Philosophical Vegan Forum

The brain capacity of humans is so much bigger than that of other species on earth. Imagine what an intelligent species would be like with the same intelligence gap to humans as that between humans and chimps. Add to that how intelligence growth can be exponential once computer chips are implanted into brains. Add to that millions and perhaps even billions of years of intelligence and knowledge growth and you can imagine what might be possible.

It's not completely unimaginable that these aliens would try to become gods of their own planets (or even galaxies) because of curiosity, boredom, or hubris. Planting life on another planet and waiting for it to evolve would seem like the easiest way to do so but perhaps elsewhere in the universe some god skipped evolution and created intelligent life instantly.

This seems to me more likely than any of the religions I have heard of. I don't think any alien has the capacity to create an entire solar system and even if it were I don't see any point in taking six days to do so followed by a day of rest. As far as I know, humans have yet to come up with a religion that is open to the possibility of many gods, each governing their own planet, solar system, or galaxy. Probably because such a religion would not resolve the problem of how the gods themselves were created. But then again neither do any of the world religions.

Jebus wrote:The brain capacity of humans is so much bigger than that of other species on earth.

The average human isn't that much smarter than a chimp. The difference is mainly more complex language. The idea is that language allows us to form and associate abstract concepts which help in organizing and forming complex thoughts. A human without language is feral, and barely more intelligent than a chimp.

More IQ does help, but after a certain point it has diminishing returns. The difference between 100 and 140 is HUGE. But the difference between 140 and 180 is virtually nothing at all.
It's one of those things you need enough of, but that extra isn't very useful.

Jebus wrote:Imagine what an intelligent species would be like with the same intelligence gap to humans as that between humans and chimps.

I have about the same intelligence gap over the average human than the average human has over chimps.
Somebody with the same intelligence gap over me is even less dramatic. I've met people who score absurdly high on IQ tests. I was unimpressed, and I can still out-argue them.

Jebus wrote:Add to that how intelligence growth can be exponential once computer chips are implanted into brains. Add to that millions and perhaps even billions of years of intelligence and knowledge growth and you can imagine what might be possible.

Computerized computation can be a benefit in terms of speed. But does it matter if you can add 2 and 2 to get 4 in 0.000000000001 seconds, or o.5 seconds? It seems not to.

Advanced scientific knowledge could make something god-like, but I don't subscribe to the idea that anything would really be so intellectually beyond us that we would be like ants to them.
Worst case, we're just in slow motion because their brains work faster.

Jebus wrote:It's not completely unimaginable that these aliens would try to become gods of their own planets (or even galaxies) because of curiosity, boredom, or hubris.

It would seem more viable to do so in computer simulations. What is "real", and why would they fall for such a fallacy that the two are fundamentally different?
We overwhelmingly probably aren't in a simulation, so if there is such a "god", it probably isn't our god.

Jebus wrote:Planting life on another planet and waiting for it to evolve would seem like the easiest way to do so but perhaps elsewhere in the universe some god skipped evolution and created intelligent life instantly.

It seems unlikely. And in our case, much less so since the evidence has been found to back up natural evolution.

Jebus wrote:This seems to me more likely than any of the religions I have heard of.

Sure. But likely on the scale of very very improbable instead of impossible.

More IQ does help, but after a certain point it has diminishing returns. The difference between 100 and 140 is HUGE. But the difference between 140 and 180 is virtually nothing at all.
It's one of those things you need enough of, but that extra isn't very useful.

Is it common to test children's IQ in the U.S.? I don't know anybody in my country who knows how high they score.

brimstoneSalad wrote:does it matter if you can add 2 and 2 to get 4 in 0.000000000001 seconds, or o.5 seconds?

Not really but imagine if the chip in your brain could download Internet knowledge. You could give yourself a PhD in physics in a couple of seconds.

DarlBundren wrote:Is it common to test children's IQ in the U.S.? I don't know anybody in my country who knows how high they score.

I don't know if they still do but it was common when I was a kid. I remember my first IQ test when I was in 1st grade. I then moved to Sweden where they wouldn't even give us grades as they said that it lowers underperforming children's confidence.

Jebus wrote: Not really but imagine if the chip in your brain could download Internet knowledge. You could give yourself a PhD in physics in a couple of seconds.

That wouldn't work. In order to knowledge to be understood, it has to be contextualized based on existing brain structures. It would be incoherent raw data.
It's why the brain is not human readable. Each one is different, and it's a mess of interlinking areas. Knowledge would have to be tailored for each brain, and the only way to do that is to use the brain to do it in a process called learning.

You could accelerate time and earn a PhD in a fraction of a second (which would be years for you), but there's no shortcut to doing the work of understanding it.
Memory drugs that would improve retention might be possible, but also may be a waste of space since you'd end up retaining unnecessary information in the process too.

brimstoneSalad wrote:

Jebus wrote: Not really but imagine if the chip in your brain could download Internet knowledge. You could give yourself a PhD in physics in a couple of seconds.

That wouldn't work. In order to knowledge to be understood, it has to be contextualized based on existing brain structures. It would be incoherent raw data.

Michio Kaku disagrees:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P674CG9mOTs

Jebus wrote: Michio Kaku disagrees:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P674CG9mOTs

He's a popular science communicator, but he's a little click baity/woo sometimes.
Kaku, Nye, Tyson: they all tend to make bizarre claims and silly mistakes when they speak outside of their fields.

The signal intercepted and then sent was the same signal, from that mouse, to that same mouse. Such a technology might, as the video said, be able to enhance learning, but it's also very difficult to filter it since it wouldn't be human or machine readable. The same problem as the memory pill, but with a small advantage: it's easier to turn off and on quickly. The problem is it would be difficult to figure out how and when to turn it on.

I'd rather read the actual study, but as an entertainment channel with a high budget for graphics (which can be a red flag sometimes) they don't provide their sources as far as I can see. Even the mouse thing might be bullshit (I'm assuming it's true), or an extreme exaggeration.

I remember my first IQ test when I was in 1st grade. I then moved to Sweden where they wouldn't even give us grades as they said that it lowers underperforming children's confidence.

Yeah, It's the same in my country. Do you remember what kind of test it was? There are many online IQ tests, but I guess most of them are not really reliable.

DarlBundren wrote:Yeah, It's the same in my country. Do you remember what kind of test it was? There are many online IQ tests, but I guess most of them are not really reliable.

I remember it was designed for kids. I remember having a few small wood squares in front of me and I was asked to make certain shapes out of the blocks, like a triangle etc.