قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Science / Why do philosophers believe we have reached the highest human intelligence?

Why do philosophers believe we have reached the highest human intelligence?



Despite great advances in science in the last century, our understanding of nature is far from complete. Not only have scientists failed to find the Holy Grail of physics – they have combined the very large (general theory of relativity) with the very small (quantum mechanics) – they still do not know what the vast majority of the universe consists of. The sought-after theory of everything continues to elude us. And there are other outstanding puzzles, such as how consciousness arises from mere matter.

Will science ever be able to provide all the answers? The human brain is the product of a blind and unsolved evolution. They should solve practical problems that affect our survival and reproduction and not unravel the fabric of the universe. This realization has led some philosophers to embrace a peculiar form of pessimism, arguing that there must be things we will never understand. One day, human science will come up against a hard limit ̵

1; and it may have already done so.

Some questions may turn out to be what the American linguist and philosopher Noam Chomsky called "mysteries." If you believe that only man possesses unlimited cognitive powers – which sets us apart from all other animals – you have not fully digested Darwin's insight that Homo Sapiens is an integral part of the natural world.

But does this? Really stop argument? Bear in mind that the human brain has not evolved to discover its own origin. And yet we somehow managed to do just that. Maybe the pessimists are missing something.

Mysterious Arguments

"Mysterious" thinkers attach great importance to biological arguments and analogies. In his seminal 1983 book The Modularity of Mind, the late philosopher Jerry Fodor claimed that there must be "thoughts we can not think about".

Similarly, the philosopher Colin McGinn argued in a series of books and articles that all heads suffer from "cognitive closure" in relation to certain issues. Just as dogs or cats will never understand primes, the human brain has to be isolated from some of the wonders of the world. McGinn suggests that the reason that philosophical riddles, such as the body-mind problem – how physical processes in our brain stimulate consciousness – can not be solved, is that their true solutions to the human mind are simply inaccessible.

If McGinn Is It Right That our brain just is not capable of solving certain problems, it makes no sense to even try, as they continue to baffle and confuse us. McGinn himself is convinced that there is indeed a completely natural solution to the mind-body problem, but that the human brain will never find it.

Even the psychologist Steven Pinker, who himself is often accused of scientific hubris, is sympathetic to the Mysterians' argument. If our ancestors did not have to understand the wider cosmos to spread their genes, he argues, why would natural selection have given us the spiritual power to do this?

Astonishing Theories

Mysterians typically ask the question of cognitive boundaries in strict black and white terms: Either we can solve a problem or it will defy us forever. Either we have cognitive access or we are under lock and key. At some point, human research will suddenly come up against a metaphorical wall that will forever condemn us to stare incomprehensibly.

Another possibility that Mysterians often overlook, however, is a slowly decreasing return. Reaching the limits of the investigation might feel less like bumping into a wall than getting stuck in a swamp. We are getting slower and slower, even as we make more and more effort, and yet there is no discrete point beyond which no progress is possible at all.

In the thesis of the Mysterians, which my colleague Michael Vlerick represents, there is another ambiguity and I have pointed this out in a scientific paper. Are the Mysteries claiming that we would never find the true scientific theory of an aspect of reality, or alternatively, could we find that theory good, but never really understand it?

In the science fiction series The Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy, a foreign civilization builds a giant supercomputer to calculate the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything. When the computer finally announces that the answer is "42," nobody knows what that means (in fact, they're building an even bigger supercomputer to find out).

Is a question still a "mystery" when you come to the right answer, but have no idea what it means, or can not put your head around it? Mysterians often combine these two possibilities.

An In some places, McGinn suggests that the mind-body problem is inaccessible to human science, which presumably means that we will never find the true scientific theory that describes the mind-body relationship, but in other moments he writes that the problem for humans will always be "difficult to understand" and that "the head turns into theoretical disorder" when we think about it.

This suggests that we may well come to the true scientific theory, but they On the other hand, some people would argue that this is already true for a theory like quantum mechanics, even Q uv physicist Richard Feynman admitted, "I think I can say with certainty that no one understands quantum mechanics."

Would the mystics say that we humans of the quantum world are "cognitively closed"? According to quantum mechanics, particles can be in two places at the same time or jump out of the empty space randomly. While this is extremely difficult to understand, quantum theory leads to incredibly accurate predictions. The phenomena of "quantum craziness" have been confirmed by several experimental tests, and scientists are now also creating applications based on theory. Nothing in our cognitive equipment prepared us for relativity theory, evolutionary biology or heliocentrism.