| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Mekkala" |
| Date: |
08 Jan 2004 10:52:27 AM |
| Object: |
Here's an idea |
Recently I was considering the implications of human communication. If
we couldn't communicate to the extent that we can, we couldn't pass on
knowledge and discoveries to future generations, and technological
advancement would be impossible in any real sense.
After thinking about it for some time, I came to the conclusion that the
three factors that are most important in our development as a species
are (1) communication, (2) creativity, and (3) dexterity. Note that I
don't list pure number-crunching intelligence as one of the factors.
We are very proud of our relative intelligence. But how important,
really, is it? As far as I can see, human IQ is a factor only in the
rate at which we develop ideas and learn about reality. It is not a
factor in the extent to which we are able to learn about reality (IMHO).
I'd say that a species with creativity, dexterity, and communication
abilities equal to ours, but significantly lower IQ, could eventually be
as advanced as we are, although it would take a much longer time.
Similarly, we could eventually be as advanced as a species with far
higher IQ, but no more creativity, dexterity, and communication ability
than we have.
This is really just speculation, since I don't have any studies to point
to, but it's something interesting to think about...
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Here's an idea |
08 Jan 2004 02:26:31 PM |
|
|
"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote
After thinking about it for some time, I came to the
conclusion that the three factors that are most
important in our development as a species are (1)
communication, (2) creativity, and (3) dexterity.
Note that I don't list pure number-crunching
intelligence as one of the factors.
I'd have to agree that our species would never have
evolved without these three things, but I must add a
forth all-important element: (4) Pattern recognition.
A good example here would be the stages of the moon.
Figure them out and you've got a month. Put that together
with the seasons and you can now precdict the coming
and going of winter. Not incedibly accurate, mind you,
but enough to plan ahead.
Put it together with a women's menstrual cycle, and
you've got an idea when that baby is due.
Put it together with the river and you know when to start
watching for the salmon.
We are very proud of our relative intelligence. But
how important, really, is it?
I've always argued that humans aren't an "intelligent"
species, we're an emotional species. How else do you
explain people flying jet liners into buildings for an
invisible god with 100 names, one of which is known
only by camels?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Here's an idea |
08 Jan 2004 02:57:20 PM |
|
|
On 08 Jan 2004, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:NLqdnTrfiqmlIWCiRVn-hA@comcast.com:
"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote
After thinking about it for some time, I came to the
conclusion that the three factors that are most
important in our development as a species are (1)
communication, (2) creativity, and (3) dexterity.
Note that I don't list pure number-crunching
intelligence as one of the factors.
I'd have to agree that our species would never have
evolved without these three things, but I must add a
forth all-important element: (4) Pattern recognition.
A good example here would be the stages of the moon.
Figure them out and you've got a month. Put that together
with the seasons and you can now precdict the coming
and going of winter. Not incedibly accurate, mind you,
but enough to plan ahead.
Put it together with a women's menstrual cycle, and
you've got an idea when that baby is due.
Put it together with the river and you know when to start
watching for the salmon.
We are very proud of our relative intelligence. But
how important, really, is it?
I've always argued that humans aren't an "intelligent"
species, we're an emotional species. How else do you
explain people flying jet liners into buildings for an
invisible god with 100 names, one of which is known
only by camels?
We do possess intelligence, but I agree that it's not what makes most of
us "tick". On the other hand, there are people who operate on the basis
of intelligence and not emotion.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Here's an idea |
08 Jan 2004 12:03:05 PM |
|
|
"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns946A6EEBBAE33Mekkala@199.45.49.11...
Recently I was considering the implications of human communication. If
we couldn't communicate to the extent that we can, we couldn't pass on
knowledge and discoveries to future generations, and technological
advancement would be impossible in any real sense.
After thinking about it for some time, I came to the conclusion that the
three factors that are most important in our development as a species
are (1) communication, (2) creativity, and (3) dexterity. Note that I
don't list pure number-crunching intelligence as one of the factors.
We are very proud of our relative intelligence. But how important,
really, is it? As far as I can see, human IQ is a factor only in the
rate at which we develop ideas and learn about reality. It is not a
factor in the extent to which we are able to learn about reality (IMHO).
I'd say that a species with creativity, dexterity, and communication
abilities equal to ours, but significantly lower IQ, could eventually be
as advanced as we are, although it would take a much longer time.
