Higher levels of intelligence (e.g. those exhibited by humans) are just a product of better pattern matching, in my opinion.
I don't see much different capabilities & algorithms in animals than in humans. And a nice example is love: it is just a higher level of affinity (that is also found in animals) due to better pattern matching!
Sunday 6 January 2013
An attempt to explain extro & intro-version
Everyone wants to be happy in his life, to experience emotions and joy.
And we know from Noesis Theory that emotions are Driving Pockets that occur from out-of-context experiences.
Some people are able to produce original thoughts and out-of-context experiences purely from inside their mind and others need external stimulation to achieve that. Thus it is natural for the latter to be "forced" by their own nature to seek this external stimulation, because this is the only known way for them to experience interesting emotions!
So I would be willing to take a guess, saying that extroversion is a byproduct of the structure of the mind of a portion of individuals and is used as a method to create out-of-context experiences.
And we know from Noesis Theory that emotions are Driving Pockets that occur from out-of-context experiences.
Some people are able to produce original thoughts and out-of-context experiences purely from inside their mind and others need external stimulation to achieve that. Thus it is natural for the latter to be "forced" by their own nature to seek this external stimulation, because this is the only known way for them to experience interesting emotions!
So I would be willing to take a guess, saying that extroversion is a byproduct of the structure of the mind of a portion of individuals and is used as a method to create out-of-context experiences.
A bit more elaboration on the meaning of life
As I have said many times in the past, I believe that the meaning of life is the advancement of organizational complexity.
But a question that can easily be posed is: which type of advancement is good and which is bad? And who should be the judge of that?
It is true that for humans this conundrum has been solved since inception, whereas a race of robots would really have a hard time solving the same question. The answer for humans is of course death. Death prunes all the branches of the tree sooner or later and it is up to humanity to pick the best branches and maintain the knowledge they offered in their lifetime, by writing it in books, teaching it in schools and capitalizing on it in various ways; integrating it in a way in its body of knowledge.
It is certainly sad that the good branches are also pruned at some point in time, but it would be even worse if it was left in the hands of men to decide who will live forever and who should be left to perish. Imagine if this was the case and if by chance Hitler was able to win WW2... We would have been sunk to an eternal Dark Age...
So it's better if every person leaves behind a new piece of complexity (let's think of it as a lego piece) that humanity has to decide whether to stack it upon the other pieces that have been aggregated since the dawn of man, or simply leave it aside. It is a tough decision, because sometimes such a piece may prove unworthy foundation for the pieces above and humanity might have to "backtrack" and tear down a whole piece of the wall, just to be able to put a better piece (of complexity) that can support building a higher "wall".
In the end, the goal is to take the right decisions that help us build the highest possible wall, or in other words advance complexity to the limits that the human mind can support.
But a question that can easily be posed is: which type of advancement is good and which is bad? And who should be the judge of that?
It is true that for humans this conundrum has been solved since inception, whereas a race of robots would really have a hard time solving the same question. The answer for humans is of course death. Death prunes all the branches of the tree sooner or later and it is up to humanity to pick the best branches and maintain the knowledge they offered in their lifetime, by writing it in books, teaching it in schools and capitalizing on it in various ways; integrating it in a way in its body of knowledge.
It is certainly sad that the good branches are also pruned at some point in time, but it would be even worse if it was left in the hands of men to decide who will live forever and who should be left to perish. Imagine if this was the case and if by chance Hitler was able to win WW2... We would have been sunk to an eternal Dark Age...
So it's better if every person leaves behind a new piece of complexity (let's think of it as a lego piece) that humanity has to decide whether to stack it upon the other pieces that have been aggregated since the dawn of man, or simply leave it aside. It is a tough decision, because sometimes such a piece may prove unworthy foundation for the pieces above and humanity might have to "backtrack" and tear down a whole piece of the wall, just to be able to put a better piece (of complexity) that can support building a higher "wall".
In the end, the goal is to take the right decisions that help us build the highest possible wall, or in other words advance complexity to the limits that the human mind can support.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)