Since humans only use a thumbnail of the intelligence we've been gifted, how much more power goes unleashed other than from other worldly sources?

Which is why trying to comprehend god including the reaches of science beyond most of our human understanding. It does not prevent humankind from trying to solve the mystery or puzzle of life, origins, or infinity.

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Since humans only use a thumbnail of the
> intelligence we've been gifted, how much more
> power goes unleashed other than from other worldly
> sources?

The "old saying" that humans only use 10% of their brain (if that's what you were referring to there) is completely false.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-we-really-use-only-10/

And as there's no evidence of any intelligence "power" from "otherwordly sources," your question can't be answered. There might be. There might not be. We don't know. Not knowing is not a reason to assume there is such a thing.

> Which is why trying to comprehend god including
> the reaches of science beyond most of our human
> understanding.

How does a question that can't be answered lead to an answer?
Hint: it doesn't.

The idea that there are things we *don't* understand (which is certainly true) does not lead to the conclusion that we *can't* understand something. Or that there's something that's not understandable.

"The "old saying" that humans only use 10% of their brain (if that's what you were referring to there) is completely false."

COMMENT: Well, this is folklore, but if you change the argument from one having to do with the neuronal use to one of the computational power of the brain, the results are quite different. (Note: The SA link is about gross neuronal use, not computational power)

It is well established that the human brain possesses has about 100 billion neurons with roughly 1 quadrillion — 1 million billion — synaptic connections. This, of course, is a tremendous amount of computational power, much greater than any known computer. Given certain constraints, particularly energy, we don't know how much of the raw computational power of the brain is actually used, but probably much less than its computational potential, even with known restraints.

_____________________________________________

"And as there's no evidence of any intelligence "power" from "otherwordly sources," your question can't be answered. There might be. There might not be. We don't know. Not knowing is not a reason to assume there is such a thing."

COMMENT: Although all of this is true, modern theoretical science certainly appreciates the power of neural networks generally (not just brains), and speculates about such things in the physical world, including the computational power of the universe itself. As such, I suppose it is not too wildly far-fetched to suggest that some super-entity (God) might somehow engage such power. But, if we deny such speculations to religion, it would seem we should hold to the same standard with respect to information processing by the universe!
_________________________________________________

"How does a question that can't be answered lead to an answer?
Hint: it doesn't."

COMMENT: No quarrel with this bit of logic.
__________________________________________________

"The idea that there are things we *don't* understand (which is certainly true) does not lead to the conclusion that we *can't* understand something. Or that there's something that's not understandable."

COMMENT: Well, personally think it is safe to say that there are some things that are not understandable in principle. For example, the laws of physics outside of the known universe. Consciousness might be another example, but I know you would disagree with that, and I am not sure. But, the point is that human capacity is not only finite, but limited by its evolutionary heritage. There is no reason to suppose that there is not a lot of reality that is inaccessible to us. Moreover, some of the puzzles we face, particularly in QM, suggest that the unknowable may be quite vast.

Hey Henry,

Generally speaking, do you think “computation” a fitting metaphor for brain “activity” (indeed, another metaphor)?


And I couldn’t agree more with the premise, indeed a foundational premise, that what Humankind can know is limited. Indeed, to assume otherwise is to assume God, and what’s worse, to assume Humankind is it.

Cheers bud,

Human

Hi Human: Very good to see you back.
____________________________________________________

"Generally speaking, do you think “computation” a fitting metaphor for brain “activity” (indeed, another metaphor)?"

COMMENT: First, computation is NOT just a metaphor for brain activity. The brain is clearly, to some extent, literally a computational organ. All this means is that the brain somehow "represents" sensory input by corresponding brain states and functions, processes that input through some sort of algorithmic mechanisms, and generates behavioral output. All brain imaging studies verify this simple fact. The computational aspects of the brain is generally believed to be encompassed by a "neural network."

What *is* controversial is whether ALL brain activity is computational; or even more controversial, whether all human activity can be explained by appeal to the computational *or other deterministic mechanisms* of the brain. I would say that the answer to both these questions is NO!

What this response suggests is (1) that there brain processes that are not themselves computational, but are still deterministic; and (2) that there is human behavior that cannot be explained by deterministic brain processes alone, whether computational or non-computational. The reason I believe (2) is true is frankly because of a commitment to human freewill and human insight, understanding and creativity as revealed through consciousness. I believe this view is supported by compelling empirical evidence.

The details of this response must be left to another post, if anyone is interested in raising the issue further.

I admit I'm a purist when it comes to language... <sigh>

Now, this is just me musing: Knowledge and Intelligence are not the same things. I guess they could be considered to be synonyms, but not by me. Someone with a low IQ can still have lots of knowledge. People with dazzlings IQ can have little to no knowledge. Thus in my mind (weak and besotted with love) the OP heading is a senseless mish-mash.

Notice the "If..." It is correctly placed. There is no certainty that having knowledge creates power. Bobby Fischer, when it came to chess, was as knowledgeable as all get out, and could crush the average chess player. But how much power did he wield in life?

The mormon phrase (and it is uniquely mormon), "The glory of god is intelligence" is equally meaningless. There is no useful information in that sentence; it is what Robert A. Heinlein called a null content statement.

And put together as one sentence, "If knowledge is power, the glory of god is intelligence" does not increase meaning. It is purely a null content sentence. You learn nothing from it. It might dazzle you, which is what good advertising is all about. It's right up there with, "Coca-Cola, it's the Real Thing!" Statements that have no real meaning have always been popular!



