRICALLY ALL YOU NEED TO 'SEE' AT A GIVEN POINT (kind of like a language which is "mathematical" in its abidances, though clearly NOT a mathematical system in a big or true sense (at least one I can see)).

P.S. Dear Paul C Knox 

Suppose for the sake of non-argument we observe instead of argue.

I am a good, thorough-going empiricist and would [irrationally] posit nothing outside the empirical.

Dear Rajarajeshwari K.C 

What we need to establish OR clearly be "enroute" to establish is the list you provide.  The basic necessary definition of some of these things is not hard -- do not be fooled by any "reputations" of topics and subject-areas provided by philosophers .

Dear Guy Inchbald

We must refrain from making judgements or conclusions clearly "in-advance". I do not find statement like "beyond the domain of AI engineering" either proven or constructive.

Philosophers do not necessarily make bad scientists, and scientists do not necessarily make bad philosophers -- that is my view.  (There have been many non-helpful, thus hurtful, philosophers who were clearly not scientists.  Plus, there are MANY, MANY psychologists who have personally NOT thought their systems out.)

P.S. Dear Wilfried Musterle And Dear Sotirios Diamantas 

I do not have a soul, nor do others, in my view (https://mynichecomp.com) . So, I do not worry about that.

---------------

THE THING FOR ALL TO CONSIDER IS: CAN I SAY SOMETHING VERY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT YOU SAY,  YET NOT BE PROVEN WRONG (and have a useful potential to be proven correct)?

How nice. In declaring "I do not have a soul, nor do others, in my view", Brad Jesness is making judgements or conclusions clearly "in-advance", the very thing he advises me not to do. Brad, I take it that you are a computer scientist and not a philosopher?

Dear Guy Inchbald  

I have NOT made judgements in-advance of a LOT of relevant observation and thinking -- and, by that, I mean the kind of empirical considerations and clear thinking possible.

"Soul" is a hindrance according to the Buddha and the clear observations of many.

Here is a summary of how and why: https://mynichecomp.com (there is absolutely NO religion there, in any conventional sense :  it is a testable or eventually testable view -- empirical, rational and realistic Buddhism).

if Ai Robot has created by humans, then humans will not allow it to do any mistakes but we "real humans" will do mistakes, both consciously and unconsciously

Dear Hiroshan Gunawardane  

It is now thought everything clearly influencing cognitive behaviors with overt behaviors accompanying them or following them are either conscious or pre-conscious (capable of being made conscious, with the correct context and cues).  In fact, some question whether anything cognitively significant is totally unconscious.  Thus, our mistakes are not unpreventable.  Thus: the AI robot need-make no mistakes, especially with development and refinement (also: more than 1 person is always involved: everything must be shown replicable).

I would say, there are overlapping similarities between Computational Intelligence and Artificial Intelligence.  Mostly,that is celebrated as an AI Robot with almost, human abilities. However, AI Robots display lack of  finer Emotional Intelligence and other kinds of Cognitive behaviour. These conditions  exist because of an absence of organic Amygdala in biologically inspired computers. Therefore, an AI Robot will differ from real human being in multiple ways. 

Dear Meenakshie Verma  

Your statement seems to be based on what exists.  We most certainly are not done with AI; in fact, many in the field seem to believe they have barely started.  [ P.S.Activity in brain regions rarely has any 1-to-1 correspondence with behavior AND, secondly, the MEANING OF THE BRAIN ACTIVITY is based on the scant behavioral evidence -- that is its empirical foundation; to me brain activity always provides only clues and it is impossible to see how it could be otherwise, since it is behavior we are (here) trying to explain -- it provides welcome clues, but only clues.  Perhaps most of the need for such clues is better explained by the bad behavioral science, rather that the potential of well-seeing brain activity corresponding to behavior.  ]

 Not an answer, but...would IT be able to have faith in god? 

Dear Rui Filipe Antunes  

I do not think that "God" could be clearly and meaningfully operationalized (i.e. ever given useful and system-consistent operational definition(s)).  I, myself, am an atheist (as are true Buddhists who take a wholly, completely and exclusively  rational, realistic Buddhist perspective -- something I believe is the CORE of Buddhism) and I am fully confident that this position is the useful one -- even for the highest ideals.

