Alan Tuling
Simulated game I suggest that consider "whether the machine can think". First, we must consider how to define it under "Machines" and "Think". The definition below can be usually close to this two words, but this idea is dangerous. If you explore the meaning of "Machines" and "Thinking", only the meaning of finding the usual words, then it is difficult to escape this conclusion, that is, the meaning of "can think about it" and answer only It can be found from statistical materials such as Gaolp public opinion, but this is very absurd. I don't plan to come up with a definition, but use another question instead of this problem, this new problem is closely associated with the old problem and is relatively unfold.
The new form of this problem can be described in a game we call "to the game". Three people participating in the game, one is male (a), one for women (b), and another as questioner (c), gender. The questioner is sitting in a room with two people. For this questioner, the purpose of this game is to identify the gender of the two answers. He represented two answers with X and Y, so that he can say: "X is A and Y is B", or "x is b and y is A". Question c can take such a problem to A and B, for example: C: X, please tell me how long he or her hair is?
Now, suppose X is really A, that a must answer. A The purpose in this game is to make C to make an error judgment. Therefore, he can answer this way.
"I have a short hair, the longest about 9 inches".
In order not to listen to the question, the answer is in writing, if you use a typewriter, it is better. The ideal condition is that the two rooms are contacted by a electric typing telegram. If you can't do it, you will pass questions and answers by a middleman. The purpose of the third participant B is to help questions. Her best strategy may be the truth. She can supplement this in her answer, for example, "I am a woman, don't listen to him!" But this is not used, because the male can say the same.
We now imagine such a question: "If a machine plays a role in this game, what will be what is the result?" Asked in such a game, it will be like a man and a woman. What is old? These issues replaced the original question, ie "Can the machine think?"
In addition to ask "How to reply to this new question?" Can also ask: "Is this new question worth exploring?" We discussed how much troubles were discussed, which prevents unlimited phenomenon.
This new problem has a feature. It makes a clear distinction between human physical strength and intelligence. No engineer or a chemist claims that it is possible to make a substance that is not different from the human skin. Perhaps at a moment, people can really create such a miracle; however, even if we think, trying to give a "thinking machine", it will not make this machine more like people. The form of what we have raised is to reflect this fact in the following circumstances: the questioner does not see other players, they can't hear their voice.
Some other advantages of this standard can be reflected in the following demonstration issues:
Q: Please give me a fourteen poem on the bridge, give me a fourteen poem. A: Don't let me do this. I never make poems.
Q: Add 34957 and 70764.
A: (After 30 seconds, answer) 105621.
Q: Do you play chess?
A: Play.
Q: I put K in K1, no other mold. Your K is in K6, R in R1. Now I am going to you. How can you go?
A: (After 15 seconds), walk R-R8, General!
This kind of answer seems to apply to all the human activities we want to include. If a machine is in the selection of beauty, we must never pursue it, and if a person is behind a plane running, we have no saying. The conditions of this game are not related to these defects. If the "witnesses" feel good. They use it like to brag, put their own charm, strength and brave fearless blow, but the questioner cannot ask them to provide actual proof.
A weakness in this game, that is, the situation is very unfavorable to the machine. If this person tries to disguise itself into a machine, he will go to the ocean. When he is doing arithmetic, he immediately eliminated due to slow or inaccurate speed. Does the machine can't engage in something that is considered to be thinking but is there a very different way to think about people? This objection is aggressive, but we can at least say this, although the machine can be made very satisfactorily, we also use not for this objection to multi-feet.
We recommend that when playing analog game, the best strategy of machine is not to imitate the behavior of people. Despite this possibility, I think this will not have much effect. Anyway, here we don't want to explore the theoretical problems of the game, we believe that the best strategy is to try to answer questions like people.
The problem in the game we started to be a strict definition after the word "machine", can only be seen after a strict definition. We naturally hope that all engineering technologies can be applied to our machine. We also hope that such a possibility, that is, an engineer or a group of engineers make a running machine, however, the manufacturer of the machine cannot be satisfactory to its operations, because the methods they use are basically Testive. Finally, we want to distinguish between people born in a usual way to the machine, to make a definition to meet these three conditions, it is difficult. You will also promise, for example, a group of engineers must be the same gender. But this is hard to work because it is possible to cultivate a complete individual by a single cell, such as a man's skin. If you can do this, it is a big creation of biotechnology, you can celebrate, nevertheless, we will not think that this is an example of "manufacturing a thinking machine". This makes us abandoned the requirements for using all technologies. We will do this without a scruple, because we noticed such a fact that the current interest of "thinking machine" is caused by a special machine. Usually we call it "electronic computer" or "digital computer". If we accept this suggestion, then we only allow digital computers to participate in our games ...
