Who are you?

I think, therefore I am.

A robot can be programmed to say the excat same thing, robots can work 24/7 where people needs rest after a couple of days on max. Robots can do the job more accurately, where humans will always have relative big diversion in their repeated effort, just look at a signature.
We have spelling errors, calculating errors ..etc.

So what do you want with your "I think, therefore I am"? ..yes it sounds good to navel gazers, but not for much more use than that.

When faced with something new, will the robot adapt? Say we had a robot created in the 1800's (What if). This robot was supposed to do everything at the time. Add and subtract, multiply and divide!

Now, leave that robot alone with no humans for the next few years. How far will it go? No further then it's original commands. Commands given by humans. Who think.

1) don't really recall any robots in the 1800's, only recall machines.

2) what the heck has the 1800's any relevance to 2010? ...nada?

When faced with something new, will the robot adapt? Say we had a robot created in the 1800's (What if). This robot was supposed to do everything at the time. Add and subtract, multiply and divide!

Now, leave that robot alone with no humans for the next few years. How far will it go? No further then it's original commands. Commands given by humans. Who think.

What is the difference between artificial intelligence and just intelligence?.

One actually exists, the other is only a figment of the imagination.

Have a look at Hubert Dreyfus' critique of AI e.g. 'Why your brain is not a computer'. Puts rest to such secular fundamentalism forever.

I am afraid my attitudes to AI were irremediably scared by seeing 2001: A Space Odyssey at age 15.

I also think that the idea of artificial intelligence in itself is profoundly deluded. It's a religious thing I suppose. But there is probably no use me tryiing to defend that position. When Dreyfuss came out with his critique of AI in the late 1960's all the experts were outraged by it. How could a philosopher possibly understand what these clever scientists were capable of? The temerity of it. As it happens, 40 years have since passed, the mirage of AI has stayed as remote as it was in 1969 and many people are now forced to ackowledge that Dreyfus was right all along. But the hubris of materialism knows no limit, save that inconveniently imposed upon it by death.

A dog knows, through whatever passes for its own sort of common sense, that it cannot leap over a house in order to reach its master. It presumably knows this as the directly given meaning of houses and leaps - a meaning it experiences all the way down into its muscles and bones. As for you and me, we know, perhaps without ever having thought about it, that a person cannot be in two places at once. We know (to extract a few examples from the literature of cognitive science) that there is no football stadium on the train to Seattle, that giraffes do not wear hats and underwear, and that a book can aid us in propping up a slide projector when the image is too low, whereas a sirloin steak probably isn't appropriate.

Yeah, but my cat thinks it has to meow to be fed even if there is food in its bowl :p

If you pick it up and put it back down again then he eats, not before.

Anyway, on computers vs brains. A brain is unlike a computer in that is very very different from any computer we have now. It is like a computer in that it doesn't contain any immaterial soul that a computer could never have.

So to answer whether a computer could be a brain, it depends on what you are trying to show.

I'm sure computers in 100 years (maybe much more) can hve "souls"

No. This is false advertising.

I think there is a difference between being, as in Hiuman Being, and existing, as in things that exist.

Computers are not beings. They are able to calculsate with enormous power but not everything can be reduced to a calculation or an algorithm. Being is self-knowing and cannot reasonably be denied. ON the other hand, computers, no matter how complex, are objects, not living subjects.