If there must be something to be seen as God-like:  Only if an IT person believed that the "God-like" was the clear causality (in sequences) of phenomenon ITSELF and nothing else would he/she have a position that would not hurt his/her own work.  This would basically simply be beholding real and now-better-known phenomena, which he has come to know, with awe-struck appreciation, and perhaps wonder (his mind now better integrated and consolidated, providing him then with the "mind-space" needed for this appreciation/perspective *).  A atheist can essentially have this same view (and also be appropriately optimistic), I believe.  [  If you must have something awesome and God-like, the first part of this paragraph is all I can provide.  I have no basis to provide anything else. ]

* FOOTNOTE: This is basically the perspective that allows more yet to be taken into working memory (and to keep doing that correctly as one seeks progress **) I.E. The rightfully ("correctfully") obtained "mind-space" is what  allows for clear, valid and understandable [communicable, replicable] progress. (Enough of this and you may have a glimpse of nibbana (aka nirvana); if put in real terms, this could also make you a 'stream-enterer' -- a stage of personal development more clear, correct, and more ethical, and it being a stage allowing for further correct development.)  This is how it is possible not to throw out at least some conception of  "spirituality" (continuous PERSONAL growth)  something -- in the sense just described -- we would not want to do.

**FOOTNOTE: Too little appreciation is given the the limitations and the nature of  the correct use of working memory (and using it so as to stay correct -- and communicable, verifiable, replicable -- progressively).  Working memory (with a limited 'span', a bit like STM) is something most psychologists do not always take into consideration (to say the least), with their "progress" -- they do not operate in-line with one of the best established findings OF PSYCHOLOGY (and then arguably their "theories" are wrong).

[ I think I should point out that there is no reason (I can think of) that an AI robot could not do all of the knowledge-building and development described above.  He too, in this sense, could sense the "god-like" (i.e. awesome, and perhaps wonderful, new perspectives)! ]

------------------------

------------------------

Expect some edits to be made to the new material ON FAITH, below:

ABOUT FAITH:

Within an empirically defined (often subject-defined) area of interest for investigation: if one has some rational, realistic reasonable hypotheses (which at least at some point could be testable) AND has some clues (indicators) that what one suspects/expects might be so, this fits with an understanding of what may be the beginnings of useful faith (at least that which could be the possible beginnings of faith for an empiricist). BUT in such a given circumstance, in addition, one should be able to state and show the clarity and appropriateness of your entities and their dynamics (memory capacities involved, guidances and associative learnings) as such, BY doing so in a way related to necessary and well-established, applicable assumptions AND as 'things' which must be related to other findings (as the relationships involved have been "spelled out"): This then moreso allows you to believe something is like you think it is before the final actual direct or full discovery is made (i.e. before all the direct evidence is found) -- and, this very well and fully fits a definition of "Faith" (appropriately thinking ahead/imagining about what is possible in a case, about some important matter). Such an appropriate faith is a good thing, a needed motivator, providing the needed direction and necessary to be open to find all the clear important relationships (and yet it allows your view to be correctable).

Agreed, we are not yet, done with AI.  Since, its about acquired Behaviour, lets take up a recent incident. Last March, Microsoft had launched an AI Bot, Tay, on Twitter. In less than 24 hours of its launch it was pulled out from the social media. They  were concerned with the alarmingly irresponsible Tweets that came from Tay. Basically, it had been programmed to 'learn' from the conversations around it. This incident addresses prime concern about AI. Since, it is created to replicate human intelligence. The premise being that an AI program can be 'taught' behaviour, the way human beings acquire behaviour and manners since, infancy. However, an apparent difference is that while, human beings pass through different stages of learning from infancy to adulthood; and human brain develops Critical and Comparative thoughts through various stages of learning. An AI Bot does not do this innately, meaning they will go on repeating whatever they have learnt, unless they are upgraded, frequently.

I think the only way is to direct discussion with him on phylosophical ground and inquire about the morality and etics in some very sophisticated situations. Of course the emotional contact in this situation can give some clues ???

Jerzy

PS. Dicussion about love and religion can be helpfull

as him if he belives in reincarnation and why or

test his knowlafge on Unified Field Theories or cosmology

Dear Jerzy Zbigniew Achimowicz  

There is no need to believe the Buddha's cosmology (i.e. believe in any after-life, happenings after death, _or_ reincarnation, and/or in gods and such) to fully obtain all the benefits of behaving and thinking as otherwise prescribed by the Buddha.  I believe in nothing at all which is super-natural; I have outlined essentially the entire thinking and the terms of the Buddha, by looking just at the rational, realistic (possible to test, real-world) statements you can find in his teachings and I found it still a coherent thought system for continuous personal development (aka "spirituality")): https://mynichecomp.com .

Perhaps it is up to you to indicate HOW (in real empirical terms) certain things MUST "go beyond" the full model I have prescribed (I can't in advance argue against everything I don't believe -- or at least that seems not-so-useful and not fun).

