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
