Extrasensory
Y'know, I've decided it is probably a disadvantage 80% of the time. As Arthur Clarke put it, "It has yet to be proven that intelligence has any survival value." This is a remarkable statement, especially coming as it does from the author of Profiles of the Future, a man who first authored the concept of the geosynchronous satellite (without which much of our global communications network would be crippled).
People have said a lot about emotional intelligence, different kinds of intelligence, different kinds of minds... the list goes on and on (at least as long as Howard Gardner has tenure). But one thing is fairly certain: it will never be possible to consider the many thinking options as unique and individual phenomena. Why not? Simple: the number of possible neural networks a human brain can generate is larger than the total number of atoms in the universe.
Let me attempt to justify that. There are about 100,000,000,000 neurons in the brain. A neuron may have up to 10,000 connections (but let's assume something smaller - say 1,000 for example). Not every neuron is so blessed with connectivity, so this is a reasonable assumption. And some are physically too far apart (although you'd be surprised at how long a neuron can be - the long motor neurons which extend from the spine to the feet are about 1 to 1.5 metres long) to connect easily. If the neurons were to line up in random order to form a chain of 100,000,000,000 random elements, the number of possible chains would already be (100,000,000,000 x 99,999,999,999 x 99,999,999,998 x ... x 3 x 2 x 1), the factorial of 100 billion. That huge number assumes every neuron (except the end ones) has only TWO connections, let alone a thousand.
The universe, as we know it right now, in contrast has about 100,000,000,000 galaxies and fewer than 10^80 atoms. That is a number smaller than the factorial of 59 (i.e., 59 x 58 x 57 x ... x 3 x 2 x 1). This has always led me to wonder what the Preacher meant when he said, "God has put eternity into the hearts of men."
These are the large numbers to crunch when we think of lines like Shakespeare's "Age cannot wither her, nor custom stale her infinite variety." Nobody seriously thinks that Cleopatra's variability was without ending or beginning in a numerical sense, but it is certainly true that if we had lifespans as long as that of the universe, we would not necessarily have to be bored. Think about it: there are more brain configurations possible than the sum total of every atom in existence from the beginning of time to the end of it. Conceivably, there might even be enough useful brain configurations to last us into the end of time (for of course not all our brain configurations are viable or useful).
And that brings me back to the beginning. Is intelligence useful at all? Can it be cultivated? The answer seems to be yes or, at least, that we live in a world where we think this is true. That is the crux of the problem. It is our intelligence that tells us that intelligence is useful. It is our intelligence that tells us that to be more intelligent is a better thing. How self-serving this purely abstract concept is! How beautifully subversive!
Because, you see, it allows us to classify ourselves and others by a pseudoscientific concept which inevitably makes half of us feel better (yes, the perils of assuming a normal distribution) than the other half who don't get it (and thus are not necessarily made to feel worse). In such a world, I am very cautious when accepting my own intelligence, because it might not really be there; it might not exist or it might be a misattributed or inaccurate identifier for something else. For the snark was a boojum, you see.
People have said a lot about emotional intelligence, different kinds of intelligence, different kinds of minds... the list goes on and on (at least as long as Howard Gardner has tenure). But one thing is fairly certain: it will never be possible to consider the many thinking options as unique and individual phenomena. Why not? Simple: the number of possible neural networks a human brain can generate is larger than the total number of atoms in the universe.
Let me attempt to justify that. There are about 100,000,000,000 neurons in the brain. A neuron may have up to 10,000 connections (but let's assume something smaller - say 1,000 for example). Not every neuron is so blessed with connectivity, so this is a reasonable assumption. And some are physically too far apart (although you'd be surprised at how long a neuron can be - the long motor neurons which extend from the spine to the feet are about 1 to 1.5 metres long) to connect easily. If the neurons were to line up in random order to form a chain of 100,000,000,000 random elements, the number of possible chains would already be (100,000,000,000 x 99,999,999,999 x 99,999,999,998 x ... x 3 x 2 x 1), the factorial of 100 billion. That huge number assumes every neuron (except the end ones) has only TWO connections, let alone a thousand.
The universe, as we know it right now, in contrast has about 100,000,000,000 galaxies and fewer than 10^80 atoms. That is a number smaller than the factorial of 59 (i.e., 59 x 58 x 57 x ... x 3 x 2 x 1). This has always led me to wonder what the Preacher meant when he said, "God has put eternity into the hearts of men."
These are the large numbers to crunch when we think of lines like Shakespeare's "Age cannot wither her, nor custom stale her infinite variety." Nobody seriously thinks that Cleopatra's variability was without ending or beginning in a numerical sense, but it is certainly true that if we had lifespans as long as that of the universe, we would not necessarily have to be bored. Think about it: there are more brain configurations possible than the sum total of every atom in existence from the beginning of time to the end of it. Conceivably, there might even be enough useful brain configurations to last us into the end of time (for of course not all our brain configurations are viable or useful).
And that brings me back to the beginning. Is intelligence useful at all? Can it be cultivated? The answer seems to be yes or, at least, that we live in a world where we think this is true. That is the crux of the problem. It is our intelligence that tells us that intelligence is useful. It is our intelligence that tells us that to be more intelligent is a better thing. How self-serving this purely abstract concept is! How beautifully subversive!
Because, you see, it allows us to classify ourselves and others by a pseudoscientific concept which inevitably makes half of us feel better (yes, the perils of assuming a normal distribution) than the other half who don't get it (and thus are not necessarily made to feel worse). In such a world, I am very cautious when accepting my own intelligence, because it might not really be there; it might not exist or it might be a misattributed or inaccurate identifier for something else. For the snark was a boojum, you see.
Labels: Brain, Intelligence, Lewis Carroll, Mind
etched with acid at 12:10:00 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home