Yup, I believe till today, no AI has actually pass the Turing test.

Talking about AI, there is one computer scientist who need to be mentioned, Alan Turing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test
The Turing test is a proposal for a test of a machine's ability to demonstrate intelligence. It proceeds as follows: a human judge engages in a natural language conversation with one human and one machine, each of which tries to appear human. All participants are placed in isolated locations. If the judge cannot reliably tell the machine from the human, the machine is said to have passed the test. In order to test the machine's intelligence rather than its ability to render words into audio, the conversation is limited to a text-only channel such as a computer keyboard and screen.[1]

The test was proposed by Alan Turing in his 1950 paper Computing Machinery and Intelligence, which opens with the words: "I propose to consider the question, 'Can machines think?'" Since "thinking" is difficult to define, Turing chooses to "replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words."[2] Turing's new question is: "Are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the [Turing test]"?[3] This question, Turing believed, is one that can actually be answered. In the remainder of the paper, he argued against all the major objections to this proposition.[4]

In the years since 1950, the test has proven to be both highly influential and widely criticized, and it is an essential concept in the philosophy of artificial intelligence.[5] To date we still do not have machines that can convincingly pass the test.[6]

Mind is non physical and non material, it is thought. Thought is not located in space, and occupies a private universe of it own. E.g. yours mind belongs to you, his mind belongs to his. We can not tap into other people's mind.

Brain is a physical organ located in space. E.g the part of brain that controls the optics will process the signal arrives from the retina. Technically the entire processes of optical behavior could be studied in reductionism science.

This is what we called when physical world meets mental world. To study AI, scientists need to understand if matter acts on mind or mind acts on matter? Also, to study AI, need to understand determinism (algorithm based control) or free will (how could the machine make decision of it owns).

Let me branch out a bit. One question, how do you know your neighbour John has a mind? Is it because you have a mind and he behaves like you, by using deduction, you make a conclusion he has a mind too?

This deduction is actually an act of faith. Why, because you could never ever experience his consciousness, if you could, then that person is no longer him, he is you......So how could you conclude that he has a mind? It appears that everyone makes assumption that they have mind and also have faith to assume that others have mind too.

Now, how can we deduce that a machine (with AI capability) has a mind??

At the end of the day, sciences is just a prime mover for us to explain the universe, no matter how far and how well our sciences and technology advancement, a lot of the big questions would still need to rely on philosophy and potentially metaphysics.

I think, therefore, I am - Rene Descartes

What you mean here is materialism.

I hope I do not deviate too far from this thread, if we wish to know if AI is possible in the near future, need to grasp the concept of what is mind, matter and their interaction. Instead of answering whether I am agreeing or disagreeing, I would like to bring up some philosophy ideas:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
In philosophy the theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions. In other words, the ultimate nature of reality is based on physical substances. Mind is just a consequences of the physical interaction between neurotransmitters within the neural network.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism
In contrast, idealism is the philosophical theory which maintains that the ultimate nature of reality is based on the mind. Immanuel Kant claims that the only things which can be directly known for certain are just ideas (abstraction). Physical world does not really exist; everything is just a perception.

Materialism states that matters gives raise to mind, idealism states that mind gives raise to the perception of physical world. Which one is more accurate? The answer lies within quantum mechanic discovery......

1) All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force...We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter. - Max Planck (German theoretical Physicist who originated quantum theory, 1858-1947)
2) What we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning - Werner Heisenberg
3) A particle quality (momentum, location, physical entities) is not predetermined but defined by the very mind that perceives it - Werner Heisenberg in uncertainty principle
4) Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it - Neils Bohr

Max Planck, Neils Bohr, Heisenberg and Erwin Schrodinger, all are famous physicists in quantum mechanic.

One thing which I find amazing is after reading through some of the topics on modern physics, AI by latest physicists, a few new authors cross reference quantum mechanic (modern physics) with Zen (eastern oriental philosophy) which was nearly 3 thousand years old.

1) Reality is defined by the mind that is observing it - Zen
2) All that we are is the result of what we have thought, the mind is everything - Zen

Food for thought:
A waterfall that is 1km in height is a fact, a waterfall that is beautiful is a perception. Without mind, does the waterfall exists?

