4 ms·

Ten questions about the hard limits of human intelligence

26 points by edward 4y ago

mikewarot 4y ago
>8. Is it a lucky coincidence that mathematical and physical reality can be formulated in terms of our current cognitive abilities, or is it just that, tautologically, we cannot conceive of any aspects of mathematical and physical reality that cannot be formulated in terms of our cognitive capabilities? It's not luck. It's a forcing function. We make new words, or overload existing ones, to describe new things all the time. If we can see/detect/measure something, we'll come up with words to describe it, and theories and equations that model it. We discover some new fact or phenomenon about the universe, and start to ponder. Since we're always grinding ideas up against each outer in the background in our minds, at some point, that new bit of knowledge will mate up with a compatible surface on some other chunk, and the first person has the "ah ha" moment. If we're lucky they can then relate it to others, and the process continues. Otherwise, it takes more tries in more people, until eventually, we (as a whole) have extended our knowledge to formally include this new chunk. I'm of the firm belief that given sufficient time and budget, there's nothing we can't eventually understand.
- beardyw 4y ago
  I could visualise maths when I was young, but as soon as that became seemingly impossible I hit a wall. As a developer I could visualise again.
mikewarot 4y ago
>6. Are these finite strings of symbol sequences – the form of our mathematics and languages – necessary features of physical reality, or do they instead reflect the limits of our ability to formalise aspects of reality? No, the symbols are the map, not the territory. We know formal systems are incomplete thanks to Gödel. Informal systems, on the other hand, can keep going. If we find a bit of territory that we can't describe, we'll invent or refine existing symbols to the point that we can map it, and then continue.
- sorokod 4y ago
  The statement is oddly phrased, the converse of "necessary features of physical reality" is obviously not "they instead reflect the limits of our ability..." Naturally we formalize to the extent it is expedient and no further.
mikewarot 4y ago
>7. How would our perception of reality change if human mathematics were expanded to include infinite strings of symbol sequences? We can't do that, but we don't need to anyway. Strings are geometric in expressive power. Elsewhere in the article they state that the limits to human knowledge are universal.... meaning that we can understand everything in the universe, which seems effectively infinite already.
- afarviral 4y ago
  That seemed an odd question to raise. It could instead be: How could our perception of reality change if humans could conceive of a system of finite non-symbol non-sequences? (Which sounds strikingly like direct thought implant, which is probably an inevitable next-step… and more approachable than infinite series perception)
willmadden 4y ago
> 1… But given that more intelligence requires more brain mass, which results in more metabolic costs, one would expect us to have the lowest possible level of abstract intelligence required for surviving in the precise ecological niche in which Homo sapiens developed: the barest minimum intelligence needed to scrape through a few million years of hunting and gathering until we got lucky and stumbled into the Neolithic Revolution. This is atomically reductive to the point it loses the point of the question. Humans are social creatures, not individual calorie expenditure calculations. Groups of early, successful humans had different needs. Broadly, they needed workers just smart enough to complete tasks, warriors with exceptional physical characteristics, and a class (typically ruling) with higher cognitive function to keep the society organized and to protect it from existential threats. The size and complexity of the group is limited not just by the ruling class’s cognitive function, but the baseline populations’ ability to conform to more complex social structures. Larger groups can conquer smaller groups, creating an evolutionary advantage for groups that produce occasional individuals with much higher cognitive function, and a baseline level of cognitive function to maintain a cohesive tribe. This forms the basis of culture and tradition, which create a reinforcing evolutionary bias for higher cognition that can extend past many generations as well, where individuals with exceptional cognition have more offspring, because the characteristic is viewed as exceptional. You’ll find evidence of this in religious texts like the Torah. It’s a survival mechanism.
sorokod 4y ago
>2. Why does there appear to be a major chasm between the cognitive capabilities of our hominin ancestors and the cognitive capabilities of modern scientists, artists and philosophers? There is no reason to claim such chasm exists, not without evidence that is not provided in the article. There does appear to be a chasm in cognitive achievements which is a different thing altogether. Put like that the chasm does not extend to "hominin ancestors", by the examples in the article it goes back "just" to Song dynasty China.

