@Silas
Quick reply: I think we will not know exactly, but that does not mean we cannot do it.
More detailed: I believe that the process will go with some sort of connectionist approach maybe mixed with some genetic algorithm voodoo. The key is reaching high complexity system that does something and starts to self-evolve (which in fact is nearly the same thing as learn).
Anyway, I believe that when all is done, we will have the same problem understanding Strong-AI mental processes as we have human brain ones.
Interesting… Reading this entry somewhat awakened my interest in computer chess… And I think I have stumled upon a nice example “inteligence as book smart” misconception.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess960
“Fischer believed that eliminating memorized book moves would level the playing field; as an accidental consequence, it makes computer chess programs much weaker, as they rely heavily on the opening book to beat humans.”
Classic example of “bias”. The reality:
“In 2005, the chess program Shredder, developed by Stefan Meyer-Kahlen from Düsseldorf, Germany, played two games against Zoltán Almási from Hungary; Shredder won 2-0.”
That was only the second public match of computer vs human.
It is also worth noting that almost the equal relevance in the wiki article is given to human competitions as is to computer ones.
Now, of course, the remaining question is: “does the machine understand chinesse if it can speak better than chinaman”? :)