6 ms·

The uninteresting solution is that when we compare humans to tapeworms - there is such a complexity gap that no amount of technology will ever enable a human to

by drbig 4y ago

The uninteresting solution is that when we compare humans to tapeworms - there is such a complexity gap that no amount of technology will ever enable a human to have "a meaningful conversation" with a tapeworm... That one can only logically assume there are beings to which we in turn are "tapeworm complexity" (also a thought: maybe we all live right now in such a higher being?) and hence will never be able to perceive them for what they are. The more interesting space (sorry) is "at a level comprehensible to us" - to which I'd say "space is vast and the universe is young". I highly doubt our presence is at all visible even from the closest star system.

snikeris 4y ago
> That one can only logically assume there are beings to which we in turn are "tapeworm complexity" (also a thought: maybe we all live right now in such a higher being?) and hence will never be able to perceive them for what they are. Indeed. Does an ant know that it exists as part of a larger organism? Perhaps we are part of a larger organism, at which scale, our individual human lives are of tapeworm complexity.
thriftwy 4y ago
I don't think so. It seems at this point that humans can understand most of the fundamental laws governing our universe, and perhaps to harness them to eventually have star system-level impact. I'm not sure how much smarter are you really going to be. Especially given the social nature of humans which makes us able to compensate for each other's shortcomings.
- drbig 4y ago
  I fundamentally disagree on both points. I'm of the belief that understanding is only ever "less wrong", and can only be asymptotic to "total knowledge". Thus current "understand most" is really (and ever going to be) "understand very very little" - there's always infinitely more to be less wrong about; Also as an example: electricity - our brains wouldn't work without it, yet it took us very long to understand the principles enough to be able to do anything useful with electricity; What about consciousness - we can't even seem to agree on a single definition much less "understand it" - perhaps we're still missing something as "big" and as much "part of us" as electricity? This is not about being smarter as it is about fundamentally different orders of magnitude of complexity. Getting a whole swimming pool full of tapeworms will not make them any more human - and in the same sense a whole planet of humans won't make them any closer to more complex beings (whatever they may be). As I said, this solution is uninteresting because by definition bacteria/tapeworms/humans can't comprehend "up". And yes, evolution, understanding of the universe and technology may as well bring us to the point when _they_ understand - but by that point, to us now, _they_ won't be human (`bacteria < tapeworms < humans now < next_order_beings`).
  - thriftwy 4y ago
    Well, humans can comprehend "up", you're doing it just now. And that's why I think there is no "up". As soon as you get to turing machines, it's just more turing machines all the way up.

by drbig 4y ago

snikeris 4y ago

> That one can only logically assume there are beings to which we in turn are "tapeworm complexity" (also a thought: maybe we all live right now in such a higher being?) and hence will never be able to perceive them for what they are. Indeed. Does an ant know that it exists as part of a larger organism? Perhaps we are part of a larger organism, at which scale, our individual human lives are of tapeworm complexity.

thriftwy 4y ago

I don't think so. It seems at this point that humans can understand most of the fundamental laws governing our universe, and perhaps to harness them to eventually have star system-level impact. I'm not sure how much smarter are you really going to be. Especially given the social nature of humans which makes us able to compensate for each other's shortcomings.

drbig 4y ago
I fundamentally disagree on both points. I'm of the belief that understanding is only ever "less wrong", and can only be asymptotic to "total knowledge". Thus current "understand most" is really (and ever going to be) "understand very very little" - there's always infinitely more to be less wrong about; Also as an example: electricity - our brains wouldn't work without it, yet it took us very long to understand the principles enough to be able to do anything useful with electricity; What about consciousness - we can't even seem to agree on a single definition much less "understand it" - perhaps we're still missing something as "big" and as much "part of us" as electricity? This is not about being smarter as it is about fundamentally different orders of magnitude of complexity. Getting a whole swimming pool full of tapeworms will not make them any more human - and in the same sense a whole planet of humans won't make them any closer to more complex beings (whatever they may be). As I said, this solution is uninteresting because by definition bacteria/tapeworms/humans can't comprehend "up". And yes, evolution, understanding of the universe and technology may as well bring us to the point when _they_ understand - but by that point, to us now, _they_ won't be human (`bacteria < tapeworms < humans now < next_order_beings`).
- thriftwy 4y ago
  Well, humans can comprehend "up", you're doing it just now. And that's why I think there is no "up". As soon as you get to turing machines, it's just more turing machines all the way up.