They don't have to do the same things as humans. If I'm understanding THE1 correctly, then the computers don't have to operate in the exact same function as a human brain, they simply have to do so well enough that we humans think they are mimicking human brains. 

no he thinks it will surpass us and free think

he doesn't understand computers

even if computers are mimicking,critical thinkers can tell.

as for the herd porpulation,they don't even need computer that powerfull.they are deceived by todays media and politics

I don't think there will ever be a computer that can completely mimick a human brain, but I do believe that sometime in the future, technology will progress enough to the point that we can percieve it that way. I'd say that's certainly possible

nope

the only thing that we can do is smoothen the interaction between humans and computers

That's funny coming from you, you're probably the most egotistical person I've seen on here. 

Intelligence is based on learning, creating and solving. Some animals can learn other can learn and create (paintings if taught) but there is no animal (that I know of) that creates things on their own. Sure they can use tools like a stick or a rock to crack open an egg, dig up worms and that is intelligence.

We humans are more intelligent as we can learn so much or ells we would not be on the internet and writing and whatever.

Everything living has a soul (that’s what makes the body “live”) and for me the bigger the animal is the harder it is for me to kill it. I mean compare a mosquito too a cat for example. Of course I would kill the cat and leave the poor mosquito alone!

As for humans hmm if you would ask me to kill a killer or a normal nice human I would kill the killer as that = less humans dead. But if you’re talking about intelligence then I can’t answer that. I would prefer not too choose who dies unless it’s about a killer…

I'm no tech guru and I certainly don't know how advanced computers, or any man-made beings, will reach during the rest of human technology, so I really don't know how smart computers can or will become. I doubt anyone can predict how advanced technology will become in hundreds of thousands years, so I won't get into this debate. In fact, I'm almost certain it's impossible to predict how far technology will progress in hundreds of thousands of years. I'm sure a hundred years ago, people could never have predicted the achievements of our technology, now. History has shown us that predicting anything concerning technology only one hundred years in the future will likely be wrong, but if you think you know what will or what won't exist through technology in hundreds of thousands of years, then so be it.

Besides, the matter of computer intelligence wasn't the focal point of this thread anyway. Sure, it may be ridiculous to suggest that computers could surpass the intelligence of humans (I truly don't know), but that's the entire basis behind hypothetical questions. With hypothical questions, there's usually a idealistic premise (which may be impractical) that is assumed to be true for argument's sake of the greater proposition at hand.The hypothetical premise may or may not be possible, but that's not the point. The point of these question is to explore the potential consequences of the principle in question.

Just because it's impossible to ever occur, doesn't mean it's not worth discussing the potential effects of it's imaginary existence.

Grow an imagination, sheesh.