Do you think there are things forever beyond our grasp?

  • Thread starter Thread starter newjerseyrunner
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the cognitive abilities of primates, particularly focusing on Kanzi the Bonobo's potential for understanding complex concepts. Participants explore the limits of human intelligence compared to other species, questioning whether there are abstract ideas beyond human comprehension. The conversation touches on the evolution of mathematical understanding and the role of creativity in grasping complex concepts. There is a consensus that while humans have unique cognitive abilities, biological limitations may restrict our understanding of certain phenomena. Ultimately, the dialogue raises intriguing questions about the nature of intelligence and the potential for understanding beyond our current capabilities.
  • #51
OCR said:
We need to "define" calculate somewhat better...
What would be your preferred definition?

I think Diracpool's point was that the brain does not do what it does by crunching numbers any more than weather shifts and changes by crunching numbers. He believes brain activity is best described by chaos theory rather than likening it to, everyone's favorite analogy, a computer.

Also: good point about the robots. They're getting better faster than people are aware of.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
OCR said:
It's not that big of a jump... to the next branch.
Wow
 
  • #53
Stephanus said:
Wow
Yeah, it's a little scary. Robocops and Terminators don't seem like quite so much of a stretch after you watch stuff like that.
 
  • #54
zoobyshoe said:
What would be your preferred definition?
The one that's...
zoobyshoe said:
..."the" dictionary definition...
Any that would apply... :oldwink:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/calculate

zoobyshoe said:
Any good one should do. Personally I favor Merriam-Websters. When in doubt, check for agreement among many dictionaries.
I, however, favor Wikipedia, again...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic
 
Last edited:
  • #55
It's very interesting to think about mathematics that humans would be unable to grasp. Especially considering with how abstract much of our current mathematics is. Makes you ponder what the human mind is truly capable of, and if there is an absolute threshold at some point. If we knew that we had a defined limit in terms of comprehension and understanding as a species, it would be a very sad day for all scientists.
 
  • Like
Likes OCR
  • #56
OCR said:
We need to "define" calculate somewhat better...
DiracPool said:
Well, the brain doesn't know a calculation from a hole in the ground or a supermassive galactic black hole. So it does no calculating. It's a chaotic system that is just falling on physical laws to generate particular patterns that drive behavior and thoughts. The word "calculating" is a human created term relating to the uniquely human task of writing down and performing operations on written characters that we've also created. The "complex processing" you attribute to human or any other mammalian brain is no more intentionally sophisticated or directed than the pattern of rivulets than run off a hill during a rainstorm. Everything is just following the path of least resistance.
The term is used in a variety of senses, from the very definite arithmetical calculation of using an algorithm, to the vague heuristics of calculating a strategy in a competition, or calculating the chance of a successful relationship between two people.
-wiki

DiracPool is clearly using it in the sense I've put in bold type. That's "the" dictionary definition I think would apply to this discussion.

His contention (if I'm not mistaken) is that the human brain as a whole entity can perform calculations, but the processes by which it does that are not, themselves, calculations.
 
  • #57
Regardless of how the brain calculates things unconsciously it is still an unconscious process. The fact that I can catch a thrown ball with relative ease does not grant me an thorough understanding of ballistics. It might give me an intuitive one but human intuition can be incredibly misleading. As an example this page shows how medieval scholars believed cannonballs acted in flight, flying straight at the angle shot before dropping straight down.
 
  • #58
Ryan_m_b said:
Regardless of how the brain calculates things unconsciously it is still an unconscious process. The fact that I can catch a thrown ball with relative ease does not grant me an thorough understanding of ballistics. It might give me an intuitive one but human intuition can be incredibly misleading. As an example this page shows how medieval scholars believed cannonballs acted in flight, flying straight at the angle shot before dropping straight down.

But its still a mental process. And it is still a process that IS a manifestation of intelligence, of emergent behaviour.

Intelligent animals are much more able to predict motion and act accordingly than less intelligent animals. Or rather, there are animals whose brains have evolved to do the mental calculations required to predict motion.

A border collie can intercept and catch a thrown ball, predicting where it will be. This mental ability emerged. Many animals cannot do it, no matter how hard you try to train them.

Maybe those "scholars" should have actually looked at the ball? They did not use intuition, they were simply wrong (bizarrely).
 
  • #59
William White said:
But its still a mental process. And it is still a process that IS a manifestation of intelligence, of emergent behaviour.

Intelligent animals are much more able to predict motion and act accordingly than less intelligent animals. Or rather, there are animals whose brains have evolved to do the mental calculations required to predict motion.

