Is the existence of high level human intelligence useless or even detrimental?

[joystick]

I first read in a popular science magazine recently that a query that said, to the effect, 'why are we humans so smart anyway?." The blurb then went on to say that it was possibly for some unforseen evolutionary advantage or maybe so that we could outsmart our peers in some kind of Machiavellian fashion.

My hypothetical magic eight ball answer to this thread's question decrees, "Signs point to yes." House pets or even wild animals seem to be just as well adjusted as us and no more or less happy / unhappy--unless you count neurotic parrots like my friend Scott's, but that's another matter entirely (dealing with human enforced captivity of rare birds to be exact).

So, back to the question: What advantage does man's huge intelligence gap over all other known life forms confer upon the human race? Can this extra intelligence acutally be seen as detrimental in nature, for example, the melancholy intellectual such as Morrissey or the mad scientist such as Einstein who indirectly invents the nuclear bomb? Did this phenomenom come about as a result of Eve and Adam eating from the Tree of Knowledge? What are we supposed to do now? Eat from the tree of everlasting life? Isn't that what meth is?

At any rate, as far as I can tell, with the amount of knowledge / information in the universe seems to be infinite or at least constantly expanding and our appetite for it likewise insatiable, there seems to be very little point in academics in the _real_ world--you know, like that show on MTV. Who cares if they can't do 8th grade algebra; the producers pick at least one hottie every year no matter what, right?

My message here is this: all the physics you need to know can be summed up by the Fugee's lyric, "Two MCs can't occupy the same space at the same time. It's against the laws of physics."

Speaking of which, can any of you smarty intellectuals explain to me why a dimensional analysis of the units of energy as given by any of the following equations:

E = q + w (where q is heat and equals mass times heat capacity, c, times delta t and work equals force times distance)
or
E = mc^2 (where m is mass again but c squared is the speed of light in a vacuum squared)
or
E = hf (where h is Planck's constant and f is the frequency of light being studied)
or
E = PE + KE (where PE is mgh and KE is 1/2 mv^2)

Always comes out to be in kilograms x meters squared per second squared? Does this finding indicate that energy is a 2 dimensional measurement? If this last statement is true, then what is the definition for the dimension measured by kilograms times meters cubed per second squared? (the Big Bang?)

Also, why is it that when you take the (calculus) first derivative of the formula for the volume of a sphere (V sphere = 4/3 pi radius cubed) with respect to the radius, you get the formula for the surface area of a sphere (SA sphere = 4 pi radius squared)?
There is no way that that could be mere coincidence, is there?

Finally, is it just me, or do you also feel like all of this has happened to us before "long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away"?

Forgive me if my thoughts seem disjointed, but once again I have a lot on my mind, and many of you have very bright minds indeed with which to debate the utility of human intelligence, the main topic of this thread.

 

[Void]

Intelligence allows us to control our environment. Thats the main benefit, we can make quality of life better but there are responsibilities involved. If we go down in a ball of fire you can be sure it'll be of our making and its entirely possible it has played out in the universe before. Its a big universe, maybe even a multi-verse.

 

[DarthMom]

Well, I can respond to the first half of your post, but.....willl, then ya got 2 smirt fer mee.

Overall, I would say generally, (IMO) intelligence can affect your happiness in a negative way. The more I learn, the more unhappy I get, and the more I want to know. (tree of life/knowledge is EVIL...EVIL i say) [religious mode] not really evil, it is just that for the average joe, it is easier to live simply, without certain knowledge, which is the point of the bible. for the simpletons among us. like me [/religious quack] You may be happy without knowing it all....but is it enjoyable without the bad stuff too? (pleasantville)

Ignorance really can be bliss.

Whether it is spiritual, or of relation to daily matters, when I learn "too much" it always ends in disaster....I don't know why. But it is a recurrent theme. When if I stuck to the "programmed response" to certain behaviors I may not have been "cured" or "rich" or "insert any miracle cure here" BUT, would have been satisfied.