The digital computer has a prominent feature that can imitate any other discrete machine, so we call it an universal machine. The machine with this feature has a far-reaching impact. If the speed is not considered, there is no need to design a variety of new machines to carry out various calculations. These calculations can be done by a digital computer, as long as it is equipped with a program suitable for various calculations. We will see that because of this reason, in a sense, all digital computers are the same.
Confisons about major issues Now we can say that they have made premise, and prepare for "Can I think?" This problem continues to debate ... We can't discard the original form of the initial problem, because Whether it is appropriate, there is a different opinion, so we must at least consider what you must say this. I want to explain my own opinion on this issue first, then readers will feel simpler. Let us first take a look at the more exact form of this problem. I think in 50 years, the computer's information storage capacity can reach approximately 109. In this way, the computer will be smooth in the simulation game, and the general questioner can accurately identify the probability of importance. 70%. The problem I think if the machine can think about? "I think there is nothing to discuss. However, I think that the end of this century, because the vocabulary will have a large change, the general academic insight will also change, and people can re-talk about the thinking machine and will not contradict them. I also think that if you cover these views, you will never bring any benefits. It is widely believed that scientists conduct scientific research work, always from reliable facts to reliable facts, never affected by any unverified hypothesis. This view is actually wrong. If you can clearly divide which is a proven fact, and which is no harmful assumptions. Assumption is often very important because they have hinted a beneficial research direction for research.
I now talk about the view of my opinion.
(1) Against theory of theology. Thinking is a function of human immortal soul. God gives every man and a woman with an immortal soul, but never gives it to any other animal or machine. Therefore, animals or machines cannot think.
Although I can't accept this view, I tried to answer this question with the language of theology. If animals and people come into a category, I think this point is more convincing; because in my opinion, the difference between creatures and non-biopsies is much better than people and other animals. If this orthodox point appears in other religious societies, its subjective arbo is more obvious. Islam believes that women have no soul, what is Christian thinking about this? However, no matter what this is now, let us return to the focus of the problem. In my opinion, the above arguments have great restrictions on God's power. God has no power to some things. For example, there is no doubt that he can't let 1 equal to 2; however, do we not believe that if God feels right, can he fully give an elephant with soul? We can hope that God can cause variants through their own power. Due to variant, elephants have a more developed brain, which can be used to meet the needs of the soul. The same form of the same form can also be used to explain the machine. Just seem to be a bit different, because "I believe" is not so easy. But this is actually only explained, we think that God is unlikely to think that these environments are suitable for granting souls. We will discuss the rest of this article. When we try to make such a machine, we should not let God want to create the power of God to create the soul, just like the power of our child's birth; in both cases, we are actually the tool of God, Provide a residence for the soul he created.
However, this is just a conjecture. I still don't think about anything, I still don't think about it. The past has proved that this argument is to vulnerability. In the era of Galileo, some people put forward, "The sun is moving away ... I don't hurry all day, I don't want to fall" ("Joshua Book", 10.13) and "He laid the foundation for the land, called it forever Do not shake "(" Psalm ", 105.5) These verses are used to refute the theory of Corini. From our knowledge today, I feel that this argument is in vain. There is no such knowledge in the past, and the situation is different. (2) The so-called "ostrich policy" objection. "The consequences of machine thinking are too fear. I hope that the machine will never think."
This point of view is not as straight as the saying of the above. But it has an impact on us. We all tend to think that a subtle aspect of human beings is superior than other organisms. If you can prove that people must have a good one, then, then, because of that, he will not be dangerous. The argument of theology is very popular, which is obviously close to this emotion. This view will be more common in intellectuals, because they more respectful thinking than others, so it is more convinced of the superiority of human thinking.
I think this argument is not very important, it is not worth a refurbishment. It may be more reasonable to comfort it; this kind of comfort may be able to find it in the soul.
