[QUOTE=Iknewit]
To shorten the last post, we will obliterate the human race, our knowledge going with us, along the road to explaining everything. Our brains are not suited to know everything. Once we get close enough, we contruct our own demise. We’re pretty close I think.
[/QUOTE]
I get it, your real name is John Conner.
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
I’ve got this one.
Cite?
[/QUOTE]
There is no cite. It’s a response to a request for a well reasoned argument of the limit of human intelligence.
See the Manhattan Project, Engineered biological warfare, Carbon emmissons, etc. The view is shared by many, notably, Stephen Hawking.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
I get it, your real name is John Conner.
[/QUOTE]
Absent the time travel factor, sure.
Iknewit,
Care to tackle any of these unanswered questions?
Why the double standard? Why are your contentions not bound by the same constrictions as mine?
Can you prove that there are things beyond human understanding? You have asserted it, and demanded of others that they prove their assertions. Should the same rules not apply for you?
How is a phenomenon different after a human understands it? Does it change when it moves from the paranormal to the normal? If not, what is all this lexicographical posturing about?
Is electricity paranormal to those who cannot explain it?
Can you explain electricity? Completely? If so, will you do so, as you have asked others to explain various phenomena? If not, does that make it paranormal?
Do you completely understand all phenomena that you would describe as normal? If not, does that mean that you are taking them on faith?
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Iknewit,
Care to tackle any of these unanswered questions?
Why the double standard? Why are your contentions not bound by the same constrictions as mine?
[/Quote]
They are. You don’t have to accept any of the arguments. All we can do is ask one to consider. There is little hard evidence on either side of the argument.
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Can you prove that there are things beyond human understanding? You have asserted it, and demanded of others that they prove their assertions. Should the same rules not apply for you?
[/Quote]
There are only examples of what I believe to be beyond human underatnding. Human consciousness, as such. The same rules apply. Forgive me if I appeared contrary.
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
[How is a phenomenon different after a human understands it? Does it change when it moves from the paranormal to the normal? If not, what is all this lexicographical posturing about?
[/Quote]
The phenomenon is the same. The way we define it is the question. It moves from the unknown or unexplained, to the explained.
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Is electricity paranormal to those who cannot explain it?
[/Quote]
They may consider it so.
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Can you explain electricity? Completely? If so, will you do so, as you have asked others to explain various phenomena? If not, does that make it paranormal?
[/Quote]
I can. I have been educated in electronics. Completely ? Probably not. I’m sure I am lacking in some areas like natural electromagnetic fields. Is it paranormal ? Maybe in some areas like ball lightning, yes. That phenomenon seems to defy everyhting else we know about electricity.
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Do you completely understand all phenomena that you would describe as normal? If not, does that mean that you are taking them on faith?
[/QUOTE]
No. I have resources to verify them. If the explanation is not contradictory and reads logically, I accept it. If I see something or experience something new, my first question is generally, “what is that” the second, “how does that work ?”.
[QUOTE=Iknewit]
They are. You don’t have to accept any of the arguments. All we can do is ask one to consider. There is little hard evidence on either side of the argument.
[/QUOTE]
Then why do you demand proof? Especially, why do you contend that the lack of proof bolsters your case?
So, the fact that there are phenomena for which, according to you, no explanation exists is *not *proof of the paranormal? I am confused.
But is it?
Please do so then. It is no more than you have requested of others, on numerous occasions.
How is that different from what anyone else has been saying?
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Then why do you demand proof? Especially, why do you contend that the lack of proof bolsters your case?
[/Quote]
Proof is needed to verify. In the absence of such, it is merely speculation. “Paranormal” is a word that exactly denotes a lack of proof, lack of an explanation. You can see where a lack of proof is important to the case ?
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
I am confused.
[/Quote]
It does seem so.
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Please do so then. It is no more than you have requested of others, on numerous occasions.
[/Quote]
Electricity - Wikipedia From the collective human intelligence.
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
How is that different from what anyone else has been saying?
[/QUOTE]
It is not different. The only difference is the fear of a word to describe the unexplainable.
[QUOTE=Iknewit]
One of the greatest leaps in intelligence came about with the ability to actually write and store information outside of the human brain. Beforehand, the limitations of recall and short term memory prevented certain pieces of information from being preserved for later use in logical deduction. Things could be learned and forgotten, skipping over many opportunities for logical anaylisis in a life span, not to mention over generations.
[/QUOTE]
Do you have any evidence that the invention of writing affected human intelligence in any way? It improved the retention and transmission of information, certainly, but I doubt there has been time for it to impact our intelligence.
Likewise, in the last 300 (make it 400) years the use of the scientific method accelerated our progress by allowing us to test and refine ideas. If you read Greek and Roman natural philosophers, they propose solutions to scientific problems, and try to prove them logically, but have no way of finding if their assumptions are incorrect. Still, no increase in intelligence.
