Philosophy
Salome has her own blog, but has asked me not to link to it on mine. So in respect to her, I will not do so. However, through that medium, she engaged me in a significant philosophical discussion recently. And since I am so stimulated and proud, both of the entire discussion and my contribution to it, I’m going to post my response below. I’m feeling the need to show a little bit of my deeper side and make use of the Philosophy course I took at NYU SCPS this past Feb-Apr.
The question at hand was examining the similarities between the human mind and machines, and whether or not there is a limit to human knowledge. There was reference to the theories of Kurt Godel, Alan Turing and his Turing Machines, and Einstein’s personal spiritual beliefs. I wish I could set up the discussion with her last two paragraphs (she has incredible way of expressing herself), and if I get the ok from her, I will re-post with them included. But here's what I had to say about it all:
I have not studied Godel or Turing until reading this blog entry. (as a side note I’ll share that looking back on my youth I often wonder how it is that I didn’t ever advance past basic algebra in my math studies. I think it was a combination of desire and placement. But if I had pushed myself or been pushed by someone else I think I could have taken some of those processes with me in my journeys)… I told you on the train yesterday that I understand the comfort and satisfaction that comes from working with the formulaic. There is an equation, an answer, perhaps a couple different ways to get there, but a guaranteed system to work in. And I have also wondered about the nature of why these systems are the ones that are “ultimately” correct and what makes them the basis of the world we live in. The simple answer seems to be “because that’s what works.” But like most significant things in our world, we have the solution before we figure out the problem. And the search for knowledge and TRUTH seems to be the supreme game of Jeopardy. Generations later humanity disproves the assumptions we were working with as constants. But the newer proofs would never have been accomplished without the previous. It seems to me that the collective unconscious works through subject matter in the same way our personal unconscious minds do. That is to say, when I am having trouble making a decision in my life I will often find clarity after a night or two of sleep. My subconscious mind will sit with the problem and find a true understanding of it and then spit out the solution. The same thing could be said for humanity. We will spend years adjusting to an understanding of the world only to be able to disprove it and move forward. History shows us that the greatest philosophical revelations come in response to the greatest mathematical and technological inventions. It is a concern of mine that our current situation will be too distracted by politics and bureaucracies to achieve that critical push forward. We are in the middle, or possibly the end of an era of extreme technological advancement- the likes of which have never been seen in our species’ past. We should be producing the philosophical counters to those advancements. But our minds are locked up in universities with the need for fundraising. And newspapers with the need for sales. And various other forums which have to cater to the leaders who will produce only what they are comfortable with and are often uninterested in ultimate truth, but more in making a buck and catering to the general population (which we all know are severely less-than when it comes to intelligence). Not to mention personal vendettas and the search for power -something that Einstein was referring to as a futile pursuit in the link you provided.
But my greatest personal philosophical crisis is of an existential nature, although closely related to yours. The “what’s the point?” and “to what end?” perspective is what keeps me up at night. We can expand our base of knowledge for millions of years, and the human mind can evolve to use 95% of its capabilities instead of the 30% we use now, and we still will not have the answer to the question of “why?” …and then the sun will explode and the planet will as well, and then one is really forced to wonder what the point of it all was. Except that nobody will be around to ask it. But I digress.
By the way I do not believe that our minds are simply computers that have an eventual limit of what we as humans are capable. But, to indulge the theory, I will say that if they do it would have to be representative of the creator. That is to say that just as the computers accomplish only as much as the human mind that created them can comprehend, the human mind as computer can accomplish as much as the creator of it could comprehend. And if you believe that the creator is a God of infinite powers, then the answer goes back to the fact that the human mind is indeed limitless.
(It saddens me to realize that after I wrote that to her I learned that the theory is that the human mind only uses 10% of the brain, and it has been proven wrong many times over. We do use the full 100%. But I can see why people would want to hold on to that idea. It gives us something to strive for.)
