Our intellectual boundaries
0
It seems like the human race is getting ever more complex and advanced as time goes on, through things like education and technology we humans are discovering new answers and asking even more questions.
My point is, is there a limit to our intellectual as a human species? Just like how you can't teach a monkey calculus because of its intellectual boundaries, do we too share this same boundary? Needless to say it seems that every species of life on this Earth has a boundary, in which i would find strange if we too didn't have one. But just how far does this boundary stretch? To what point is it at? Is it because of an intellectual boundary that even our best minds can't figure out the questions of the universe? Are we just wasting our time trying to figure out how the universe came to be? Like how calculus is inconceivable to a monkey, are those types of questions inconceivable to us because of an intellectual barrier?
So my question to you guys is, do you believe we as humans have an intellectual barrier? Or do you think we just need more time to figure out the greater questions?
My point is, is there a limit to our intellectual as a human species? Just like how you can't teach a monkey calculus because of its intellectual boundaries, do we too share this same boundary? Needless to say it seems that every species of life on this Earth has a boundary, in which i would find strange if we too didn't have one. But just how far does this boundary stretch? To what point is it at? Is it because of an intellectual boundary that even our best minds can't figure out the questions of the universe? Are we just wasting our time trying to figure out how the universe came to be? Like how calculus is inconceivable to a monkey, are those types of questions inconceivable to us because of an intellectual barrier?
So my question to you guys is, do you believe we as humans have an intellectual barrier? Or do you think we just need more time to figure out the greater questions?
0
Every hardware has its limits, so does the human brain, needless to say. Where this barrier is? Impossible to know from within the hardware. Maybe there are certain answers right in front of us that we would be able to stop with an higher intellect, but to philosophize about this is obviously a waste of time.
Also, don't compare the perspective of monkeys to humans, we are too similar. There are humans that, in comparison to other humans, are as intelligent as humans compared to monkeys.
Only people that believe that humans have a immaterial "soul" could claim that intelligence is limitless, but thats nonsense of course.
Also, don't compare the perspective of monkeys to humans, we are too similar. There are humans that, in comparison to other humans, are as intelligent as humans compared to monkeys.
Only people that believe that humans have a immaterial "soul" could claim that intelligence is limitless, but thats nonsense of course.
0
From a physical standpoint, the limit of intelligence is probably not something that can be reached naturally. There is the theory of, at some point, building super AIs and using the AIs to devise progressively better AIs, thus accelerating intelligence/computing development massively. But we haven't even built one AI yet, so who knows?
As for the question of whether some questions are unanswerable: it's hard to say for sure, but it seems likely. It's impossible to know anything without first making an assumption, as Descartes did with the "I think therefore I am." At least in terms of our current methods of thought, which haven't changed a whole lot fundamentally from the ancient records we have of the Greeks and such.
On the other hand, people have already answered some of these questions through other methods of deciding what is truth: faith for example. One could decide upon an answer to any question and believe it to be true. And, one some level, this is the only way to answer any question. How do I know that what I experience is actually reality or that I exist at all? Descartes decided he believed that thought existed, but he can neither eliminate all other possibilities nor decisively explain why the possibility he believes is incontrovertibly true.
And it is difficult to say if it is even possible to prove something like this. The only tools we have to prove that our own thought and awareness exist are our own thought and awareness. Can you prove something in reference only to itself? If all you know about mathematics is the idea of a point, you can't prove anything. Sometimes this happens. A famous problem instance in history is that no mathematician has discovered a way to prove the parallel postulate without assuming it within the proof.
Additionally, how can we conceive of methods of thought and existence outside our own using only our own? It is difficult, even for something simple. Suppose I contemplate my own existence as a being unbound by time. I would say that I have some shadowy conception of a conception of what that would be like, but I can't conceive of the existence itself.
