Integral Calculus isn't "tangible", but the human brain can store information about it in tangible constructs. Likewise, my bank balance. But the storage isn't the actuality, and the bank account information in my brain is no more the actual account than the bank account information on my hard drive is, even though that is likewise represented in tangible and measurable form.
But your bank account has *0* effect on anything outside that which we give it. So this entire line of reasoning is entirely non-sequitur. Your bank account is the tool, not the actor.
Your bank account is not an intangible effect, as you've attempted to define it.
I don't posit self-aware Quantum mechanics and I have no idea how you drew such a wild conclusion, You seem to take a delight with confusing the levers with the driver.
Perhaps I mistook you. You posited that the brain could be the engine that something less tangible *uses*, and then gave QM as an example of an intangible effect. To which I replied, at best, QM provides a source of random input- which is *not* "Free Will". I made the apparently incorrect assumption that if it's not random input that it offers, then you must be claiming it imparts its will upon the engine that is our brain. I'd love to hear your alternative explanation, for the sake of correcting my understanding of your position.
And how, pray tell can a neural network "see" what's at the controls of a bulldozer if the driver no more visible to man or computer than cosmic rays were to the Babylonians?
The same way the babylonians (or more specifically, their progeny) eventually did. By expanding their knowledge through observation. Our neural network allows for this. So do artificial ones.
On top of which you seem to be assuming that we have neural networks that can accurately conduct a Turing Test. As I recall, the original test specifically required a human as the test instrument/reference.
We do have neural networks that can accurately conduct a Turing Test. There's one driving your fingers right this minute. I make no assumption that artifical networks that to date have only just now come within 3 orders of magnitude of the complexity of the Neural Network the Turing Test uses as a benchmark. That assumption was all you. I don't think anybody said "there we are, we've got it!"