A border collie can intercept and catch a thrown ball, predicting where it will be. This mental ability emerged. Many animals cannot do it, no matter how hard you try to train them.

Maybe those "scholars" should have actually looked at the ball? They did not use intuition, they were simply wrong (bizarrely).
I think you're grossly overestimating how much intelligence it takes to negotiate the environment. Consider the locomotion of the paramecium, which is a single cell organism. That is: it has no brain or nervous system by which to calculate anything:

Paramecia propel themselves by whiplash movements of their cilia, which are arranged in tightly spaced rows around the outside of their body. The beat of each cilium has two phases: a fast "effective stroke," during which the cilium is relatively stiff, followed by a slow "recovery stroke," during which the cilium curls loosely to one side and sweeps forward in a counter-clockwise fashion. The densely arrayed cilia move in a coordinated fashion, with waves of activity moving across the "ciliary carpet," creating an effect sometimes likened to that of the wind blowing across a field of grain.[11]

The Paramecium spirals through the water, as it progresses. When it happens to encounter an obstacle, the "effective stroke" of its cilia is reversed and the organism swims backward for a brief time, before resuming its forward progress. If it runs into the solid object again, it will repeat this process, until it can get past the object.[12]

It has been calculated that a Paramecium expends more than half of its energy in propelling itself through the water.[13] Its method of locomotion has been found to be less than 1% efficient. This low percentage is, nevertheless, close to the maximum theoretical efficiency that can be achieved by an organism equipped with cilia as short as those of Paramecium.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramecium#Movement
 
  • #60
William White said:
A border collie can intercept and catch a thrown ball, predicting where it will be. This mental ability emerged. Many animals cannot do it, no matter how hard you try to train them.
 
  • Like
Likes mfb and DiracPool
  • #61
zoobyshoe said:
I think you're grossly overestimating how much intelligence it takes to negotiate the environment. Consider the locomotion of the paramecium, which is a single cell organism. That is: it has no brain or nervous system by which to calculate anything:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramecium#Movement

no I'm not - and I think you are deliberately mis-interpreting what I am saying.

There are different levels of navigation.

As far as I am aware, the paramecium cannot predict motion and intercept projectiles; factoring terrain, wind-speed, friction accelerations etc. etc.

These are emergent evolved skills.
 
  • #62
zoobyshoe said:


there's plenty of people that fail at being people.
 
  • #63
William White said:
there's plenty of people that fail at being people.
Exactly. And that's because no one moves by calculating F=ma, consciously or otherwise.
 
  • #64
William White said:
As far as I am aware, the paramecium cannot predict motion and intercept projectiles; factoring terrain, wind-speed, friction accelerations etc. etc.
The paramecium is obviously predicting forward and reverse motion. When it encounters an obstacle it reverses the motion of its cilia to back up, then reverses it again in the hope the new forward tack will take it past the obstacle.
 
  • #65
William White said:
Intelligent animals are much more able to predict motion and act accordingly than less intelligent animals. Or rather, there are animals whose brains have evolved to do the mental calculations required to predict motion.

I don't think there' much evidence for this assertion. An eagle or an osprey demonstrates incredible precision predicting the motions of it's prey, much better than I could, but there's no evidence it is performing any "mental calculations" to do so. It's just flying on instinct. These birds don't even have a neocortex, but they have much better "eye-claw" coordination than most mammals who do have a neocortex. I think it's exactly the opposite, I think primate intelligence in particular may have evolved partly to make up for a deficiency in sensori-motor control that was making us easy meals for the lions once we went bipedal and come down from the trees.

 
  • #66
DiracPool said:
I don't think there' much evidence for this assertion. An eagle or an osprey demonstrates incredible precision predicting the motions of it's prey, much better than I could, but there's no evidence it is performing any "mental calculations" to do so. It's just flying on instinct. These birds don't even have a neocortex, but they have much better "eye-claw" coordination than most mammals who do have a neocortex. I think it's exactly the opposite, I think primate intelligence in particular may have evolved partly to make up for a deficiency in sensori-motor control that was making us easy meals for the lions once we went bipedal and come down from the trees.

you seem to be saying that at some point intelligence just popped into being : before that, there was instinct; then along came a group of animals that were intelligent (intelligence being - amongst other things - capable of predictions, and acting upon those predictions).

I don't accept that. Intelligence emerges and there is a scale.

First you need to define when instinct stops being instinct and starts being something the animal is in control of.

good luck with that.
 
  • #67
William White said:
First you need to define when instinct stops being instinct and starts being something the animal is in control of.