So I guess the answer is: it depends on what it takes for you to consider a question answered. If you decide belief in a godlike being sufficiently answers the questions, for example, then they are answerable. If you decide that all knowledge and existence sum to nothingness and uncertainty, for an opposing example, then the questions are probably not answerable. Otherwise the answer is probably not yet determined or determined by what you decide it would take to get a satisfactory answer and your own assessment of whether this is possible.
As for the question of whether some questions are unanswerable: it's hard to say for sure, but it seems likely. It's impossible to know anything without first making an assumption, as Descartes did with the "I think therefore I am." At least in terms of our current methods of thought, which haven't changed a whole lot fundamentally from the ancient records we have of the Greeks and such.
On the other hand, people have already answered some of these questions through other methods of deciding what is truth: faith for example. One could decide upon an answer to any question and believe it to be true. And, one some level, this is the only way to answer any question. How do I know that what I experience is actually reality or that I exist at all? Descartes decided he believed that thought existed, but he can neither eliminate all other possibilities nor decisively explain why the possibility he believes is incontrovertibly true.
And it is difficult to say if it is even possible to prove something like this. The only tools we have to prove that our own thought and awareness exist are our own thought and awareness. Can you prove something in reference only to itself? If all you know about mathematics is the idea of a point, you can't prove anything. Sometimes this happens. A famous problem instance in history is that no mathematician has discovered a way to prove the parallel postulate without assuming it within the proof.
Additionally, how can we conceive of methods of thought and existence outside our own using only our own? It is difficult, even for something simple. Suppose I contemplate my own existence as a being unbound by time. I would say that I have some shadowy conception of a conception of what that would be like, but I can't conceive of the existence itself.
So I guess the answer is: it depends on what it takes for you to consider a question answered. If you decide belief in a godlike being sufficiently answers the questions, for example, then they are answerable. If you decide that all knowledge and existence sum to nothingness and uncertainty, for an opposing example, then the questions are probably not answerable. Otherwise the answer is probably not yet determined or determined by what you decide it would take to get a satisfactory answer and your own assessment of whether this is possible.
0
I don't think humans have any intellectual boundaries at all, when one generation passes, the next will take over the torch, answering previous question and mysteries and create more questions.
Look at genetics, DNA sequences, such and such was discovered not too long ago and lots of research is still being put into it, including other area of science, like biology or chemistry, some of the things are just still theories.
During the time of Edison or Galileo, scholars used to look down upon them, saying that everything that need be discovered has already been discovered, and look at what they found.
Look at genetics, DNA sequences, such and such was discovered not too long ago and lots of research is still being put into it, including other area of science, like biology or chemistry, some of the things are just still theories.
During the time of Edison or Galileo, scholars used to look down upon them, saying that everything that need be discovered has already been discovered, and look at what they found.
0
GameON wrote...
A person who uses faith as an assertion to answer a question i would never take seriously.Fair enough. But at the same time, this is something that founded upon arbitrary assumptions that you chose to make on some level, not unlike faith. For various reasons, you find these assumptions to be superior to faith.
That's not a criticism. I certainly don't believe in using the text of Genesis to answer the question of how the universe came to be. The point is that for some people, your use of science or whatever you chose to answer a question might be met with derision since that person finds faith to be a superior method, and this is applicable to the original question you asked.
Furthermore, when someone like you or I tries to argue our point, we tend to use arguments and methodologies that are valid within our own methods of thought. In a way, this is analogous to a Christian fundamentalist quoting the bible. If you accept the premise that the bible is universal truth, then quoting the bible makes for a great argument. If you don't, then it's not a very good argument. Similarly, if I cite a scientific study, this is a great argument to someone who thinks scientific methodologies are a good way to discover truth. To a Christian fundamentalist, it's a poor argument.
While I certainly think scientific methodologies are preferable to biblical fundamentalism, for various reasons, I do think it is dishonest if we do not recognize the philosophical similarities between the two ways of thinking.
Paul Feyerabend is very interesting and thought-provoking on this subject.
0
KnowsNoNoseBleed wrote...
