- #1
Tom McCurdy
- 1,020
- 1
Do you feel that humans will ever reach a point where they just won't be able to understand something? Will we ever peak in our intelligence and if so how far into the future.
pocebokli said:Well let me think...i see this in a pretty simple way...we have brain, which is enclosed in skull.
so, physically, it is limited. So, unless the mind is really above matter, our intelligence is limited.
pocebokli said:Well let me think...i see this in a pretty simple way...we have brain, which is enclosed in skull.
so, physically, it is limited. So, unless the mind is really above matter, our intelligence is limited.
Kerrie said:the only limit is the one we place on ourselves...
loseyourname said:We're never going to know exactly how a bat (or any other creature that uses echolocation to "see") experiences the world, which is a limit placed on us by evolution, not one we placed on ourselves. It is one of many.
Kerrie said:evolution or biology? echolocation has to do with the senses, not intelligence. for all the senses we have, using them to the best of our will shows intelligence. biology has not granted the ability to see in ultraviolet light, however we understand it exists. same with echolocation, we understand it is there, although our biololgy does not allow us to have the ability to use it.
loseyourname said:You guys are missing my point. It is beyond our intellectual capacity to envision the experience. While it is also beyond our sensory capacity to echolocate, that isn't what I was saying. That would indeed be a category mistake. The author of the thread asked "Do you feel that humans will ever reach a point where they just won't be able to understand something?" My answer is yes, and one example is that we won't ever understand what it's like to be a bat.
jradoff said:This is an easy one.
1. The human brain consists of a finite number of particles and energy states.
2. This matrix of particles and energy states is less than what exists in the cosmos.
Ergo: The human brain has insufficient capacity to contain a matrix containing the total map of all the particles and energy states that exist in the cosmos.
Ergo: A human's knowledge is limited.
Further:
All of the humans that exist, or will ever exist, will always comprise a subset of the cosmos; Ergo, the collective knowledge of humanity is also limited.
jradoff said:This is an easy one.
1. The human brain consists of a finite number of particles and energy states.
2. This matrix of particles and energy states is less than what exists in the cosmos.
Ergo: The human brain has insufficient capacity to contain a matrix containing the total map of all the particles and energy states that exist in the cosmos.
Ergo: A human's knowledge is limited.
Further:
All of the humans that exist, or will ever exist, will always comprise a subset of the cosmos; Ergo, the collective knowledge of humanity is also limited.
very well done. how do you explain the cases where people have been declared 'dead', no brain waves. later, they awaken in the morgue and give very interesting reports of what they experienced. these are not physical experiences, they are 'dreams?', 'halucinations?', whatever. BUT, they are something that the mind witnessed.jradoff said:Olde Drunk:
Everything we know about the brain suggests that the functions of memory, intelligence, reasoning and whatnot are conducted by the neurochemical and electrical states that exist within the cells of the nervous system.
The fact that some people with brain damage or deficiencies can perform some of the same functions as a normal person (or in rare cases, functions of a genius person) can be explained biologically, and doesn't tell us anything about the mind having some special power that transcends the gray matter itself.
I'm skeptical of any claims that the mind is embodied by any type of unmeasurable quantity outside the domain of our biology, but I'd be interested in hearing evidence or arguments to the contrary.
olde drunk said:\how do you explain the cases where people have been declared 'dead', no brain waves. later, they awaken in the morgue and give very interesting reports of what they experienced. these are not physical experiences, they are 'dreams?', 'halucinations?', whatever. BUT, they are something that the mind witnessed.
Kerrie said:intelligence is the ability to utilize what one already has. to compare our abilities to a bat is to compare car to a bicycle. each are modes of transportation, but is one better then the other? only in specific instances. a car is much better at long distance travel, however a bike is much better at not polluting our environment and lower maintenance.
loseyourname said:While it is also beyond our sensory capacity to echolocate, that isn't what I was saying. That would indeed be a category mistake.
Kerrie said:intelligence is the ability to utilize what one already has. to compare our abilities to a bat is to compare car to a bicycle. each are modes of transportation, but is one better then the other? only in specific instances. a car is much better at long distance travel, however a bike is much better at not polluting our environment and lower maintenance.
to compare our abilities to a bat is to compare car to a bicycle. each are modes of transportation, but is one better then the other? only in specific instances. a car is much better at long distance travel, however a bike is much better at not polluting our environment and lower maintenance.
Kerrie said:if you had read my words more carefully, you would have seen the admission that a car is much better for long distance travels. i am unsure why your need to have posted such a lengthy debate over a point i already made.
here is a link to an excellent theory of different intelligences:
http://www.thomasarmstrong.com/multiple_intelligences.htm
i don't believe we can measure intelligence in one lump sum, but rather take different aspects such as this theory suggests.
loseyourname said:I've taken this test before, and though I won't comment on the theory itself, I will say that the test is bunk. It tests your preferences, not your aptitudes. I scored near the max on every intelligence other than interpersonal and intrapersonal.
selfAdjoint said:So the fact that you scored high is evidence the test is bunk? :)
loseyourname said:I've taken this test before, and though I won't comment on the theory itself, I will say that the test is bunk. It tests your preferences, not your aptitudes.
There are a million different ways of defining intelligence, so I don't even see how you begin to answer that one. I'm answering the question asked in the post, which pertained to understanding, which I think is very obviously limited. I included several additional examples. Heck, most humans barely understand basic algebra.
We're never going to know exactly how a bat (or any other creature that uses echolocation to "see") experiences the world, which is a limit placed on us by evolution,