6 ms·

To the single cell organism; the worm looks to be advanced and complex. To the worm; the human looks to be advanced and complex. Its possible we are still way d

To the single cell organism; the worm looks to be advanced and complex. To the worm; the human looks to be advanced and complex. Its possible we are still way down on the intelligence chain and too dumb to realize that we are in fact the worm in the scope of the universe

babuskov 8y ago
> To the single cell organism; the worm looks to be advanced and complex. To the worm; the human looks to be advanced and complex. I don't think either of those is advanced enough to have a concept of anything "looking complex" to them. A cat or a dog would be a much better for comparison.
- sandworm101 8y ago
  But we arent fundimentally more complex than the cat or dog. The only real difference is the relative size of various structures. We are both as complex as creatures come on this planet.
  - wallace_f 8y ago
    Probably there is some limiting factor to complexity, such as either the naivety to advertise existence, or the inevitably to halt creative destruction once we figure out how to not die.
  - JackFr 8y ago
    > We are both as complex as creatures come on this planet. Gaia says: Whatever, buddy. You're like a neuron comparing yourself to liver cells.
  - perl4ever 8y ago
    It is said that the wheat genome is five times the size of the human one...
Rattled 8y ago
A cell has no way to conceive of a worm, and worms probably can't conceive of humans. But they probably have some conception of birds, and birds can perceive humans. Where are our birds? As you go up the intelligence chain the ability to see beyond seems to increase, but we don't see anything beyond us.
- sulam 8y ago
  We already have the concept of the eschaton, or the singularity. Is this a realistic concept? I don't know! But if you accept it, then the inability to see people at or beyond is is simple -- there is a large gap because progress past the point we are at is geometric up to physical limits that we are nowhere near today.
  - Rattled 8y ago
    I didn't have the concept of the eschaton until today, looks like an interesting rabbit hole to explore.
    - DonHopkins 8y ago
      Congratulations on your recent immanentization of the concept of the eschaton! ;) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanentize_the_eschaton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanentize_the_eschaton
- RosanaAnaDana 8y ago
  But that's the difference right there. Us speculating and imaging that there may be something beyond this plateau of intelligence is the difference separates us from worms and birds. As well, metaphors for intelligence really falls apart when you are talking about very different scales, in the same way that some explanations for physical phenomena fall apart depending on the scale with which you are describing it.
- remir 8y ago
  Perhaps because what we are looking for doesn't want to be found. For us, finding intelligent life would be a massive change in our reality and understanding of life because right now, the current state of affair is that we're alone. But what if these other beings are used to a universe with billions of civilizations competing for resources of various kind (including biological, innovation, etc). Why draw attention to yourself?
Razengan 8y ago
Reminds me of this talk by Neil deGrasse Tyson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLYorVnA44U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLYorVnA44U Paraphrased: "Everything that we have achieved which the chimpanzees can't, is in the 1% of the difference between our DNA and theirs. Imagine another species that is 1% different from us, in the same direction that we are different from the chimps."
simonh 8y ago
You don't think that the capacity for rational thought makes a difference? It seems to me that even with our limited intellects, we have already figured out an awful lot of what there actually is to figure out. We know all of the stable elements that make up atomic matter. We have identified and measured a huge range of the fundamental universal constants and it seems unlikely there are many more left undiscovered. So we can make reasonably good guesses about what the upper bounds of possible technology in our physical universe are. No FTL for example. Of course you can refute that by appealing to ignorance - maybe there are technologies we can't conceive of and modes of existence beyond our comprehension. Well ok, but maybe there are fairies at the end of the garden path. That's not an argument that's tractable to rational analysis, no matter how rational you are. It can make no predictions and can never be tested so it's not much actual use.
- chii 8y ago
  > we have already figured out an awful lot of what there actually is to figure out that's very presumptuous. As we learn more, every time, more phenomenon shows up that's even more intriguing. We can't explain many quantum effects (tho there's a good theory on how to do some predictions), we can barely manipulate 2 of the 4 fundamental forces, etc.
- cryoshon 8y ago
  theoretical knowledge frequently fails to capture the engineering possibilities of exploiting a phenomenon. example: we understand all of the relevant theories to explain how an ant can carry something that is many times heavier than itself. but would we have thought to use those theories in the way that the ant's body does if we had never seen it nor had a concrete need to produce a similar result for ourselves using technology? clearly not. even after the fact, knowledge of the way the ant performs its feats does not let us replicate it easily. engineering is not something to dismiss with a hand wave, it's the meat. put differently: our imagination for the upper bounds of technology is with certainty nowhere near the actual upper boundary because we are always thinking too narrowly when we consider the application of the laws of the universe, even when we know the laws deeply. that doesn't mean FTL is possible. it means we might might create a way to make the problem of a speed limit irrelevant using what we already know.