During the time of Edison or Galileo, scholars used to look down upon them, saying that everything that need be discovered has already been discovered, and look at what they found.
I'm going to stop you there. And your points aren't really relevant to my question at all, or what i was getting at. Technological advancement has nothing to do with anything and is not a discovery, nor a new question. It's the advance in technology that gives us the mediums to discover new questions and try to answer old ones.
@WhiteLion. Yes i know what you are on about and on a subjective subject such as this it is very hard to eliminate such personal bias, but it all comes down to the norm. Stacking things up and sticking to the social norm when making assertions is the most effective way to eliminate such personal bias IMO, that is until you find evidence. In today's society, faith is out and science is in.
0
[font=Verdana][color=green]Of course we have a limit. It will be foolish and highly idealistic to think otherwise.
What is our limit, though? That is a very difficult question. Of course, the idea of time-travel will never be realised. Of course, kinda relevant to previous posts, but another idea that will never be realised is whether or not a God exists.
What is our limit, though? That is a very difficult question. Of course, the idea of time-travel will never be realised. Of course, kinda relevant to previous posts, but another idea that will never be realised is whether or not a God exists.
0
GameON wrote...
KnowsNoNoseBleed wrote...
During the time of Edison or Galileo, scholars used to look down upon them, saying that everything that need be discovered has already been discovered, and look at what they found.
I'm going to stop you there. And your points aren't really relevant to my question at all, or what i was getting at. Technological advancement has nothing to do with anything and is not a discovery, nor a new question. It's the advance in technology that gives us the mediums to discover new questions and try to answer old ones.
@WhiteLion. Yes i know what you are on about and on a subjective subject such as this it is very hard to eliminate such personal bias, but it all comes down to the norm. Stacking things up and sticking to the social norm when making assertions is the most effective way to eliminate such personal bias IMO, that is until you find evidence. In today's society, faith is out and science is in.
i answered ur last question
0
Depends on what a limit is. Idea of god is infinite, and so to truly answer whether he exists, don't we need to understand the idea of him, which is meant to be infinite. Therefore we will never be sure of his existence, but well get closer to the answer.
If intelligence is a matter of size, then our minds can develop until we run out of matter to construct them out of - even if it is development along the lines of more people being born. That would meant that our intelligence Is limited if the universe is limited.
And lastly maybe our minds are I a different dimension, or separate from our brains, so that their knowledge can be limitless and accumulated from generation to generation? In which case we wont reach a limit in intelligence even if we run out of resources.
P.s. What is intelligence? If it's you ability to understand, we already have it. If it's the number of things we understand, then you would get more intelligent from inventing systems in your mind, in which case physical bodies are not necessary at all in order to get more intelligent
If intelligence is a matter of size, then our minds can develop until we run out of matter to construct them out of - even if it is development along the lines of more people being born. That would meant that our intelligence Is limited if the universe is limited.
And lastly maybe our minds are I a different dimension, or separate from our brains, so that their knowledge can be limitless and accumulated from generation to generation? In which case we wont reach a limit in intelligence even if we run out of resources.
P.s. What is intelligence? If it's you ability to understand, we already have it. If it's the number of things we understand, then you would get more intelligent from inventing systems in your mind, in which case physical bodies are not necessary at all in order to get more intelligent
0
animefreak_usa
Child of Samael
Since we can only use something like 10% of our actual brain matter... sky the limit... Everyone has the same potential for high intelligence, it just the way your mind wires the info and how many functioning neutrons are firing in a rate that determinate intelligence.
0
I think what i was trying to get at was if like how the concept of calculus to a monkey is impossible for it conceive, are the underlying concepts of the universe the same as calculus is to them to us? Inconceivable to us humans. Is it because of these inconceivable underlying concepts that we can not find evidence for other dimensions or other questions or are we humans smart enough to conceive those concepts, but have just not found them?
0
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
There are problems with ever figuring this out.
