Will evolution ever turn us into something incomprehensible to ourselves?
A dog, no matter how intelligent, will never understand the notion of virtual reality or a parallel universe.
Is it possible for us to be a kind of animal besides other beings? I am not referring to the ability to solve an equation extremely quickly as a computer or to create a new universe, but to not actually being able to understand notions that those beings would understand, even if they were explained to us in the simplest way.
Is it possible for us to be a kind of animal besides other beings? I am not referring to the ability to solve an equation extremely quickly as a computer or to create a new universe, but to not actually being able to understand notions that those beings would understand, even if they were explained to us in the simplest way.
Comments (31)
No, I mean evolution (technological or natural) will make something that our current brains could not comprehend. For example, they would invent science fields that our current brain cannot invent or understand, or invent some technologies that not only we would incapable to replicate, but we wouldn't be able to understand their purpose and meaning. Forget about a super space ship traveling from a universe to another, that would be rudimentary for them. Possible?
There is no guarantee that things rooted in arbitrariness get "understood". On which basis should that happen?
I don't see why it wouldn't be possible. Though of course the notion of "us" being turned into "something else" is problematic, because at that point it isn't "us" anymore. Could humanity be replaced by a different civilization that is to modern humans as modern humans are to dogs? I think so. Not sure how likely it is.
Try this with a dog and he will never understand.
I am sure we will be ''Ceaser'' at one point in the future, but will be become the ''dog''?
Possibly. But the "dog/human" analogy is flawed, because dogs don't have abstract reasoning, but humans do. A super-intelligence might be incomprehensible to us, but probably not in the same way a human is incomprehensible to a dog. We'd understand that it reasons, at least.
Quoting Eugen
What isn't "everything thats comprehensible" the same as "everything a human can comprehend"? I don't know what else it would mean.
A color-blind cannot understand the difference between colos. He may understand that non-color-blind can distinct the look of objects. He can understand the theory of wavelengths and understand why non-color-blind can distinct those colors. So he only can distinct those "colors" with the help of some appartus.
If I just started to call some things "abezido" and some things "nuralemina" you will never understand.
Edit: And Caear would likely understand the cellphone - you would just have to take the long route of explanation.
We are the current dominant species on a nondescript rock circling a nondescript star in a nondescript galaxy. We almost certainly are no big deal.
If it happens that we are a big deal...we are screwing up a great thing in a major league way.
I totally agree. But the substance of my question lies exactly in the issue of our capability to comprehend every comprehensible thing of the reality, or if reality has things that aren't comprehensible to our mind but comprehensible to a more evolved brain.
Eg.: I don't see how humanity or any other super-evolved civilization would ever be capable of inventing a political system totally different from any other political system we have already discovered so far, because I consider that what we call extreme left - center - extreme right + total anarchy and everything in-between represent 100% of all possible political systems.
So my question is: could I be wrong about this and there are other political systems that my brain can't comprehend, but a more evolved brain could?
Comprehensible to whom? I would understand the difference between abezido and nuralemina :D
What if our brains develop to be interlinked with one another through some as yet to be evolved mechanism? For such a social mind, existing socio-politico modalities might appear completely meaningless. The management of such a group mind likewise might not bear any resemblance to what we now recognize as politics.
Than your answer to my question would be no and I personally agree with you. So why do you think that way, what are your arguments?
Why I do not agree:
I believe that humans or any other super-evolved creature follow the purpose of surviving and fulfill their desires and for this they need resources. I believe there are only three possible extremes in every universe possible:
A. A political entity (could be made of people or A.I.) controlling the law and institutions + the entire process of distribution of resources among its citizens.
B. A political entity (could be made of people or A.I.) controlling the law and institutions + playing an arbitrary role in an economic competition by making sure laws are respected.
C. 0 politics, 0 laws + every human being for himself.
A + B + C + everything in-between them = 100% of all possible ways of managing resources in a group of people competing for them in 100% possible universes.
If my assumption is wrong, than the answer to my initial question is YES. But I would need arguments.
Would it? I see it this way: Imagine an intelligence being present in two parallel universes at the same time. We would never really get why it tried to evade invisible obstacles.
So your whole question breaks down to a speculation if there could be something that is per definition irrelevant as it has no reality for us perceived by some fictional super-brains.
But being present in two universes at the same time is something that makes sense to us, we would understand this state, while a dog cannot understand us playing a videogame.
Quoting Heiko
It is a speculation, indeed. A speculation that reality is more than our current brain can comprehend and that more neurons would comprehend more of the reality. But then again, I personally believe that everything that exists and it is comprehensible to an infinite-developed mind it is also comprehensible for our current mind.
The tale makes sense, yes. This is just like the color-blind without any apparature. He does not really get the difference between colors.
Yes, I have thought about it many times. For example if humans were blind, would we ever think of inventing seeing? My answer to that is actually yes, because seeing means getting instant information from long distances. I am not saying we would invent eyes, but some kind of technology to extract information, yes.
Regarding the color example, yes, it's a good one. How could you imagine a color you've never seen? It would always be a combination of other familiar colors. But explaining to someone who, let's say sees only 2 colors, that there are other kinds of colors, he'd understand that yellow is a color like white, only a bit different.
So my curiosity is that if there is something so strange and incomprehensible to us like a book for a dog. A dog can see the book, can realize is an object, but it cannot comprehend the fact that a book provide humans with information. And it is not a matter of language barrier and the impossibility to explain that to a dog from a language perspective, it is a matter of brain's capacity.
But that's not to say we cannot comprehend QM - we realize there are paradoxes, we know QM is a matter of physics and atoms and so on. We can comprehend it, even if we are still stuck.
But my question would be: is QM incomprehensible for our brains? If it is, is it comprehensible for other more developed brains?
To be more specific, I will use the Caeser example again: if you traveled back in time and met Caesar your smartphone and explained to him that this tool is based on electricity, satellites, and waves, he wouldn't understand. But if you explained to him that a smartphone is a tool that helps people to communicate from long distances, he would definitely understand. Moreover, he would be capable to understand the functions of the electricity, satellites, etc, if explained properly.
Same with future humans?
Or rather they will show us a ''bablucof'' and explain to us its purpose and we wouldn't be able to understand that either?
Given: Schroedingers cat would know if it is dead or not.
But e.g. finite space gives us a headache. Seems we cannot image finite space as there is always the mental picture embedded in an infinite space. There is always "space in space".
I tend to the opinion that we do not understand those as they are real corner-cases that are largely irrelevant to our existence. Hence they lack reality.
The german word "Begriff"(concept) has a notion of "grabbing". This carries some truth I guess.
I am not really into those speculations but even a quantum-amoeba could have a better understanding of it's normal environment than we do.
Me neither, but I am searching for arguments for that. I will meditate on this topic and I will write to you if I draw some conclusions. I hope to find some here.
But here, again, there is always the notion of a (mathematical) space.
See New Mysterianism.
in my opinion yes. Have you seen the youtube video "10 dimensions explained". Its pretty interesting.