26 points by edward 4y ago

>8. Is it a lucky coincidence that mathematical and physical reality can be formulated in terms of our current cognitive abilities, or is it just that, tautologically, we cannot conceive of any aspects of mathematical and physical reality that cannot be formulated in terms of our cognitive capabilities? It's not luck. It's a forcing function. We make new words, or overload existing ones, to describe new things all the time. If we can see/detect/measure something, we'll come up with words to describe it, and theories and equations that model it. We discover some new fact or phenomenon about the universe, and start to ponder. Since we're always grinding ideas up against each outer in the background in our minds, at some point, that new bit of knowledge will mate up with a compatible surface on some other chunk, and the first person has the "ah ha" moment. If we're lucky they can then relate it to others, and the process continues. Otherwise, it takes more tries in more people, until eventually, we (as a whole) have extended our knowledge to formally include this new chunk. I'm of the firm belief that given sufficient time and budget, there's nothing we can't eventually understand.

beardyw 4y ago
I could visualise maths when I was young, but as soon as that became seemingly impossible I hit a wall. As a developer I could visualise again.

mikewarot 4y ago

>6. Are these finite strings of symbol sequences – the form of our mathematics and languages – necessary features of physical reality, or do they instead reflect the limits of our ability to formalise aspects of reality? No, the symbols are the map, not the territory. We know formal systems are incomplete thanks to Gödel. Informal systems, on the other hand, can keep going. If we find a bit of territory that we can't describe, we'll invent or refine existing symbols to the point that we can map it, and then continue.

sorokod 4y ago
The statement is oddly phrased, the converse of "necessary features of physical reality" is obviously not "they instead reflect the limits of our ability..." Naturally we formalize to the extent it is expedient and no further.

mikewarot 4y ago

>7. How would our perception of reality change if human mathematics were expanded to include infinite strings of symbol sequences? We can't do that, but we don't need to anyway. Strings are geometric in expressive power. Elsewhere in the article they state that the limits to human knowledge are universal.... meaning that we can understand everything in the universe, which seems effectively infinite already.

afarviral 4y ago
That seemed an odd question to raise. It could instead be: How could our perception of reality change if humans could conceive of a system of finite non-symbol non-sequences? (Which sounds strikingly like direct thought implant, which is probably an inevitable next-step… and more approachable than infinite series perception)

willmadden 4y ago

> 1… But given that more intelligence requires more brain mass, which results in more metabolic costs, one would expect us to have the lowest possible level of abstract intelligence required for surviving in the precise ecological niche in which Homo sapiens developed: the barest minimum intelligence needed to scrape through a few million years of hunting and gathering until we got lucky and stumbled into the Neolithic Revolution. This is atomically reductive to the point it loses the point of the question. Humans are social creatures, not individual calorie expenditure calculations. Groups of early, successful humans had different needs. Broadly, they needed workers just smart enough to complete tasks, warriors with exceptional physical characteristics, and a class (typically ruling) with higher cognitive function to keep the society organized and to protect it from existential threats. The size and complexity of the group is limited not just by the ruling class’s cognitive function, but the baseline populations’ ability to conform to more complex social structures. Larger groups can conquer smaller groups, creating an evolutionary advantage for groups that produce occasional individuals with much higher cognitive function, and a baseline level of cognitive function to maintain a cohesive tribe. This forms the basis of culture and tradition, which create a reinforcing evolutionary bias for higher cognition that can extend past many generations as well, where individuals with exceptional cognition have more offspring, because the characteristic is viewed as exceptional. You’ll find evidence of this in religious texts like the Torah. It’s a survival mechanism.

sorokod 4y ago

>2. Why does there appear to be a major chasm between the cognitive capabilities of our hominin ancestors and the cognitive capabilities of modern scientists, artists and philosophers? There is no reason to claim such chasm exists, not without evidence that is not provided in the article. There does appear to be a chasm in cognitive achievements which is a different thing altogether. Put like that the chasm does not extend to "hominin ancestors", by the examples in the article it goes back "just" to Song dynasty China.