quantum computing - color forth

Not everyone makes a distinction between intelligence and consciousness. Intelligence became a big topic in the computer business at the outset and the idea of integrating intelligence into computers was an early concept. The issue of consciousness in machines was not addressed at any point - or at least not much and there are very good reasons for this.
#1 - There was no scientific and remains no generally scientific context for this. What I mean by that is that --- no branch of science deals in any kind of conclusive way on that subject which means there are no generally accepted scientific views on the topic. There are discussion and work however that have been done on this subject.
#2 - This paper - http://www.colorforth.com/POL.htm - is the first " computer science " type document I am aware of that discusses it. However, the history of this topic, I am really not sure of because I have not investigated that.
#3 - Significant work in this area is of course dealt with in the arena of neurology - but even if you include something like neuro-biology or neuro-science ---- these are not considered a science in the sense of biology or chemistry - because they are generally unavailable in standard education topics and that work only vaguely filters down to the mainstream of science.
Here are some of my views on the topic:
Consciousness is unique to organic species, which means that the consciousness of a whale is significantly different than the consciousness of a bird. Clearly they are both conscious -- based on the idea of movement. The issue of consciousness in other living things, like plants is a little more complex, because they don't move.
Now - I am going to focus only on that arena of computers in terms of intelligence and consciousness. As mentioned a lot of work on the intelligence in computers has been done, in various ways and on various levels. But it should be clear that intelligence is an adjective used to describe one or more behaviors. Consciousness as it applies to a machine is rarely dealt with. But simply put it is fairly clear that machines can be made to emulate conscious behaviors and as mentioned in the above document can be used for the study or more understanding on that.
What is not clear is if a machine could possess the consciousness of say an insect or mammal. And in my view the answer is ---- no --- until or unless the machine was somehow grafted into or somehow merged to that kind of being - like a hybrid.
People or " humans " are the only species that really deals with computers that we are aware of and therefore - there is already kind of a hybrid evolution there and people seem to be connecting more and more in this relationship.
Now there are arguments of this type --- that say --- consciousness is clearly a quantum mechanical phenomena, although again - there is no conclusive scientific view on that - but most likely in some way it is true. Therefore, it would be possible using the same quantum mechanical principals involved in the human brain - to develop a machine that would possess some kind of consciousness.
Even if that were true - that consciousness would not be " human " unless the machine was itself human. Human consciousness will always be unique to humans. However, what should be very clear is that our understanding and knowledge of consciousness is not static but is evolving and should most likely continue to evolve as long as organized knowledge evolves - which most people who have addressed that issue will see as - not having a foreseeable end.
What I am hopeful can be clear from this blog - is that - quantum computing is a computer architecture - which is significantly different from that introduced in the 1940's and 1950's by von Neumann and company. What is most clearly different is the degree of parallelism inherent in quantum computing - and also the gate architecture - which implies differences in " memory " storage - meaning that it allows for significant differences in how that can take place - how memory can be stored.
However, in practical terms the von Neumann architecture for memory has evolved so significantly that the question becomes - why would it be necessary to make the changes to utilizes an alternative and also what does it really mean. Well, the second part of that question is really hard to answer - but the first is not. The reason why you would want such a storage mechanism is for the efficiency of the processing - highly parallel - which quantum methods provide. My guess is that the processing capabilities will evolve first - utilizing more standard storage vehicles and then the memory capabilities will evolve over time. Therefore, my conclusion is that initially practical quantum computing technology will involve a hybrid mechanism - utilizing more standard storage vehicles.
Also I should note that high degrees of parallelism in standard computing devices have already been reached and great efficiency already realized in that area. But there is a lot of baggage as well, and therefore there will be a continued efforts to create practical quantum computers - which I hope is clear does not simply mean, smaller, although there can be considerable confusion on that.