Do we human understand what is mind and what is brain? Or we perceive we know them through science??

Nope, I am not and I know you are joking

Descartes arrives at a single principle: thought exists. Thought cannot be separated from me, therefore, I exist. For him, one's mind that doubted proved one's existence and this is happening only on human. He believed animals do not has such capability, hence mind doesn't exists for animals.

The existence ideology seem noble but the conclusion drawn on animals seem not convincing.

What I want to stress is, the center idea for AI is can a machine "think"? How to define "think"? By using science explanation that neural network exists and give raise to the mind does not explain the process of thinking.

When I gone through AI's chapters, think, mind becomes the center piece of the discussion, and along comes philosophy idea about existence within the discussion.

I believe you did not get my points and assume they are not relevant to this topic. Philosophy is not easily being understood. No issue on that.

Assume you are reading this post now, and suddenly you hear a loud noise from outside, the "thought" of "a tree dropped and fell onto 10 cars" or "a car accident happened" could have come into the "mind". How do you give raise to such a thought? Can you find the relevancy between this to my previous post? What is "reality" to you or how the "reality" perceive by you using your senses? How does the "physical" event that happened out there acts as the input to the "thought" and thus affecting your "mind"? You have two options, assume nothing happened and continue reading this Or decided to walk out to investigate. Please note that non of these discussion are supernatural at all.

Let's take a look at the view of mind arise as a result of the working of the brain functions or so called materialism, sound waves in this case, vibrate the ear drum, cochlea, then becomes neuro electric, to auditory nerve to brain, and brain projected and pictured a tree fall or car crashes. So you are saying we can analogy this to computer. Input, process (CPU, brain), output (Monitor) with a lot of signal processing, conditional branching of if, then, else.

Using scenario above, you have two options, assume nothing happened and continue reading this Or decided to walk out to investigate. How do you arrive in picking one of the choices here, computer language if, then, else condition branching??

If one day, physicists manage to zoom in to the brain and look at the "codes" in the brain that decide the conditional branching above, it means there is no longer free will, as this neural electrical circuitry directive and where it goes is deterministic or at least predictable. Else how do we program that in the "future supercomputer" like what you suggested?

Is there a "deterministic directive laws of conditional branching" for "free will"?

I would like to stress again, free will, determinism, think, reality are the center of AI study and research. Materialism (Mind is a consequences of the physical interaction between neurotransmitters within the neural network) is just part of the whole picture of AI research.

You believe in the world of matrix and that human will arrive to that world in the near future? No issue with that. It mean you have faith to the company that come out with this announcement. Not sure which company that is, but your previous post suggested that there is one.

The question is not whether the mind is separated from the brain, but whether matter acts on mind or mind acts on matter.

Thought occupies a private universe of it own means thought is a personal experience. If I can tap onto your thought, that means, I can see the world as you see it ....or simply put...I am you. The question is how do I know you have a mind if I could not access it? Same can be said on AI.

To say that you have a mind or AI has a mind could only be based on deduction. Because mind is thought and can not be shared as we know it today. Actually you can not prove that you have a mind to anybody else except to yourself.

Very good question. Can we put a rock and Tuesday together. Can we find "Pi, 3.142" in the space. Does it make sense to say I own the number seven?

Seven is an abstract idea. It can be illustrated using monitor screen, from the toy number seven, or written on a blackboard. We can not say a chalk (matter) gives raise to seven as seven is an idea and non physical.

Similary, we can not immediately adopt the materialism/reductionism approach in saying that matters would give raise to mind.

Matter is physical and occupying spaces and could be located. While mind is a holistic idea that can not be located in space, and can not be measured.

In a more philosophical explaination, should Latin language was not documented, and non of the Latin citizen exists now, hence we would normally say that Latin language is dead.

We can not say that we can find Latin language (abstract idea) on a physical body of a Latin citizen (matters), as this is a wrong approach.

Latin language is a holistic idea and can not be equate to a physical body (matters) in reductionism.

Same can be said to mind and matter. Mind is a holistic view of an abstract idea of thought and can not be bridge directly to physical matter in reductionism.

Consider asking the following question, is mind attached to a brain cell, a group of cells, or the entire brain? This is the wrong question to begin with.