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

[William Flynn Wallace]

I have read several times in these chats the assumption that one cannot
understand something as complicated as themselves.

Why not?  It sounds reasonable but what's the basis for it?   bill w

On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 2:22 PM John Clark via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20251030/0b1d4fe9/attachment.htm>