Viewpoints

Michael: Sure I agree that the human mind can not understand everything, itself being a prime example. As the mind understands itself it then becomes slightly more complex thereby needing to understand a “new” self that is more complex, when this is learned the cycle starts again. But, then again so what?
Maybe humans will augment their puny brains and will understand pretty much everything? Who knows? I do agree that we a limited by language, maybe these new augmented brains will speak in pure maths? :)
*************
M*W: You are right. The human mind cannot understand everything AT THIS POINT IN OUR EVOLUTION. However, as humanity evolves toward a more spiritual species, homo spiritus, our minds will have the capability to understand greater things that what we are able to understand now. Although this is conjecture, I believe that we now are living in the 'sixth day of creation,' but before we reach the 'seventh day,' we will have acquired total comprehension (100% usage of our brain power) and will evolve toward perfection. (Let me state for the record, I am an atheist using some biblical thoughts to explain what hasn't been explained before -- at least on sciforums). By the time we are at the end of our human evolution, there will be nothing left to achieve scientifically, and we will be totally spiritual beings. In other words, we will have conquered disease, famines, crimes and wars, so our mental efforts will be directed toward our spiritual advancement. I also suspect that as humanity grows spiritually, other things in creation will advance, too. When we reach the 'seventh day of creation,' we may not even need our bodies (Earthsuits) to live, and we may not exist on this planet. Who knows? I can only imagine what it will be like.
 
You dream, Medicine Woman, or perhaps consume strange things...
...as humanity evolves toward a more spiritual species, homo spiritus, our minds will have the capability to understand greater things that what we are able to understand now. Although this is conjecture, I believe that we now are living in the 'sixth day of creation,' but before we reach the 'seventh day,' we will have acquired total comprehension (100% usage of our brain power) and will evolve toward perfection...By the time we are at the end of our human evolution, there will be nothing left to achieve scientifically, and we will be totally spiritual beings. In other words, we will have conquered disease, famines, crimes and wars, so our mental efforts will be directed toward our spiritual advancement. I also suspect that as humanity grows spiritually, other things in creation will advance, too. When we reach the 'seventh day of creation,' we may not even need our bodies (Earthsuits) to live, and we may not exist on this planet. Who knows? I can only imagine what it will be like.
Click to expand...
Have you ever considered a career in writing fantasy fiction?
 
TruthSeeker said:
I wsn't talking about that kind of adaptation. I was talking about adaptation relative to the tool that we presently possess.


Why not? That's a very self-defeating argument.


Certainly. I wasn't talking about religious creativity, I was talking about general creativity.


Eh?


Sure. But adaptation is even more significant.


Create things from where?


What did I say!?


This is obvious. But that brings something intereting to my mind. What if we would create a variable with the properties of infinity and try to define thoe properties through regular mthematics? Sort of what calculus does, but more in depth. Huuumm.... I should start a thread about that.... :D
Click to expand...

Either way, adapation without evolution is merely creativity and the manipulation of problems in order to more easily find solutions.

It is not a self defeating argument. “
Do we need to prove everything? No, but you did not need to include that statement either. I never said we needed to, but will we if we wanted to? Nope, at least not for modern brains.
”
Let me rephrase. Do we need to prove everything? No we don't. Did you need to include that statement? No. I never stated that humans needed to prove everything. However, let's say we wanted to prove everything. Could we? No, not with individual modern brains. But when we work together and use computers as aides to areas we lack, then we can do it.

I don't understand how that supports your argument on this one.

I am saying that the seemingly absurdity of that statement would make even the one who vocalized disagree with it.

Adapation is creativity in the way you speak of it. Since you did not mean adapation as evolution, then surely you must mean by the manipulation of intelligence to make problem solving easier. This is also a subcategory of creativity. By broadening the term of creativity, you can encompass adapation, learning to survive, problem solving made simple, and other terms instead of mere artisticness.

Create things from where? That's an amusing bewilderment. Create things, i.e.: abstract or concrete. Either create technologies or images of how things may theoretically work. By "dumbing down" complex problems in a way very similar to reducing fractions, creativity allows us to advance in many ways more easily than mere computational intelligence would.

I must have misread your statement due to your signifying infinity as a number. Infinity is a number, yes, but it doesn't have a constant value. Now this was only an unavoidable misunderstanding that is bound to happen from time to time. I wasn't clear on your position, sorry.

, jcastro
 
TheMatrixIsReal said:
If this is inferring that we currently use only a fraction (usually 10%) of our brains capacity, then it's incorrect because that is a myth. We, in fact, use 100% of our brain, and it's amazing how many people believe in this myth.

Scientific American: Do we really use only 10 percent of our brains?
Click to expand...

A generation of "positive thinking" gurus that followed were not so careful, however, and gradually "10 percent of our capacity" morphed into "10 percent of our brain."
Click to expand...
Huuumm... that's true. The word "capacity" is much better...
But that would imply that we don't use our brain efficiently, even tough we use all of it. Which is what people usually intend to say.... But yeah.... it is a matter of efficiency, not a matter of percentage of brain.... :cool:
 
jcastro.... I don't quite see what you are saying. It seems to me you don't quite understand the implications of discussing creationism in the light of the origins of the universe and etymology....

I will try to anwer you later. I need ome time to figure out what you are saying or trying to say....
 
Well I am sorry--in a sincere way--that you do not understand my points. I cover a wide range of topics at once and have a habit of being random. However I usually (80%) encounter understandment from those who read my posts. I will try to be more clear in the future.

, jcastro
 
Ok... let me try....
jcastro said:
Either way, adapation without evolution is merely creativity and the manipulation of problems in order to more easily find solutions.
Click to expand...
Adaptation is the manipulation of problems. Actually, is the manipulation of your understanding of the problems, not the problems themselves.

It is not a self defeating argument.
Click to expand...
No? How come? You are saying it is impossible to prove those things. You are defeating yourself before really trying it, aren't you?

Let me rephrase. Do we need to prove everything? No we don't. Did you need to include that statement? No. I never stated that humans needed to prove everything. However, let's say we wanted to prove everything. Could we? No, not with individual modern brains. But when we work together and use computers as aides to areas we lack, then we can do it.
Click to expand...
Ok. That's a little bit better. ;)

I don't understand how that supports your argument on this one.

I am saying that the seemingly absurdity of that statement would make even the one who vocalized disagree with it.
Click to expand...
What is "that"? Which statement?

Adapation is creativity in the way you speak of it. Since you did not mean adapation as evolution, then surely you must mean by the manipulation of intelligence to make problem solving easier. This is also a subcategory of creativity.
Click to expand...
Well... sure. But it is a special thing that can be set aside...

By broadening the term of creativity, you can encompass adapation, learning to survive, problem solving made simple, and other terms instead of mere artisticness.
Click to expand...
I don't get the "artisticness" part....

Create things from where? That's an amusing bewilderment. Create things, i.e.: abstract or concrete. Either create technologies or images of how things may theoretically work. By "dumbing down" complex problems in a way very similar to reducing fractions, creativity allows us to advance in many ways more easily than mere computational intelligence would.
Click to expand...
Well... the problem with dumbing down is that you might lose some significant information....

I must have misread your statement due to your signifying infinity as a number. Infinity is a number, yes, but it doesn't have a constant value.
Click to expand...
A number? Does it really have a value at all?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top