Now you do.
Not yet.
Today The New York Times published some letters in response to Gary Greenberg’s Op-Ed. One letter, written by Tamara Lipshie, is particularly relevant to the question in the thread title.
Well, writing one word 4.000 times seems to work for most people.
Doesn’t hurt, although I’d argue that second caveat is even more superfluous than the first (one shouldn’t have to add such adjectives ever; “universe” (singular) is generally synonymous with “known universe”, by definition).
What about “unknown universe”?
It’s not so obvious, though, that we can know that which can be known.
Was 'bout it?
Sure… (not sure what your point is though)
Is “universe” (singular) generally synonymous with “unknown universe”?
I’m not sure why you can’t appeal to common sense here:
If someone says “VY Canis Majoris is the largest star in the universe”, anyone who isn’t purposefully trying to be annoying understands what is meant: “VY Canis Majoris is the largest [known] star in the [known] universe.” Which can further be unravelled to: “VY Canis Majoris is the largest star we have ever had the delight in being lucky enough to observe when we look as far and wide as we can in the area around us.”
So no, “universe” is not generally synonymous with “unknown universe,” but of course it depends on the context. If we are having a discussion about the “universe of possible universes”, then the word has a larger scope. But you can see even in that phrase the word is being used in two different ways, depending on intelligent contextual interpretation.
No, the OP asked “Is the human brain the most complex object in the universe?”
[/QUOTE]
Fella, do you honestly not understand that those two statements are equivalent? Do you really think that you’re drawing a meaningful distinction here?
Do you not see how muddled such thinking is?
Kozmik, you’re really ruining your own thread here, which was starting to get interesting. Why don’t you back up a little and tell us what you’d like know in less ambiguous terms. Keep in mind nobody can provide meaningful answers about the unknown universe.
I’ll try not to beat a dead horse here, but I think that caveat makes a world of difference. When you say: “X is probably the most Y object”, I took it to mean X is certainly the most Y of all known objects, and probably the most Y of unknown objects. The say one might say: “This gold deposit is probably the biggest in the world” not because you can’t assess the known gold mines, but because you are speculating about all unknown deposits, as well. If you’re saying: X is probably the most Y of any known object, but we can’t speculate about unknown objects, that’s a far more limited claim.
It really changes the statement if “probably” is qualifying the supremacy of X among the currently known or its true universal supremacy. That’s why I object to the invocation of the universe as a context, because it implies the latter.
Finally we have a provisional definition of “universe”.
Yes!
Ok. I know that Gary Greenberg made the following claim: “The human brain, after all, may be the most complex object in the universe.”. So I ask the question: Is the human brain the most complex object in the universe? I know that you and other posters have sought to answer the question, and not merely argue for the human brain or, even, argue against the human brain, for that matter.
In response to Gary Greenberg’s Op-Ed, Tamara Lipshie wrote a letter to the editor which was published yesterday in The New York Times. While she is not responding directly to Gary Greenberg’s claim or, even, quoting his claim, I find that Tamara Lipshie’s claim is the antithesis of Gary Greenberg’s claim.
Here is Tamara Lipshie’s claim:
Here is Kozmik’s claim:
I have an announcement to make. A poster found an argument that would lead one to answer yes to the question “Is the human brain the most complex object in the universe?”. I will link to the post that contains the argument. I won’t link to the post yet, though I will give a hint. We’ve already defined “universe”. We still haven’t defined “human brain”, “complex”, or “object”. Once we have defined “human brain”, “complex”, and “object” like we’ve defined “universe” then I will post a link to the argument that the poster found.
This. Kids these days, and I admit to protecting my own kids from the details, have no idea just how fucked up Mom and Dad got.
ETA: Which was “seriously.” But it was the 60s and 70s and allowances should be made. But don’t touch that shit yourselves. You saw how your parents (grandparents?) turned out.
Hey! It was an accident. I had no idea that stuff was acid. I thought it was mescaline.
By chance I just started rereading Gribbin’s Deep Simplicity. From the Introduction:
One can use semantics to argue the question away, but if one is more reasonable one will admit that human brain (or Earth life more generally) is the most complex thing we know.
One criterion would be to imagine how big a book it would take to explain something. I used to work with million-dollar mainframes whose schematics, even if augmented with semiconductor textbooks, occupied a single shelf in a bookcase. A single shelf couldn’t contain what is known about human brain, let alone what is unknown.
Ok, that’s reasonable. But wouldn’t an entire human be a more complex object than just a human brain? I can’t see a reasonable definition for ‘object’ applied to a human brain that does’nt apply to an entire human. And despite our slightly more advanced brains, couldn’t some other animal be more complex than a human?
Tripolar, now the thread is back to getting interesting. I went back through the entire thread and here’s what I’ve found:
Yes, the universe seems to follow relatively simple rules. The human brain, though, seems to follow even simpler rules.
Obviously “the universe itself” is more complex than a brain. However, that “two brains” are more complex than a brain is not so obvious.
Oh? What rules are those?
What reasonable definition of ‘object’ would apply to two brains?
Ask iamnotbatman: