Upper limit to human intelligence

Every other species has a limit to intelligence and humans are no different. So there won't ever be a quantum theory of gravity or unification of all forces. Simply because we aren't smart enough.

Check out the dynamic theory of gravity...

We aren't even close to reaching our max simply becuase we only use 10% of our actual brainpower... If we were to unlock that other 90% then man would evolve, and everything would be perfect ie. everything would be free a true global government would form and space travel would be daily

>>41
The only way for man to evolve is to make the choices that were already going to be made anyway with some slight adjustments made to them.
Choosing awareness of choice + hard work + repetition = human evolution. Impossible for mere mortals. Prove me wrong.

Lol... unless the nanotechnology revolution is what it's supposed to be. Evolution is caused by adaptations over a long period of time, or slowly adapting imo... but Steven Hawking (take it or leave it) said mankind is evolving in 2 different ways, one by DNA and the other by knowledge. We are in the information age, and is it not true we have been evolving or advancing our race rapidly for the last 300 years?

It's hard to grasp a concept that isn't seen in nature often, or at all... but knowledge is no different from DNA eh? It's all just information

>>43
advancing, yes, but towards what? Who can say? Personally, I think it's ego-satisfaction. You can tell this by how many people want to be right by how much the say you are wrong.

:/

The Singularity. Nuff said.

There's no reason to believe that we don't make full use of our brains. Bullshit to that 10 percent.

>>46
Got anything that back that up with?

>>47
Yes.  I back it up with a question: which 90% of the human brain can we remove without noticeable effects?

>>47
Review >>25 and Google. It may be true (though I'm betting it isn't) that on average, we only use 10% at any given moment, but all parts of the brain have a purpose and all are used.

>>49
Yes, the 10% myth was popularized by a motivational book some decades ago by Dale Carnegie, then later by psychic nonsense enthusiasts.
http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp

>>1

For an individual, yeah probably, but one of the big advantages we have is that we have language and can therefore split a large complex mental task among several people, thus if you had a team of X members each with maximal intelligence, in theory your intelligence should increase X-fold, at least for that task. 

Think about distributed computing.  No one computer is solving the problem alone, thus the resources of each computer in the distributed network adds so much memory and processing power to the entire network.  That way 50 PCs can do the same work as a super computer.

Helpful material shared I’m very delighted to go through this particular article..thanks for presenting us great information.Fantastic walk-through. I enjoy this article.

>>52
what's that in your cunt?  A god damn pair of boots

>>53
Just letting you know that you're replying to a spam bot.

The real question is not processing capacity, but integration capacity.  Per Kurzweil, we are about 19 years out until computers can reach our integration and parallel processing abilities.

Will computers ever have our aesthetics?  Nope.  But we will become human-machine hybrids, computers will become a part of us and vice versa.  Its already here, we already have people like this...  for example, Parkingson's patients.

>>54
Oh, maybe you are replying to a spam bot!