Similarly, we could eventually be as advanced as a species with far
higher IQ, but no more creativity, dexterity, and communication ability
than we have.
This is really just speculation, since I don't have any studies to point
to, but it's something interesting to think about...
The lower average IQ, same or higher development over a longer time was the
theme of an old science fiction short story.
The very human looking aliens land and wander around town protected by a
force field to keep the crowd away. A con man is crushed by the crowd and
they let him into the bubble. He is not impressed by them.
He goes home, comes to the same conclusion, and starts selling the Brooklyn
bridge the next day.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Here's an idea |
09 Jan 2004 10:41:49 AM |
|
|
In article <Xns946A6EEBBAE33Mekkala@199.45.49.11>,
joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com says...
Similarly, we could eventually be as advanced as a species with far
higher IQ, but no more creativity, dexterity, and communication ability
than we have.
That is an interesting thought. After all, many in the AI field believe
that they will be able to create machine intelligences that may
ultimately be far more mentally facile than any human brain. I tend to
agree that, in this case, a super fast intellect will not be the only
thing that matters. If such things are possible and they have an
intellect beyond what we can fathom then it may not even mean much to us,
since it's pointless to worry about things we can't understand. That's
of course where religionists make their mistake. They insist that there
are unfathomable divine mysteries, but then they spend all their time
worrying about their "god" as though worrying will make things any
better. I tend to think that any super intelligent being will have far
more respect for the billions of years of evolution required to produce
the lifeforms on earth than the bloody war god yahweh. I also suspect
that an intelligent being would be more capable of genuine, reason-based
ethical conduct. So I think we would have little to fear from such a
being, contrary to the traditional theistic notions which conflate god
and fear. Not that I'm suggesting that super smart AIs would become the
equivalent of man-made gods, though I guess some idiots will worship
anything.
This is really just speculation, since I don't have any studies to point
to, but it's something interesting to think about...
In theory you're probably right, though it may be more perilous for a
dim-witted species to deal with the unpredictable facets of high
technology. Also, while, it is conceivable that a duller species could
develop over time to the same degree as a smarter one, I suspect that
lesser intelligent beings reach a level of technology with which they are
comfortable and probably don't bother to go on. It would be too much
work and laziness seems to be a law of the universe :).
--
____________________________________________________
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Here's an idea |
09 Jan 2004 12:26:49 PM |
|
|
On 09 Jan 2004, quibbler <quibbler247@atyahoo.com> screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:MPG.1a6887a921e906c09897bb@news.cis.dfn.de:
In article <Xns946A6EEBBAE33Mekkala@199.45.49.11>,
joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com says...
Similarly, we could eventually be as advanced as a species with far
higher IQ, but no more creativity, dexterity, and communication
ability than we have.
That is an interesting thought. After all, many in the AI field
believe that they will be able to create machine intelligences that
may ultimately be far more mentally facile than any human brain. I
tend to agree that, in this case, a super fast intellect will not be
the only thing that matters. If such things are possible and they
have an intellect beyond what we can fathom then it may not even mean
much to us, since it's pointless to worry about things we can't
understand. That's of course where religionists make their mistake.
They insist that there are unfathomable divine mysteries, but then
they spend all their time worrying about their "god" as though
worrying will make things any better. I tend to think that any super
intelligent being will have far more respect for the billions of years
of evolution required to produce the lifeforms on earth than the
bloody war god yahweh. I also suspect that an intelligent being would
be more capable of genuine, reason-based ethical conduct. So I think
we would have little to fear from such a being, contrary to the
traditional theistic notions which conflate god and fear. Not that
I'm suggesting that super smart AIs would become the equivalent of
man-made gods, though I guess some idiots will worship anything.
I'm sure religionists would be in two camps regarding such an AI -- one
camp would call it the depths of blackest evil, playing God if you will,
while the other camp will worship it. Like you said, some idiots will
worship anything, ESPECIALLY anything that they think might have some
sort of power over them. Pascal's wager is a perfect example --
"Worship it to stay in its good graces, because it might hurt you."
This is really just speculation, since I don't have any studies to
point to, but it's something interesting to think about...