> Since humans only use a thumbnail of the
> intelligence we've been gifted, how much
> more power goes unleashed other than from
> otherworldly sources?

I can't be the only language purist who wept...

Language purists of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your minds.

“Since humans only use a thumbnail of the intelligence we've been gifted, how much more power goes unleashed other than from other worldly sources?”

Have you ever considered taking up computer programming?

AI is taking over the world. The servant is becoming the master.

God's intelligence is vaster than all the AI in the world. But it has to be enviable since it's all in one place, like a central brain of earthlings.

I'm running cloud-based AI models that suck in hundreds of millions of rows of data, kick off dozens of computer instances to process it all, and spit out attribution models.

Yet they're only about 80% effective at predicting even large-scale trends.

That's hardly taking over the world.

And while I'm sure imagining a "god" thing that is "vaster than all the AI in the world," the simple fact remains that AI is demonstrably real, while your "god" claim is backed by no evidence of any kind. So I'm sure you'll understand if we don't share your imagined fantasy.

How many times is intelligence praised in the buy-bull ?

"For years now, some of the smartest and most influential people on Earth have been warning about the dangers of artificial intelligence, laying out nightmarish scenarios that sound like they were pulled from the pages of a Hollywood script.

Tesla chief-executive-turned-flamethrower-merchant Elon Musk has warned of killer robots and “summoning the demon.” Stephen Hawking, the renowned theoretical physicist, has given humanity a tight deadline for escaping the planet. Disease-fighting business magnate Bill Gates, meanwhile, has said he doesn’t understand why “some people are not concerned” about the threat posed by super-intelligent machines.

However, Kevin Kelly, the executive editor of Wired magazine, is offering a decidedly optimistic answer to Gates’s question. Contrasting humans with technology ignores something that has been true for the past 10,000 years or so — something there’s no coming back from, Kelly told a reporter at the World Government Summit in Dubai earlier this month.

“I think that we, ourselves, are technology,” he said, appearing to imply that technology is an extension of biological evolution and central to what makes humans unique among animals. “We have invented ourselves. We have invented our humanity.”

“If we took all technology from our lives away, everything — fire, knives — humans would only last six months,” Kelly added. “We would be eaten by animals. We only can defend ourselves because of technology.”

Instead of summoning humanity’s end, Kelly argues that artificial intelligence is forcing humanity to reevaluate what it means to be human, raising philosophical questions that will force people to define “our humanity moving forward.”

“We are still in the process of making ourselves more human,” the eternal optimist said.

Among the tech forecasters sounding the alarm about AI, few have been as outspoken as Musk, who has recently begun warning about the dangers of autonomous weapons and calling for an international banning of them.

Last year, Musk told a group of governors that they need to start regulating artificial intelligence, which he called a “fundamental risk to the existence of human civilization.” When pressed for concrete guidance, Musk said governments must get a better understanding of AI before it’s too late."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2018/02/23/why-ais-takeover-may-not-be-a-bad-thing/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.eb383a2cffda

I wonder whom Musk would nominate to run the global campaign to control AI and protect humanity from the threat it poses...

"Tesla chief-executive-turned-flamethrower-merchant Elon Musk has warned of killer robots and “summoning the demon.” Stephen Hawking, the renowned theoretical physicist, has given humanity a tight deadline for escaping the planet. Disease-fighting business magnate Bill Gates, meanwhile, has said he doesn’t understand why “some people are not concerned” about the threat posed by super-intelligent machines."

COMMENT: There is currently no basis from AI to assume such a threat, notwithstanding populist alarms. I would like to see someone prominent in AI express such fears, given the fact that AI is no where near the level of sophistication to make such a threat real.

I agree with Musk on one thing -- autonomous weapons are dangerous, and should be banned.

Not because they'd be "too smart," though.
Because they'd be too stupid.
They would fire on things we humans would not fire on.
Not the smart humans, anyway.

While no one loves Cromartie more than I, AI ain't gonna destroy us. Military + AI weapons...that's something else entirely.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/20/2018 04:18PM by Beth.

This sentence, this thought, does not compute or make sense to me. If I did believe in a supreme being, a god, to me his glory would be "love".

Yes, intelligence bringing power would seem to be a characteristic needed as well, but to have "love" beyond what people have, to understand it and to know how to use it, share it, and teach it to others in my opinion would to be the top characteristic needed for a god.

"The glory of God IS intelligence"

I wouldn't use this because it's their thing.


I like the suggested alternative - love


"Love Changes Everything"

...

How you live and how you die

Love can make the summer fly

Days are longer words mean more


'n all that


(I could use some longer days) :)

Love is the highest law spoken of in scripture.

It takes an intelligent being to understand its strength and universal power.

Were we created in a vacuum? Not if we were/are envisioned and surrounded by a loving overseer.

In all the vastness and empty space in the cosmos, here resides a colonized planet. It's beyond doubtful we're not alone.

Scripture is a luxury.

Survival is the highest law.

The scripture quantifies intelligence as light and truth and goes on to say that it can only be obtained by obedience. How fucked up is that? God gives us this amazing brain that yearns for light and truth, but then tells us not to use it, just obey. Like it takes much of a brain to be an obedient robot.

For other Handmaid's Tale-aholics, this paradox was really shown through Eden's study of the Bible. After she is executed, June finds her hidden Bible that is all marked up from serious study. She was supposed to be absolutely obedient to the word of God (aka controlling men), but was sinning by trying to discover for herself what God's word really was.