 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Philosophy Forum » How Much Can the Human Brain Really Know?... |
|
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Robert... |
 Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:38 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dr Leon Lederman is a physicist known for his research into the
theorized Higgs boson, which is so elemental to unified field theory,
that it has come to be called, even by atheists, the "God Particle."
In Lederman's book by the same title, he briefly questions whether the
human brain is even capable of understanding the basics of physical
science much beyond what we already have achieved.
(To be sure, my own brain reached that threshhold years ago.)
Lederman only touches on this idea, but his mere mention of it is
significant. How will humans react if one day we discover that our
finite brains cannot encompass the (virtually, at least) infinite
complexity of the physical universe?
Some thinkers have suggested that there is an infinite regression of
ever more fundamental, subatomic components. Some have even suggested
an infinite progression of ever higher orders of physical reality of
which our known universe is only a tiny sub-particle of a much larger
(do I coin a term here?) mega-multi-verse..
Thinking of this brings me to two different areas of controversy. One
is the concept of artificial intelligence, specifically, in the post-
humanistic idea of a technological singularity.
The other controversy concerns the postulated intelligent design of
reality by an ineffable Creator, about whom nothing can be known
excepts as he provides us with knowledge and the capacity to know.
In the first case, we can ask whether we can construct artificial
brains that can know beyond human capacity. Can we incorporate those
AI into our own brains? If so, how would that change our fundamental
nature?
In the second case, if we are intrinsically incapable of extending our
knowledge beyond certain predetermined limits (whatever those limits
may be). then are we dependent on divinely revealed knowledge for
anything beyond our capacity to discover?
Of course this line of thinking will not resolve the origins debate.
But perhaps it implies a larger perspective than most thinkers will
consider comfortable. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| turtoni... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:23 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 11:38 am, Robert <RobertAr... at (no spam) msn.com> wrote:
(snip)
[quote]In the first case, we can ask whether we can construct artificial
brains that can know beyond human capacity. Can we incorporate those
AI into our own brains? If so, how would that change our fundamental
nature?
[/quote]
What do you mean by "fundamental nature" ?
[quote]In the second case, if we are intrinsically incapable of extending our
knowledge beyond certain predetermined limits (whatever those limits
may be). then are we dependent on divinely revealed knowledge for
anything beyond our capacity to discover?
[/quote]
What is "divinely revealed knowledge" ? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sir Frederick... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 1:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 08:38:41 -0800 (PST), Robert <RobertArvay at (no spam) msn.com> wrote:
[quote]Dr Leon Lederman is a physicist known for his research into the
theorized Higgs boson, which is so elemental to unified field theory,
that it has come to be called, even by atheists, the "God Particle."
In Lederman's book by the same title, he briefly questions whether the
human brain is even capable of understanding the basics of physical
science much beyond what we already have achieved.
(To be sure, my own brain reached that threshhold years ago.)
Lederman only touches on this idea, but his mere mention of it is
significant. How will humans react if one day we discover that our
finite brains cannot encompass the (virtually, at least) infinite
complexity of the physical universe?
Some thinkers have suggested that there is an infinite regression of
ever more fundamental, subatomic components. Some have even suggested
an infinite progression of ever higher orders of physical reality of
which our known universe is only a tiny sub-particle of a much larger
(do I coin a term here?) mega-multi-verse..
Thinking of this brings me to two different areas of controversy. One
is the concept of artificial intelligence, specifically, in the post-
humanistic idea of a technological singularity.
The other controversy concerns the postulated intelligent design of
reality by an ineffable Creator, about whom nothing can be known
excepts as he provides us with knowledge and the capacity to know.
In the first case, we can ask whether we can construct artificial
brains that can know beyond human capacity. Can we incorporate those
AI into our own brains? If so, how would that change our fundamental
nature?
In the second case, if we are intrinsically incapable of extending our
knowledge beyond certain predetermined limits (whatever those limits
may be). then are we dependent on divinely revealed knowledge for
anything beyond our capacity to discover?
