On 9 Sep 97 at 1:49, Eric Smith wrote: > Andrew G Williams wrote: > > Just read the Penrose books. > > Brief summary of Penrose's position (with which I strongly > disagree): Must check out the local library. > > Computers can't have intelligence because they are specifically > designed to avoid randomness due to quantum uncertainty. This was a > mostly accidental (but generally fortuitous) result of using large > numbers of electrons, thus getting statistically predictable > behavior. > > Humans, on the other hand, use neurons that might possibly > demonstrate macroscopic behavior influenced by quantum uncertainty. > Therefore, they can't be simulated by computers. Therefore > computers can't be intelligent. > > Obvious problems with his argument: > > does human intelligence really depend on quantum > uncertainty? > > if so, couldn't there be another means to achieve equivalent > intelligence without quantum uncertainty? Aren't scientist developing a so called 'quantum effect' computer, anyway? > > As near as I can tell, Penrose believes quantum uncertaintly is > necessary to intelligence because: > > all known naturally-occuring forms of inteligence involve > quantum uncertainty Thats like saying - "All life is based on the carbon atom, therefore life based on other atoms is not possible" (impossible to prove a negative, isn't it?) > > we've never developed intelligent computers (circular > reasoning) Kasparov was sounding rather hysterical on the subject. MikeS (remove the you know what before replying)