Philosophy is not the right tool to attack AI science, although it has taken itself up to do so. I would sum up my general argument to support this as: "AI has

Philosophy is not the right tool to attack AI science, although it has taken itself up to do so. I would sum up my general argument to support this as: "AI has enormous philosophical implications, but philosophical thoughts have very few implications on AI development (other than which research branches get social blessing)." The philosophical lines often seem to boil down into something like, "but even if it was intelligent, it wouldn't know what it's like to think like a human, thus it isn't thinking like a human", but this seems like a really weak line of thought to me. I don't nor ever could know what it's like to be you or any other person, but I can certainly relate and be related to by others as a human. There is over whelming evidence that the brain's operation(and thus it's resultant product: conscious and human though) is a physical process. There is no physics that suggests we can't replicate this process, but using a different substrate(ie electronic computing of some shape or another), and there is no physics that suggests we can't make such a system mimic the physical processes as a human. It seems more likely, in this case, that the differences and difficulty of relating to such a artificial system would be similar to that of just another different human being.