Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

How Limited Is the Human Mind and Intellect??

2 views
Skip to first unread message

JohnGavin

unread,
Oct 8, 2007, 10:33:13 AM10/8/07
to
Aren't human beings, after all, a rung in the ladder of evolved
intellectual capacity? Just as chimpanzees and dolphins are in many
ways more intelligent than cats and dogs, and dogs are more
intelligent than mice and amoebas, does human intelligence represent
the top of the ladder of comprehension of the universe? Even if you
accept that humans possess the highest intellectual power currently
manifested - are you also postulating that there is no room above us
on the ladder of comprehension and intellect? Could it be that
millions or billions of years more of evolution might manifest 5 or 10
more rungs above us on that ladder?

Isn't it a commonly accepted theory or fact that the vast majority of
humans actually use only a small percentage of their total brain
capacity? Could it be that when humans learn to use all of it, the
brain through time becomes stimulated to increase it's maximum
capacity?

As to belief in God - if anyone acknowledges that our intellect is
limited, or just another rung on the ladder, only high in a relative
sense to other animals, than can't there be an admission of the
possibility that we don't yet possess enough brain power to actually
sustain a comprehension of an author of the universe or the dimensions
of eternity or infinity?

It seems to me that geniune faith is born out of a humble
comprehension of the limits of our cognitive capacities, combined with
a yearning to go beyond it. Human beings could well be standing on a
sort of evolutionary threshold - intelligent enough and intuitive
enough to sense a higher power, yet without the intellectual wattage
to uncover the science to prove it's existence. Certainly, blind
acceptance of higher realities would be a serious mistake, yet it
seems to me that blanket denial, based on the relativities and likely
limitations of the human mind would be lacking both in humility and
imagination.

SeppoP

unread,
Oct 8, 2007, 11:00:16 AM10/8/07
to

Umm... No.

--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)

Mark VandeWettering

unread,
Oct 8, 2007, 11:04:49 AM10/8/07
to
On 2007-10-08, JohnGavin <dag...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Aren't human beings, after all, a rung in the ladder of evolved
> intellectual capacity?

It's probably a mistake to think of it that way. Look at it another way,
aren't humans beings a run in the ladder of evolved swimming ability?
In the ladder of chitinous exoskeletons? :-)

> Just as chimpanzees and dolphins are in many ways more intelligent
> than cats and dogs, and dogs are more intelligent than mice and
> amoebas, does human intelligence represent the top of the ladder of
> comprehension of the universe?

"For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that
he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so
much -- the wheel, New York, wars and so on -- whilst all the
dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good
time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they
were far more intelligent than man -- for precisely the same
reasons."
-- D. Adams

> Even if you
> accept that humans possess the highest intellectual power currently
> manifested - are you also postulating that there is no room above us
> on the ladder of comprehension and intellect? Could it be that
> millions or billions of years more of evolution might manifest 5 or 10
> more rungs above us on that ladder?

"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to
learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for
their apparent disinclination to do so."
-- D. Adams

> Isn't it a commonly accepted theory or fact that the vast majority of
> humans actually use only a small percentage of their total brain
> capacity? Could it be that when humans learn to use all of it, the
> brain through time becomes stimulated to increase it's maximum
> capacity?
>
> As to belief in God - if anyone acknowledges that our intellect is
> limited, or just another rung on the ladder, only high in a relative
> sense to other animals, than can't there be an admission of the
> possibility that we don't yet possess enough brain power to actually
> sustain a comprehension of an author of the universe or the dimensions
> of eternity or infinity?
>
> It seems to me that geniune faith is born out of a humble
> comprehension of the limits of our cognitive capacities, combined with
> a yearning to go beyond it. Human beings could well be standing on a
> sort of evolutionary threshold - intelligent enough and intuitive
> enough to sense a higher power, yet without the intellectual wattage
> to uncover the science to prove it's existence. Certainly, blind
> acceptance of higher realities would be a serious mistake, yet it
> seems to me that blanket denial, based on the relativities and likely
> limitations of the human mind would be lacking both in humility and
> imagination.

But not necessarily wrong.

Mark

tgde...@earthlink.net

unread,
Oct 8, 2007, 11:25:24 AM10/8/07
to

We already accept your initial premise---that we might learn more in
the future. There is no such blanket denial as you propose. That's
why we have science fiction.

Perhaps there will be humans in the future with God-like powers.
Perhaps they will destroy each other and the last one, with an act of
will, will create a universe exactly like this and the cycle will
repeat endlessly, and perhaps we are one cycle of this endless
process.

My little scenario (sounds like something I read a zillion years ago)
is as good a speculation as any, don't you think?

-tg

Greg G.

unread,
Oct 8, 2007, 11:26:58 AM10/8/07
to
On Oct 8, 10:33 am, JohnGavin <dagd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Aren't human beings, after all, a rung in the ladder of evolved
> intellectual capacity? Just as chimpanzees and dolphins are in many
> ways more intelligent than cats and dogs, and dogs are more
> intelligent than mice and amoebas, does human intelligence represent
> the top of the ladder of comprehension of the universe? Even if you
> accept that humans possess the highest intellectual power currently
> manifested - are you also postulating that there is no room above us
> on the ladder of comprehension and intellect? Could it be that
> millions or billions of years more of evolution might manifest 5 or 10
> more rungs above us on that ladder?

This morning I was thinking about something I once read about how fast
a fly's perception is. Their reaction time is about 200 times better
than ours, IIRC. Then I thought of the video I saw, 40 years ago or
so, of a small leopard playing with a poisonous snake. The narrator
(Marlin Perkins, of Wild Kingdom, perhaps) said the cat was protected
by his fast reflexes as it sprung back whenever the snake struck. A
human can't react that quickly.

Do you suppose animals would consider us retarded because we react so
slowly and take so long to arrive at a conclusion?

