5 ms·

>> Soon I start to wonder about concepts that I don’t know exist: concepts whose existence I can never even suspect, let alone contemplate. What can I ever know

>> Soon I start to wonder about concepts that I don’t know exist: concepts whose existence I can never even suspect, let alone contemplate. What can I ever know about that which lies beyond the limits of what I can even imagine? I find it more interesting or even frightening to contemplate those differences among humans today. For those with an IQ in the 90's, what thoughts and concepts am I able to understand that they can't? And likewise, what am I personally not able to to grok that some of the smartest people can? Even within engineering and software I find that some practitioners have a hard time with some things I find easy, and I have a hard time with concepts others find easy. It may just be differing backgrounds, but what if these are differences in raw cognitive capability? Levels of abstraction seem real if not well defined.

chrsig 4y ago
> It may just be differing backgrounds, but what if these are differences in raw cognitive capability? Honestly, I think ignorance may be bliss. I loathe to think about what arrogance, bigotry, and manifestations of depression would pop up had we concrete ways to measure capability.
- anonporridge 4y ago
  Ignorance isn't a real option. If the truth is knowable, someone will find it eventually. The best you can do is opt yourself into ignorance. You can't opt everyone around you into the same ignorance. And by opting yourself into ignorance, you potentially create a competitive advantage for those who don't have the same hangups for facing ugly truths as you do.
- phkahler 4y ago
  >> Honestly, I think ignorance may be bliss. I loathe to think about what arrogance, bigotry, and manifestations of depression would pop up had we concrete ways to measure capability. That's why I find the idea somewhat frightening. But that is also what makes it a far more interesting (relevant) question.
barrysteve 4y ago
What difference would it make? We treat poor and rich as equals... or should. Amputees are not treated any less than athletes. These questions impose artifical beliefs as plausible theorems
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
  One wonders if you think ramps for amputees are considered an artificial belief or not. The answers to these questions have real ramifications, treating them as artificial is how harm to real people happens.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- pessimizer 4y ago
  > Amputees are not treated any less than athletes. I see you don't understand meritocracy. Amputees can physically do less than athletes, therefore they deserve worse food, worse housing, and worse medical care, unless they can offset this defect in some other way. It's almost blasphemous to do otherwise; if God has seen fit to punish them, your offsetting of that punishment shows a prideful disapproval of God's plan. God has made His judgment of the amputee clear, so it's actually your duty to reinforce that judgement. God has given us dominion over this world, and the responsibility to maintain it; we can do that better with athletes, rather than people who are missing limbs. Or secularly, we collectively maintain the world's wealth through our individual contributions. The mean athlete contributes more, the mean amputee contributes less, and what goes around, should come around. Workers, not shirkers! I like to think of it as the reverse golden rule. Accept unto yourself that which you would have done to others. If you're worth less, eat less.
  - adamsmith143 4y ago
    What are you smoking. Someone's physical abilities have had little to do with their impact on the world for at least a century...
  - oigursh 4y ago
bumby 4y ago
This made me think about Sam Harris's comparison between ourselves and John Van Neumann as analogous to a comparison between a chicken and ourselves. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nt3edWLgIg&t=382s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nt3edWLgIg&t=382s
- sinenomine 4y ago
  JVN was a superhuman, but he is a bit oversold and a goto example of this class of people. Hyperbolic comparison by Sam doesn't help here. Now, Terry Tao is a person of the same, if not greater caliber. A real, living 200 IQ genius.
  - laichzeit0 4y ago
    Von Neumann’s impact is at least an order of magnitude greater than Tao’s. No disrespect, he is a great mathematician. But the sheer breath of von Neumann’s impact is unparalleled. [1] [1]https://www.wikiwand.com/en/John_von_Neumann https://www.wikiwand.com/en/John_von_Neumann
    - Melatonic 4y ago
      Those rare few where the extreme overclocking of their brain from birth had somehow enough cooling to keep them from going insane :-D
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
sinenomine 4y ago
Why do we often implicitly consider the human cognitive capability as it is embodied in adult individuals' biological makeup to be immutable, now and in the future? Even a single existence proof of a method for cognitive enhancement would deal away with this frame. I get that we aren't (yet) spoiled by availability of (gene or cellular) therapies uplifting our IQs, but hey, at least those mice were able to receive theirs: https://www.cell.com/cell-stem-cell/pdf/S1934-5909(13)00007-6.pdf https://www.cell.com/cell-stem-cell/pdf/S1934-5909(13)00007-... Given the sheer amount of capital available for trial and error on (sometimes ridiculous like juicero) consumer products it's weird that so little of it is allocated to advance the biotechnology of human enhancement.