(3) Dissent from mathematics. There are some conclusions in mathematics logic that can be used to demonstrate the capacity of the discrete state. These conclusions are the most famous of the Gotel theorem. This theorem claims that in any sufficiently powerful logic system, it can form a statement, and the statement cannot be proven to be correct within the scope of this system. Certificate is wrong, unless the system itself is inconsistent. Siqi, Clein, Rosh and Thuringia are also different in some ways to conclusively. The conclusions of Termin are easier to consider, because it directly involves machines, while others' conclusions are indirect: Compared with the Gothen, we need some additional means, describe logic systems through machines. To describe the machine also needs to pass the logic system. This conclusion involves a machine, which is essentially a universal digital computer. Even such a machine, it is also impossible for some things. If the computer is designed to answer questions in the mid-to-game, then it is impossible to give correct reply to some questions, and for others, no matter how long you give it, it can't answer. Of course, although this machine has no many problems, another machine can give a satisfactory answer. We now only assume that as long as these questions answer "Yes" or "no", will not appear "How do you think Picasso?" This kind of problem. We know that the machine must answer the question is the following questions: "This machine has the following characteristics ... will this machine will have a 'Is' an answer to any problem?" It is omitted here to a standard form The description of the machine ... If the described machine has some relatively simple connections, we can know that the answer is not wrong, that is, it has no answer to the roots. This is the conclusion of mathematics. This conclusion has limited machine capacity, and human intelligence does not have this limitability.
If you want to make a brief answer to this argument, we can point out that although it has proven that any specific machine is limited, it does not say anything, human intelligence has no such limitations. But I think this argument cannot be so easy. Whenever one of the machines encounters a suitable problem, we will undoubtedly produce a superiority when we know that we know is wrong. Is this superiority not to illusion? This feeling is undoubtedly true, but I think this doesn't make much sense. Our own usually make mistakes to the problem, so there is no right to make a lot of money because the machine has made a mistake. Also, we deal with a machine is of course loving, but we can't deal with all machines and do not have errors. In a word, it is possible that people are smarter than a specific machine, but there may be more intelligent other machines, so. I believe that most people who have mathematical objections are willing to accept the foundation of the same game as the basis of discussion. People who hold the first two opposition are not interested in what standards.
(4) From awareness. This argument expounds in the Lee Detead of Professor Jefferson in 1949, I cited one of them: "If we admit that the machine is the same, unless the machine can feel the thoughts and feelings rather than symbol Casually apply the fourteen poems or concerto. That is to say, it is not only written, but also know that he does do this. Any machine does not feel (not just a manual signal, which is a simple invention). The joy, it will not be frustrated due to difficulties, because of the confidentiality, because of the mistakes, it is unhappy because of the mistakes, because of the differences, God will be reversed because of the desire to satisfy and violent. "
This argument seems to negate the effectiveness of our test. In accordance with the most extreme form of this point, if you want to be able to think about a machine, the only way is to become the machine and feel your own thinking activities. In this case, he can describe his own feelings to everyone, of course, no one will know that these words are not honest. Similarly, in accordance with this point of view, if you want to know if someone is thinking, the only way is to become the particular person. This is actually the idea of I am. This may be in line with logic, but if this is true, the ideological exchange is too difficult. A will say, "A is thinking, and B is not thinking." And B will say, "B is thinking, and A is not thinking." We don't have to compete for this view, we are not as good as guests to think that everyone is thinking.
I am sure Professor Jefferson is not willing to adopt an extremely ideological point of view. He may be willing to treat this model as a test. Simulation game (omitted player b) often uses the "oral test" form in practice to identify the true understanding of someone, but only "parrot", let's take a look at this "oral test" situation:
Asked by: The first line of your fourteen rows is like this. "I want to make a summer, how?" If you change "Summer" to "Spring Day", it is ok, perhaps it will be better. ?
Witnesses: This change is not rhyme.
Questioner: How about changed to "Winter"? This will happen. [1]
Witness: Yes no problem. But who is willing to make yourself for winter?
Asked by: Do you think that Mr. Picker Wik will make you losnow Christmas?
Witness: Every extent, will.
Asked by: But Christmas is in winter, I think Mr. Picker Wick will not care about this metaphor.