babuskov 8y ago

> To the single cell organism; the worm looks to be advanced and complex. To the worm; the human looks to be advanced and complex. I don't think either of those is advanced enough to have a concept of anything "looking complex" to them. A cat or a dog would be a much better for comparison.

sandworm101 8y ago
But we arent fundimentally more complex than the cat or dog. The only real difference is the relative size of various structures. We are both as complex as creatures come on this planet.
- wallace_f 8y ago
  Probably there is some limiting factor to complexity, such as either the naivety to advertise existence, or the inevitably to halt creative destruction once we figure out how to not die.
- JackFr 8y ago
  > We are both as complex as creatures come on this planet. Gaia says: Whatever, buddy. You're like a neuron comparing yourself to liver cells.
- perl4ever 8y ago
  It is said that the wheat genome is five times the size of the human one...

Rattled 8y ago

A cell has no way to conceive of a worm, and worms probably can't conceive of humans. But they probably have some conception of birds, and birds can perceive humans. Where are our birds? As you go up the intelligence chain the ability to see beyond seems to increase, but we don't see anything beyond us.

sulam 8y ago
We already have the concept of the eschaton, or the singularity. Is this a realistic concept? I don't know! But if you accept it, then the inability to see people at or beyond is is simple -- there is a large gap because progress past the point we are at is geometric up to physical limits that we are nowhere near today.
- Rattled 8y ago
  I didn't have the concept of the eschaton until today, looks like an interesting rabbit hole to explore.
  - DonHopkins 8y ago
    Congratulations on your recent immanentization of the concept of the eschaton! ;) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanentize_the_eschaton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanentize_the_eschaton
RosanaAnaDana 8y ago
But that's the difference right there. Us speculating and imaging that there may be something beyond this plateau of intelligence is the difference separates us from worms and birds. As well, metaphors for intelligence really falls apart when you are talking about very different scales, in the same way that some explanations for physical phenomena fall apart depending on the scale with which you are describing it.
remir 8y ago
Perhaps because what we are looking for doesn't want to be found. For us, finding intelligent life would be a massive change in our reality and understanding of life because right now, the current state of affair is that we're alone. But what if these other beings are used to a universe with billions of civilizations competing for resources of various kind (including biological, innovation, etc). Why draw attention to yourself?

Razengan 8y ago

Reminds me of this talk by Neil deGrasse Tyson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLYorVnA44U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLYorVnA44U Paraphrased: "Everything that we have achieved which the chimpanzees can't, is in the 1% of the difference between our DNA and theirs. Imagine another species that is 1% different from us, in the same direction that we are different from the chimps."

simonh 8y ago

You don't think that the capacity for rational thought makes a difference? It seems to me that even with our limited intellects, we have already figured out an awful lot of what there actually is to figure out. We know all of the stable elements that make up atomic matter. We have identified and measured a huge range of the fundamental universal constants and it seems unlikely there are many more left undiscovered. So we can make reasonably good guesses about what the upper bounds of possible technology in our physical universe are. No FTL for example. Of course you can refute that by appealing to ignorance - maybe there are technologies we can't conceive of and modes of existence beyond our comprehension. Well ok, but maybe there are fairies at the end of the garden path. That's not an argument that's tractable to rational analysis, no matter how rational you are. It can make no predictions and can never be tested so it's not much actual use.

chii 8y ago
> we have already figured out an awful lot of what there actually is to figure out that's very presumptuous. As we learn more, every time, more phenomenon shows up that's even more intriguing. We can't explain many quantum effects (tho there's a good theory on how to do some predictions), we can barely manipulate 2 of the 4 fundamental forces, etc.
cryoshon 8y ago
theoretical knowledge frequently fails to capture the engineering possibilities of exploiting a phenomenon. example: we understand all of the relevant theories to explain how an ant can carry something that is many times heavier than itself. but would we have thought to use those theories in the way that the ant's body does if we had never seen it nor had a concrete need to produce a similar result for ourselves using technology? clearly not. even after the fact, knowledge of the way the ant performs its feats does not let us replicate it easily. engineering is not something to dismiss with a hand wave, it's the meat. put differently: our imagination for the upper bounds of technology is with certainty nowhere near the actual upper boundary because we are always thinking too narrowly when we consider the application of the laws of the universe, even when we know the laws deeply. that doesn't mean FTL is possible. it means we might might create a way to make the problem of a speed limit irrelevant using what we already know.