Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!jhunix!ins_atge
From: ins_atge@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Thomas G Edwards)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Artificial vs. ''real'' intelligence
Summary: Quantum Function Computation
Message-ID: <5767@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU>
Date: 7 Jul 90 21:58:45 GMT
References: <1990Jul2.182411.4441@king.mcs.drexel.edu> <5734@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> <598@dlogics.COM>
Reply-To: ins_atge@jhunix.UUCP (Thomas G Edwards)
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University - HCF
Lines: 42

In article <598@dlogics.COM> dsa@dlogics.COM (David Angulo) writes:
>In article <5734@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU>, ins_atge@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Thomas G Edwards) writes:

>> One thing for sure is that QM functions, being physical functions,
>> can be determined by physical devices.

>No they cannot.  Please stop saying this.  It is incorrect as has been pointed
>out here many times.

I think we have a misunderstanding here.  When I say "determined", I
mean measured.  For example, an electron passing through a diffraction
grating has a probability field of where it will end up hitting
a target.  There is no evidence that any a priori method can discover
where exactly it will hit.  The electron collision location can be
located by physical devices after the collision.
_That's_ what I meant by "determined" and "computed", not 
pre_determination or Turing Computable (My words
were a little misleading...sorry).  

There are some who believe that this apparent randomness is the
"Philosopher's Stone" of intelligence...that some mysterious "force"
can make the electron go (in the case stated above) to the proper
location on the target which might enable a system utilizing electron
collision detectors on the target to make an "intelligent" decision.
(Of course, those who hold to this tenet feel that this happens in
a real neural system, not our diffraction grating).

>> This may include
>> an external Gieger Counter hooked up to the machine if you
>> insist on having QM functions neccessary for intelligence

>Well, I don't insist that QM is necessary for intelligence (outside of
>how it is important for the world); however, to say something like this
>you need to understand QM better.  "Hooking up a Geiger Counter" will
>probably change the result of your experiment.

Exactly.  That is the fallicy behind "QM-induced intelligence."
Now, I see no reason why QM-probability fields cannot be used for
stochastic computations, but there is no significant benefit in using
it over other well-behaved random systems.

-Thomas Edwards