I think you got it backwards, the burden of proof is not on me, it's on you with making the statement that non-human animals make mental calculations. Good luck with that...

The only animal we can be sure is making mental calculations is Homo sapien sapien, and we know this because we see evidence of his/her arithmetic scribbled on scratch paper.
 
  • #68
Our species is great at connecting dots that aren't meant to be connected. I think we can fool ourselves into thinking we understanding something that we don't actually understand. Assuming our brain had the ability to understand everything, I think the bigger question is whether we'd have an accurate grasp of everything given enough time. The scientific method helps greatly, but does not completely remove our ineptitude.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes deskswirl
  • #69
DiracPool said:
... non-human animals make mental calculations.
I've watched our 3 cats make jumps many, many times... observation tells me, more is involved then just "instinct"...

This example seems to show that...
DiracPool said:
The only animal we can be sure is making mental calculations is Homo sapien sapien, and we know this because we see evidence of his/her arithmetic scribbled on scratch paper.
Yeah, I agree...

It's an interesting and very complicated subject... :oldcool:

Carry on... :oldsmile:
 
Last edited:
  • #70
OCR said:
I've watched our 3 cats make jumps many, many times... observation tells me more is involved then just "instinct"...
You can see that that cat is paying very close attention to the task it is about to undertake, and I think the same is true in the fishing osprey video. The action is very deliberate and specific, and the 'mind' of the animal is clearly focused on it. It's not only predators who do this, I've seen a similar video of a deer about to leap over a very tall fence: it mentally prepared for the jump, sizing up the situation carefully before it sprang. I believe that is what William White is referring to as "calculation."

However, newjersyrunner's original proposition was (referring to a non-human primate):

I'm fairly certain it could pick up addition and subtraction, and probably multiplication and division too. I think it could probably grasp that mathematical formulas can represent the physical world and I think she'd understand to some degree Newton's laws.

And, although it requires experience and practice for an animal to hunt or jump well, that skill has nothing whatever to do with understanding that mathematical formulas can represent the physical world. There is no calculator lobe in their brains crunching numbers in the background to allow them to jump and swoop.
 
  • Like
Likes OCR
  • #71
I have declared both Finnegan's Wake and Gravity's Rainbow forever beyond my grasp.
 
  • #72
DiracPool said:
I think you got it backwards, the burden of proof is not on me, it's on you with making the statement that non-human animals make mental calculations. Good luck with that...
no

you are the one making claims without proof - that the complex tasks that the brain of an animal is doing is purely instinctive.

You have no proof for this.

I am saying that it is evident that intelligence is emergent, and that many animals make very acurate predictions about the world around them that cannot be described as just instinctive.

How they do it is unknown, just as how we do it is unknown. But what you are doing is drawing an artificial line between human predictive behaviour and animal predictive bechaviour with no justification.

DiracPool said:
The only animal we can be sure is making mental calculations is Homo sapien sapien, and we know this because we see evidence of his/her arithmetic scribbled on scratch paper.
thats a very narrow definition.

our human ancestors did not have written language and were unable to do such thing; but were capable of mental calculations.

You are suggesting that there is a gulf between one animal with a brain capable of mental calculations (humans) and all other animals. And you think this - without justification or proff - because humans have developed written language to write down their calculations.

of course, I am not going to convince you otherwise; but I am convinced you are wrong and will remain wrong.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #73
William White said:
you are the one making claims without proof - that the complex tasks that the brain of an animal is doing is purely instinctive.

You have no proof for this.

I'm not making any claim, you are. You're saying that animals perform mental calculations. I'm saying they don't. The default-Null hypothesis is that they don't unless you can demonstrate somehow that they do. You haven't done that. That's why I said the burden of proof is on you.

William White said:
our human ancestors did not have written language and were unable to do such thing; but were capable of mental calculations.

You're making an assertion with no evidence to back it up. I can't really do much with that..
 
  • #74
Animals have been observed making decisions by interpreting their environment, prediciting future events.

Either their brains are doing some complex calculations, or their brains are not.

You do not accept that as proof because your proof demands some sort of ability with written language (which is absurd). Most zoologists would agree that animals are capable of very complex mental agility.

You have said that is purely instinct with no justification: i.e. humans are the only animals that can make non-instintive predictions that involve mental agility, mental calculations.