Of course this line of thinking will not resolve the origins debate.
But perhaps it implies a larger perspective than most thinkers will
consider comfortable.
[/quote]
Besides being constrained as you posit, what if
'we' discover that 'we' are fundamentally incidental
and superfluous? Being meaningless goes against my
evolution bequeathed hubris.
Perhaps 'we' need 'our' stories and
'our' deceit like any good little 'self' based information
structure. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| bigfletch8 at (no spam) gmail.com... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 12:38 am, Robert <RobertAr... at (no spam) msn.com> wrote:
[quote]Dr Leon Lederman is a physicist known for his research into the
theorized Higgs boson, which is so elemental to unified field theory,
that it has come to be called, even by atheists, the "God Particle."
In Lederman's book by the same title, he briefly questions whether the
human brain is even capable of understanding the basics of physical
science much beyond what we already have achieved.
(To be sure, my own brain reached that threshhold years ago.)
Lederman only touches on this idea, but his mere mention of it is
significant. How will humans react if one day we discover that our
finite brains cannot encompass the (virtually, at least) infinite
complexity of the physical universe?
Some thinkers have suggested that there is an infinite regression of
ever more fundamental, subatomic components. Some have even suggested
an infinite progression of ever higher orders of physical reality of
which our known universe is only a tiny sub-particle of a much larger
(do I coin a term here?) mega-multi-verse..
Thinking of this brings me to two different areas of controversy. One
is the concept of artificial intelligence, specifically, in the post-
humanistic idea of a technological singularity.
The other controversy concerns the postulated intelligent design of
reality by an ineffable Creator, about whom nothing can be known
excepts as he provides us with knowledge and the capacity to know.
In the first case, we can ask whether we can construct artificial
brains that can know beyond human capacity. Can we incorporate those
AI into our own brains? If so, how would that change our fundamental
nature?
In the second case, if we are intrinsically incapable of extending our
knowledge beyond certain predetermined limits (whatever those limits
may be). then are we dependent on divinely revealed knowledge for
anything beyond our capacity to discover?
Of course this line of thinking will not resolve the origins debate.
But perhaps it implies a larger perspective than most thinkers will
consider comfortable.
[/quote]
This is basic stuff.The brain cannot solve the brain, no more than you
can switch a torch on, to identify light.
This is fundamental metaphysics....It must really piss people off to
see growing evidence of this, and is a good measure of how people hold
on to their beliefs.Beyond Higgs?Of course. There is always the
addition of '1'no matter how big or small the number is.
The relative mind can only speculate the reality of now, infinity and
eternity even though 'we' came up with such terms.
The mind brain connection does not deal with 'knowing' .
Just look at what happens even here when I even mention the term!
BOfL |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| bigfletch8 at (no spam) gmail.com... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:28 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 3:23 am, turtoni <turt... at (no spam) fastmail.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 3, 11:38 am, Robert <RobertAr... at (no spam) msn.com> wrote:
(snip)
In the first case, we can ask whether we can construct artificial
brains that can know beyond human capacity. Can we incorporate those
AI into our own brains? If so, how would that change our fundamental
nature?
What do you mean by "fundamental nature" ?
In the second case, if we are intrinsically incapable of extending our
knowledge beyond certain predetermined limits (whatever those limits
may be). then are we dependent on divinely revealed knowledge for
anything beyond our capacity to discover?
What is "divinely revealed knowledge" ?
[/quote]
Ive answered those question hundreds of times. What answer would suit
you?
This is the reals reason for your attitude towards my threads.You dont
comprehend the answers, keep asking the questions, and get pissed when
you keep getting the same answers. Attacking the messenger boy is also
funda-mental (see if you can work out why I included a - in the word).
Knowing also incorporates empathy.You only know you know when you can
compare subjectively with not knowing,so patience and understanding is
natural when you see others going through the same rites of passage as
you have been through.
