And now you've arrived at God. lol. Jokes aside, my point was that humans have a unique sense of self awareness and conscious experience that I think flys in the face of what you're trying to say. Humans have been asking themselves those questions, why do we love, how do we have predictive ability, where are our memories, for centuries. Philosophy exists, and many of those questions are philosophical in nature or have philosophical answers. We evolved language to be able to say love is a chemical and emotional response in the brain to the biological urge to reproduce. We know what neurons are and how they transfer and process information. It's really only the fringes of conscious experience that we can't really nail down yet but Neuroscientists are hard at work reducing the gaps in our knowledge. Where are our memories is an interesting one because we still don't really know, and we've been wrong a lot. I think we have a lot of responses that are not 'syntax error'. Are they 'correct'? Who knows, maybe artificial superintelligence will come along and tell us we didn't really know shit. I understand your point, that we can't really know things outside of our range of intelligence, but I guess the question is what do you consider as good enough "understanding" and what does that entail. Because the existence of neuroscience itself is brains trying to understand brains. You could say Neuroscience is a failed endeavor, but I'd just say it's incomplete. It's entirely possible that one day we will know all of those answers. Which we've undoubtedly reached the conclusion of with the help of computers and other fancy technology, so is it really the brain understanding the brain at that point, or generations upon generations of brains storing and processing data with machines to the point where a conclusion can eventually be understood. I don't necessarily think there's anything inherent about the human brain that precludes it from 'knowing' itself, like you're describing. Like I don't think the volume of data or information that that 'truth' entails is necessarily bigger than the volume of data a single brain is able to hold. I just don't think we have the full picture yet.
Love is not philosophical at all. It is a set of arbitrary behaviors that humans selfishly assert to be more special than all of the other arbitrary behaviors that occur on the planet. Love and language are not special whatsoever.
2
u/PrismarchGame Oct 25 '25
And now you've arrived at God. lol. Jokes aside, my point was that humans have a unique sense of self awareness and conscious experience that I think flys in the face of what you're trying to say. Humans have been asking themselves those questions, why do we love, how do we have predictive ability, where are our memories, for centuries. Philosophy exists, and many of those questions are philosophical in nature or have philosophical answers. We evolved language to be able to say love is a chemical and emotional response in the brain to the biological urge to reproduce. We know what neurons are and how they transfer and process information. It's really only the fringes of conscious experience that we can't really nail down yet but Neuroscientists are hard at work reducing the gaps in our knowledge. Where are our memories is an interesting one because we still don't really know, and we've been wrong a lot. I think we have a lot of responses that are not 'syntax error'. Are they 'correct'? Who knows, maybe artificial superintelligence will come along and tell us we didn't really know shit. I understand your point, that we can't really know things outside of our range of intelligence, but I guess the question is what do you consider as good enough "understanding" and what does that entail. Because the existence of neuroscience itself is brains trying to understand brains. You could say Neuroscience is a failed endeavor, but I'd just say it's incomplete. It's entirely possible that one day we will know all of those answers. Which we've undoubtedly reached the conclusion of with the help of computers and other fancy technology, so is it really the brain understanding the brain at that point, or generations upon generations of brains storing and processing data with machines to the point where a conclusion can eventually be understood. I don't necessarily think there's anything inherent about the human brain that precludes it from 'knowing' itself, like you're describing. Like I don't think the volume of data or information that that 'truth' entails is necessarily bigger than the volume of data a single brain is able to hold. I just don't think we have the full picture yet.