Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> Dear Wei,
>
> Interleaving.
>
> [SPK]
>
> Yes. I strongly suspect that "minds" are quantum mechanical. My
> arguement is at this point very hand waving, but it seems to me that if
> minds are purely classical when it would not be difficult for us to imagine,
> i.e. compute, what it is like to "be a bat" or any other classical mind. I
> see this as implied by the ideas involved in Turing Machines and other
> "Universal" classical computational systems.
> The no cloning theoren of QM seems to have the "right flavor" to explain
> how it is that we can not have first person experience of each other's
> minds, whereas the UTM model seems to strongly imply that I should be able
> to know exactly what you are thinking. In the words of Sherlock Holmes, this
> is a "the dog did not bark" scenario.
>
> > What about AIs running on classical computers?
> >
>
> [SPK]
>
> It would help us to find out if an AI, running on a classical computer,
> could pass the Turing test.
To Stephen, et al.,
I strongly urge contemplating a new set
of criteria to replace the Turing Test.
Suggested reading:
<
http://www.ceptualinstitute.com/uiu_plus/evolcons.htm>
(1996)
Jamie Rose
Ceptual Institute
Dec 23, 2002
Received on Mon Dec 23 2002 - 23:58:16 PST