would a higher intellect than ours, build us, evolution/nature and the universe such to facilitate a higher intellect.
Would God [<<insert your given belief system here] want humans to be the highest intellect.
Would a higher intellect want humans to advance.
What then are the limits to human advancement, as compared to that of an android. We could say none, because humans can be augmented or naturally develop over time, we cannot know the answer to that would be until it is if ever reached.
Is there a maximum intellect, and anything more intelligent goes insane [too many connections or something]. I think that a computer library with sorting software would not be more intelligent than us, it could know answers to given things, but is still little more than a calculator. Beside that, humans can make utility of such instruments anyway.
‘secondary complexity’ would be fine ~ like being able to access a library, calculator etc. it feel there is only so many objects that can be reasonably focussed upon at any one time, I think the mind holds around 7 specific objects at any one time. However the mind can defocus e.g. when listening to surround sound music, and semi-focus on a vast array of things.
Equally if you had an infinite amount of mental objects, the focus could only perceive those not obscured by those before them ~ to its perspective view. So there are natural limits.
We could of course say that an android intellect could have multiple focal points, and hence hold and compare many more objects, however I wonder if that yields anything more than information?
edt - info that we already have in terms of ‘secondary complexities’ like libraries and instruments/calculators.
[Equally if you had an infinite amount of mental objects, the focus could only perceive those not obscured by those before them ~ to its perspective view. So there are natural limits.
[/quote]
There may be natural limits to observation, but it’s not due necessarily to eclipses. An AI, as well as Humans, aren’t limited in this manner. I only know one philosopher who admits to not knowing a Spoon in the Mouth really does exist, and yet he is aware it’s due to a (very minor) disorder, only very small children and puppies fall for this peekaboo.
I literally just posted this in another thread:
How is either the individual human or AI suppose to know what things are without knowing? Conjecture, presumption, analysis, theory?
Conciseness is equally a function of intellect! [its like the elastic or goo, which binds the object mass together] Consider any machine, you get a small collection of objects interacting in a given way. The inventor went through a mass of permutations in his/her head of a sets of objects. Then perhaps if you throw a load more working objects in there, then its more like a spanner in the works than relevant additions. I agree the intellect has the said functions, and for information analyses the permutations are endless. A poet or artist is such because of their ability to find a concise vision, an inventor is much the same.
Indeed, there’s probably a potential library of ‘all possible working object correlations’ ~ of all inventions/machines. That would also be an eclipse.
After that all invention is in the realm of art, and that is where I think there is a necessary conciseness required function of intellect. Any piece of art is reliant upon perspective, so if our AI had an ‘all-seeing eye’ of perspectives [rather than individualised epicentral focus] everything would be of the same perspective, none. Not to mention that humans had built that with their inferior[?] intellects.