(am i making sense?? I have been up all night....I will come back later if not....)


The dumber our species, and others are, the happier their lives are, IMO.

What I would give to go back to a simple life, making the food for my family, finding the herbs to cure them, no tv, no NOTHIN but us......

We need to collectively remember/realize what is important....but...

It HAS happened a million times before, and will happen again

So, I guess we just enjoy the ride while it lasts.

 

[DarthMom]

Intelligence allows us to control our environment.

I think that is a great statement that should be elaborated upon.

Is this a good thing? do we twist and turn the world to our liking, or learn to be happy with what we have? In the long run, which is best?

Do we know what is good for us? Do we play God? We may all be "stars" and "gods" (if you adhere to crowley's opinion and others) Hell, even I think it, but then think, it is such work to get there....what is more important, being happy and satisfied here with simple pleasures, or going that far and possibly not getting there? And dealing with extreme unhappiness from being unsuccessful, and, more importantly, the ramifications of choosing the wrong course of action.

I am rambling, and I apologize, like I said in the other thread, up all night, and feeling a bit loopy. Will probably do some editing later lol....

But this really is a fantastic thread, and I think it boils down to YES our intelligence will/can be our downfall.

I mean, will we die from a comet smashing into us (natural) or us blowing ourselves up?

Although[, Leary brings up the point in Info psychology, that without the dreaded technology that brought about the devastation from the atom bomb, and such, we may not have the technology to go beyond, to actually save ourselves. (IIRC this is the tech we need to go bye bye in the space ships and live long and prosper on another planet)

If we are evolving into something (gods? stars? wtf?) we need to explore our intelligence. (if we want to get there) But then again, we can live happily where we are WHICH I THINK IS A MAJOR POINT why go further? Hell, I would love to regress to our caveman, tribal ancestors. They had it goin on.

And considering quantum theories, (m theory) There may be many many other universes where we are doing just that. "god" has programs running infinitely until s/he/it finds the solution to .... happiness?? eternal life?? what the hell are we even looking for?

Personally, I would settle for happiness, and I don't believe we need intelligence/knowledge for that.

 

[jeenius]

Speaking of which, can any of you smarty intellectuals explain to me why a dimensional analysis of the units of energy as given by any of the following equations:

E = q + w (where q is heat and equals mass times heat capacity, c, times delta t and work equals force times distance)
or
E = mc^2 (where m is mass again but c squared is the speed of light in a vacuum squared)
or
E = hf (where h is Planck's constant and f is the frequency of light being studied)
or
E = PE + KE (where PE is mgh and KE is 1/2 mv^2)

Always comes out to be in kilograms x meters squared per second squared? Does this finding indicate that energy is a 2 dimensional measurement? If this last statement is true, then what is the definition for the dimension measured by kilograms times meters cubed per second squared? (the Big Bang?)

How do you get 2 dimensional out of that? According to relativity, mass is directly convertible into energy and vice versa (kilograms). There's no need to interpret m^2 as two-dimensional space. (m^2)/(s^2) could be the product of two rates: (m/s)*(m/s). "per second squared" implies a rate of change of a rate of change. And the whole term is defined as Joules, a unit of energy. I don't see what's special about m^2.

Also, why is it that when you take the (calculus) first derivative of the formula for the volume of a sphere (V sphere = 4/3 pi radius cubed) with respect to the radius, you get the formula for the surface area of a sphere (SA sphere = 4 pi radius squared)?
There is no way that that could be mere coincidence, is there?

Of course that's not a coincidence; it's the definition of a derivative. It's the reverse of an integral (roughly speaking). Say you have a line on a graph -- the integral of that line is the area under that line. Add a dimension to your graph. Now the integral of the plane is the volume under that plane. Derivatives just go in reverse. That's the whole point of calculus. The derivative of any volume is the surface area containing that volume.