In theory you're probably right, though it may be more perilous for a
dim-witted species to deal with the unpredictable facets of high
technology. Also, while, it is conceivable that a duller species
could develop over time to the same degree as a smarter one, I suspect
that lesser intelligent beings reach a level of technology with which
they are comfortable and probably don't bother to go on. It would be
too much work and laziness seems to be a law of the universe :).
Actually, looking at ourselves it's pretty obvious that a dim-witted
species may not be responsible enough to handle high technology --
consider the damage stupid people do all the time when they get their
hands on technology and don't use it responsibly.
As far as laziness, I tend to think laziness *drives* technological
advancement, although as a species advances it takes more effort to
develop new technology, so perhaps there eventually comes a balance at
which the gain from new technology is outweighed by the effort necessary
to develop it. However, this is where AI like what you describe above
comes in; I'd lay good money on us eventually creating AIs who will do
much of our thinking for us. If a species is sufficiently intelligent
to develop AI more intelligent than itself, the sky is the limit.
On the other hand, what are the implications of a species who no longer
has to think or work or expend any effort, since all such effort is
expended by AI slaves? Also, true AI might have strong objections to
being used as a slave, although there are theoretically ways around it
(like programming it with a strong work ethic, for example).
But it's a sobering consideration, when you think about it -- is it
really healthy for us to have everything handed to us on a silver
platter? Today, in first world countries, the average person has a good
deal of his needs handed to him on a silver platter, and observe the
apathy and complacency of society already. Large corporations spend
billions on devices to make life easier, yet we can't seem to even raise
enough money to establish a research base on the Moon (which, given
existing infrastructure, would take far less than many corporate
budgets), because all society cares about is making life easy, not
expanding mankind's horizons in any meaningful way.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: Here's an idea |
08 Jan 2004 09:23:46 PM |
|
|
Mekkala <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in
news:Xns946A6EEBBAE33Mekkala@199.45.49.11:
Recently I was considering the implications of human communication.
If we couldn't communicate to the extent that we can, we couldn't pass
on knowledge and discoveries to future generations, and technological
advancement would be impossible in any real sense.
After thinking about it for some time, I came to the conclusion that
the three factors that are most important in our development as a
species are (1) communication, (2) creativity, and (3) dexterity.
Note that I don't list pure number-crunching intelligence as one of
the factors.
I think that along with communication is cooperation. Both being
necessary for the development of the other and both being key factors in
our survival as a species. As communication developed, abstract thought,
creativity, intelligence, and imagination came with it.
We are very proud of our relative intelligence. But how important,
really, is it? As far as I can see, human IQ is a factor only in the
rate at which we develop ideas and learn about reality. It is not a
factor in the extent to which we are able to learn about reality
(IMHO).
I'd say that a species with creativity, dexterity, and communication
abilities equal to ours, but significantly lower IQ, could eventually
be as advanced as we are, although it would take a much longer time.
Similarly, we could eventually be as advanced as a species with far
higher IQ, but no more creativity, dexterity, and communication
ability than we have.
This is really just speculation, since I don't have any studies to
point to, but it's something interesting to think about...
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political institution for the control of
people's thoughts, lives, and actions; based on
ancient myths and superstitions perpetrated through
generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Anthoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Here's an idea |
09 Jan 2004 12:29:26 PM |
|
|
Mekkala wrote:
Recently I was considering the implications of human communication. If
we couldn't communicate to the extent that we can, we couldn't pass on
knowledge and discoveries to future generations, and technological
advancement would be impossible in any real sense.
After thinking about it for some time, I came to the conclusion that the
three factors that are most important in our development as a species
are (1) communication, (2) creativity, and (3) dexterity. Note that I
don't list pure number-crunching intelligence as one of the factors.
We are very proud of our relative intelligence. But how important,
really, is it? As far as I can see, human IQ is a factor only in the
rate at which we develop ideas and learn about reality. It is not a
factor in the extent to which we are able to learn about reality (IMHO).
I'd say that a species with creativity, dexterity, and communication
abilities equal to ours, but significantly lower IQ, could eventually be
as advanced as we are, although it would take a much longer time.
Similarly, we could eventually be as advanced as a species with far
higher IQ, but no more creativity, dexterity, and communication ability
than we have.
This is really just speculation, since I don't have any studies to point
to, but it's something interesting to think about...
