Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!rutgers!ucsd!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!jhunix!ins_atge
From: ins_atge@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Thomas G Edwards)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Artificial vs. ''real'' intelligence
Message-ID: <5781@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU>
Date: 10 Jul 90 18:04:42 GMT
References: <1990Jul2.182411.4441@king.mcs.drexel.edu> <5734@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> <5767@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> <599@dlogics.COM>
Reply-To: ins_atge@jhunix.UUCP (Thomas G Edwards)
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University - HCF
Lines: 32

In article <599@dlogics.COM> dsa@dlogics.COM (David Angulo) writes:
>In article <5767@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU>, ins_atge@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Thomas G Edwards) writes:
>> I think we have a misunderstanding here.  When I say "determined", I
>> mean measured.
>
>Sorry, you can't measure them either.  That is, you can measure a particle's
>physical position (with, say your Geiger counter) but then you don't know[
>where it is going or where it has been.  Or you can measure its momentum
>but then you don't know where it is.

OK, let's replace "measuring a QM function" (which I accept is impossible)
with measuring an aspect of an object (such as velocity or position).
This does not preclude the fact that if I measure one aspect of an object, I
neccessarily 'change the experiment' and change other
aspects of the object.

Anyway, for QM phenomena to have some relevance to real
neural system computation, there must be "measurement" of one
aspect of the QM phenomena. 

I still state that I see no reason why people feel that
there are some kinds of QM phenomena being measured in the brain
which gives real neural systems intelligence which cannot be
replicated by artificial systems.

We also see above that Dave points out that this measurement
of one aspect of QM phenomena neccessarily effects other
aspects of the QM phenomena.  I don't see how this 
validates or invalidates the claim of QM based intelligence (maybe Dave
can point that out).

-Thomas