As for human intelligence, I think modernn privileged humans are very confused to have given up the struggle of survival, and it makes us kind of existential and maybe unhappy. But that doesn't mean that struggling for your survival is fun or makes people or animals happy.

 

[Belisarius]

I don't think humans are particularly intelligent, but we are skilled. Skills build cool machines and write great works. When it comes to accepting our fellow humans, living in harmony with the ecosystem, or thinking of long-term goals however, it's clear that we've come off the evolutionary short bus. Roaches have survived for 250 million years with brains the size of a pinhead, while here we are with our huge brains, already contemplating the possibility of our own destruction, and we dare to call ourselves intelligent? The human mind is a quintessence of dust, to paraphrase Shakespeare.

So the question of human intelligence is moot.

 

[Void]

I dont think were as smart as we think we are, people are also very delusional and deluded. Making the world as we want it means that we create in regards to our emotional state, whether were paranoid and put cameras everywhere or perhaps we care about inner peace and create a world that encourages the sense of harmony. Either way we need some kind of emotional stability, plus you rarely see in history genious people having the resources to follow any research they want and have an open avenue for that research to be made public. I have no doubt that even today there would be companies out there sitting on advanced tech because its development might cut down their profit margins. There's tonnes of cases were inventions or ground breaking mathematics or something is made, then either destroyed by some political institution or buried in a library for a thousand years or so as its considered 'heretical' or some such. As far as the universal range of species go were probably up there in the ranks of the ones most likely to shoot ourselves in the foot.

 

[David]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm a certifiable idiot at times.

 

[PGTips]

Always comes out to be in kilograms x meters squared per second squared?

It has to always come out as the same thing, because otherwise you'd not have a standard definition for energy would you? Its like saying "How come you always get distance measured in metres?", because thats what we call the units. If energy could be kgm/s^2 or ms/kg, then you'd end up with inconsistencies all the way through physics, and very very obvious ones too. The reason we always end up with the same units is because the universe is consistent with itself, and hence it doesn't matter how you look at energy, you'll always end up with the same general result for its units.

this finding indicate that energy is a 2 dimensional measurement?

No, you are confusing your idea of "dimension" there. Dimensional analysis is the process of making sure the units are the same on both sides of an equation. You can't have the units of "seconds" on one side and "metres" on the other, that'd be silly because you'd get things like "5 seconds = 2 metres", which makes no sense. This allows for quick checking to see if your equations are right. If you are expecting an energy, and end up with kgm/s, then you know you're wrong somewhere because of the missing "^2" on the "per seconds" part of your unit.

If this last statement is true, then what is the definition for the dimension measured by kilograms times meters cubed per second squared? (the Big Bang?)

That makes no sense I'm afraid. If you elaborate on what you mean, then one of us might be able to talk a bit about it.

Also, why is it that when you take the (calculus) first derivative of the formula for the volume of a sphere (V sphere = 4/3 pi radius cubed) with respect to the radius, you get the formula for the surface area of a sphere (SA sphere = 4 pi radius squared)?
There is no way that that could be mere coincidence, is there?

As Jeenius says, no it is not, pretty much by construction. The volume of a sphere is proved via calculus using integration. You integrate through 3 spacial dimensions (easiest in spherical polar coordinates), first through 2 angles then radially . Point 14 on this page gives the integral. If you don't do the radial integral you have only the surface of a sphere (the integration over the radius is the summing of an infinite number of infitesimally thin shells, or surfaces, of spheres). If you do the integral then you have the volume of the sphere. Hence they are related to one another by integration/diffrentiation because of their construction.

 

[ebola?]

>>The reason we always end up with the same units is because the universe is consistent with itself, and hence it doesn't matter how you look at energy, you'll always end up with the same general result for its units. >>

no, no, this is not because the universe is consistent with itself. Rather, it is because we have constructed a logical system that is built to avoid contradiction (and we avoid contradiction in the moves we make using that system). Of course, the universe could well be consistent with itself.

ebola
np: i dunno

 

[zorn]

Always comes out to be in kilograms x meters squared per second squared? Does this finding indicate that energy is a 2 dimensional measurement? If this last statement is true, then what is the definition for the dimension measured by kilograms times meters cubed per second squared? (the Big Bang?)

