JayMark said:
[quote author=session]
For example: your computers, which are now on the verge of reaching the level whereby they can think by themselves, will begin to develop faint soul imprint.
Q: (L) That's not a pleasant thought.
I don't think computers -- or more specifically, artificial intelligence -- are quite there yet. Well, at least not that we're aware of.[/quote]
"...that we're aware of" is key, I think.
From conventional, historical literature on the subject, biological-based neural net experimentation was actually ongoing in the 1950's. The earliest nets were called "perceptrons", but there was a problem with these "computers". They computed in a way that Marvin Minsky described as "in a drunken stagger". In fact, except for a small minority of dedicated researchers, Minsky was instrumental in eventually turning everyone's interest away from biological-template neural nets. Instead, interest and funding was directed towards analog and digital boolean-binary-driven computation resulting in the computers we're using right now.
Minsky was a brilliant guy with precision logic and some flawless insights, but ultimately turned out to be wrong. Post 1974, the 'problem' with perceptrons was discovered. Among other improvements, a 'back-prop' (backward propagation of errors) algorithm was implemented, or rather 'allowed to happen'. Results were incredible: these nets could become self-teaching by handling, by themselves, the adjustment of 'weight' or connection strengths given to the various neuron connections contributing to a final conclusion. (See "The Quantum Brain" by Jeffery Satinover, p. 25-32 for more info).
Today, a 'rat brain' can self-teach to fly a jet if the following 2007 article can be believed, so what else might be possible for biologically-driven "computers" and humans as well?
_http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/99111/Rat-brain-flies-a-jet.html