#I-Hegel: Why there will never be artificial inteligence (#AI)

... but perhaps something more powerfull.
Lately, I have been thinking about AI a lot. Right now, I am readig Hegel again, and I am trying to do it seriously (sorry guys, I do not know if this could be done in English...).
What strikes me is this: There is no intelligence.
Intelligence is a force ("Kraft") that is said to lead to different expressions ("Äußerung"). Think about a guy who plays chess on a grandmaster's level and is able to solve any mathematical equation with ease. He is very intelligent, isn't he?
The problem is that we do not know anything about the force exept for the expressions. We can not find intelligence in anyone without him expressing something we declare to be intelligent. Therefore, the expression and the force cannot be differentiated in reality. Someone does something we label intelligent and therefore we say that the mystique force of intelligence is somewhere in him or her.
Hegel tells us that this is a wrong judgement: The subject intelligence has its own predicate (the expression) as substance. And vice versa, the subject expression is said to have the substance of its predicate (the force). The brilliant actions are the realizations of the underlying force. But this force is only and exclusive realized by its expression. This is a tautology. And this is exactly what AI trys to copy:
Imagine a machine that plays chess on a grandmaster's level and is able to solve any mathematical equation with ease. Is it intelligent? Everyone says no, because in the case of the machine, the same capabilities are not taken as expression of the underlying force intelligence. It would be easy to program a machine to solve all known intelligent tests. Nevertheless, nobody would call this real AI.
Let's take a look on what the American Psychological Association says about intelligence (cited via wikipedia):

Individuals differ from one another in their ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning, to overcome obstacles by taking thought. Although these individual differences can be substantial, they are never entirely consistent: a given person's intellectual performance will vary on different occasions, in different domains, as judged by different criteria. Concepts of "intelligence" are attempts to clarify and organize this complex set of phenomena. Although considerable clarity has been achieved in some areas, no such conceptualization has yet answered all the important questions, and none commands universal assent. Indeed, when two dozen prominent theorists were recently asked to define intelligence, they gave two dozen, somewhat different, definitions.

First, there is no unique definition of intelligence. Second, everyone can life with the fact, that this is a very "complex" phenomenon, so all approaches and definitions are said to be both: Not true, but nevertheless somehow on the way to understand the subject. Third, the real problem is that "a given person's performance will vary on different occassions": i. e. intelligence is solely found in its own expression.

This means, intelligence is a tautology. It does not exist.

Instead of looking for AI, we should perhapse try to constract AS - an artificial spirit. Take the first paragraphs of the "Phenomenology of the Spirit" and program it. What we might reach is a self-contiouseness machine (which leads us directly to a singleton or an artifical god as I will outline later).

If this thought is substantial, every actual approach to AI that I am aware of is about to fail. You cannot reach AI by generalizing the tasks, by expanding trial and error mechanisms (like in machine learning), nor by reconstructing the human mechanism that is able to think (the brain). If you want a machine to think, you have to understand the notion ("Begriff") of thinking.