Those are the units of energy -- force*distance, or mass*acceleration*distance. It's not a dimensional issue; energy has the same units in any number of physical dimensions. Energy has those units because we define it that way; we define it that way because then it's conserved. As to why the laws of physics conserve a quantity with those units, you'll have to ask God.

I can't think of any particularly fundamental quantities which have units of joule-meters (kg*m^3/s^2).

Also, why is it that when you take the (calculus) first derivative of the formula for the volume of a sphere (V sphere = 4/3 pi radius cubed) with respect to the radius, you get the formula for the surface area of a sphere (SA sphere = 4 pi radius squared)?
There is no way that that could be mere coincidence, is there?

To add to jeenius's and AN's explanations: Remember the definition of the derivative of volume, dV/dr. It's the change in volume dV you get from increasing the radius of the sphere by an infinitesimally small amount dr, divided by dr. That is,

dV/dr = ( volume(r+dr) - volume(r) ) / dr

But what does a sphere with radius r+dr look like? It's just like a sphere with radius r, plus a thin outer shell of thickness dr. So the change in volume dV = the volume of this outer shell. Since the shell is so thin, its volume is approximately equal to the surface area of the shell (same as the sphere), times the thickness of the shell dr. So,

dV = surface_area(r) * dr
dV/dr = surface_area(r)

Similarly, the derivative of the area of a circle gives you its circumference; twice the derivative of the volume of a cube (x^3) gives you its surface area (6x^2) (the factor of 2 arises since adding a layer of thickness dx around a cube increases the side length by 2*dx, not dx); and so on.

 

[FisheyeLens]

How about if we manipulate our environment in a certain way but not destroy it! The biggest reason we are destroying it is in fact the overpopulation of humans on this earth!!! The earth cannot support that many lives at once plain and simple especially the type of lifestyle we want...houses, heat, a/c, stores, cars, power, roads etc. 3rd world countries are so uneducated...they don't know about all this and all "we" are doing is brainwashing them and teaching them how to farm and destroy their land; ex: desertification of african grasslands from farming.

Its time for the sheep to fucking think and listen to intelligent people like us. Thank god there are smart free thinking individuals who can see. The real danger is STUPID BRAINWASHED adverage people!

FisheyeLens

 

[Tr6ai0ls4]

I do not think that intelligence will be our downfall.

It is not being unhappy with what you have, its recognizing that you can have more and give others abilities which they wouldn't normally have.

How many of hate the fact that you can get on a plane and fly somewhere in a short period of time? That you can keep warm when its cold, and keep cool when its hot? How many of you hate that there is medicine that can help you when you're sick and cell phones so that you can get in touch with nearly anybody?

How about the internet? We wouldn't even be having this discussion if thousands of people didn't contribute to the creation of the hardware/software necessary for this.

I fail to see how any of this is a bad thing.

But then again, bad and good are subjective anyway.

IMO, the world doesn't care what we do. We judge everything in terms of good for us or bad for us. I doubt the universe or the earth actually cares what happens. Even if there is a higher power, I doubt that something as miniscule and insignificant as us humans could do anything that we was not predictable. After all, we are natures creation, if our purpose was intended we are fulfilling that purpose and we have no choice in the matter. If there is no intentional purpose then we are still doing what we are supposed to be doing simply because we're not really "supposed" to be doing anything in particular.

So either way you look at it... Its all good..

 

[sexyanon2]

i think everyone here agrees that our intelligence has been of great benefit to all of us.

but everything thus far is a double edged sword, in that something really really good can also be really really bad (nuclear research..)

i think evolution has reached the end of its road, for brainpower at least. humans are smart enough to manipulate their environment completely (ie genetic enginering), that our minds don't need to develop any further.