Perhaps, our ability to think deeply is a trade-off for the ability to
think quickly.

--
Greg G.

He who thinks by the inch and talks by the yard deserves to be kicked
by the foot.

Nick Keighley

unread,
Oct 8, 2007, 11:34:15 AM10/8/07
to
Subject "how limited is the human mind"

On 8 Oct, 15:33, JohnGavin <dagd...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Aren't human beings, after all, a rung in the ladder of evolved
> intellectual capacity?

evolution isn't a ladder. I'm always dubious about these limits
on human brain power (maybe I'm too stupid to see it!). I can
imagine something smarter than us, but I basically assume we could
think the same thoughts but a bit slower. I suppose something
that thought orders of magnitude faster than us we'd never catch.

> Just as chimpanzees and dolphins are in many
> ways more intelligent than cats and dogs, and dogs are more
> intelligent than mice and amoebas, does human intelligence represent
> the top of the ladder of comprehension of the universe? Even if you
> accept that humans possess the highest intellectual power currently
> manifested - are you also postulating that there is no room above us
> on the ladder of comprehension and intellect? Could it be that
> millions or billions of years more of evolution might manifest 5 or 10
> more rungs above us on that ladder?
>
> Isn't it a commonly accepted theory or fact that the vast majority of
> humans actually use only a small percentage of their total brain
> capacity?

yes, but its wrong. Think about why would evolution give us
something so large and energy hungry that was 90% useless.
Unless there was sexual selection for large heads. Even then
the cheaters would do better. Evolve large empty skulls
(eg. Pointy Haired Managers)

> Could it be that when humans learn to use all of it, the
> brain through time becomes stimulated to increase it's maximum
> capacity?

I can't see it.


> As to belief in God - if anyone acknowledges that our intellect is
> limited, or just another rung on the ladder, only high in a relative
> sense to other animals, than can't there be an admission of the
> possibility that we don't yet possess enough brain power to actually
> sustain a comprehension of an author of the universe or the dimensions
> of eternity or infinity?

I tend to want some evidence for large claims like this.


> It seems to me that geniune faith is born out of a humble
> comprehension of the limits of our cognitive capacities, combined with
> a yearning to go beyond it. Human beings could well be standing on a
> sort of evolutionary threshold - intelligent enough and intuitive
> enough to sense a higher power,

I see no Higher Power.

> yet without the intellectual wattage
> to uncover the science to prove it's existence. Certainly, blind
> acceptance of higher realities would be a serious mistake, yet it
> seems to me that blanket denial, based on the relativities and likely
> limitations of the human mind would be lacking both in humility and
> imagination.

I'd rather stick with things that can be observed.


--
Nick Keighley


" There might be things that we cannot comprehend, but then that's OK,
because they are incomprehensible"
Arthur C. Clarke

Dustan

unread,
Oct 8, 2007, 11:34:56 AM10/8/07
to
On Oct 8, 9:33 am, JohnGavin <dagd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> It seems to me that geniune faith is born out of a humble
> comprehension of the limits of our cognitive capacities, combined with
> a yearning to go beyond it.

Yes; it has always been dreadfully obvious that we humans have limits.
They tried to imagine not having any limits, and thus monotheism was
born.

Kermit

unread,
Oct 8, 2007, 11:32:59 AM10/8/07
to
On Oct 8, 7:33 am, JohnGavin <dagd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Aren't human beings, after all, a rung in the ladder of evolved
> intellectual capacity?

Intelligence is just one of many, many talents that organisms can
evolve as a response to the environment. While we do seem to be the
most intelligent, we are not the best flier, or best swimmer, or best
hider or pouncer.

> Just as chimpanzees and dolphins are in many
> ways more intelligent than cats and dogs, and dogs are more
> intelligent than mice and amoebas, does human intelligence represent
> the top of the ladder of comprehension of the universe?

The ladder implies climbing. Some cetaceans are probably smarter than
most of our primate cousins, and possibly the ravens and parrots.
There is no ladder of evolution here; it is simply a spectrum of
intelligence along which we can tentatively position the animals. We
could do the same with running speed, or size.

> Even if you
> accept that humans possess the highest intellectual power currently
> manifested

We seem to be.

> - are you also postulating that there is no room above us
> on the ladder of comprehension and intellect?

I see no theoretical or evidencial reason to think so.

> Could it be that
> millions or billions of years more of evolution might manifest 5 or 10
> more rungs above us on that ladder?

With genetic engineering, it may happen in our lifetime.

>
> Isn't it a commonly accepted theory or fact that the vast majority of
> humans actually use only a small percentage of their total brain
> capacity?

No. Like the rest of our body, we have it because we use it. The human
brain comes at a high cost. For a couch potato, the brain uses about
one third of the calories ingested. It also frequently kills mothers
during childbirth. No other mammal takes such risks to reproduce. It
would not be supported n its present form if it were not used.

There are no inactive areas in a functioning brain. We do not
understand all of it, but we can see the activity in scans of living
humans.

> Could it be that when humans learn to use all of it, the
> brain through time becomes stimulated to increase it's maximum
> capacity?

We do use all of it. But the difference between Einstein and Joe six-
pack is trivial genetically and metabolically. We may be able to
affect development or even enhance brains that are already mature.

We do know some things that help make people smarter, or keep them
smart as they age:
Exercise.
Learning new skills.
General good nutrition, avoiding cigarettes, etc.
Listening to intelligent music, or new music.

But future medicine will have more profound effects, I'm sure.

>
> As to belief in God - if anyone acknowledges that our intellect is
> limited, or just another rung on the ladder, only high in a relative
> sense to other animals, than can't there be an admission of the
> possibility that we don't yet possess enough brain power to actually
> sustain a comprehension of an author of the universe or the dimensions
> of eternity or infinity?