chrsig 4y ago

> It may just be differing backgrounds, but what if these are differences in raw cognitive capability? Honestly, I think ignorance may be bliss. I loathe to think about what arrogance, bigotry, and manifestations of depression would pop up had we concrete ways to measure capability.

anonporridge 4y ago
Ignorance isn't a real option. If the truth is knowable, someone will find it eventually. The best you can do is opt yourself into ignorance. You can't opt everyone around you into the same ignorance. And by opting yourself into ignorance, you potentially create a competitive advantage for those who don't have the same hangups for facing ugly truths as you do.
phkahler 4y ago
>> Honestly, I think ignorance may be bliss. I loathe to think about what arrogance, bigotry, and manifestations of depression would pop up had we concrete ways to measure capability. That's why I find the idea somewhat frightening. But that is also what makes it a far more interesting (relevant) question.

barrysteve 4y ago

What difference would it make? We treat poor and rich as equals... or should. Amputees are not treated any less than athletes. These questions impose artifical beliefs as plausible theorems

P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
One wonders if you think ramps for amputees are considered an artificial belief or not. The answers to these questions have real ramifications, treating them as artificial is how harm to real people happens.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
pessimizer 4y ago
> Amputees are not treated any less than athletes. I see you don't understand meritocracy. Amputees can physically do less than athletes, therefore they deserve worse food, worse housing, and worse medical care, unless they can offset this defect in some other way. It's almost blasphemous to do otherwise; if God has seen fit to punish them, your offsetting of that punishment shows a prideful disapproval of God's plan. God has made His judgment of the amputee clear, so it's actually your duty to reinforce that judgement. God has given us dominion over this world, and the responsibility to maintain it; we can do that better with athletes, rather than people who are missing limbs. Or secularly, we collectively maintain the world's wealth through our individual contributions. The mean athlete contributes more, the mean amputee contributes less, and what goes around, should come around. Workers, not shirkers! I like to think of it as the reverse golden rule. Accept unto yourself that which you would have done to others. If you're worth less, eat less.
- adamsmith143 4y ago
  What are you smoking. Someone's physical abilities have had little to do with their impact on the world for at least a century...
- oigursh 4y ago

bumby 4y ago

This made me think about Sam Harris's comparison between ourselves and John Van Neumann as analogous to a comparison between a chicken and ourselves. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nt3edWLgIg&t=382s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nt3edWLgIg&t=382s

sinenomine 4y ago
JVN was a superhuman, but he is a bit oversold and a goto example of this class of people. Hyperbolic comparison by Sam doesn't help here. Now, Terry Tao is a person of the same, if not greater caliber. A real, living 200 IQ genius.
- laichzeit0 4y ago
  Von Neumann’s impact is at least an order of magnitude greater than Tao’s. No disrespect, he is a great mathematician. But the sheer breath of von Neumann’s impact is unparalleled. [1] [1]https://www.wikiwand.com/en/John_von_Neumann https://www.wikiwand.com/en/John_von_Neumann
  - Melatonic 4y ago
    Those rare few where the extreme overclocking of their brain from birth had somehow enough cooling to keep them from going insane :-D
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

sinenomine 4y ago

Why do we often implicitly consider the human cognitive capability as it is embodied in adult individuals' biological makeup to be immutable, now and in the future? Even a single existence proof of a method for cognitive enhancement would deal away with this frame. I get that we aren't (yet) spoiled by availability of (gene or cellular) therapies uplifting our IQs, but hey, at least those mice were able to receive theirs: https://www.cell.com/cell-stem-cell/pdf/S1934-5909(13)00007-6.pdf https://www.cell.com/cell-stem-cell/pdf/S1934-5909(13)00007-... Given the sheer amount of capital available for trial and error on (sometimes ridiculous like juicero) consumer products it's weird that so little of it is allocated to advance the biotechnology of human enhancement.