BOfL |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Zinnic... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:45 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 9:21 pm, "bigflet... at (no spam) gmail.com" <bigflet... at (no spam) gmail.com>
wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 12:38 am, Robert <RobertAr... at (no spam) msn.com> wrote:
Dr Leon Lederman is a physicist known for his research into the
theorized Higgs boson, which is so elemental to unified field theory,
that it has come to be called, even by atheists, the "God Particle."
In Lederman's book by the same title, he briefly questions whether the
human brain is even capable of understanding the basics of physical
science much beyond what we already have achieved.
(To be sure, my own brain reached that threshhold years ago.)
Lederman only touches on this idea, but his mere mention of it is
significant. How will humans react if one day we discover that our
finite brains cannot encompass the (virtually, at least) infinite
complexity of the physical universe?
Some thinkers have suggested that there is an infinite regression of
ever more fundamental, subatomic components. Some have even suggested
an infinite progression of ever higher orders of physical reality of
which our known universe is only a tiny sub-particle of a much larger
(do I coin a term here?) mega-multi-verse..
Thinking of this brings me to two different areas of controversy. One
is the concept of artificial intelligence, specifically, in the post-
humanistic idea of a technological singularity.
The other controversy concerns the postulated intelligent design of
reality by an ineffable Creator, about whom nothing can be known
excepts as he provides us with knowledge and the capacity to know.
In the first case, we can ask whether we can construct artificial
brains that can know beyond human capacity. Can we incorporate those
AI into our own brains? If so, how would that change our fundamental
nature?
In the second case, if we are intrinsically incapable of extending our
knowledge beyond certain predetermined limits (whatever those limits
may be). then are we dependent on divinely revealed knowledge for
anything beyond our capacity to discover?
Of course this line of thinking will not resolve the origins debate.
But perhaps it implies a larger perspective than most thinkers will
consider comfortable.
This is basic stuff.The brain cannot solve the brain, no more than you
can switch a torch on, to identify light.
This is fundamental metaphysics....It must really piss people off to
see growing evidence of this, and is a good measure of how people hold
on to their beliefs.Beyond Higgs?Of course. There is always the
addition of '1'no matter how big or small the number is.
The relative mind can only speculate the reality of now, infinity and
eternity even though 'we' came up with such terms.
[/quote]
You are correct in that the brain cannot solve itself. No more than
can one levitate by pulling on one's bootstraps or a snake swallow
itself completely (stomach and all).
The function of the brain is grounded by its physicality. Your claim
that there "is always one more than infinity" is just one of the
meaningless antilogies generated from the mystical conceit that the
mind is something more than physicality in action.
Zinnic |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Zinnic... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:49 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 5:26 am, "Giga" <"Giga" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)
ho... at (no spam) yahoo.co> wrote:
[quote]"Robert" <RobertAr... at (no spam) msn.com> wrote in message
news:5f123eb7-598f-442d-8fc8-80f4b2ed1280 at (no spam) l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Dr Leon Lederman is a physicist known for his research into the
theorized Higgs boson, which is so elemental to unified field theory,
that it has come to be called, even by atheists, the "God Particle."
In Lederman's book by the same title, he briefly questions whether the
human brain is even capable of understanding the basics of physical
science much beyond what we already have achieved.
(To be sure, my own brain reached that threshhold years ago.)
Lederman only touches on this idea, but his mere mention of it is
significant. How will humans react if one day we discover that our
finite brains cannot encompass the (virtually, at least) infinite
complexity of the physical universe?
Some thinkers have suggested that there is an infinite regression of
ever more fundamental, subatomic components. Some have even suggested
an infinite progression of ever higher orders of physical reality of
which our known universe is only a tiny sub-particle of a much larger
(do I coin a term here?) mega-multi-verse..
Thinking of this brings me to two different areas of controversy. One
is the concept of artificial intelligence, specifically, in the post-
humanistic idea of a technological singularity.
The other controversy concerns the postulated intelligent design of
reality by an ineffable Creator, about whom nothing can be known
excepts as he provides us with knowledge and the capacity to know.
