You seem to have faith that a mountain is impossible to build because no one has done it. Assuming we're operating with a definition of "real intelligence" such that humans have it, it is known to be physically realizable. Any quantum system can be simulated by a classical computer. Ergo, a computer can have "real intelligence".
Any quantum system can be simulated by a classical computer.
Really? How would a classical computer create an emergent property like entanglement?
What if your brain function depends on such emergent properties?
There are too many unknowns associated with "intelligence" to reasonably declare that it can be created from a box of sand --- aka, a "computer" as we know it.
>Really? How would a classical computer create an emergent property like entanglement?
I'm not sure what you mean. A simulation produces the emergent properties of the simulated system by simulating the properties from which they emerge. I'd say that's more or less the point of simulation.
A simulation produces the emergent properties of the simulated system by simulating the properties from which they emerge.
Circular logic.
They are called 'emergent' properties because noone knows or understands how/why they emerge.
You can't use binary logic to simulate what you don't understand. Expecting properties to emerge from an imperfect simulation is wishful thinking --- aka "faith".
Hopefully you two can see the "useful confusion" here (a phrase that just popped in my head). Maybe it is rooted in misunderstanding. Or maybe it is rooted in some deeper unsurfaced underlying ideas.
For one, I'd like to see us two learn from each other (demonstrating some awareness of ambiguity and theory of mind) rather than proceed on the current course, zinging each other. (Note: I'm not saying I'm any better, in general. It is mostly because I'm a third-party here that I see it.)
In particular, my understanding of emergence can be stated as follows. While emergent behavior can theoretically be predicted from the underlying system, it is practically infeasible to measure precisely enough to do so. Therefore, for practical purposes, there is an "predictive gap" between the lower-level system laws and the higher-level behavior.
