@Alrah said
"I'm fascinated by the idea of quantum computers, which seem to come from a much more organic root - a range of quantum states rather than an on/off gate. And the idea keeps intiguing me because what will it's diagnostics see if there's a spike down the line or the computer isn't limited by a one in 7 choice but can choose various combinations of the 7? Will it develop a basic conciousness by that method? Start theorising about God perhaps in a primal sort of way?"
It's curious that quantum computers are promoted as simply more complex than regular computers. This might be an over simplification on my part, but it is what I understand from the articles I have read. When and if they succeed in building one it will be interesting to see what this exponential jump in computing power will mean, and what philosophical problems it might unleash. Maybe there is a threshold level of complexity, once breached, opens some kind of rift in a systems ability to understand.
In the news these last few days was the super computer Watson that recently beat two previous human champions on the trivia game show, Jeopardy. (Watson in not a quantum computer, they don't exist yet.) NPR had some discussion about the implications of the event, and on one such show the experts were at pains to denounce the computers achievements in light of the fact that, despite the impressive showing in terms of voice recognition and apparent understanding of the questions, really did not understand!
This thread begins to move in another direction with this notion introduced by Alrah. Deep waters.
I have two thoughts and references here: The analogy given by James A. Eshelman in one of the introductory chapters of Visions and Voices; and the speculative 'scientific' mysticism of the French Jesuit priest Pierre Teilhard De Chardin.
In Visions and Voices Eshelman compares humans and computers, asserting a similarity between us, at least as far up the tree as Binah. At this point the comparison ends—we have Chokmah and Kether, the machine does not. My apologies if I mangle the analogy by taking it out of context, but I found the assertion that a computer also had Binah something a puzzle. I might not get exactly what Jim was implying by his attribution, but my best understand was that the computer actually had some sort of understanding (Binah), which is a soul quality—the capacity for depth, imho. I can only disagree with this attribution as I understand it, because like the experts on the NPR talk shows, I don't think the computer has any depth of understanding—the quality and beauty of its soul does not accrue as it experiences the struggles, disappointments, losses, and deaths that make up life. I also have difficulty imaging a computer, no matter how sophisticated functioning intuitively. In this I see one of the great hurdles, yet to be overcome in the quest for true AI, the capacity for real understanding—a genuine appreciation bordering on an intuitive grasp of the significance of its knowledge—not just surface facts, but depth of feeling and appreciation for those facts.
Chardin's thesis suggests a way out perhaps. Again, I apologize for not fully understanding the implications of his thought or the original intent of his terms and writings. I have only read him in translation and then only a few articles, and only one book. But as I understand it his concept runs something like this: Consciousness does not derive from a threshold moment—there never was a magic moment when systems were so complex they magically achieved the ability to be self-aware. By contrast, according to Chardin, matter is inherently conscious already—the smallest, most illusive particle is aware of itself, as is everything that is of the cosmos. If this is true, then even the stuff of computers partakes of this cosmic-consciousness. It simply lacks the ability to think for itself, and also to put one moment of cosmic consciousness together with the next moment to produce the conscious memory of the continuity of it's persistence in time and space. In other words, despite the technical presence of computer memory, it still doesn't really remember that it was, just a brief moment before. It forgets because this experience has no means of making a sensible impression on the organism.
But enter the quantum computer. It is significant that one of the biggest problems that will have to be overcome for this to happen is the problem of shielding. Being an operation at the quantum level, the risk of interaction with other quantum phenomenon is all but probable, which means any operation will be corrupted by these other influences. Does this suggest an interconnected, conscious reality that might be given some sort of heightened existential experience of itself if isolated from its otherwise promiscuous relationship with the rest of reality—maybe something of a Chokmah/Kether moment?
I'm going to stop here because I have no idea where I'm going with this. I can only be suggestive in fields in which I am not expert. I do this a lot, but in this instance the gap between what I'm saying and what I know is exponentially greater than it usually is.
Mea Culpa, I'm about to hit the 'submit' button.
Love and Will