That's a question I sometimes ask fundamentalists when they tell me
God is a white male Republican. But so far I have seen no reason to
believe that gods exist outside of human skulls.

>
> It seems to me that geniune faith is born out of a humble
> comprehension of the limits of our cognitive capacities, combined with
> a yearning to go beyond it. Human beings could well be standing on a
> sort of evolutionary threshold - intelligent enough and intuitive
> enough to sense a higher power, yet without the intellectual wattage
> to uncover the science to prove it's existence.

The higher power will probably be my great-great-grandchildren. Or
yours.

> Certainly, blind
> acceptance of higher realities would be a serious mistake, yet it
> seems to me that blanket denial, based on the relativities and likely
> limitations of the human mind would be lacking both in humility and
> imagination.

So, you're keeping an open mind to leprechauns?

Two possibilities (there are gods, or there aren't; there are
leprechauns, or there aren't; there is a Loch Ness monster or there
isn't) does not mean that they are both equally likely, nor that
considering the possibilities should be given much of our time.

Kermit

Iain

unread,
Oct 8, 2007, 11:37:19 AM10/8/07
to
On Oct 8, 3:33 pm, JohnGavin <dagd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Aren't human beings, after all, a rung in the ladder of evolved
> intellectual capacity?

No.

> Just as chimpanzees and dolphins are in many
> ways more intelligent than cats and dogs, and dogs are more
> intelligent than mice and amoebas, does human intelligence represent
> the top of the ladder of comprehension of the universe?

Top of what ladder?

We may be the most intelligent animals on the planet.

We are not the most intelligent possible animals.

> Even if you
> accept that humans possess the highest intellectual power currently
> manifested - are you also postulating that there is no room above us
> on the ladder of comprehension and intellect?

Whoever said there is no room for increased intellect?

> Could it be that
> millions or billions of years more of evolution might manifest 5 or 10
> more rungs above us on that ladder?

Maybe.

> Isn't it a commonly accepted theory or fact that the vast majority of
> humans actually use only a small percentage of their total brain
> capacity?

No.


>Could it be that when humans learn to use all of it,

They already do.

> the
> brain through time becomes stimulated to increase it's maximum
> capacity?

No.

> As to belief in God - if anyone acknowledges that our intellect is
> limited, or just another rung on the ladder, only high in a relative
> sense to other animals, than can't there be an admission of the
> possibility that we don't yet possess enough brain power to actually
> sustain a comprehension of an author of the universe or the dimensions
> of eternity or infinity?

Maybe but that doesn't mean there is any evidence for such a thing.

> It seems to me that geniune faith is born out of a humble
> comprehension of the limits of our cognitive capacities,

Faith is born out of overall laziness of the mind.

Faith just means "belief without evidence"

> combined with
> a yearning to go beyond it. Human beings could well be standing on a
> sort of evolutionary threshold - intelligent enough and intuitive
> enough to sense a higher power, yet without the intellectual wattage
> to uncover the science to prove it's existence.

Maybe.

> Certainly, blind
> acceptance of higher realities would be a serious mistake,

Yes.

~Iain

Inez

unread,
Oct 8, 2007, 11:39:30 AM10/8/07
to
On Oct 8, 7:33 am, JohnGavin <dagd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Aren't human beings, after all, a rung in the ladder of evolved
> intellectual capacity? Just as chimpanzees and dolphins are in many
> ways more intelligent than cats and dogs, and dogs are more
> intelligent than mice and amoebas, does human intelligence represent
> the top of the ladder of comprehension of the universe? Even if you
> accept that humans possess the highest intellectual power currently
> manifested - are you also postulating that there is no room above us
> on the ladder of comprehension and intellect? Could it be that
> millions or billions of years more of evolution might manifest 5 or 10
> more rungs above us on that ladder?

Of course.

>
> Isn't it a commonly accepted theory or fact that the vast majority of
> humans actually use only a small percentage of their total brain
> capacity? Could it be that when humans learn to use all of it, the
> brain through time becomes stimulated to increase it's maximum
> capacity?

I don't know where that factoid comes from but I suspect it's
nonsense, or uses a strange definition of "brain capacity."


>
> As to belief in God - if anyone acknowledges that our intellect is
> limited, or just another rung on the ladder, only high in a relative
> sense to other animals, than can't there be an admission of the
> possibility that we don't yet possess enough brain power to actually
> sustain a comprehension of an author of the universe or the dimensions
> of eternity or infinity?
>

I admit to not having comprehension of what you mean by this. It
isn't very difficult to comprehend the concept of a god or gods. If
you want me to admit I don't understand any God that might exist,
you've got me there. I don't even understand that man with an
antenna ball head advertises for Jack in the Box.

> It seems to me that geniune faith is born out of a humble
> comprehension of the limits of our cognitive capacities, combined with
> a yearning to go beyond it.

Especially the second part. But some of us feel that the more noble
course is to admit when we don't know and not attempt to go beyond our
cognative abilities, however much entertainment such gaffes provide
our fellow humans.

> Human beings could well be standing on a
> sort of evolutionary threshold - intelligent enough and intuitive
> enough to sense a higher power, yet without the intellectual wattage
> to uncover the science to prove it's existence. Certainly, blind
> acceptance of higher realities would be a serious mistake, yet it
> seems to me that blanket denial, based on the relativities and likely
> limitations of the human mind would be lacking both in humility and
> imagination.

It isn't that I disagree, but I don't think there is much productive
use in speculating about things you know nothing of.