In the first case, we can ask whether we can construct artificial
brains that can know beyond human capacity. Can we incorporate those
AI into our own brains? If so, how would that change our fundamental
nature?
In the second case, if we are intrinsically incapable of extending our
knowledge beyond certain predetermined limits (whatever those limits
may be). then are we dependent on divinely revealed knowledge for
anything beyond our capacity to discover?
Of course this line of thinking will not resolve the origins debate.
But perhaps it implies a larger perspective than most thinkers will
consider comfortable.
As you point out the human mind is capable of enhancing itself, in
principle, so there is no obvious theworetical limit to what it can cope
with, surely.
[/quote]
I would agree only if it could be demonstrated that part of the
Universe (brain function) can step outside of itself!  |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Zinnic... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:55 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 9:28 pm, "bigflet... at (no spam) gmail.com" <bigflet... at (no spam) gmail.com>
wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 3:23 am, turtoni <turt... at (no spam) fastmail.net> wrote:
On Nov 3, 11:38 am, Robert <RobertAr... at (no spam) msn.com> wrote:
(snip)
In the first case, we can ask whether we can construct artificial
brains that can know beyond human capacity. Can we incorporate those
AI into our own brains? If so, how would that change our fundamental
nature?
What do you mean by "fundamental nature" ?
In the second case, if we are intrinsically incapable of extending our
knowledge beyond certain predetermined limits (whatever those limits
may be). then are we dependent on divinely revealed knowledge for
anything beyond our capacity to discover?
What is "divinely revealed knowledge" ?
Ive answered those question hundreds of times. What answer would suit
you?
This is the reals reason for your attitude towards my threads.You dont
comprehend the answers, keep asking the questions, and get pissed when
you keep getting the same answers. Attacking the messenger boy is also
funda-mental (see if you can work out why I included a - in the word).
Knowing also incorporates empathy.You only know you know when you can
compare subjectively with not knowing,so patience and understanding is
natural when you see others going through the same rites of passage as
you have been through.
[/quote]
In a 'nut'shell are you saying "you only know you know" when you know
others do not know? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Giga... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:26 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Robert" <RobertArvay at (no spam) msn.com> wrote in message
news:5f123eb7-598f-442d-8fc8-80f4b2ed1280 at (no spam) l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
[quote]Dr Leon Lederman is a physicist known for his research into the
theorized Higgs boson, which is so elemental to unified field theory,
that it has come to be called, even by atheists, the "God Particle."
In Lederman's book by the same title, he briefly questions whether the
human brain is even capable of understanding the basics of physical
science much beyond what we already have achieved.
(To be sure, my own brain reached that threshhold years ago.)
Lederman only touches on this idea, but his mere mention of it is
significant. How will humans react if one day we discover that our
finite brains cannot encompass the (virtually, at least) infinite
complexity of the physical universe?
Some thinkers have suggested that there is an infinite regression of
ever more fundamental, subatomic components. Some have even suggested
an infinite progression of ever higher orders of physical reality of
which our known universe is only a tiny sub-particle of a much larger
(do I coin a term here?) mega-multi-verse..
Thinking of this brings me to two different areas of controversy. One
is the concept of artificial intelligence, specifically, in the post-
humanistic idea of a technological singularity.
The other controversy concerns the postulated intelligent design of
reality by an ineffable Creator, about whom nothing can be known
excepts as he provides us with knowledge and the capacity to know.
In the first case, we can ask whether we can construct artificial
brains that can know beyond human capacity. Can we incorporate those
AI into our own brains? If so, how would that change our fundamental
nature?
In the second case, if we are intrinsically incapable of extending our
knowledge beyond certain predetermined limits (whatever those limits
may be). then are we dependent on divinely revealed knowledge for
anything beyond our capacity to discover?
Of course this line of thinking will not resolve the origins debate.
But perhaps it implies a larger perspective than most thinkers will
consider comfortable.
