|Quantum Intelligence Theory is like Intelligent Design, its not based on anything *in* the field of science it claims to describe, but is rather a really bad attempt to ignore evidence for the solidly accepted ideas, in favor of one that lets the mind be some fuzzy thing, disconnected from the brain, which is "too complex" to be explained by the itself. Its the equivalent of someone that knows nothing about computers asking, "How did you get the little man in there?", or someone from the deep rain forest first seeing open spaces and commenting, "Wow! How did you manage to make cattle the size of flies?"|
Simple fact is, such "theory", or one should say "hypothesis", since theory means you have *evidence*, is not based on Quantum Mechanics. Its based on a layman's radical misunderstanding of the theory, and a projection on it of things it a) doesn't predict, b) doesn't have evidence for, and c) can't do.
The most common of all errors, and the one that leads to this "quantum intelligence" goofiness is the different use to which physicists put the term "observer". In their context, an observer is, "anything, whether it be an field or object", which effects the particle being tested. Its not even true that they are describing themselves as "observers" in the experiment, what they *are* doing is describing what their instruments *cause* when those instruments are made to interact with a particle, in such a manner that it become "necessary" for the quantum state to change. It would still change, even if no one was in the room to "see" the results, or some random, high energy, particle from the sun, which passed through nearly everything else, but just "happened" to hit the particle, caused the change. Human, never mind any other sort, of "intelligent" intervention is **not necessary**. Yet, its this presumption that it is, on which all bizarre theories about quantum intelligence, and the like, rests. And of which there is *no* evidence what so ever, just speculation, based on misunderstanding of what *one* word means in the context that physicists use it.
And, think about it. What word do we have in English which means, "noticeable change in state", which doesn't *presume*, incorrectly that someone is looking at it, either at the time it happens, or after? There simply isn't one. Yet, there **is** a distinct difference between:
1. Waiting for a particle to hit something, then seeing that it changed.
2. Intentionally doing something, to see what change it causes.
never mind 3. Actually **seeing** the particle, vs. seeing what another object, like a scientific instrument, *says* happened, a few seconds *after* the change.
All three are "observing", yet only #2 can be said to have been "consciously caused", and even that is indirect, since we cannot, personally, see what took place, except via #3. The mere fact of #3 being necessary for *either* #1 and #2, invalidates the *common* meaning of the word "observer" and everything derived from it instantly, rendering all claims about "intelligence" effecting the world in such a direct fashion *nonsensical*. Or.. Does anyone here think physicists are really "seeing" particles 1/100th the size of an atom, directly?
Sorry about the rant, but.. This is probably one of the single most common errors made, and it leads to some of the most weird ideas out there. One gets tired of seeing all the truly strange permutations it takes, all over a failure to grasp that no "person" is actually "observing", nor even needs to "intentionally" cause quantum effects.