Your argument is dud because from your argument you cannot prove that humans are doing anything other than pre-determined instinctive behaviour. i.e. you entire proof is based on some humans having the ability of language and that language is proof of mental calculations. Thats some leap (of faith). Its almost religious in its lifiting of humans up above other animals in the order of things. Lift your arm up: was that instinct or did you decide to do it? How did you control your movement? Why?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_(parrot)#Accomplishments
 
  • #75
William White said:
you entire proof is based on some humans having the ability of language and that language is proof of mental calculations.

Your making my point for me, William. The proof is in the pudding. Humans have the ability to give an introspective report that they are performing mental calculations which is further verified by the fact that they can scribble equations on pieces of papers and chalkboards. With animals, we have neither of these; they do not display any introspective report of making a mental calculation nor do they leave scribbled equations on paper, and it is not only because they don't have an opposable thumb. Steven Hawking can't move a muscle but we're pretty sure he is making mental calculations.
 
  • #76
You are obsessed with equations on paper as proof of mental calculations. This suggests a lack on your part of being able to think.
Lets say modern humans evolved about a quarter of a million years ago. You are suggesting that the ability to do mental calculations did not exist before then; but that the ability appeared suddenly (in evolutinary terms) in one species only, rather than emerging.

This flies in the face of all evolutonary evidence that mental ability is an emergent behaviour.

Its the sort of nonsense that religionists use when they say animals don't have souls but humans do (their evidence for a soul is the same as your evidence for mental ability btw - ie uniquely human activity such as abstract language, the ability to think, calculate and percieve rather than act on instinct); that the soul popped into being at some point in the past. Before then, it did not exist. Therefore, somebody had the first soul; and therefore somebody (a human about 1/4 million years ago) was the first animal to be ever able to do a mental calculation. Thats a bizarre claim. It does demand that 1/4 million years ago, a mother gave birth to a child; the child able to calculate, the mother unable.
 
Last edited:
  • #77
I suggest to avoid the phrase "mental calculations", I think you two are using it in different ways.
 
  • #78
i'm using it in what it means.

An animal brain, absorbing information from its environment, processing it in an intellgent way, to make predictions about the future so as to be able to make decisions.
Reducing this to "doing sums on paper" is missing the point entirely.
 
  • #79
I do admire your passion, William, and because I do, I will entertain your more recent queries...

William White said:
Lets say modern humans evolved about a quarter of a million years ago. You are suggesting that the ability to do mental calculations did not exist before then; but that the ability appeared suddenly (in evolutinary terms) in one species only, rather than emerging.

What do you mean by "emerging?" Yes, the ability to do math "emerged" in the genus Homo. What's so complicated about that? The ability to do math most likely originated with Homo erectus about 2.5 million years ago. I don't know where you came up with the 1/4 million year figure. 250,000 years ago is when we think that the hominin larynx lowered which helped these nascent humans to produce vowels, but it is not connected with the ability to perform mathematical operations. That likely came much earlier. It began with the appearance of homo erectus. I'm not going to go into much detail on this because this is actually in the field of my personal scientific models, and I want to stick to mainstream topics here, that I'm sure the moderators would appreciate. However, what I will say is that Homo habilis (most likely) did not have the capacity for any significant internal dialog. Homo erectus was the turning point.

The take home point, though, is that no non-human hominin species are extant today. So Homo sapien sapien is the only animal that has the capacity to do math. That is the null hypothesis and that is what you have to counter.
 
  • #80
William White said:
i'm using it in what it means.

An animal brain, absorbing information from its environment, processing it in an intellgent way, to make predictions about the future so as to be able to make decisions.
Reducing this to "doing sums on paper" is missing the point entirely.
That animals might learn to "do sums on paper" was the OP's original speculation, and the one DiracPool has been arguing against from his entry into the thread:

newjersyrunner said:
I'm fairly certain it could pick up addition and subtraction, and probably multiplication and division too. I think it could probably grasp that mathematical formulas can represent the physical world and I think she'd understand to some degree Newton's laws.

Here's a basic set of definitions for "calculate," that were the first to come up when I googled:

cal·cu·late/ˈkalkyəˌlāt/
verb
  1. determine (the amount or number of something) mathematically.
  2. intend (an action) to have a particular effect.
  3. suppose; believe.
You have consistently failed to see, or are ignoring, that the first definition is the one DiracPool is refuting for animals. In any given context only one definition is operative, and the Opening Poster made it clear which was meant. The Opening Poster did, in fact, propose that animals might be able to perform mathematical operations to the extent they could understand something like F=ma. And that is what DiracPool is refuting. So, your repeated invocation of the second definition of "calculate" shown above is what misses the point.
 
  • Like
Likes DiracPool

Similar threads

Back
Top