Dear Meenakshie Verma  

There are NO major developments or significant major learnings that are well-described OR defined by modern psychology (none); all their views on such are simply greatly misleading.  Part of this is because they keep separating nature and nurture, when the two must literally not only both operate, but OPERATE (at least in any real effect) AT THE VERY SAME TIME (this is something their assumptions and constructs do not allow for).  In a very real way, there is no definition of learning, beyond perhaps that which is most trivial and incidental, which is satisfactory.  THUS, when you talk about an AI robot failing after "learning" (about it misbehaving), this means nothing because much of learning is not understood at all by psychologists (and several of its possible bases are entirely neglected, while their views are based on the ridiculous and unproven, and not well-based in any clear, acceptable way). 

Plus, there is no open definition of "stages" of development because unfounded, unproven presumptions, used as assumptions, rule out any actual big innate guidance FOR STAGES.  Find my other writings on how six or seven  fundamental "assumptions" of modern psychology are not only unproven and unfounded, but also more likely untrue (this is all here under my Profile, under Contributions and then under my Questions (asked) and Answers (given) -- 300+ pages of explication in addition to my 2 linked-to major papers, containing important and now testable hypotheses). One thing I offer is  the better alternative assumptions (more likely real, if only because of some clear relationship to biology -- AND BEHAVIOR IS BIOLOGICAL FUNCTIONING).

The innate problem occurs even in your own statement.  Also, tell us the various important ways "stage" shifts can occur, in your view and see how that goes ...

IF YOU COULD CONCEPTUALIZE "THE INNATE" IN ACTUAL SPECIFIC BEHAVIORAL DEVELOPMENTS (and learnings) OF THE AI ROBOT (something, then, we could also program), then you could well be modeling (at the same time) some more-true conceptualization of learning and development which occurs with humans.  It, in short, is really time for psychology and psychologists to get real !  Think direct, proximate causes for everything and become more empirical -- a real empiricist.  No vague, imagined-for-summary write-up suffices (such modern psychological summaries often are based so poorly, with very little or no incremental or actual concrete evidence, that they are delusional (see the "ham-stringed" and strange "embodied" theories of human development, for example, with their made-up-as-needed constructs of just supposed (and unlikely) behaviors and developmental learnings *)).

*FOOTNOTE: The crudeness of psychology's major understandings can be illustrated or "hinted at" by the ubiquitous and undifferentiated OR vague use of  the word, "learning".  By now, if progress was good, there should be many systematic, agreed upon (scientifically reliable and validated), and  ecologically valid differentiations (types of learning) here.

[ You have to think "outside the box" itself, because you are in the wrong "box".  You are fighting, often mainly, to defend and seemingly support this "BOX", but now must examine and question "the box" FOR THE SAKE OF EMPIRICISM. ]

Agreed that , the “New AI” is no longer concerned with the needs to observe the consistencies and limitations of being compatible with the biological nature of human intelligence: “Old AI crucially depended on the functionalist assumption that intelligent systems, brains or computers, carry out some symbol processing, and that the symbols processed are a representation of the field of action of that system.” (Pickering 1993, 126) The ecological approach of the New AI has its greatest impact by showing how it is possible “to learn to recognize objects and events without having any formal representation of them stored within the system.” (ibid, 127)

Apparently, the New Artificial Intelligence research has abandoned the Cognitivist perspective and now, instead relies on the premise that intelligent Behaviour should be analysed using synthetically produced equipment and control computer architectures (cf. Munakata 2008). The underlying distress has  been voiced by researchers like Kate Crawford (Microsoft Research) There is warning against the impact that current AI research might have, in a noteworthy lecture titled: AI and the Rise of Fascism. Crawford analysed the risks and potential of AI research and asked for a critical approach in regard to new forms of Data-driven Governance and a desire for ABSOLUTE CONTROL.

Likewise,on the lighter note an USA movie, The Matrix (1999) had addressed similar issues around AUTHORITARIANISM in a popular and fictional language. Furthermore, absolute "Empiricism" can only add to an Existential Fatigue !! I can not think of shifting my 'Enclosed Thinking'. Nevertheless, I will wait for the ultimate model of intelligence an, AI robot. Perhaps, than can shake us out of stupor caused by outdated and crude models in Psychology and related CBT (Cognitive & Behaviour Therapy) disciplines. Though, an ideal AI robot sounds Utopian and Fictional at the moment. Maybe, something like certain episodes from Star Wars would surface !! relevant for the contemporary situations related to computational and artificial intelligence research and development. 