 

[everythinginside]

if our problem is with overpopulation then just kill yourself.

sorry... just a little darkness for you

.....

My interpretation falls just about like all of yours.

cept I choose not to even say it, other than that we are a probable outcome in a multiplex (infinite) of probably events.

that's what I believe....

also!

If roaches (insects) have lived 250 million years with essentially no brain (mainly two nerve bundles, with no functioning 'cortex' or any of the seperable regions of our own brain.

Their digestive systems are very rudimentary (right word?)

They are simple organisms, cannot execute complex actions, cannot plan ahead, are slaves to the environment.


HUmans (mammals) have lived an estimated 100,000 years. Our diets have become complex due to our need to supply a complex regimine of nutrients to our highly evolved systems.

Humans naturally self-regulate, as most other mammels. They are social, yet solitary. With the simulantaneous evolution of opposable thumbs, and an upright stance, their crainium could hold more and at a more balanced weight.

Humans also regulate things other than themselves. As animals, we are at the known threshold of what can be. Nobody is there to tell us what we are, or how we came to be. We have judgement capability beyond any other animal... yet how can we judge ourselves?

I believe that the numbers tell us one thing about where we are going. If insects (roaches) have lived over 250 million years... and are very simple.. and humans have lived an estimated 100,000 years so far, yet have clearly impacted this earth more than any other single species.

I believe we are at the top of the pyramid, in some form or another... we are reaching a true threshold of what can happen and what will happen. We understand our part in this... but we really don't know where to start.

I like to call what we have shortly ahead of us... The Make or Break point.

We either evolve, or we die.

If you can see evolution as a graph... you can see the exponentiality of timespan and complexity rising.... it's taking less time to become more complex... but it might also take less time to crack.

I just believe things will take their course... we might think we have control but if it happens it happens and it will never happen any other way therefore that is how it is supposed to be.

the end.. i'm high

 

[everythinginside]

I just need to add a little stuff here... Nothing is ever going to crack!

We are a self-sustaining fire, and even though our fire might not always burn the same way and in the same place, it will always burn.

Intelligence through consciousness is the transcendental fire that has witnessed this universe throughout time.

It's timing, and placement will always change.

I don't believe the our homo anscestors could conjur in their 'primitive' minds what modern consciousness would feel like...

or, ... can an amoeba understand the ant? Can we truely understand ourselves at the root of it all?

This subject ties in with spiritual beliefs to me...

 

[Turbo Monk]

Interesting this topic was brought up, I was pondering it the other day:

What defines human intelligence anyways? 4.4 w/honors? Nobel Prize? Discovering an innovative breakthrough in engineering or science? Being able to maintain a healthy, balanced life? Avoiding trouble and/or violence? Adapting to and overcoming turmoil? Not living in the grips of addictions? Having the gumption to realize your weaknesses and work to strengthen them?

I think people view intelligence mistakingly as a "yes or no" question, when in reality it can be viewed as, "in what ways is an individual intelligent?"

I know guys who can tell you whatever you want to know about quantum physics and chemistry yet have an enormously difficult time picking up after themselves, keeping good hygiene, or remembering appointments.

I know people who by the world's standards would be considered unintelligent, yet have life dialed in.

I think certain groups like to brag and hide behind their so-called "intelligence" using big, obscure words to mystify the general public, panhandling the government for millions/billions of dollars, instilling the false presumption they're some kind of intellectual elite.

 

[everythinginside]

^^^^^

Yes Yes!!!!!

I believe this to be somewhat true...

Occasionally I understand the usage of *big words*, as when they are the only word left, or they are the best one to use to best describe the meaning.

But your post reminded me of the trickster inside all of us...



the one that tricks us into thinking we're 'smart'.

 

[euphoricdork]

everythingsinside, youve fried on mushrooms too, huh

 

[Invalid Usename]

I think the human species is incredibly brilliant, in the same sense that some envision a "ultra-advanced, highly intelligent, super civilization which is somewhere out there...."