Witness: I am thinking that you may be joking. Winter mean is to refer to a typical winter day, not as special day as Christmas. It is no longer necessary here. If the machine written in the fourteen row poetry can answer this in this "oral test", Professor Jee will think? I don't know if he will think that the machine is just "mechanically passing the signal"; however, if these replies are satisfactory, they are consistent, I think he will not put the machine again. "A manual signal belonging to the simple invention". The so-called "artificial signal belonging to the simple invention" refers to some of the design functions of a machine, which can be used to play a recording of a residential poetry, as long as the key button is turned, you can hear this recording at any time.
In summary, I think most of the people who support dissent from consciousness can abandon the original claims, and not to fall into the dilemma of only my theory. These people therefore may be willing to accept our testing.
I don't want to leave such an impression to everyone, that is, I think a sense of consciousness is not mysterious. for example. To determine the location of the body, it is a mystery. However, if we don't solve these mystery, you can answer this question related to this article.
(5) Argument from various capabilities. These arguments are generally such a statement: "I guarantee, you can make the machine to do anything you just mentioned, but you will never make a machine X-class behavior." This type of behavior includes many features. I am here to pay an example:
To be a kindness, the spirit, beauty, friendly ... is the first spirit, rich in humorous, good at the distinguish, the wrong, will make mistakes ... I will fall into the news, like strawberries and cream ... can make others love it, Tong Da ... ... Wording is right, longer than reflection ... like a person, colorful, innovative ...
Say these words generally don't have proven. I think these words are based on the principles of scientific summary. A person saw hundreds of machines in his life. He has seen some universal conclusions from what you see. They are ugly, narrow applications, as long as they have changed, they are helpless. In addition, their behavior is also very single, and so on, and so on. He naturally believes that this is the general essential feature of the machine. Most of the machine's capacity limitations are too small to store the amount of machine (I am envisioned, the concept of storage can be expanded in some way, but it includes not only the machine of the discrete state, but also other machines. Because the current discussion does not need Pay attention to the accuracy of mathematics, so the accuracy problem is not tight). A few years ago, since the digital computer is still very popular in the society, if you say the characteristics, you will not mention it, then you will think you open the river in the letter. I think this is because people use the results of the scientific summary principles. Of course, when people use this principle, most are unconscious. A child is hot, ten years is afraid of the candlestick, I think he is using scientific summary (of course, I can use many other ways to explain this phenomenon). Human behavior and habits seem to be unsuitable to use scientific summation. If you want to get reliable results, you have to study most of the time and space. Otherwise, we will (like many children who speak English) think that all people in the world speak English, and then learn French is stupid.
However, regarding many of our ability to be mentioned, I have to say a few words, saying that the machine has no ability to enjoy strawberries and cream, this saying that the Fa will make readers feel a little tight. We may like these delicacies, but any attempt to do so is stupid. It is worth paying attention to this ability limit on explaining other capacity restrictions. For example, it is difficult to form a friendly emotion between people with the machine between white and white, or black and black.
It is considered that "the machine does not have a mistake" this idea is a bit of a problem. We can't help but ask: "Do they make a mistake?" Let us stand on the position of sympathy, see what this means. I think we can use the simulated game to explain this statement. Some people claim that the questioner can tell which machine to be tried to the trial number of arithmetic questions, which is a person, because the machine is always not in the answer difference. This kind of saying is not too light. (With analog gaming program) The machine is not ready to give an arithmetic questions at the correct answer. It will succumb to the wrong question. When the machine is counted, the mechanical malfunction is displayed because of an inappropriate decision due to what kind of error. We make such an understanding of this point of view, in fact, it is not very compassion. However, we are limited to this problem to discuss it further. In my opinion, the root of this point is to confuse two different nature errors. These two errors we call "Functional Errors" and "Conclusion Errors". Functional errors are caused by certain mechanical or electrical failures, which cause the machine to work in accordance with the instruction. When conducting philosophical discussions, we can easily ignore the possibility of such a mistake; in this case, we are actually talking about "abstract machines." And these abstract machines say that it is a real object that is not as good as mathematics. From the definition, we can say this: "The machine will never have a mistake." When a sense is linked to the output signal from the machine, it will generate a conclusion error. For example, the machine can automatically play a mathematical equation or a sentence. When the machine plays a wrong proposition, we think that this machine has made a conclusion. Obviously, it is not found that the machine does not make such an error. One machine may not do anything else, will only play "0 = 1" continuously. It may be too much for such an example. We can change an example: the machine will find a way to conclude through scientific summary. This approach sometimes undoubtedly leads to the result of the error. Some people say that the machine cannot be the subject of its own thinking. If we can prove some of the ideals of the machine, we can reject this statement. Despite this, "the theme of machine activity" is really a bit, at least for those who study it. For example, if a machine is trying to solve the x2-40x-11 = 0, we can't help but think that this is that this method itself is part of the machine theme. In this sense, machines can undoubtedly become its own theme. This will help the procedures for the procedures that make their own structure, will help the consequences of the above structure. The machine can modify its own procedures by observing the results of their behavior, in order to achieve some purpose more effectively. This is not an empty idea of Utopia, but a thing that may be done in the near future.
