You observe both Matter and Light.

You are composed of both Matter and Energy.

You are a particle/wave observer.

You are an observing particle/wave.

You, an observer, are composed of both particle and wave.

Can Watson correctly choose which set of questions below apply to Watson
and which apply to the team that created Watson?

  OBJECTIFYING THE CARBON BASED OBSERVER

OBJECTIFYING THE SILICON BASED OBSERVER

Is Watson, a silicon based, artificial intelligence system capable of answering natural language questions
such as those presented to carbon based, natural intelligence systems on the www.Subliminet.com website?
Attached to this email please find a list of questions Watson may not be capable of appropriately answering
before performing any of the aforementioned proposed tasks,
but might actually gain “insight” about following Watson’s performance of these tasks. 

What cognitive states is Watson capable of displaying?  
Subliminet Inc. contends that the guidebook is a program that,
if Watson is indeed capable of understanding it to some extent,
will allow Watson to perhaps display predictable or even unpredictable cognitive states,
by virtue of the responses Watson provides.   

Philosopher John Searle contends that Watson, despite impressive capabilities, cannot actually think.
Searle claims that Watson, like other computational machines, is only capable of manipulating symbols,
but has no ability to understand the meaning of those symbols. 
But can an appropriately programmed computer really possess a mind,
in the sense that computers, given the right programs,
can be literally said to understand and have other cognitive states?

P.S. Is Watson capable of calculating the probability of the subjective occurrence of the phenomena known as synchronicity?

This challenge, Subliminet Inc. contends, is perfectly suited for discovering Watson’s capabilities
while attempting to interact in natural human terms across a range of applications and processes
while understanding the questions that individuals ask and providing answers that individuals
can understand and justify.

Can a program give a computer a “mind” or “understanding”?                          
Can a computer be programmed to possess a mind capable of understanding,
or can a computer’s response to a question relevantly related to series of clues and evidence
and responses to other relevantly related questions and other relevantly related clues and evidence 
indicate the existence of a mind capable of understanding?