First is defining intelligence. It is pretty freaken hard to actually define what it is in a definite manner, just a vague overencompassing idea. Which makes it really hard to even measure.
The second lies in the fact that if an item is outside of our understanding, then it doesn't exist to us. So if there IS something that we could never conceive, then it impossible to actually know about it because it will never exist to us meaning it is a moot point to actually try and think abou it.
Now is there stuff that we couldn't conceive at one point due to lack of knowledge? Pretty much everything fits this category. Is there information we don't know that we will know later? This is also true.
First is defining intelligence. It is pretty freaken hard to actually define what it is in a definite manner, just a vague overencompassing idea. Which makes it really hard to even measure.
The second lies in the fact that if an item is outside of our understanding, then it doesn't exist to us. So if there IS something that we could never conceive, then it impossible to actually know about it because it will never exist to us meaning it is a moot point to actually try and think abou it.
Now is there stuff that we couldn't conceive at one point due to lack of knowledge? Pretty much everything fits this category. Is there information we don't know that we will know later? This is also true.
0
Well, you have to keep in mind that we're always trying to find new ways to make ourselves smarter. Look up on transhumanism and you'll see how humans can overcome themselves, through themselves.
But there definately is a limit to our intellectual capacity biologically, but humans as a species isn't static. We change as we adapt to our ever changing environment, and if the environment demands for intelligence, then we'll see just that.
But there definately is a limit to our intellectual capacity biologically, but humans as a species isn't static. We change as we adapt to our ever changing environment, and if the environment demands for intelligence, then we'll see just that.
0
It's a question of perspective.
If you mean it by way of a vertical scale; amoebas and protozoans at the bottom, humans near the top- then, yes, I think there is indeed a limit, and that we may be quickly approaching it.
However, with new technologies and discoveries constantly being made, one cannot deny that the collective pool of knowledge is growing bigger by the day. However- that expansion is lateral, staying upon the same level, rather than moving up the ladder. That may very well be infinite.
Not quite sure if I illustrated the metaphor effectively.
If you mean it by way of a vertical scale; amoebas and protozoans at the bottom, humans near the top- then, yes, I think there is indeed a limit, and that we may be quickly approaching it.
However, with new technologies and discoveries constantly being made, one cannot deny that the collective pool of knowledge is growing bigger by the day. However- that expansion is lateral, staying upon the same level, rather than moving up the ladder. That may very well be infinite.
Not quite sure if I illustrated the metaphor effectively.
0
mibuchiha
Fakku Elder
First of all, I want to ask the OP how do you justify calculus is absolutely incomprehensible to monkeys? Learning is a gradual process. The speed may differ for different things, but it is a gradual process. At the time of ancient greeks, calculus doesn't make sense to both monkeys and humans. So some advanced aliens back then could very well claim that calculus is absolutely incomprehensible to humans, the same claim you made towards monkeys. Just because the leap has not been made (discovery of zero, in calculus case) doesn't mean it will never be made.
My opinion is, there's no such limit. Sure there might be a physical limit to our brain, but there's no limit to intelligence itself. There will be ways to overcome those, and we will be able to climb on higher if we try.
My opinion is, there's no such limit. Sure there might be a physical limit to our brain, but there's no limit to intelligence itself. There will be ways to overcome those, and we will be able to climb on higher if we try.
0
When discussing the limits that a human being have, IMO I believe that comparing the limits humans have to that of an animal is a fools work...Humans and animals are different from each other in terms of living in this world....Let's take the example of "the monkey learning calculus and human understanding the concepts of the universe"
First of, why must a monkey learn calculus to survive? A monkey survives how?
It survives by having food to eat, mating with its female half for continuation of its species and etc...So, if I am a monkey, I see no reason for me to learn calculus...Knowledge is power? How is calculus going to help me get a banana on top of a tree other than calculate the distance of the banana from the initial position and the force required by my limbs to oppose the force of gravitational field...