Dear  Meenakshie Verma 

You quote: (Pickering 1993, 126):  “Old AI crucially depended on the functionalist assumption that intelligent systems, brains or computers, carry out some symbol processing, and that the symbols processed are a representation of the field of action of that system."  That sounds most excellent to me.  AND you go on to quote: "The ecological approach of the New AI has its greatest impact by showing how it is possible “to learn to recognize objects and events without having any formal representation of them stored within the system.”"   The "without any formal representation of them stored within the system" sounds terrible.  Apparently, in some ways, I agree quite a lot with Pickering 1993.

Then, in you next paragraph, you mention AI people coming up on their own, with their own architectures.  < -- That (as you indicated too) sounds like a terrible idea.  And, as you indicate, it seems like it could be dangerous, though how successful it could be in the first place (for true AI) is highly questionable.

There are historically some good behavioral science models that are biologically compatible (some good, old ethology) and some (i.e. 1 or more) that are that way now -- for more on that, see my last 'answer' to the following question: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Since_I_have_had_to_add_a_lot_of_behavioral_specifications_I_am_compelled_to_ask_How_bad_is_true_full_artificial_intelligence_today_how_is_it_bad

Think of an INTIMATELY GUIDED (but developing gradually)  totally empirical approach, and where all issues may not need to be answered all-at-once to show demos of good "proofs-of-concepts" . This basically solves the problem of " "Empiricism" can only add to an Existential Fatigue", you cite.  For "proofs-of-concepts" described: See a couple of the other  'Answers' under:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Since_I_have_had_to_add_a_lot_of_behavioral_specifications_I_am_compelled_to_ask_How_bad_is_true_full_artificial_intelligence_today_how_is_it_bad

Dear Meenakshie Verma, Thank you for your thoughtful response, addressing some significant issues.  I am relieved that you seem to forgive me for my rather harsh, and somewhat presumptuous earlier response to you.

P.S. In any case, if one is realistic about human information processing (working memory), learningS, innate guidance and memory, one would not even consider working out a whole system "in their mind" -- we simply do not "have what it takes" to do that.  The mind (our minds) must be guided bit-by-bit [(ironically?)], with minimal errors (and with self-correcting  SAFEGUARDS)  at each step in the development of a system we come to know and which we (at the same time) come to formulate.

P.S.  If one had an idea about how good empirical psychology could be done and THUS then be translated into mechanisms of an AI robot, then we could better contemplate how that robot could/would differ from a human (or not):  So let's examine:

How can good true empirical psychology, alone, make it more than plausible (and very likely) that FULL, true artificial intelligence is possible?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_can_good_true_empirical_psychology_alone_make_it_more_than_plausible_and_very_likely_that_FULL_true_artificial_intellegence_is_possible

Dear  Dibakar Pal 

You can build emotions into AI.  They are relatively simple (though some emerge only with development, for example: shame and guilt -- you also have to build the progressive hierarchical types of learning into AI too and these developments yield such "secondary emotions", along with new ways of thinking); emotions are also rather highly patterned; they are variable in people (somewhat in nature and in amount).  BUT: they do have a typical TYPE of adaptive function, aiding in proper response (e.g. surprise, joy, anger, fear, even guilt) so they should be there in the AI robot, and I do not see why they couldn't be.

Conscience and repentance involve reflectivity (thinking about your thinking or thinking about what you have done) ; an AI robot would have to have reflectivity to properly learn and develop.  Conscience and repentance also typically involve emotion, again no big deal.

See: http://atlasofemotions.org/#states:anger ETC.

Dear Dibakar Pal  

If you are asking what is the difference between a human and a AI robot with all human capacities and capabilities: this is something I do not know and cannot fully imagine.  BUT the AI robot would be programmed not to BE exactly like a human (with errors, mistakes, and irrationality) but to HAVE all the capacities and abilities OF a human; it should be quite instructive for us to see and learn from that.

Dear Dibakar Pal 

It is so. But, the topic here (the one I want to discuss here) is FULL artificial intelligence, so not limited to menial things

Here is an answer I put in another thread, which has basically the same topic/Question: STILL, for more, also see: https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_are_or_going_to_be_the_main_differences_between_AI_and_Human_Intelligence 

I have more Answers there.