Some people have criticized that the behavior of the machine is relatively single. That is to say, the machine is not able to have a lot of storage. Until recently, the amount of storage reaching 1000 numbers is very rare.
We now consider that some opposition is actually the change of the objection from consciousness. Usually, if we insist on, a machine has the ability to do one, and describes the methods used by the machine. So, it will not impress others. People will think that the method used by the machine (no matter what method, always mechanical) is too low. Please refer to the words in front of the lead in the brackets in front.
(6) The objection of the lady of Lovles. In the memoirs of the lady of Lovlas, the Babic Analysis Engine has been detailed. She wrote this: "The analysis engine does not want to create something. It can do anything that we know how to direct it." (The focus is for her) Hartri quoted this passage, and Supplement: "This is not to say that it is impossible to manufacture electronic equipment that can be" independent thinking ', "said in this equipment, we can cause reflexable conditions that can be used as the" learning "basis. From some recent development situations, this idea is in principle, it is, which has attracted great interest and attention. However, those machines manufactured at that time did not have these characteristics. "At this point I completely Agree to Hartry's view, we will notice that he did not assert that the machine did not have this characteristics. He pointed out that the proof of Mrs. Lovlais can make her believe that these machines have been This feature. In a sense, these machines have this feature, which is very likely because we can imagine that some discrete machines have this characteristics. The analysis engine is actually an universal digital computer. Thus, if its storage capacity and speed reaches a certain level, we can imitate the machine we discussed through the appropriate program. Maybe the Earl or Babi did not think this. In any case, they don't have to mention what requirements, please mention.
There is another claim that the objections of Mrs. Lovles, that is, the machine "will never be innovative". This kind of saying can use a proverb "no new thing in the world" to resist a while. Who can guarantee that his "original achievement" is not the result of accepting education, is not the result of the famous universal principles? This objection is another one slightly better, that is, the machine will never "make us surprised". This kind of saying is a bit straightforward, I can relatively refute them with a tat. The machine often makes me surprised. This is mainly because I do very much for the machine to do, but more exactly because I have been estimated, I have rushful, Malaysi Tiger. I may say this to yourself: "I think the voltage here should be the same as one, no matter what, it is the same." I naturally mistaken, and I was shocked, because I was completed, these assumptions were early Forgot to have two nets. I opened up my own mistakes, but when I confirmed the surprised things, people won't think I opened the river in the letter.
My answer will not make the critics will be silent, he may do this, the so-called snack is because I am imaginative psychological activity, and the machine itself is not coherent. In this way, we have returned to the argument from consciousness, and we have deviated from surprisingly surprising. We have to think that this demonstration method is closed, but maybe it is that it is necessary to make people feel surprised, then there are many "imaginative psychological activities", regardless of this Amazing event is caused by a person, a book, a machine or any other thing.
I think that that is considered to be a surprising view of the machine to be caused by such a mistake for philosophers and mathematicians. It is such a hypothesis that the soul has accepted a certain fact, and everything caused by this fact will flood into the soul at the same time. In many cases, this hypothesis is useful, but people will not help but forget this is a wrong assumption. If you do this, its inevitable results are to believe that it will be known from data and universal principles.
(7) Argument from the continuity of nervous system. It is well known that the nervous system is unlike a discrete state. If the information on the neuroperial pulse scale of the hitting the god is incorrect, the information about the scale of the external pulse will have a large error. In this case, it can be argued that we cannot use a discrete state system to imitate the behavior of the nervous system. The discrete state machine is definitely a lot of a continuous machine, this is no problem. However, if we strictly follow the conditions of the simulated game, the questioner is impossible to get any advantages from this difference. If we look at some other simpler continuous machines, some can be more understandable. A differential analyzer is sufficient (the differential analysis machine is a machine used as a non-discrete state). Some such a machine can play an answer, so you can participate in the analog game. A digital computer is impossible to guess the differential analyzer for a question, but it has the ability to give correct answer. For example, if you want it to answer π value (actually equivalent to 3.1416), it will work-by-selection between 3.12, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15, 3.16, and its choice probability is (for example) 0.05, 0.15, 0.55, 0.19, 0.06. In this case, the questioner is difficult to distinguish which is a differential analyzer, which is a digital computer.
