Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!bionet!apple!versatc!mips!prls!atdcad
From: atdcad@prls.UUCP (Ron Cline)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: free will
Message-ID: <23045@prls.UUCP>
Date: 16 Jun 89 20:13:26 GMT
References: <1478@cs-spool.calgary.UUCP>
Reply-To: atdcad@prls.UUCP (Ron Cline)
Distribution: na
Organization: Philips Research Labs, Sunnyvale, California
Lines: 36

In article <1478@cs-spool.calgary.UUCP> falkg@vaxa.UCalgary.CA (Geoffrey Falk) writes:
>...since I am a strict believer in a universe governed by physical (secular)
>phenomena alone, I have formed what I believe may be the only explanation
>for consciousness.
>

I don't "believe" in a purely "physical" universe, but I still agree with
everything you say in your posting.

>..(lines deleted)
> 
>...  It is therefore my conclusion
>that an actual "thinking" machine lies in the exploitation of some other
>physical phenomenon by which an element of nondeterminism can be injected.
>Such is the nature of the human brain.
>
>I suggest that the way to achieve this, is by utilizing quantum random effects
>in neural microcircuitry.
>

In 1975, L. Bass from University of Queensland, Australia, published a
paper on "A Quantum Mechanical Mind-Body Interaction", hypothesizing such
a random decision maker inside the human brain.

As far as microcircuitry is concerned, I believe it will be *necessary*
at some point in the future to include such a quantum-based decision maker
within computational hardware, based solely on system needs.  Note that
"Chaos" is not necessarily present.

I could go further, but the venue is wrong.  However, I can suggest that
free-will and indeterminate-choice are, indeed, self-consistent within
a single world-view.  And there is no reason that AI should be excluded.

Ron Cline
Signetics/Philips
Adv Tech Dev