Well, we're not talking about just any robot that fulfill a single role, it's more about robots that have sentient mind without artificial scripts programmed by human.

and feelings too

I've said earlier, specialist robot is the best for what it do. The entire sentience thingy is related to creating a robot that THINKS like a human and not for only a specialist purpose.

We are programmed by our society and education system, but we can still defy and question what has been said. Given an AI with 10000 times the power of a single human brain, they wouldn't conceive basic thoughts that sparks many scientific breakthrough we've seen. AI is still a piece of software that will work only within it's parameter.

Well this topic is about robot and AI anyway, I was discussing about AI and since you do not care I don't think you should be discussing anything about it, no?
1) Everybody can feel, and inevitably they can't escape feeling everything around them. The only way to defy that law is to live in a state of denial but when it's in denial it's a world fabricated out of one's fantasy, that's no longer science.

2) Existence is physical, meaning if you're dead, people still know you. Living is part of existence.

You said most, that means not all, and with the option to CHOOSE to feel or not that's the biggest difference between us and an AI system. AI system can't be selective in what it absorb; A chess playing AI will never put up a bluff in a poker game UNLESS it's scripted to do so.
Biological creations are the best model only when they fit the intended function. I am saying a bi-pedal robot is the worst possible design in specialist function because they're made into jack of all trade.

I gave example when I said wheels, now tell me, is running on 2 legs faster than 2 wheels if you were tasked to move through every single city of Europe?

true AI will need to be able filter out noise from information (ignore certain things, if you will) even more than humans due to their higher sensitivity sensors.

true AI will also need to notice things outside of their design parameters and report back anomalies. how that is to be achieve, i have no idea, perhaps some form of neural network decision making system.

Why you asked? It's nature for human to explore every possibility. Why don't you ask the scientist who are pursuing the same thing too?

Yes you're right and you're just bringing back all my points that artificial intelligence is different from human intelligence(I already said something along that line in my 1st(2nd in thread) post).

Human being IGNORE things and event, but can an AI system do that, give enough confusing/clashing input to an AI system and it'll crash. Human simply takes a time out and slowly figure out everything. If I were to bet on whether an AI system or a human brain is able to come out with the theory of everything, I put my bet on the human brain. If you feed an AI system both law of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, it won't come up with anything like String Theory.

Scientist don't obey the rule of engineering that 'if it works, why fix it?' Science QUESTION everything. What is there to discuss here if everybody just say forget it since everything is working, why fix it?

And superman is the most irrelevant thing I've read in this thread so far. It's being totally ridiculous.
We're not discussing soul here, but human intelligence and comparison of AI to human intelligence.
Already answered you on the first quote.
Computing power is the shortcut to human like intelligence, the computer generates all the possible outcome of an event and choose the best. Very basic AI system still uses this pure brute force method.

thats why its ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. ie, to emulate human intelligence. we already have computer intelligence.

first huddle is to find some algorithm to assign importance to stuff so the AI will know what to ignore, what to focus, what to KIV, and what to forward to seek advise from others.

I'm sure it's not pure trial and error, but also governed by instincts. But I'm also quite sure not all ants build structures which are identical, right? I'm sure the same species in different areas (with different environments) have slightly different methods of doing things. These differences are probably due to different results from trial and error.

I'm sure it's not pure trial and error, but also governed by instincts. But I'm also quite sure not all ants build structures which are identical, right? I'm sure the same species in different areas (with different environments) have slightly different methods of doing things. These differences are probably due to different results from trial and error.

We do not know for sure, yet. But our ability to learn and improve our technologies, shows, to some extent, that we do not know all at once. If the human intelligence is a computer with a huge programme based on DNA, why did we have to progress in stages? For example, if we knew that it would be more efficient to use electrical engines, why did we ever use steam-engined trains? And why did we use magnetic computer storage instead of using blue-ray or the best possible technology immediately?

You said normal people only use 3% of the brain, may I know according to what method did the researchers arrive at that percentage?

These figures were made up through MRI scan plotting area with activity peaks. If we only use 3-6% of our brain, why would we need such a big brain to start with?

A simple injury to one tiny part of your brain will kill you and I don't think that support the above mentioned theory at all.