Steven J.

unread,
Oct 8, 2007, 11:43:48 AM10/8/07
to
On Oct 8, 9:33 am, JohnGavin <dagd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Aren't human beings, after all, a rung in the ladder of evolved
> intellectual capacity? Just as chimpanzees and dolphins are in many
> ways more intelligent than cats and dogs, and dogs are more
> intelligent than mice and amoebas, does human intelligence represent
> the top of the ladder of comprehension of the universe? Even if you
> accept that humans possess the highest intellectual power currently
> manifested - are you also postulating that there is no room above us
> on the ladder of comprehension and intellect? Could it be that
> millions or billions of years more of evolution might manifest 5 or 10
> more rungs above us on that ladder?
>
A "ladder of evolved intellectual capacity" seems to assume that
"comprehension and intellect" is a single, indivisible entity, an
assumption which I think is rejected even by the most ardent
proponents of "general intelligence." At least among humans, it is
generally conceded that a person can be well above average in some
intellectual skills and below average in others. Evolutionary theory
implies a tree of different adaptions to different environments,
rather than a ladder of complexity, ability, or perfection; we ought
to expect that different species have different suites of mental and
perceptual abilities (or, as one researcher put it, your cat looks
pretty stupid trying to open a box, but you'd look pretty stupid
trying to chase and catch a bird). Often increases in one set of
abilities require a trade-off, and the loss of other abilities.

There is no known mechanism that would cause evolution to progress
automatically towards some distant goal, nor does the fossil record or
the current diversity of life suggest a fixed ladder with rungs up
which evolution might be propelled. Our descendants in the distant
future might be smarter than we are in various ways. It is certainly
possible, but it is not an evolutionary necessity.


>
> Isn't it a commonly accepted theory or fact that the vast majority of
> humans actually use only a small percentage of their total brain
> capacity? Could it be that when humans learn to use all of it, the
> brain through time becomes stimulated to increase it's maximum
> capacity?
>

Humans use pretty much their entire brain; that "humans use only 10%
(the exact figure varies) of their brains" canard dates back to
popular press distortions of early research on how brain damage
impairs human functioning. It would be very odd, from an evolutionary
point of view, for us to have vast redundancy of something as
metabolically expensive as brain tissue. Of course, there is some
redundancy, and humans can learn to use parts of the brain to replace
parts that have been damaged, but I doubt very much that there are
vast reserves of processing capacity waiting to be unleashed.


>
> As to belief in God - if anyone acknowledges that our intellect is
> limited, or just another rung on the ladder, only high in a relative
> sense to other animals, than can't there be an admission of the
> possibility that we don't yet possess enough brain power to actually
> sustain a comprehension of an author of the universe or the dimensions
> of eternity or infinity?
>

One might go further: perhaps we don't possess enough brain power to
figure out if there is "an author of the universe" ("dimensions of
eternity or infinity" seem to me to be misuses of the term
"dimensions"). Indeed, minds shaped by the needs of social primates
on the African savanna might not be able to decide whether their
supposed perceptions of God are real perceptions of some higher
Intelligence or misfirings of pattern- and purpose-seeking
psychological mechanisms.


>
> It seems to me that geniune faith is born out of a humble
> comprehension of the limits of our cognitive capacities, combined with
> a yearning to go beyond it. Human beings could well be standing on a
> sort of evolutionary threshold - intelligent enough and intuitive
> enough to sense a higher power, yet without the intellectual wattage
> to uncover the science to prove it's existence. Certainly, blind
> acceptance of higher realities would be a serious mistake, yet it
> seems to me that blanket denial, based on the relativities and likely
> limitations of the human mind would be lacking both in humility and
> imagination.
>

Well, part of humility is not confusing your imagination with actual
data.

-- Steven J.

Rusty Sites

unread,
Oct 8, 2007, 12:59:12 PM10/8/07
to
Inez wrote:
> On Oct 8, 7:33 am, JohnGavin <dagd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Aren't human beings, after all, a rung in the ladder of evolved
>> intellectual capacity? Just as chimpanzees and dolphins are in many
>> ways more intelligent than cats and dogs, and dogs are more
>> intelligent than mice and amoebas, does human intelligence represent
>> the top of the ladder of comprehension of the universe? Even if you
>> accept that humans possess the highest intellectual power currently
>> manifested - are you also postulating that there is no room above us
>> on the ladder of comprehension and intellect? Could it be that
>> millions or billions of years more of evolution might manifest 5 or 10
>> more rungs above us on that ladder?
>
> Of course.
>
>> Isn't it a commonly accepted theory or fact that the vast majority of
>> humans actually use only a small percentage of their total brain
>> capacity? Could it be that when humans learn to use all of it, the
>> brain through time becomes stimulated to increase it's maximum
>> capacity?
>
> I don't know where that factoid comes from but I suspect it's
> nonsense, or uses a strange definition of "brain capacity."

I have long suspected that the statement I heard so much growing up, "we
only use 10% of our brain", comes from the fact that only 10% of the
cells in our brains are neurons. The much more numerous glia have long
been thought to provide only structural support but recently there have
been papers published suggesting that might play some active role as well.

Pip R. Lagenta

unread,
Oct 8, 2007, 1:39:43 PM10/8/07
to
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 07:33:13 -0700, JohnGavin <dag...@comcast.net>
wrote:
[snip]

>Isn't it a commonly accepted theory or fact that the vast majority of
>humans actually use only a small percentage of their total brain
>capacity?
[snip]

That is an Urban Myth. It is false in its entirety. Even mentally
retarded people use *all* of their brain.

This Urban Myth has its roots in the late nineteen-forties when
physiological psychology was very primitive. Much has been learned
about the brain since this myth began.

>
--
內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌

-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/pip.html>
(For Email: I'm at home, not work.)

Kent Paul Dolan

unread,
Oct 8, 2007, 1:51:39 PM10/8/07
to
Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Evolve large empty skulls

I'm pretty sure the creationists already
have a trademark on that idea...

xanthian.

Vend

unread,
Oct 8, 2007, 3:50:13 PM10/8/07
to
On 8 Ott, 16:33, JohnGavin <dagd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Aren't human beings, after all, a rung in the ladder of evolved
> intellectual capacity?

The concept of ladder has no place in biological evolution.

