regarding quantum neural computer announcement

[Dr Michael G Dyer]

Dr. S. Kak:  Regarding your Quantum neural computer
			announcement:

I am not a physicist and have not yet received your tech rep (so I am
really sticking my neck out),but it seems to me that there are two
assumptions you make that are potentially controversial:

	1. that intelligence needs something at the
quantum level (this is something R. Penrose also argues for).

To my knowledge, there is no evidence as yet for this.  Chess playing
machines are now at grand master level -- w/o quantum effects.
Connectionist/neural models exhibit nice learning and robustness properties
-- w/o quantum effects.  Bayesian-based AI expert systems perform
sophisticated reasoning-under-uncertainty tasks; there are natural language
systems that answer questions about themselves, thus exhibiting some
limited form of self-awareness, etc. -- all w/o needing to postulate
quantum effects.
 
At this point no persuasive argument has yet been made for needing
quantum-level effects to solve any particular task involving reasoning,
language, memory or perceptual processes and the like.  If there are, then
I would certainly like to know them (Penrose sure never came up with any!)

	2. that quantum-level phenomena could never be adequately simulated
by a Turing machine (i.e. that reality is not computable).

After reading a number of (non-specialist) books on quantum physics, I am
not yet convinced of this.  E.g., the collapse of the wave-form appears to
be required as a result of the wave-particle duality, such as observed in
the 2-slit experiment.

But let's consider the 2-slit experiment.  Individual electrons or photons
hit a screen, one by one, and register like particles.  Over time, however,
their overall pattern is like that of waves (e.g. interference,
diffraction).

But there's an approach that could produce similar results from completely
deterministic equations -- i.e. chaos theory.  For example, there are chaos
games in which the dots generated on a screen jump around as if at random,
but over time, a pattern emerges, of instance,. a fern (e.g. p.238 of
Gleick's Chaos book).  If something that complicted can be produced by a
sequence of apparently random dots (particles), then why couldn't something
as simple as a wave interference pattern also be produced in this way?
This could turn out to be the case if the emission of a particle alters the
field in such a way that the path of subsequent particles emitted will
produce the desired, wave-like result.  In this (albeit hand-waving) case,
then, there would exist deterministic equations generating wave-like
behavior and the whole thing could be ultimately simulated by a Turing
machine.

Like I said before, I am not a physicist, so perhaps you (or someone else
on connectionists) could correct the(possibly gross) misunderstandings
contained within my naive suggestion.  In any case, I look forward to
obtaining and reading your tech report.

-- Michael Dyer