The question at hand was examining the similarities between the human mind and machines, and whether or not there is a limit to human knowledge. There was reference to the theories of Kurt Godel, Alan Turing and his Turing Machines, and Einstein’s personal spiritual beliefs. I wish I could set up the discussion with her last two paragraphs (she has incredible way of expressing herself), and if I get the ok from her, I will re-post with them included. But here's what I had to say about it all:
I have not studied Godel or Turing until reading this blog entry. (as a side note I’ll share that looking back on my youth I often wonder how it is that I didn’t ever advance past basic algebra in my math studies. I think it was a combination of desire and placement. But if I had pushed myself or been pushed by someone else I think I could have taken some of those processes with me in my journeys)… I told you on the train yesterday that I understand the comfort and satisfaction that comes from working with the formulaic. There is an equation, an answer, perhaps a couple different ways to get there, but a guaranteed system to work in. And I have also wondered about the nature of why these systems are the ones that are “ultimately” correct and what makes them the basis of the world we live in. The simple answer seems to be “because that’s what works.” But like most significant things in our world, we have the solution before we figure out the problem. And the search for knowledge and TRUTH seems to be the supreme game of Jeopardy. Generations later humanity disproves the assumptions we were working with as constants. But the newer proofs would never have been accomplished without the previous. It seems to me that the collective unconscious works through subject matter in the same way our personal unconscious minds do. That is to say, when I am having trouble making a decision in my life I will often find clarity after a night or two of sleep. My subconscious mind will sit with the problem and find a true understanding of it and then spit out the solution. The same thing could be said for humanity. We will spend years adjusting to an understanding of the world only to be able to disprove it and move forward. History shows us that the greatest philosophical revelations come in response to the greatest mathematical and technological inventions. It is a concern of mine that our current situation will be too distracted by politics and bureaucracies to achieve that critical push forward. We are in the middle, or possibly the end of an era of extreme technological advancement- the likes of which have never been seen in our species’ past. We should be producing the philosophical counters to those advancements. But our minds are locked up in universities with the need for fundraising. And newspapers with the need for sales. And various other forums which have to cater to the leaders who will produce only what they are comfortable with and are often uninterested in ultimate truth, but more in making a buck and catering to the general population (which we all know are severely less-than when it comes to intelligence). Not to mention personal vendettas and the search for power -something that Einstein was referring to as a futile pursuit in the link you provided.
But my greatest personal philosophical crisis is of an existential nature, although closely related to yours. The “what’s the point?” and “to what end?” perspective is what keeps me up at night. We can expand our base of knowledge for millions of years, and the human mind can evolve to use 95% of its capabilities instead of the 30% we use now, and we still will not have the answer to the question of “why?” …and then the sun will explode and the planet will as well, and then one is really forced to wonder what the point of it all was. Except that nobody will be around to ask it. But I digress.
By the way I do not believe that our minds are simply computers that have an eventual limit of what we as humans are capable. But, to indulge the theory, I will say that if they do it would have to be representative of the creator. That is to say that just as the computers accomplish only as much as the human mind that created them can comprehend, the human mind as computer can accomplish as much as the creator of it could comprehend. And if you believe that the creator is a God of infinite powers, then the answer goes back to the fact that the human mind is indeed limitless.
(It saddens me to realize that after I wrote that to her I learned that the theory is that the human mind only uses 10% of the brain, and it has been proven wrong many times over. We do use the full 100%. But I can see why people would want to hold on to that idea. It gives us something to strive for.)
posted by Shana @ 12:46 PM
1 Comments:
At 12 July, 2006 09:04,
Anonymous said…
As I wrote back to you on my blog, I really enjoyed your comments to my post. Here are the last two paragraphs from my entry that you were referencing:
And now we’re back at the beginning: Just how much faith can I put in my mind? Gödel tells me that the world beyond where the sidewalk ends (Einstein’s “out yonder”) is not accessible to me—but that doesn’t mean it’s not there. What do these limitations say about the nature of my life, of the strivings of all humanity?* Are our minds logic-machines with the same limitations as computers? As A.S. Byatt wrote (in my favorite formulation of the question), “Are we automata or angel-kin?”
Gödel, Turing, Church: Their work hints that the inner workings of our minds transcend machines—but it’s impossible for us ever to know for certain! Ten years after my high school graduation, that small hope still endows this life with just enough meaning for me.
Post a Comment
<< Home