> Just as chimpanzees and dolphins are in many
> ways more intelligent than cats and dogs, and dogs are more
> intelligent than mice and amoebas, does human intelligence represent
> the top of the ladder of comprehension of the universe?

We are the most intelligent animals on this planet and in this time.
In other places and times there might exist animals more intelligent
than us.

> Even if you
> accept that humans possess the highest intellectual power currently
> manifested - are you also postulating that there is no room above us
> on the ladder of comprehension and intellect?

Who does say so?

> Could it be that
> millions or billions of years more of evolution might manifest 5 or 10
> more rungs above us on that ladder?

No ladder, but yes, it's possible that animals more intelligent than
us appear.

> Isn't it a commonly accepted theory or fact that the vast majority of
> humans actually use only a small percentage of their total brain
> capacity?

It's a falsehood.

> Could it be that when humans learn to use all of it, the
> brain through time becomes stimulated to increase it's maximum
> capacity?

Humans use all their brains.

> As to belief in God - if anyone acknowledges that our intellect is
> limited, or just another rung on the ladder, only high in a relative
> sense to other animals, than can't there be an admission of the
> possibility that we don't yet possess enough brain power to actually
> sustain a comprehension of an author of the universe

Or maybe the belif in gods is due to the fact that our limited, not
very rational minds tend to invent anthropomorphic entities to attempt
to rationalize things they don't understand.

> or the dimensions
> of eternity or infinity?

Mathematicians already understand infinity.

> It seems to me that geniune faith is born out of a humble
> comprehension of the limits of our cognitive capacities, combined with
> a yearning to go beyond it.

Argument from Ignorance.

> Human beings could well be standing on a
> sort of evolutionary threshold - intelligent enough and intuitive
> enough to sense a higher power, yet without the intellectual wattage
> to uncover the science to prove it's existence.

Or the other way round.

> Certainly, blind
> acceptance of higher realities

That is, faith.

> would be a serious mistake, yet it
> seems to me that blanket denial, based on the relativities and likely
> limitations of the human mind would be lacking both in humility and
> imagination.

Claiming that you know anything about God(s) when you really know
nothing is a lack of humility.

dkomo

unread,
Oct 8, 2007, 4:08:03 PM10/8/07
to
JohnGavin wrote:

> Aren't human beings, after all, a rung in the ladder of evolved
> intellectual capacity? Just as chimpanzees and dolphins are in many
> ways more intelligent than cats and dogs, and dogs are more
> intelligent than mice and amoebas, does human intelligence represent
> the top of the ladder of comprehension of the universe? Even if you
> accept that humans possess the highest intellectual power currently
> manifested - are you also postulating that there is no room above us
> on the ladder of comprehension and intellect? Could it be that
> millions or billions of years more of evolution might manifest 5 or 10
> more rungs above us on that ladder?
>
> Isn't it a commonly accepted theory or fact that the vast majority of
> humans actually use only a small percentage of their total brain
> capacity? Could it be that when humans learn to use all of it, the
> brain through time becomes stimulated to increase it's maximum
> capacity?
>
> As to belief in God - if anyone acknowledges that our intellect is
> limited, or just another rung on the ladder, only high in a relative
> sense to other animals, than can't there be an admission of the
> possibility that we don't yet possess enough brain power to actually
> sustain a comprehension of an author of the universe or the dimensions
> of eternity or infinity?
>

Our imaginations are far less limited than our intellects. We have an
incredible capacity to invent non-existent realities. Any quick tour
through the literature and fiction section of a library can confirm
that, as can any tour through the religion and mythology section.

Since we're trying to be humble here, I suggest we keep in mind another
propensity of our minds -- our almost unlimited capacity for
self-delusion. Is a "comprehension" of an author of the universe a part
of *that* propensity?


--dk...@cris.com


David Canzi -- non-mailable

unread,
Oct 8, 2007, 5:05:54 PM10/8/07
to
In article <1191853993.8...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,

JohnGavin <dag...@comcast.net> wrote:
>are you also postulating that there is no room above us
>on the ladder of comprehension and intellect? Could it be that
>millions or billions of years more of evolution might manifest 5 or 10
>more rungs above us on that ladder?

Yes, our descendents could be smarter than us.

The first sea animals to walk onto land were clumsy. The first
land animals to take flight flew poorly. We are the first animals
to reason logically. It should be no suprise that we're not
good at it. We might be a transitional species between the
brute apes and something intelligent. More likely, though,
we will go extinct.

>As to belief in God - if anyone acknowledges that our intellect is
>limited, or just another rung on the ladder, only high in a relative
>sense to other animals, than can't there be an admission of the
>possibility that we don't yet possess enough brain power to actually
>sustain a comprehension of an author of the universe or the dimensions
>of eternity or infinity?

In ancient times people didn't understand the sun -- what it's
made of, how it works -- but they knew it was there. You don't
need to understand a thing fully, or partially, or at all, to
know it's there. The problem with belief in a god or gods is
not in the understanding, but in the knowing it's there.

--
David Canzi "We don't care. We don't *have* to care. We're Google Groups."

Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t

unread,
Oct 8, 2007, 11:34:04 PM10/8/07
to
> From: JohnGavin <dagd...@comcast.net>

> Aren't human beings, after all, a rung in the ladder of evolved
> intellectual capacity?

You are halucinating a "ladder" there.
Each clade of life is evolving within its niche.
Several clades are independently evolving intelligence in different ways.
Whales for example have developed complex long-distance
communication which we call "songs" because they sound vaguely
melodic. But in fact we don't really understand the meaning of
their communication.

> Human beings could well be standing on a sort of evolutionary
> threshold - intelligent enough and intuitive enough to sense a
> higher power, yet without the intellectual wattage to uncover the

> science to prove it's [sic] existence.

