[ExI] 1DIQ: an IQ metaphor to explain superintelligence

[John Clark]

On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 4:16 PM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

*> There are also nuances. For example, different interpretations of "to
> understand".*


*Exactly.  We can have a general sort of understanding of how our brain
works but to have a perfect understanding a part of our brain would have to
have a sort of internal map of the entire brain, and for it to be
perfect there would have to be a one to one correspondence between the map
and the territory, but that would be impossible for something that is
finite like the number of neurons in the human brain. However it would be
possible for a proper subset of something infinite to have a one to one
correspondence with the entire set; then you could have such a perfect map
with a one to one correspondence, and then you'd always know what you were
going to do long before you did it. And you wouldn't feel free. So by the
only definition of free will that is not gibberish (not knowing what you're
going to do next until you actually do it) we reach the interesting
conclusion that a human being does have free will, but God does not.*

*John K Clark*









non-flying animal.
>
> "If our brains were simple enough for us to understand, we would be
> simple enough that we could not."
>
>
> Well, that just sounds defeatist to me. It makes a nice little pessimistic
> soundbite (if you like pessimism), but is there any evidence that it's
> true? Or any logical argument for it?
> There are also nuances. For example, different interpretations of "to
> understand".
>
> Maybe you are right, given "understand completely" (whatever that actually
> means). Maybe definitely not, given "understand enough to be useful/worth
> the attempt".
>
> We have, after all, discovered a lot about how brains work already. Maybe
> not a lot in comparison to all there is to be discovered, but more than
> enough to be useful, and I doubt if we have reached some sort of limit on
> what we are capable of discovering and understanding.
>
> And there's always AI assistance with this kind of research, which greatly
> extends our reach, and adds more variations of "to understand".
>
> On the whole, I think the statement is harmful, in that it tends to
> discourage even trying.
>
> --
> Ben
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20251030/842cddb6/attachment.htm>