So, then, Hawkins had an incorrect fact/assumption about Turing, pretty much one of the go to people in the AI canon? That, in itself, would make me just want to close the book and not touch it again, except for some kind of academic or "history of AI" project. I hope I'm not overstepping bounds of decency here, but how could Hawkins have been published if he got Turing so wrong?
On a related note, if a blind man can accurately paint pictures, can he be said to have seen the pictures? A guy like this was linked on Fark today.
I remember reading about someone like this before. They did an MRI and found that the visual part of his brain lit up when he painted.