Or we could be merely halucinating such ideas out of malfunctions
of our imperfect brains which has enough trouble already avoiding
being suckered by pyramid and other advanced-fee scams. Recent
research has already indicated that "free will" might be a
halucination, an after-the-fact rationalization for decisions
already made rather than the cause of decisions.

Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t

unread,
Oct 8, 2007, 11:53:30 PM10/8/07
to
> From: "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com>

> I thought of the video I saw, 40 years ago or so, of a small
> leopard playing with a poisonous snake. The narrator (Marlin
> Perkins, of Wild Kingdom, perhaps) said the cat was protected by
> his fast reflexes as it sprung back whenever the snake struck. A
> human can't react that quickly.

That "crocodile hunter", before he accidently stirred a stingray to
kill him, was pretty fast at dodging cobras and the like, and
several snake charmers in India are likewise pretty fast at
reactions to protect themselves from cobra strikes. But perhaps
that cat you saw was even faster.

> Do you suppose animals would consider us retarded because we
> react so slowly and take so long to arrive at a conclusion?

I wouldn't say "retarded", I'd just say "slow".

> Perhaps, our ability to think deeply is a trade-off for the
> ability to think quickly.

I consider that to be almost surely correct. My own personal case
is an extreme example. I'm very good at deep thinking, but I'm very
bad at fast reaction. I'm no good at sports, can't hit a baseball
or softball even if thrown gently because I can't plan my swing
faster than the ball has already arrived and gone past. I can't
even get the feedback loop in handwriting working properly. I even
got complaints from professors in college that I shouldn't treat
every math homework problem as if it were a Putnam problem or a
research project, I should learn how to get common cases down by
rote so that I could do a whole bunch of them quickly. But I never
was able to achieve that. The only intellectual skill I ever got
reasonable speedy at was playing "Shake-a-WFF", but I only ever had
one person to play against, so I don't know whether I was really
speedy in any larger sense.

By the way, I never got any significant feedback on my speculations
about how abiogenesis might have developed from the first
successful replicator through ecosystems of independent replicators
and strands of physically linked replicators to eventually a formal
genetic code based on RNA->aminoAcids. I don't know whether my
ideas are totally crackpot, or so advanced that they are beyond
everyone else's ability to think deeply about the problem.

Ken Shackleton

unread,
Oct 8, 2007, 11:56:39 PM10/8/07
to
On Oct 8, 9:34 pm, rem6...@yahoo.com (Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t)
wrote:

I have often wondered about free will.....if we are free to make any
decision we like, why is it that we are so damned predictable in the
decisions that we make?

Steven J.

unread,
Oct 9, 2007, 1:51:22 AM10/9/07
to
On Oct 8, 10:56 pm, Ken Shackleton <ken.shackle...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> On Oct 8, 9:34 pm, rem6...@yahoo.com (Robert Maas, seehttp://tinyurl.com/uh3t)
Because, when we are free to make any decision we like, we tend to
make decisions we actually *like*. If you can figure out what people
like, you can generally figure out what decisions they'll freely make.

-- Steven J.

tgde...@earthlink.net

unread,
Oct 9, 2007, 7:38:41 AM10/9/07
to
On Oct 8, 11:34 pm, rem6...@yahoo.com (Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t)
wrote:


That last is interesting----are you talking about 'after the fact' on
some neurological time scale? Can you give a cite?

Of course, while I don't buy free will, I think free willers would
argue that the distinction is meaningless, since the decision to
rationalize the first decision would still have to be rationalized and
so on....

-tg

stew dean

unread,
Oct 9, 2007, 8:32:30 AM10/9/07
to
On 8 Oct, 15:33, JohnGavin <dagd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Aren't human beings, after all, a rung in the ladder of evolved
> intellectual capacity?

Yes.

> Just as chimpanzees and dolphins are in many
> ways more intelligent than cats and dogs, and dogs are more
> intelligent than mice and amoebas, does human intelligence represent
> the top of the ladder of comprehension of the universe?

Not by a long long long way. Our congnative abilities are very limited
in many ways, there are many books out there that cover little tricks
to uncover just how limited our brain is and easy it is to dupe
yourself and others.

For example our short term memory is good for about six chunks, which
is not that big really. Our perceptoin is very limited (our eyes only
ever see a small search light of the world around us) and we are prone
to false memories.

> Even if you
> accept that humans possess the highest intellectual power currently
> manifested - are you also postulating that there is no room above us
> on the ladder of comprehension and intellect? Could it be that
> millions or billions of years more of evolution might manifest 5 or 10
> more rungs above us on that ladder?

The next most intelligent creature to exist is almost certainly going
to be artificial rather than evolved. There is a concept called the
singularity where intelligence creatures higher intelligence at
increasing speed. There is also the realistic prospect of brain
augmentation via biomorphic chips.

> Isn't it a commonly accepted theory or fact that the vast majority of
> humans actually use only a small percentage of their total brain
> capacity?

That's a complete myth. We use all our brain, just not at the same
time.

> Could it be that when humans learn to use all of it, the
> brain through time becomes stimulated to increase it's maximum
> capacity?

You can train your brain and improve it's fitness but it's just making
better use of what is there to a large degree.

I'll pass on the god bits.

Stew Dean

Greg G.

unread,
Oct 9, 2007, 9:09:48 AM10/9/07
to
On Oct 8, 11:53 pm, rem6...@yahoo.com (Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t)
wrote:

> > From: "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com>
> > I thought of the video I saw, 40 years ago or so, of a small
> > leopard playing with a poisonous snake. The narrator (Marlin
> > Perkins, of Wild Kingdom, perhaps) said the cat was protected by
> > his fast reflexes as it sprung back whenever the snake struck. A
> > human can't react that quickly.
>
> That "crocodile hunter", before he accidently stirred a stingray to
> kill him, was pretty fast at dodging cobras and the like, and
> several snake charmers in India are likewise pretty fast at
> reactions to protect themselves from cobra strikes. But perhaps
> that cat you saw was even faster.