(8) Argument from lines. We cannot summarize a set of rules to include a person in all imaginative environments. For example, we can have such a rule: the pedestrians have seen the red light stop, see the green light walking, but because some kind of mistake, the traffic light is bright at the same time, what should I do? We may decide this way, it is best to stop for safety. However, this decision will have other questions. To summarize a set of rules that featuring all human behaviors, even if it is about the rules of traffic lights, it seems unlikely. I agree with these ideas.
From this point, we can't be a machine. I tried to re-conducting, but I am afraid I don't do it. It seems that you can say this: "If everyone has a set of action rules to restrict his life, then people will differ, but actually there is no such rule, so people can't be machine." Here , The neurophalmia is very glaring. I don't think there is such an argument, but I believe that this is actually used. Some people will mix the "Conduct Rules" and "Behaviors" to talk, so this problem is a bit a bit ambiguous. The so-called "behavioral rules" I refer to rules like "see red light stop". You can obey this type of rules and can realize. The so-called "behavioral law" I refer to natural law, if you use it on the human body, just like "if you screw him, he will call" this law. If we change the "behavior of his life" to "to restrict the behavior of his life", he is used to restrict his own life behavior, then the neutralization in this argument is no longer overcome. Because, we believe that not only, it means that people use behavior to constrain life means some kind of machine (although this machine is not necessarily a discrete-state machine), and in turn, if it is such a machine If it is, it is constrained by this law. However, we are difficult to easily deny the full behavior law as denying the complete behavior rules. This law can only be discovered by scientific observations; no matter what case, we can't say: "We have been working for a long time, this law does not actually exist."
We can find strong evidence to prove that this statement is incorrect. Because, it is assumed that this law is presented, we must find it. For a discrete-specific machine, we are very likely to find the law, predict the future behavior, which has a reasonable limit, for example, within 1000. But things is not the case, I have entered a program in the Manchester computer, this program uses a 1000 storage unit, so that this 16-digit computer can answer in two seconds. I absolutely don't believe that anyone can fully understand this procedure from these answered and predict the answer to the undegrated value. (9) Argument from super sensations. I want readers very familiar with super sensation, familiar with its four ways, that is, the sense of mind, thousands of miles, prophets and mental movements. These disturbing phenomena seem to be paired with general scientific concepts. How much we want to doubt them! Unfortunately, the evidence of statistics makes people at least the sense of mind. It is difficult to re-adjust your existing concept to accept these new things. Once we accept these things, we will not be far from the ghost wizard. The first step in this direction is to believe that our body is in addition to the unknown, but similar regular movement in addition to the known physics laws.
This argument is very powerful in my opinion. We can answer this way, many scientific theories have conflicts with super knowledge, but actually feasible; in fact, if we don't care about these phenomena, we can still live well. This is a very indifferent comfort, I am afraid this phenomenon with a special connection with super sense.
Based on super sense detection is roughly as follows: "Let me be a simulated game, let the people who are good at accepting the soul and a digital computer as witnesses. Questions can imagine 'my right hand in the right hand Flower? 'This problem. The editor of the heart or thousands of eyes can answer 130 in 400 cards. The machine can only guess about 104 sheets, so the questioner can make the correct identification. "Here There is an interesting possibility. If this digital computer has a random number generating program, then we naturally use this program to decide any answer. However, this random digital generation program is within the scope of the ability of the questioner's mental movement. With spiritual movement, the number of times the computer guess than the probability is also high, so the questioner cannot make the correct identification. On the other hand, the questioner can also guess the right through thousands of miles. With super sense, what kind of thing will happen.
If the mind is allowed to intervene in the simulated game, we must strictly regulate the test mode. Now this situation is like in the simulated game, the questioner is self-speaking, a questioner is attaching the wall side ear. If you put the being asked in a "anti-mind sensing room", you can meet all requirements.
