21–30 of 121 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right.. There are brains larger than ours with less intelligence.
Such as? We humans do colossally stupid things on a daily basis with our so-called intelligence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Technically, considering a long enough timescale, a brain is the Universe trying to understand itself.
Doesn't "try" imply intending? But the universe isn't a someone who can intend to do something. Your statement sounds like mysticism, trying to soften the emotional coldness of the materialist view of the universe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't "try" imply intending? But the universe isn't a someone who can intend to do something. Your statement sounds like mysticism, trying to soften the emotional coldness of the materialist view of the universe.
The space dust that coalesced into our solar system and planet eventually (picture it in fast-forward) became us and we "try" to understand stuff, no?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The space dust that coalesced into our solar system and planet eventually (picture it in fast-forward) became us and we "try" to understand stuff, no?
Yes. But the space dust didn't intend to become us. It's something, not someone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> However, we will never be able to understand the thought process down to each individual activation of the neuron. Is that true in general, or are you specifically talking about human brains?
I mean a complex thought process. Like how to come from an activated retina cell to a movement to a part of a body. At time index 586578382342us the cell no 15547349 got activated which led to a slightly improved electric charge around the axon of neuron no 68342. The connection strength, as you remember, from time index 3870127106 is now 1% higher ..... one billion pages later ..... but the atom here is slightly mis…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. But the space dust didn't intend to become us. It's something, not someone.
Are the neurons and chemicals and electrical impulses in our brains someone?
so the question is, where does the line between animate and inanimate lie?
Just wondering... How complicated does a brain have to become in order to understand itself? Could a brain exist that is so complicated that it could not understand itself, or does a brain's understanding always scale up with its complexity?
You should first define what actually means "understanding the brain" before you try to answer this question. Does "understanding of the brain" mean, that we can construct or simulate a brain? An artificial brain, which reproduce our intelligence and consciousness? There is no reason to believe, that we can't do this. A brain is part of our world, governed by physics. However, we will never be able to understand the…
How do you know consciousness is "governed" by our contemporary understanding of physics?
Just wondering... How complicated does a brain have to become in order to understand itself? Could a brain exist that is so complicated that it could not understand itself, or does a brain's understanding always scale up with its complexity?
That very much depends on whether the complexity increases intelligence/comprehension or whether it is merely increased complexity.
Just wondering... How complicated does a brain have to become in order to understand itself? Could a brain exist that is so complicated that it could not understand itself, or does a brain's understanding always scale up with its complexity?
Technically, considering a long enough timescale, a brain is the Universe trying to understand itself.
Just wondering... How complicated does a brain have to become in order to understand itself? Could a brain exist that is so complicated that it could not understand itself, or does a brain's understanding always scale up with its complexity?