Although "Watson" got nearly every question correct (he did not get all of them, though), seeing his second and third choices left me with the notion that he may be on the way toward intelligence, but he's not thinking like a human -- yet.

Take this example: Under the category "Hedgehog-podge" (for $1600):

(quote) Hedgehogs are covered in quills or spines, which are hollow hairs made stiff by this protein (unquote).

Watson buzzed in and replied: "What is keratin?" And he got his $1600. The graphic at the bottom of the screen showed this:

keratin -- 99% certain
Porcupine -- 36% certain
fur -- 8% certain

His human programmers have done an excellent job getting a computer closer than it's ever been to understanding our language (which was their goal). But looking at the above snapshot, I don't think they're quite there (I'm pretty .

And with the Daily Double he got wrong:

"The New Yorker's 1959 review of this said in its brevity and clarity it is 'unlike most such manuals, a book as well as a tool."

He answered "Dorothy Parker," and looked about as ignorant of language as Ask.com's search engine (picking up on 1959, "brevity" and "wit," but missing the link between "Book," and "review" as the subject).

... My feeling is that he doesn't quite grasp the role that "this" plays in our human language -- as a pointer to underline the most important idea ("this" pointing "protein" in the first question, and "of this" referring back to a review in the New Yorker).

(And he Totally blanked on the category "also on your computer keys")

But I did notice that he seemed to have an unexpected emotional connection to the number seven -- carefully working out his wager to end up with $77,147. Could there be the spark of a spirit in all that silicon?