[/quote]
As you point out the human mind is capable of enhancing itself, in
principle, so there is no obvious theworetical limit to what it can cope
with, surely. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Zinnic... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 2:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 3:49 am, "Giga" <"Giga" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)
ho... at (no spam) yahoo.co> wrote:
[quote]"Zinnic" <zeenr... at (no spam) gate.net> wrote in message
news:fa831a9c-f2bc-4189-9941-25713a1c0e9d at (no spam) a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 4, 5:26 am, "Giga" <"Giga" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)
ho... at (no spam) yahoo.co> wrote:
"Robert" <RobertAr... at (no spam) msn.com> wrote in message
news:5f123eb7-598f-442d-8fc8-80f4b2ed1280 at (no spam) l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Dr Leon Lederman is a physicist known for his research into the
theorized Higgs boson, which is so elemental to unified field theory,
that it has come to be called, even by atheists, the "God Particle."
In Lederman's book by the same title, he briefly questions whether the
human brain is even capable of understanding the basics of physical
science much beyond what we already have achieved.
(To be sure, my own brain reached that threshhold years ago.)
Lederman only touches on this idea, but his mere mention of it is
significant. How will humans react if one day we discover that our
finite brains cannot encompass the (virtually, at least) infinite
complexity of the physical universe?
Some thinkers have suggested that there is an infinite regression of
ever more fundamental, subatomic components. Some have even suggested
an infinite progression of ever higher orders of physical reality of
which our known universe is only a tiny sub-particle of a much larger
(do I coin a term here?) mega-multi-verse..
Thinking of this brings me to two different areas of controversy. One
is the concept of artificial intelligence, specifically, in the post-
humanistic idea of a technological singularity.
The other controversy concerns the postulated intelligent design of
reality by an ineffable Creator, about whom nothing can be known
excepts as he provides us with knowledge and the capacity to know.
In the first case, we can ask whether we can construct artificial
brains that can know beyond human capacity. Can we incorporate those
AI into our own brains? If so, how would that change our fundamental
nature?
In the second case, if we are intrinsically incapable of extending our
knowledge beyond certain predetermined limits (whatever those limits
may be). then are we dependent on divinely revealed knowledge for
anything beyond our capacity to discover?
Of course this line of thinking will not resolve the origins debate.
But perhaps it implies a larger perspective than most thinkers will
consider comfortable.
As you point out the human mind is capable of enhancing itself, in
principle, so there is no obvious theworetical limit to what it can cope
with, surely.
I would agree only if it could be demonstrated that part of the
Universe (brain function) can step outside of itself! :-)
=Isn't that what self-awareness is in a way? Also don't we already use
various devices to enhance our brain function like written words, diaries,
computers etc
[/quote]
All theoretically limited to the Universe! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Errol... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:59 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 3:44 pm, John Stafford <n... at (no spam) droffats.ten> wrote:
[quote]Just a thought.
Each new human being has to learn what certain previous persons had
learned so that he can have a foundation from which to understand to
build more knowledge. That takes time and humans don't live very long.
A rather 'natural selection' takes place in the realms of ideas so that
very few people advance adequately in learning and inventing, however
this selection process does _not_ create more capable individuals as
genetics might: it does not advance humankind in an efficient manner
(and some would argue in "the myth of progress" that it helps none
whatsoever.)
Now consider this possibility of recent research (citations available)
that so-called Junk DNA is not junk after all - it can carry forward to
future generations real information so that one is born with, for
example, primitive memories of once held by ancestors. Some of the
memories could be habits. Rather than trying to use this 'Junk' DNA to
store factoids, it could be engineered to obviate some of the universal
erred thinking of humankind (citations available) so that new humans
were more capable of thinking constructively and creatively. Without the
habit to certain fundamentally erred thinking habits, humans could
assimilate knowledge far more rapidly, and presumably build new
knowledge at a greater rate.
I would not be concerned that such engineering would create horrors of
humankind, IOW, it's not inclined to build horrible political sects
because the process is random enough and humans would still have the
competitive spirit.