The reason I don’t think human intelligence will limit us is that we have already progressed beyond it, and have a cultural intelligence which is much greater than any of ours. No one person really understands a large piece of software or a microprocessor design - it is way beyond our comprehension. By partitioning and by the use of computer models we can make these things (mostly) work. People already use data mining, which gets insights from information that no single person will ever see. I’ve personally had my software tell me things I never would have gotten from looking at the raw data.
So, there is already every indication that our intelligence won’t prevent us from understanding the universe.
[QUOTE=Iknewit]
Proof is needed to verify. In the absence of such, it is merely speculation. “Paranormal” is a word that exactly denotes a lack of proof, lack of an explanation. You can see where a lack of proof is important to the case ?
[/QUOTE]
Then prove that there are things beyond human understanding.
A wiki cite? You must be joking.
You said that *you *can explain it. Please do so.
Please *verify *the existence of the unexplainable. I assume you will have *proof *for this.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
Do you have any evidence that the invention of writing affected human intelligence in any way? It improved the retention and transmission of information, certainly, but I doubt there has been time for it to impact our intelligence.
.
[/QUOTE]
Read Introduction to Cybermetics by William Ross Ashby.
The use of stored information, especially in machines, like calculators, has long been recognized to augment intelligence.
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Then prove that there are things beyond human understanding.
[/Quote]
Prove that we** can** understand everything.
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
A wiki cite? You must be joking.
You said that *you *can explain it. Please do so.
[/Quote]
No joke. The explaantion for electricity is there. I haven’t the inclination to explain what I know of electricity here.
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Please *verify *the existence of the unexplainable. I assume you will have *proof *for this.
[/QUOTE]
>0
[QUOTE=Iknewit]
Prove that we** can** understand everything.
[/QUOTE]
I never claimed to have proof, yet you demanded it, and said that absent such proof, I must be taking it on faith. The same must hold true for you. Absent proof, your assertion is merely an affirmation of faith.
Haven’t the inclination? Then stop demanding similar explanations of others. It is dishonest. It is getting harder and harder to believe that your intention here is to engage in serious debate.
Make that impossible to believe. I hope this one man circle jerk has been good for you.
[QUOTE=Iknewit]
Please note, I answered you the first time.
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps I missed it. In post #11, I said
In which post is your response? You gave some links in a subsequent post, but I am unable to tell which link(s), if any, represent the “best example with the strongest proof” of the paranormal. Could you clear this up for me?
OK. Lets get down to it.
The Halting Problem can not be solved by any physically possible mind. Look it up. It is an impossibilty. It has been confirmed as undecideable. It can not be explained by the human brain. It is impossible. It is confirmed as such.
Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, proved by Kurt Gödel in 1931. No mind with a formalizable reasoning system can be both consistent and complete.
Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle implies that no mind can completely know the momentum of a particle at a particular position in space, or the energy of a particle at a particular moment in time.
The human mind is limited. We can not know or explain everything. These limits have been proven and defined. Get over yourselves.
[QUOTE=Iknewit]
The human mind is limited. We can not know or explain everything. These limits have been proven and defined. Get over yourselves.
[/QUOTE]
Prove that these “limits” will exist forever.
[QUOTE=Musicat]
Perhaps I missed it. In post #11, I saidIn which post is your response? You gave some links in a subsequent post, but I am unable to tell which link(s), if any, represent the “best example with the strongest proof” of the paranormal. Could you clear this up for me?
[/QUOTE]
Jesus Christ, pick one. Start with one from the last post. If you can solve the Halting Problem, you can prove that paranormal doesn’t exist. Otherwise, it is beyond explanation. In fact, it is already proven beyond human explanation. Figure it out and win a Nobel Prize.
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Prove that these “limits” will exist forever.
[/QUOTE]
First, define forever. I don’t know how long you mean.
[QUOTE=Iknewit]
Jesus Christ, pick one. Start with one from the last post. If you can solve the Halting Problem, you can prove that paranormal doesn’t exist.
[/QUOTE]
First you demand explanations, then solutions. Try to stay consistent. Your own precious Wiki *explains *the Halting problem quite well.
Is the Halting problem a physical phenomenon? Can you prove that it is part of the physical universe?
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
First you demand explanations, then solutions. Try to stay consistent. Your own precious Wiki *explains *the Halting problem quite well.
[/QUOTE]
Well then, an explanation of telepathy will suffice for you then. Wiki explains that concept quite well to. I guess this debate is settled then.
[QUOTE=Iknewit]
First, define forever. I don’t know how long you mean.
[/QUOTE]
I’m quite sure that you do. It’s an extremely common word, and your affinity for dictionary cites suggests to me that if you don’t understand it, it’s because you don’t want to. But, just to make you happy, change “forever” to “the longest possible time that you can imagine.” And by you, I mean you.
Or, to restate the problem, prove that the current “limits” to the human mind cannot be surpassed.
An explanation will suffice for me because you are inconsistent with your demands? Huh? I have no need for an explanation for telepathy.