1 hour ago, JohnAskew wrote
@Sven Groot: I think it does belong in a scientific discussion. I did show how your argument is wrong. There is always a human observer to account for collapsing the wave function, regardless if it is days after the recording. I didn't make that up, I read it. Plus, how do new theories begin? With ideas. No successful scientist dismisses ideas the way you're attempting to do with mine. I noticed no answer or acknowledgement of my assertion, just dismissal.
@Bass: I disparage the use of vocabulary (artificial intelligence) as propaganda and drama - over the top drama - probably to excite interest where there should be none. If you want to limit "intelligence" to the controlled flow of electrons, you are misappropriating the word. If you want to eliminate ideas of wonder and mystery from coffeehouse discussions because they're not "scientific" then you're sophomoric.
Neither of you guys are public speakers, I wager.
There does not need to be a human observer if there are animals and life everywhere on the earth, they are observers too. Even the tiniest microbes in the depths of the earth. Or networks of plant and fungi. Or the sun itself, and mass itself, may be the observer, and we've been unable to reconcile QM and Relativity because gravity and whatever that warping of spacetime is itself must be treated as the observer's interface. Perhaps not the observer, but the interface between observables is the observer. Thus the medium really is the message as well.
Meaning results from a shared collective agreement that some symbol means something. A system of rules and a collection of meaningless fractal chaos. Out of that chaos these strange attractors exist that draw in spacetime, other attractors and the interaction, on the interface, matter and light are transformed.
An AI will have the same limitations as humans, because I think the evidence is growing to indicate that we can get massive speedups in computation, but not exponential for all NP-hard problems. This means no Singularity exists. Instead it will be a smooth - relatively speaking - transition to the new computing paradigms and a new knowledge and proof of work based economy (the conclusions I'm drawing are based on many sources). We are quantum computers and all computers are really quantum, but we, as a collective are like one giant quantum computer. The earth and the universe itself is then like a massive quantum computer. Or not. How can we ever know for sure? All we can do is make stuff that simulates our ideas, we can't reach outside of our universe to peek. Monads have no windows. To expect a lower monad to produce a larger monad is silly. But the composition of monads - that is intelligence. It's not Artificial. It's real, I agree, and living as a collective conscious. The whole can be greater than the sum of it's parts, I think, but yet individually within that collective not one cell has more power than another. Like the cells in your body - some may become cancerous, but then the immune system activates. It's a constant battle to fight disease and genetic degradation. That battle will wage on and on, and the only way to stop it is to continue to multiply the number of entities that convert chaos into order via computation. Either by reproduction or by replication, exponential growth is required for life to succeed, as there are always attacks that will limit the growth to polynomial time. So, exponential growth is cyclic and bifurcates (remember predator-prey model), but it's so fractal we need fractal fourier analysis to analyze it fully, and it's emerging now as a new mathematical tool). We need to keep growth fast in life, and in computing to secure the network, in other words. The model of Bitcoin is an excellent templar for this.