From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!The-Star.honeywell.com!saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com!shanks Tue Jun  9 10:07:14 EDT 1992
Article 6103 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!The-Star.honeywell.com!saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com!shanks
>From: shanks@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com (Mark Shanks)
Subject: QM as a path of inquiry for AI 
Message-ID: <1992Jun5.162012.24944@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com>
Sender: Mark Shanks
Organization: Honeywell Air Transport Systems Division
References: <1992Jun5.045522.19139@news.media.mit.edu> <1992Jun5.130022.26367@cs.ucf.edu>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 92 16:20:12 GMT

In article <1992Jun5.130022.26367@cs.ucf.edu> clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke) writes:
>In article <1992Jun5.045522.19139@news.media.mit.edu> nlc@media.mit.edu (Nick  
>Cassimatis) writes:
>> DID ANYONE EVER WONDER WHY YOU RARELY SEE DISCUSSIONS ON
>> THE RELEVENCE OF QM TO MOTOR CONTROL OR LANGUAGE OR ANY OTHER ASPECT
>> OF COGNITION?  Why focus only on consciousness?  This phenomena
>> convinces me even more that that QM is just a wild card that makes
>> people glassy eyed enough to accept mysticism.

I don`t see the connection between QM and mysticism, "A spiritual discipline
aiming at direct union or communion with God or with ultimate reality through
trancelike contemplation or deep meditation." Are there aspects of quantum
theory that suggest to you something less than (or maybe "other than" is 
better) an attempt at objective scientific investigation? Why is QM a "wild
card"? Is QM an ideology? 
 
>> Much talk about Quantum Mechanics is a sign of intellectual decadence.
>> 
>As the "originator" of the current QM threads I must comment.
>
>Much talk about QM and the mind _is hokum_, but by totally rejecting the
>possible relevance of quantum effects to mind, the baby may be going out 
>with the bathwater. Quantum mechanics is ill-understood and mysterious
>and inasmuch as QM is a "theory of everything", the universe is ill-
>understood and mysterious. 

As has been argued in previous postings, QM has not explained everything,
and possibly has fundamental inherent flaws. But to date, it's hypotheses
have consistently been verified through experimentation. It seems that
many of the elements of the theory have an irritating effect on people
who seem to thing that QM has a hidden agenda to warp "Western rationality"
and inflict some form of mysticism on the scientific community. 
>
>I think my original point is still valid:  Harnad's thesis that grounding
>in the physical world is important to mind may find a physical explanation
>in QM phenomena.  Harnad's  argument therefore cannot be refuted by
>arguments based on simulation of classical physics.
>
>The central problem of AI - Searle's anyway - is that a machine behaving
>intelligently may not be conscious - have qualia etc. etc.  Even Searle
>would agree that it is possible to build a zombie - use a humongous LUT 
>if all else fails.  
>
>Achieving consciousness may require something else, that something else
>might well be quantum.

Agreed. And it might be something else. But QM is a valid concern, and
IMHO, is NOT a wild card for glassy-eyed decadent mystics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Shanks
Principal Engineer, 777 Displays
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