Human and AI robot.  If the following is how it IS (with the human), then this would give some clear idea of what a true AI robot would be like AND BE WORKABLE for engineers and programmers (though quite a lot of psychology research might be necessary).  It is fully workable BECAUSE THIS IS a 100% empirically-based development (developmental) system, based on behavior patterns (and developing behavior patterns) "interacting" with specific environmental aspects, and those things being the proximate causes of behavioral change. (The ONLY other things always used and always taken into consideration in this system are the empirically well-established and well-defined natures of the memory capacities -- which most certainly seemed necessary; these are "open" CAPACITIES that provide only limits and perhaps, then, some influence on structure BUT are not ever of themselves sources of content.)

Here is likely the briefest outline of the system (pure behavioral psychology) :

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Could_some_behavior_change_have_overt_aspects_so_subtle_as_change_in_time_environmental_aspects_are_gazed_at_or_significant_decreases_in_gaze_time

This (above) is the "containing system"; there is no problem adding in the more non-universal (in behavior) stereotyped, specific-function-type behavior patterns: here I am thinking of  the emotions.  (NOTE, though: Some secondary emotions, like shame and guilt, rely on first having cognitive developments, such as covered in the outline of the "containing" system (see "A Human Ethogram ... " to learn about some more specific (more specified) particular cognitive developments associated with some emotions).  "Interest" is NOT an emotion -- I don't care if it seems like it (it does NOT have enough stereotyped patterning. )

(This "containing" system is a cognitive-developmental system and works autonomously and develops with the proper things (objects and/or happenings) perceived and attended to, and given the memory capacities: working memory (as it "goes") and the other memories also being active.)

One of the things that I've noticed some answer are failing to point out is the status of a human as a responsible agent, which, I believe is crucial to understand the difference between a human and an AI.

For example, when we say that "Paul chooses what to eat for dinner", what we mean with the word "choose" concerns our modern notion of freedom and responsibility. When an AI "chooses", that choice cannot be considered equivalent to Paul's choice because the choice of the AI is an outcome of a programmed algorithm, and not a deliberated thought like that of Paul.

In gist, whereas Paul's choice of dinner is his de facto choice and responsibility, the robot is dependent on a set of pre programmed responses. The argument can be made that AI can be programmed to self-learn and to become independent, but even in this case we would still assume that the responsibility over the choices and actions of such an AI are of the programmer.

This automatically forces us to rethink the role of responsibility in our society and how a large part of it is given to human beings since we live in a world where we uphold the principle that all humans are free and equal. Can we one day attribute these same principles to AI? Maybe yes, maybe no, only time will tell.

For further reading I suggest looking into some of the following philosophical texts: John Searle's Chinese Room experiment, Dave Chalmer's Zombie, and Vincent Descombes book "The Mind's Provisions".

Dear Artur Ribeiro

Let me address your statement, " Paul's [(a human)] choice of dinner is his de facto choice and responsibility, the robot is dependent on a set of pre programmed responses. The argument can be made that AI can be programmed to self-learn and to become independent, but even in this case we would still assume that the responsibility over the choices and actions of such an AI are of the programmer "

And, thus, even in the latter case: (repeating the last part of your Answer, above):

"we would still assume that the responsibility over the choices and actions of such an AI are of the programmer" BUT, NOTE the: "we would still ASSUME part", especially.

I DO certainly see the point. YET, while it may not be easy (in the sense of getting findings and having the KNOWLEDGE OF THE HUMAN NEEDED), I think it also is not impossible. IF EVERYTHING THE HUMAN IS, at least if each and every major set of behavioral responses, IN ITS INCEPTION has: some clear, directly-observable, proximate-cause relationship to "taxis behavior" (overt behavioral response patterns shown in a circumstance automatically AT THE APPROPRIATE POINT IN ONTOGENY (development)) _AND_ to corresponding clear environmental aspects at THAT TIME _AND_ if the nature of internal manipulations (thought) can be well understood IN TERMS OF _PREVIOUS_ such direct, clear responses and environmental aspects -- and reasonably "tracked" more indirectly and inferred (_AS IT IS NECESSARY_) and "seen" as some major behavioral influence (esp. on what the organism attends to), PLUS "seen" integrated at times (during later developments, as hierarchical behavioral/thought patterns develop) [(i.e. at some key times some are "seen" in some understandable way as INTEGRAL with OTHER (new) reliable behavioral patterns IN these LATER developments)] -- _THEN_ the human could be simulated, with choices and actions NOT determined by the programmer BUT RATHER by human-type processing of experiences over a course of behavioral development (ontogeny) (

If includes true artificial feelings, no difference (except assigned rights).

If software on existing computers only two differences

- would not actually feel

- true randomness would not be present only pseduorandomness

Preprint ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE EVOLUTION