[/quote]
I would think that the challenge is how to "program" junk DNA to
create an extended processing section of the brain, rather than a
tumour. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Errol... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:16 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 2:24 pm, Zinnic <zeenr... at (no spam) gate.net> wrote:
[quote]
=Isn't that what self-awareness is in a way? Also don't we already use
various devices to enhance our brain function like written words, diaries,
computers etc
All theoretically limited to the Universe
[/quote]
Robert, the OP seems to have posted and ran, so tacked this on to your
posting
Welcome back by the way
From an article
Reinventing Humanity
The Future of Human-Machine Intelligence by Ray Kurzweil
"Ray Kurzweil sees a radical evolution of the human species in the
next 40 years. The merger of man and machine, coupled with the sudden
explosion in machine intelligence and rapid innovation in gene
research and nanotechnology, will result in a world where there is no
distinction between the biological and the mechanical, or between
physical and virtual reality.
Brain implants based on massively distributed intelligent nanobots
will greatly expand our memories and otherwise vastly improve all of
our sensory, pattern-recognition, and cognitive abilities. Since the
nanobots will be communicating with one another, they will be able to
create any set of new neural connections, break existing connections
(by suppressing neural firing), create new hybrid biological and
computer networks, and add completely mechanical networks, as well as
interface intimately with new computer programs and artificial
intelligences."
Wow sounds so feasible. Nanobots operating as neural routers/network
appendages Hope I can get one soon. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Giga... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:49 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Zinnic" <zeenric2 at (no spam) gate.net> wrote in message
news:fa831a9c-f2bc-4189-9941-25713a1c0e9d at (no spam) a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 4, 5:26 am, "Giga" <"Giga" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)
ho... at (no spam) yahoo.co> wrote:
[quote]"Robert" <RobertAr... at (no spam) msn.com> wrote in message
news:5f123eb7-598f-442d-8fc8-80f4b2ed1280 at (no spam) l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Dr Leon Lederman is a physicist known for his research into the
theorized Higgs boson, which is so elemental to unified field theory,
that it has come to be called, even by atheists, the "God Particle."
In Lederman's book by the same title, he briefly questions whether the
human brain is even capable of understanding the basics of physical
science much beyond what we already have achieved.
(To be sure, my own brain reached that threshhold years ago.)
Lederman only touches on this idea, but his mere mention of it is
significant. How will humans react if one day we discover that our
finite brains cannot encompass the (virtually, at least) infinite
complexity of the physical universe?
Some thinkers have suggested that there is an infinite regression of
ever more fundamental, subatomic components. Some have even suggested
an infinite progression of ever higher orders of physical reality of
which our known universe is only a tiny sub-particle of a much larger
(do I coin a term here?) mega-multi-verse..
Thinking of this brings me to two different areas of controversy. One
is the concept of artificial intelligence, specifically, in the post-
humanistic idea of a technological singularity.
The other controversy concerns the postulated intelligent design of
reality by an ineffable Creator, about whom nothing can be known
excepts as he provides us with knowledge and the capacity to know.
In the first case, we can ask whether we can construct artificial
brains that can know beyond human capacity. Can we incorporate those
AI into our own brains? If so, how would that change our fundamental
nature?
In the second case, if we are intrinsically incapable of extending our
knowledge beyond certain predetermined limits (whatever those limits
may be). then are we dependent on divinely revealed knowledge for
anything beyond our capacity to discover?
Of course this line of thinking will not resolve the origins debate.
But perhaps it implies a larger perspective than most thinkers will
consider comfortable.
As you point out the human mind is capable of enhancing itself, in
principle, so there is no obvious theworetical limit to what it can cope
with, surely.
[/quote]
I would agree only if it could be demonstrated that part of the
Universe (brain function) can step outside of itself! :-)
=Isn't that what self-awareness is in a way? Also don't we already use
various devices to enhance our brain function like written words, diaries,
computers etc. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Stafford... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 8:44 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Just a thought.
Each new human being has to learn what certain previous persons had
learned so that he can have a foundation from which to understand to
build more knowledge. That takes time and humans don't live very long.