So in the end there was no need, but we humans need calculus in order to live that's why we learn it, the same goes to understanding the concept of the universe, we humans need to understand it in order to satisfy our curiosity and also avoid the worst predicted future by Stephen Hawking (well if it is plausible)
I understand that my previous rambling has nothing to do with human's intellectual boundaries, so I will now move on to it...Intellectual boundaries as I understand means the limit of our intellectual, and our intellectual means the capability we have to understand something or know something...Therefore, a limit of our human capability to understand....I for one do not think there is a limit to us humans at all...This is because humans are beings capable of overcoming their limit...Therefore, if one human says that understanding "this, this and that" is our limit as a human, but another human actually proves they can understand it, doesn't that overcome the limit first placed on us humans...
In conclusion, limits are things which we ourselves make, therefore intellectual boundaries do not exist
First of, why must a monkey learn calculus to survive? A monkey survives how?
It survives by having food to eat, mating with its female half for continuation of its species and etc...So, if I am a monkey, I see no reason for me to learn calculus...Knowledge is power? How is calculus going to help me get a banana on top of a tree other than calculate the distance of the banana from the initial position and the force required by my limbs to oppose the force of gravitational field...
So in the end there was no need, but we humans need calculus in order to live that's why we learn it, the same goes to understanding the concept of the universe, we humans need to understand it in order to satisfy our curiosity and also avoid the worst predicted future by Stephen Hawking (well if it is plausible)
I understand that my previous rambling has nothing to do with human's intellectual boundaries, so I will now move on to it...Intellectual boundaries as I understand means the limit of our intellectual, and our intellectual means the capability we have to understand something or know something...Therefore, a limit of our human capability to understand....I for one do not think there is a limit to us humans at all...This is because humans are beings capable of overcoming their limit...Therefore, if one human says that understanding "this, this and that" is our limit as a human, but another human actually proves they can understand it, doesn't that overcome the limit first placed on us humans...
In conclusion, limits are things which we ourselves make, therefore intellectual boundaries do not exist
0
Our Intellectual boundaries would may be about Life. I never heard of someone who is dead and was given life again by science (I mean dead as in buried and brought back to life) or something extinct like dinosaurs to walk with us, isn't it? As research goes on and discoveries are found, will man be able to unlock the secret of life? Does something really have to exist just once in a lifetime? (i do not believe with reincarnation.)
I remember a Movie by Steven Spielsberg about a robot child with an artificial intelligence, to be a son of a couple whose child died in an accident. In its ending, Humans became extinct and aliens found the robot child and his robot teddy bear with some strands of hair of the human mother. The aliens tried to create humans through the dna from the hair but after a period of time the human still dies.
Currently man is still trying to do their best to preserve life. It would be really convenient if human intellect answers the question of life, Man could play as god himself.
I remember a Movie by Steven Spielsberg about a robot child with an artificial intelligence, to be a son of a couple whose child died in an accident. In its ending, Humans became extinct and aliens found the robot child and his robot teddy bear with some strands of hair of the human mother. The aliens tried to create humans through the dna from the hair but after a period of time the human still dies.
Currently man is still trying to do their best to preserve life. It would be really convenient if human intellect answers the question of life, Man could play as god himself.
0
Humans evolve so future generations will have bigger/better brains. This means ability to understand/memorize/learn more. I belive we have no boundaries, our arrogance and lust for power/knowledge will push us further and further. If our ,,deafult'' brain won't be capable of working at some point we will just add artificial parts. Eventualy it will lead to our own oblideration or The Truth Process and everything will loose its meaning and sense
0
Mishy wrote...
Humans evolve so future generations will have bigger/better brains. This means ability to understand/memorize/learn more. I belive we have no boundaries, our arrogance and lust for power/knowledge will push us further and further. If our ,,deafult'' brain won't be capable of working at some point we will just add artificial parts. Eventualy it will lead to our own oblideration or The Truth Process and everything will loose its meaning and senseHow would we know that we're still evolving, though? As far as I see, we stopped physically evolving thousands of years ago.