- #31
Enjoicube
- 48
- 1
I am sorry to bring back this thread if most people consider it dead/spam, however it is not only a very interesting argument but also one this hits close to home with me because of the people I knew who argued it.
Firstly, I disagree with the basis of the argument being made: if you are saying that we believe that we are smart because of what we have done, then your argument holds very weakly. It isn't the fact that we can invent things that classifies us as bright, other primates have the power of invention and yet they themselves are not that bright. It is our ability to consistently seek out the truth in any situation, and when we make a blunder, to correct our theories. Even some basic physics can show our ability to consistently find the truth in any situation; take catenaries for example. A very simple being would see no relation which could determine the shape of a catenary. A more advanced being might comprehend that the shape has to do with gravity, but they might also blunder and assume it is parabolic in shape. However, any reasonably able person could show that in fact a catenary follows a hyperbolic cosine curve. Not that this is a great feat or anything, but remember also that the second most intelligent species wouldn't be able to comprehend how to define a function.
As to your argument that we stumbled upon the idea of parallel processing and language etc, this is completely untrue, there is nothing which I can think of which we did not stumble upon for a reason; language was not just the first means of communication we had, it was one of the most efficient, on top of the fact that language was invented by humans, not something which can be found in nature. Do not assume that everything we have discovered had some motivation for discovery or immediate application, we have the ability to think of quantities which do not physically exist and to create whole fields unmotivated by application. All species were given equal footing, yet only humans seem to have the ability to progress. So even if all our intelligence is the result of parallel processing, from what we have seen, no other species has the ability to actually use this to advance themselves, thus humans have reached some sort of intelligence threshold, past which society can advance.
Also, realize that single humans constructed the basis for electromagnetism, calculus, logic and other fields; For every field we have today, it was a single human that made the fist insight into that field, from then on we could build on the idea. Some humans are quite competent on their own and thus your argument that we need society to progress is at best tenuous.
Maybe we are not very intelligent after all, but compared to any other species on this planet we are thousands of more times insightful and intelligent. Not to say that people are the alpha and omega, certainly we make our fair share of huge errors: we often use heuristics even when incorrect, we are still motivated by biological drive even when we think we are not etc.
Firstly, I disagree with the basis of the argument being made: if you are saying that we believe that we are smart because of what we have done, then your argument holds very weakly. It isn't the fact that we can invent things that classifies us as bright, other primates have the power of invention and yet they themselves are not that bright. It is our ability to consistently seek out the truth in any situation, and when we make a blunder, to correct our theories. Even some basic physics can show our ability to consistently find the truth in any situation; take catenaries for example. A very simple being would see no relation which could determine the shape of a catenary. A more advanced being might comprehend that the shape has to do with gravity, but they might also blunder and assume it is parabolic in shape. However, any reasonably able person could show that in fact a catenary follows a hyperbolic cosine curve. Not that this is a great feat or anything, but remember also that the second most intelligent species wouldn't be able to comprehend how to define a function.
As to your argument that we stumbled upon the idea of parallel processing and language etc, this is completely untrue, there is nothing which I can think of which we did not stumble upon for a reason; language was not just the first means of communication we had, it was one of the most efficient, on top of the fact that language was invented by humans, not something which can be found in nature. Do not assume that everything we have discovered had some motivation for discovery or immediate application, we have the ability to think of quantities which do not physically exist and to create whole fields unmotivated by application. All species were given equal footing, yet only humans seem to have the ability to progress. So even if all our intelligence is the result of parallel processing, from what we have seen, no other species has the ability to actually use this to advance themselves, thus humans have reached some sort of intelligence threshold, past which society can advance.
Also, realize that single humans constructed the basis for electromagnetism, calculus, logic and other fields; For every field we have today, it was a single human that made the fist insight into that field, from then on we could build on the idea. Some humans are quite competent on their own and thus your argument that we need society to progress is at best tenuous.
Maybe we are not very intelligent after all, but compared to any other species on this planet we are thousands of more times insightful and intelligent. Not to say that people are the alpha and omega, certainly we make our fair share of huge errors: we often use heuristics even when incorrect, we are still motivated by biological drive even when we think we are not etc.
Last edited: