Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!ap1i+ From: ap1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrew C. Plotkin) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence and Intelligence Message-ID:Date: 4 Dec 88 17:30:58 GMT References: <484@soleil.UUCP> <0XTukNy00Xol41W1Ui@andrew.cmu.edu> <42328@linus.UUCP>, <1069@microsoft.UUCP> Organization: Carnegie Mellon Lines: 34 In-Reply-To: <1069@microsoft.UUCP> /In article <42328@linus.UUCP> bwk@mbunix (Kort) writes: />Andrew C. Plotkin writes: /> >I maintain that a human can be simulated by a Turing machine. Comments? /> /> ... I use a quantum amplifier in my coin flipper. />Correct me if I'm wrong. But a Turing Machine is obliged to follow />a deterministic program. Hence a Turing machine cannot simulate my />dice-tossing method. chrispi@microsoft.UUCP (Chris Pirih) replies... /Nothing prevents the Turing machine from flipping a coin and acting /[deterministically] on the [random[?]] result. (What exactly are we /trying to simulate here, Barry? Is the coin, with its quantum /randomness, a part of the human who consults it?) Besides, is it /necessary that a simulated coin-flip be "truly" random, or just /effectively unpredictable (i.e., that the Turing android eschew /foreknowledge of its pseudo-random pseudo-coin-flip)? I agree with Chris here. When I flip a coin in my head, I have serious doubts that the results are truly random (based on an amplified quantum randomness.) It might just as well be a complex pseudo-random generator. It would work just as well for any practical purpose, such as the balanced ethical dilemma (sp?) you mentioned. (Practical purpose meaning anything where you need a single random bit. If you try to spit out a long string of random bits, the non-randomness of the process becomes painfully clear -- there is a strong correlation between each bit and the several-bit sequence that precedes it. This can be checked with a simple computer program (on each bit, using the previous four or five bits to predict the next). I've found it a 60% to 70% accurate predictor; no doubt a more complex program could do better.) --Z