Snake charmers and teleherpetologists tend to know how far a snake can
strike in a given direction and stay near the limits of the strike
area, so they have extra time to react and a small movement puts them
beyond the reach of the snake. Plus they are focused on the snake and
its movements.

As I recall, the cat wouldn't even be looking directly at the snake
while walking right in front of it, then spring back when the snake
struck.


>
> > Do you suppose animals would consider us retarded because we
> > react so slowly and take so long to arrive at a conclusion?
>
> I wouldn't say "retarded", I'd just say "slow".
>
> > Perhaps, our ability to think deeply is a trade-off for the
> > ability to think quickly.
>
> I consider that to be almost surely correct. My own personal case
> is an extreme example. I'm very good at deep thinking, but I'm very
> bad at fast reaction. I'm no good at sports, can't hit a baseball
> or softball even if thrown gently because I can't plan my swing
> faster than the ball has already arrived and gone past. I can't
> even get the feedback loop in handwriting working properly. I even
> got complaints from professors in college that I shouldn't treat
> every math homework problem as if it were a Putnam problem or a
> research project, I should learn how to get common cases down by
> rote so that I could do a whole bunch of them quickly. But I never
> was able to achieve that. The only intellectual skill I ever got
> reasonable speedy at was playing "Shake-a-WFF", but I only ever had
> one person to play against, so I don't know whether I was really
> speedy in any larger sense.

I was able to hold my own in basketball against players who went on to
play professionally and I thought I was pretty good at chess and at
darts until I played in tournaments against good competition.


>
> By the way, I never got any significant feedback on my speculations
> about how abiogenesis might have developed from the first
> successful replicator through ecosystems of independent replicators
> and strands of physically linked replicators to eventually a formal
> genetic code based on RNA->aminoAcids. I don't know whether my
> ideas are totally crackpot, or so advanced that they are beyond
> everyone else's ability to think deeply about the problem.

If your ideas conform to the laws of physics, they aren't totally
crackpot, just correct or incorrect. If your ideas are plausibly
correct, they are definitely beyond my ability to think deeply about
it.

--
Greg G.

I've just learned about his illness. Let's hope it's nothing trivial.
--Irvin S. Cobb

Ken Shackleton

unread,
Oct 9, 2007, 8:43:05 PM10/9/07
to

Yes, I guess that this is true....and if this is Free Will....then God
obviously gave it to dogs and cats as well.....since they behave in
exactly the same fashion.

Ken

Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t

unread,
Oct 9, 2007, 8:55:44 PM10/9/07
to
> From: Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>

> I can imagine something smarter than us, but I basically assume
> we could think the same thoughts but a bit slower.

Some tasks require recognizing patterns in large sets of data.
For example, if you were pitted in a Chess game against the world
champion, and you were allowed five minutes for every second the
chess champion uses, who would win the game? For another example,
suppose you were allowed six weeks, instead of three hours, to
solve all the problems on one of the two sessions (morning or
afternoon) of the William Lowell Putnam competition. Would you be
able to accomplish that task? (If you in fact are a grandmaster at
Chess or a top-five Putnam winner like me, nevermind the
corresponding question.)

Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t

unread,
Oct 9, 2007, 9:39:14 PM10/9/07
to
> From: Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com>

> The human brain comes at a high cost. For a couch potato, the
> brain uses about one third of the calories ingested. It also
> frequently kills mothers during childbirth. No other mammal takes
> such risks to reproduce. It would not be supported n its present
> form if it were not used.

But your argument doesn't say that the brain is used most of the
time, or that everyone uses it. It may be that the survival
advantage is simply that during a time of great crisis a single
"thinker" among a family group of several dozen can save that
family from disaster that wiped out all the other family groups
trapped in the same crisis. All the rest of the time, none of the
members need use the brain to its fullest, and even during the
crisis only one member need use it.

> Two possibilities (there are gods, or there aren't; there are
> leprechauns, or there aren't; there is a Loch Ness monster or there
> isn't) does not mean that they are both equally likely, nor that
> considering the possibilities should be given much of our time.

Agreed. But it might be fun if anyone who advocates "teach the
controversy" would be forced to allocate their time 50/50 for all
the options, per the following hierarchial breakdown:
- Is there a being significantly more intelligent than a human?
50% no, spend half the time on standard non-religious tasks.
50% yes, sub-breakdown below:
- Is the more-intelligent being supernatural?
25% no, join the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence.
25% yes, sub-breakdown below:
- Is the supernatural being able to communicate with humans meaningfully?
12.5% no, do deististic activities.
12.5% yes, sub-breakdown below:
- Has the communicating supernatural being arranged to have its "word" provided?
6.25% no, study ancient Greek philosophy.
6.25% yes, sub-breakdown below:
- In which hemisphere was the "word" provided?
3.125% west (new world), study native American scriptures.
3.125% east (old world), sub-breakdown below:
- In the Orient/India region?
1.5625% yes (sub-breakdown not shown here)
1.5625% no, sub-breakdown below:
- In the middle-East?
0.78125% no (sub-breakdown not shown here)
0.78125% yes, sub-breakdown below:
- Hebrew (Mosaic)?
0.390625% no (sub-breakdown not shown here)
0.390625% yes, sub-breakdown below:
- Original Judaism without novel add-ons?
0.1953125% yes, breakdown into orthodox and modern etc. Judaism
0.1953125% no, one of the two derived religions, sub-breakdown below:
- Which of the two?
0.09765625% Islam, breakdown of sunni or shite not shown
0.09765625% Christianity, sub-breakdown below:
- Roman or Eastern Orthodox base?
0.048828125% Eastern Orthodox
0.048828125% Roman base, sub-breakdown below:
- Modern Roman Catholic, or protestant?
0.0244140625% Roman Catholic
0.0244140625% protestant, several additional levels of breakdown not shown
So whichever of those Mosaic religions the person wants taught as
an alternative to evolution per "Teach the Controversy", only a
tiny fraction of a percent of time is allowed for that specific
sect, totally frustrating the person, not just that his own
religion has such a short amount of time, but that so much time is
spent on the many alternatives.

