From: Perry E.Metzger (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Dec 01 2003 - 14:49:34 MST
"J. Andrew Rogers" <email@example.com> writes:
> On 12/1/03 5:28 AM, "Lawrence Foard" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Eugen Leitl wrote:
>>> It's a computer, Jim, but not as we know it.
>> I assume your talking about neural nets, not magical mystical macro
>> quantum computers?
> It doesn't matter. As far as I can tell, quantum computers have no
> computationally special properties beyond reducing the time complexity of
> some classes of algorithm. If you can do it on a quantum computer, you can
> do it on vanilla silicon. Quantum computing solves no problems that
> couldn't be solved before, though it makes some problems more tractable.
Exactly right. QCs aren't capable of doing anything TMs can't do --
they just reduce the time complexity class of many problems. Even if
the brain were a QC, it could still be mechanically simulated. The
only thing that would really damage the Strong AI hypothesis would be
the discovery of phenomena that were somehow non-modelable at work in
the brain -- but of course, we're unaware of ANY phenomena that are
non-modelable, let alone the phenomena in the brain.
-- Perry E. Metzger email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:43 MDT