A rather 'natural selection' takes place in the realms of ideas so that
very few people advance adequately in learning and inventing, however
this selection process does _not_ create more capable individuals as
genetics might: it does not advance humankind in an efficient manner
(and some would argue in "the myth of progress" that it helps none
whatsoever.)
Now consider this possibility of recent research (citations available)
that so-called Junk DNA is not junk after all - it can carry forward to
future generations real information so that one is born with, for
example, primitive memories of once held by ancestors. Some of the
memories could be habits. Rather than trying to use this 'Junk' DNA to
store factoids, it could be engineered to obviate some of the universal
erred thinking of humankind (citations available) so that new humans
were more capable of thinking constructively and creatively. Without the
habit to certain fundamentally erred thinking habits, humans could
assimilate knowledge far more rapidly, and presumably build new
knowledge at a greater rate.
I would not be concerned that such engineering would create horrors of
humankind, IOW, it's not inclined to build horrible political sects
because the process is random enough and humans would still have the
competitive spirit. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Giga... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:53 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Zinnic" <zeenric2 at (no spam) gate.net> wrote in message
news:b507490c-0c95-4fe6-9c7c-71366e564286 at (no spam) a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 5, 3:49 am, "Giga" <"Giga" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)
ho... at (no spam) yahoo.co> wrote:
[quote]"Zinnic" <zeenr... at (no spam) gate.net> wrote in message
news:fa831a9c-f2bc-4189-9941-25713a1c0e9d at (no spam) a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 4, 5:26 am, "Giga" <"Giga" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)
ho... at (no spam) yahoo.co> wrote:
"Robert" <RobertAr... at (no spam) msn.com> wrote in message
news:5f123eb7-598f-442d-8fc8-80f4b2ed1280 at (no spam) l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Dr Leon Lederman is a physicist known for his research into the
theorized Higgs boson, which is so elemental to unified field theory,
that it has come to be called, even by atheists, the "God Particle."
In Lederman's book by the same title, he briefly questions whether the
human brain is even capable of understanding the basics of physical
science much beyond what we already have achieved.
(To be sure, my own brain reached that threshhold years ago.)
Lederman only touches on this idea, but his mere mention of it is
significant. How will humans react if one day we discover that our
finite brains cannot encompass the (virtually, at least) infinite
complexity of the physical universe?
Some thinkers have suggested that there is an infinite regression of
ever more fundamental, subatomic components. Some have even suggested
an infinite progression of ever higher orders of physical reality of
which our known universe is only a tiny sub-particle of a much larger
(do I coin a term here?) mega-multi-verse..
Thinking of this brings me to two different areas of controversy. One
is the concept of artificial intelligence, specifically, in the post-
humanistic idea of a technological singularity.
The other controversy concerns the postulated intelligent design of
reality by an ineffable Creator, about whom nothing can be known
excepts as he provides us with knowledge and the capacity to know.
In the first case, we can ask whether we can construct artificial
brains that can know beyond human capacity. Can we incorporate those
AI into our own brains? If so, how would that change our fundamental
nature?
In the second case, if we are intrinsically incapable of extending our
knowledge beyond certain predetermined limits (whatever those limits
may be). then are we dependent on divinely revealed knowledge for
anything beyond our capacity to discover?
Of course this line of thinking will not resolve the origins debate.
But perhaps it implies a larger perspective than most thinkers will
consider comfortable.
As you point out the human mind is capable of enhancing itself, in
principle, so there is no obvious theworetical limit to what it can cope
with, surely.
I would agree only if it could be demonstrated that part of the
Universe (brain function) can step outside of itself! :-)
=Isn't that what self-awareness is in a way? Also don't we already use
various devices to enhance our brain function like written words, diaries,
computers etc
[/quote]
All theoretically limited to the Universe!
=Yes, of course given that the Universe, as in *all* that exists and will
exist, is itself limited. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Nov 26, 2009 1:07 pm
|
|