lecody

unread,
Oct 12, 2007, 8:54:06 AM10/12/07
to
On Oct 8, 9:33 am, JohnGavin <dagd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Aren't human beings, after all, a rung in the ladder of evolved
> intellectual capacity? Just as chimpanzees and dolphins are in many

> ways more intelligent than cats and dogs, and dogs are more
> intelligent than mice and amoebas, does human intelligence represent
> the top of the ladder of comprehension of the universe? Even if you

> accept that humans possess the highest intellectual power currently
> manifested - are you also postulating that there is no room above us
> on the ladder of comprehension and intellect? Could it be that
> millions or billions of years more of evolution might manifest 5 or 10
> more rungs above us on that ladder?
>
> Isn't it a commonly accepted theory or fact that the vast majority of
> humans actually use only a small percentage of their total brain
> capacity? Could it be that when humans learn to use all of it, the

> brain through time becomes stimulated to increase it's maximum
> capacity?
>
> As to belief in God - if anyone acknowledges that our intellect is
> limited, or just another rung on the ladder, only high in a relative
> sense to other animals, than can't there be an admission of the
> possibility that we don't yet possess enough brain power to actually
> sustain a comprehension of an author of the universe or the dimensions
> of eternity or infinity?
>
> It seems to me that geniune faith is born out of a humble
> comprehension of the limits of our cognitive capacities, combined with
> a yearning to go beyond it. Human beings could well be standing on a

> sort of evolutionary threshold - intelligent enough and intuitive
> enough to sense a higher power, yet without the intellectual wattage
> to uncover the science to prove it's existence. Certainly, blind
> acceptance of higher realities would be a serious mistake, yet it

> seems to me that blanket denial, based on the relativities and likely
> limitations of the human mind would be lacking both in humility and
> imagination.

Funny thing about evolution, it doesn't always mean forward progress,
it only means change and humans could be little more than an
abberration, a mutation in the way that life is meant to think, is
supposed to use their intellect. Humanity is, relative to other life,
insane.


lecody

Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t

unread,
Oct 12, 2007, 12:45:45 PM10/12/07
to
> From: lecody <lecody2...@yahoo.com>

> Funny thing about evolution, it doesn't always mean forward
> progress, it only means change and humans could be little more
> than an abberration, a mutation in the way that life is meant to
> think, is supposed to use their intellect. Humanity is, relative
> to other life, insane.

Indeed! If we take the extreme view of Lovelock/Margulis "Gaia",
whereby the whole Earth's ecosystem is treated as if an organism,
then we must treat Homo sapiens as a rapidly growing tumor, i.e. a
cancer. The only cure for the patient is to kill every last human.
Is this what Lovelock and Margulis really want?

Note, relevant to this discussion is that Al Gore won the Nobel
Prize last night. Feeding Gore's global-warming theory into the
"Gaia" model, we'd have to say that Gore wants extinction of Homo
sapiens too. Does anybody reading this thread have a way to contact
Gore to ask him his opinion about "Gaia" and my conclusion about
our species in relation to it?

Note, relevant to my question about contacting Gore is my idea for
filtering-trees (the opposite of a "phone tree"). Whenever more
than ten people all want to "get the ear" of a single well-known
person, we set up a tree of people filtering input from the wide
community toward that person. For example, if there are a thousand
people with "good ideas" they want Gore to hear, one hundred people
are assigned to filter those "good ideas" in groups of ten idea
people for each filter person, and then ten people are assigned to
filter the successful "good ideas" in groups of ten first-round
filter people for each second-round filter person, and finally Gore
himself looks at anything that made it through the second-round
filters.

Note, relevant to my filtering-tree idea is the concept of Erdos
number and the idea that any two people are connected by a chain of
no more than about seven links. Unfortunately many of these links
have a connection ratio much larger than ten, what are called
"hubs" in a network, which I find not acceptable for this purpose,
because it puts too much burden on the labor of these "hub" people,
not to mention giving them too much control over flow of "good ideas".

Also relevant to my idea is control of spam (UBE = Unsolicited Bulk
E-mail). There seem to be a set of too many spammers who each want
direct contact with me, a total of several hundred times per day,
totally swamping my inbox. If only ten people were normally allowed
to contact me directly, with only their personal communication plus
good ideas for me that they accepted in their role as "filters",
then my mailbox would not be swamped by spam and the contents of my
mailbox would be much better average quality and probably better
total quality than it is now, because the spam would be gone
(increasing the average quality by three or four orders of
magnitude) and some new content would be available from people
otherwise not bothering to contact me because of shyness or simple
frustration getting an audience amidst the spam (increasing the
total quality). (Added cross-post to alt.spam for this last paragraph.)

Relevant to the spam-control paragraph is that Yahoo! Mail allows
only fifteen e-mail filter recipes, so if I explicitly white-list
each of my ten regular correspondents, that allows only five spares
for use for other purposes. Currently I'm already up to a total of
fourteen e-mail filter recipes just for:
- active correspondents;
- other valuable e-mail services (such as HotOrNot notices that
somebody new wants to meet me);
- the special keyword in Subject field for first-contact e-mail;
- diversion of regular spam from Monster.Com to a special folder
just to get out of the way en masse;
- categories of spam that a lawyer in Palo Alto has been saying
he'll handle for me, so that when we go to court it'll all be in
one place and we can collect $1000 per spam all at once without
missing any;
leaving only one spare at present, a very uncomfortable situation.

Message has been deleted
0 new messages