But, why intelligence? Maybe the better question to ask first is, "what is intelligence?"

As I see it, starting with the Big Bang, everything in the universe developed through the process of abstraction. From the evolution of elements to the rules of attraction and the behavior of the forces, everything is the result of greater and more complex degrees of abstraction. Life is simply a natural result of this long process, and probably occurs readily wherever the environment is conducive to it.

Even the simplest forms of life represent extremely high degrees of abstraction when compared to non-living matter. There is the ability: to replicate, to sustain itself by utilizing environmental factors, and to adapt when the environment changes. The chemistry underlying these activities, are the components which make up this complex abstraction, and below them are the principles which provide for the existence of the chemistry.

But, as we all know, life does not stop there. Given the opportunity and the "encouragement" from changes within the environment, life continues to become more complex through further degrees of abstraction. Life's journey of refinement probably occurs wherever life exists, so long as the environment does not remain static.

The oldest life that we know of began about about 3.5~3.8 billion years. If that is true, and IF life has emerged within the universe at roughly the same time, and if life on this planet is representative of that beginning, then life has existed for either 1/4 or 1/6 of the total age of the universe (depending on whether the Big Bang occurred 12 or 20 billion years ago).

In 3.5 billion years, life on earth has abstracted itself from the most primitive life to the complex and highly adaptive mammals today. The reason that I hold up mammals is because of their unique ability to identify abstractions, and the greater the ability to identify abstraction the greater one's ability to survive (and reproduce).

There are probably an infinite number of possible ways that life can arrive at a complex abstraction processor. On earth, and at the present time, mammals are that achievement.

But as abstraction continues, these furry (and some not so furry) complex abstraction processor continue going through further degrees of abstraction. And as that continues, and as abstraction processing ability improves survival, we eventually reach the point of super complex abstraction processors. And at that level one factor of abstraction management is cooperative and coordinated activities among individuals within groups. A good example of this advanced level of coordination of super complex abstraction processing are in lions and their cooperative hunting behaviors, sharing and the emergence of social order (a meta abstraction). And it's all straight up from there.

Community, and cooperative survival strategies, give rise to greater and greater demands for abstraction processing. The refinements are two-fold in that they are representative of the individual, and representative of the community (the species' "global intelligence").

And again, encouragement from the environment provides challenges where those whose abstraction processing can adapt survive. I consider one of the hallmarks of our species' accomplishments to be our survival of the ice age. And that survival depended heavily on our massively complex, mega abstraction processing.

The interesting thing about humans is that our abstraction processing reached a kind of critical mass to where the ability exceeded the needs of survival. And as a result, we have taken over the planet, and in many way become the most dangerous creatures on it.

But just look at what we have done, and most of it has been within the last 1/6th of our overall existence. So many of us take ourselves for granted, even with distain. But we have looked back in time and starred directly into the face of the Big Bang. We've unraveled how the "stuff" (matter) around us has come about. We've assayed "up close" most of the planets orbiting our star, and sent our calling card beyond the heliosphere. And many mega-tribes (nations) have actually sent representatives into orbit around out planet. We are even the first species capable of diverting the planet killing catastrophe of an astroid strike (if given enough lead time).

We can place one foot firmly where we invest myths of the "great, super-advanced, mega-civilizations out there" (because that is truly what we are), and we place our other foot firmly in our primitive past (and rape and loot and kill).

We are the super advanced beings with the stone age brains. A bunch of edgy monkeys who love to wonder and map new abstractions.

So, what is intelligence? Why it's abstraction processing, silly. :D

And why intelligence? It occurs as a natural unfolding of the universe. We are the universe, which has lifted up its head, and looked back upon itself.


So where does all of this go now that we have so much control over our environment? Do we somehow represent an end to the 3.5 billion year quest for greater degrees of abstraction?

Anyone wanna take any guesses?

.