Actually, there's a whole process called "evolution" that shows you don't
need intelligence to produce some really cool stuff ;)
--
Kevin Anthoney
kanthoney[a]dsl.pipex.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Here's an idea |
09 Jan 2004 12:49:57 PM |
|
|
On 09 Jan 2004, Kevin Anthoney <kevin_anthoney@hotmail.com> screwed up
his face, groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:421dc$3ffef306$51569c09$21557@nf2.news-service.com:
Mekkala wrote:
Recently I was considering the implications of human communication.
If
we couldn't communicate to the extent that we can, we couldn't pass
on
knowledge and discoveries to future generations, and technological
advancement would be impossible in any real sense.
After thinking about it for some time, I came to the conclusion that
the
three factors that are most important in our development as a species
are (1) communication, (2) creativity, and (3) dexterity. Note that
I
don't list pure number-crunching intelligence as one of the factors.
We are very proud of our relative intelligence. But how important,
really, is it? As far as I can see, human IQ is a factor only in the
rate at which we develop ideas and learn about reality. It is not a
factor in the extent to which we are able to learn about reality
(IMHO).
I'd say that a species with creativity, dexterity, and communication
abilities equal to ours, but significantly lower IQ, could eventually
be
as advanced as we are, although it would take a much longer time.
Similarly, we could eventually be as advanced as a species with far
higher IQ, but no more creativity, dexterity, and communication
ability
than we have.
This is really just speculation, since I don't have any studies to
point
to, but it's something interesting to think about...
Actually, there's a whole process called "evolution" that shows you
don't
need intelligence to produce some really cool stuff ;)
Try telling that to the ID freaks :P
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Here's an idea |
09 Jan 2004 06:59:23 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 16:52:27 +0000, Mekkala wrote:
Recently I was considering the implications of human communication. If we
couldn't communicate to the extent that we can, we couldn't pass on
knowledge and discoveries to future generations, and technological
advancement would be impossible in any real sense.
After thinking about it for some time, I came to the conclusion that the
three factors that are most important in our development as a species are
(1) communication, (2) creativity, and (3) dexterity. Note that I don't
list pure number-crunching intelligence as one of the factors.
We are very proud of our relative intelligence. But how important,
really, is it? As far as I can see, human IQ is a factor only in the rate
at which we develop ideas and learn about reality. It is not a factor in
the extent to which we are able to learn about reality (IMHO).
I'd say that a species with creativity, dexterity, and communication
abilities equal to ours, but significantly lower IQ, could eventually be
as advanced as we are, although it would take a much longer time.
Similarly, we could eventually be as advanced as a species with far higher
IQ, but no more creativity, dexterity, and communication ability than we
have.
This is really just speculation, since I don't have any studies to point
to, but it's something interesting to think about...
I think that "intelligence" is paramount. Dexterity is of little value if
you can't "think" of something to use it for, such as making tools. OTOH,
intelligence would be hampered by an inability to put ideas into practice,
for lack of hands that are more adapted for locomotion than for
manipulation.
Intelligence also underlies communication. Though languages are fairly
easy to develop, there is a definite limit to how much knowledge you can
pass from generation to generation using only oral traditions. The
development of writing was a HUGE invention, in that it allows accurate
preservation of knowledge over a long span of time. My understanding of
the development of writing is very limited, mostly learned from reading
the most excellent book, _Guns, Germs, and Steel_, by Jared Diamond, but
it took a great deal of intelligence and hard work to get it going.
One of the things about the Internet that I find most exciting is the fact
that, language barriers not withstanding, it is the first time in human
history that everyone who has an interest in a particular topic, such as
atheism, can effortlessly communicate with *everyone in the whole world*
who has an interest in that topic. Wow.
Creativity *is* intelligence, is it not? Less intelligent creatures
respond to specific stimuli in a very specific way. Increasing
intelligence results in a much greater range of possible responses.
I attribute many of the world's social and political problems to people
not being intelligent *enough*. Our brains evolved as pattern-recognition
engines, not as rational thinking engines. As such, we are hard-wired to
be inclined toward superstitious thinking, and it can be very difficult to
weed out. We are like chimps who came factory-equipped with the upgraded
cerebral cortex: big enough to think, but not big enough to think well
without a lot of work.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
