Do you think there's anything in the universe, in math,

What is love?

>>6620927
Baby don't hurt me

>>6620927
OP here. Maybe you cannot understand love in a classical way, but I can appreciate it for what it is.

Also, first and foremost love is a feeling. And through introspection I have come to the conclusion that there is no distinction between feelings and thoughts. Feelings are most probably the very first thoughts we were able to have or to think, and thus they appear as very subtle thoughts and they're so subconscious.

Anyway, I still wonder if there's such a thing. I don't know what it would mean to me if it really existed. Maybe I would have to reconsider my existence.

>>6620914
>INTJ

ego maniac

>>6620933
Appears that you'll never understand what it's like to not be autistic.

>>6620939
But Anon, everybody is autistic.

You'll never know your spiritual side. Always reflecting your feelings into logical thoughts. Destroying the intuitive drive of passion, the fire of life and existence. For why do we exist, and organisms fight to live in a bleak and uncaring universe.

Everything. Everything the fact you think you know something proves to me you know nothing just like the rest of us. The most fundamental questions of life, the universe continue to elude us and this is the truth. We are all restricted and bound by our mere senses.

>>6620949
But I'm very spiritual actually. I meditate a lot, because I believe there must be a balance between my physical, intellectual and spiritual self. (Which also means I work out and eat healthy.)

High degrees of self reflection probably lead to spiritualism in one way or the other. Maybe I'm Kant reincarnated.

>>6620952
But aren't you pretending to know something now?

You are presently unable to understand the limitations of your ability to understand. That the factors which govern this ability are not necessarily inherent to the self nor are they to be found in external stimuli, it is difficult to say whether you would overcome this deficiency. An important step is willfully admitting one's ignorance of the world as a conscious and mediated being, whether it be in its many wavelengths or dimensions, events and so on. Despite how troubling and dislocating this can be to a person, in that we are the only thing in the way of understanding our world though our understanding of the world is the only way in which we can realize this inadequacy, we must be humble and stand in awe at the universe which exceeds our borders and yet defines them.

"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us 'universe', a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty"

You will never understand qualia.

What's it's like not to want dick 24/7.
Fag.

>>6620956
A lot of you are misinterpretating my question.

I never claimed to understand everything right now, this preemptively refutes all of your arguments against me you have to present. I wondered if there was something I'm unable to understand, not if there's something I don't understand.

I not believe yet I'm a complete person.

File: qhqWQ0y.gif (982KB, 500x249px)

982KB, 500x249px

>Do you think there's anything in the universe, in math, in physics, anywhere that I'm inherently unable to understand?
>IQ 140+, INTJ, study physics (with relative ease compared to others), very self reflective

Gödel's fixed point theorem fucks over any entity capable of encoding its own deductive sequences:
"Everybody in this thread is able to understand that this sentence is true, except for OP."

Sorry bro, looks like we're all smarter than you.

quantum mechanics

Nobody understands that shit. Cats being dead and alive at the same time is the ultimate mindfuck. Fuck logic. Did you know the word "quantum" literally means "magic we can't explain"?

>>6620966
please stop crossposting

>>6620933
I think he meant making love. You will never know.

>you will never understand women

>>6620961

You appear unable at present to understand if there may be something you do not understand. Thus, your question, and this discussion at large. However, I am trying to characterize this in a positive way. Posing the question as a self-contained answer. Epistemology is somewhat tautological, referring to itself in defining truth value. I don't know whether you'll know if you don't know, but I know that if don't know that if you don't know that you don't know, and revere this and use it to approach what you don't know further, you're going to have a bad time. The universe will refuse to subscribe to your body, characterized by four letters and three numbers. From the expanding universe to the Planck length it will defy all comprehension until it reveals itself through persistence, happenstance, and random chance.

>>6620974

*you

File: 1397161802264.jpg (13KB, 278x323px)

13KB, 278x323px

>not a single serious answer

>mfw /sci/ is this insecure

>>6620914
Human society, and any other system that can't be simulated by your brain because of the vastly greater irreducible complexity.

Two subsets of the previous, different in behavior: the weather, and any other chaotic system of which the details are functionally irretrievable.

And non-Turing computable systems, like mechanism for finding a valid system of time travel, if it is possible in this universe.

You will never understand the pain I'm feeling.

Just know there are known knowns and there are unknown unknowns. Questions, with answers, that our realm doesn't concern with. passages inwareu

>>6620955
I am just dumbfounded by your original statement the audacity and the arrogance to believe you will ever really understand the universe. "It would be really unsettling to me if there was such a kind of thing."

>>6620994

Yes but this unsettling feeling need not be the reinforcement of arrogance, it can be transformed and embraced. It is a wondrous opportunity for growth. As they said, "I not believe yet I'm a complete person". A wise response, though made in an unfounded scenario claiming my "misinterpretating".

"“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom the emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe, is as good as dead —his eyes are closed. The insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion. To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.”

>>6620914
>Do you think there's anything in the universe, in math, in physics, anywhere that I'm inherently unable to understand?

Nothing is completely understandable. Every concept even the idea of "one thing" or "thing" or the number "1" eludes us.

We just take it for granted and go with it, but if you want to get philosophical about things we don't understand anything.

>>6620939
How is being introspective autistic?

File: 11_obama_lg.jpg (31KB, 560x375px)

31KB, 560x375px

>>6620994
Aye, therein lies the mismatch between intelligence and wisdom on this board. This guy is a good chunk of /sci/, believing that stating his IQ and philosophical babbles instead of properly demonstrating his intellect will give him any kind of authority.

Not a lot of people here demonstrate the wisdom to know that they don't know. It's a good reason to ignore guys like this, saying they're "very self-reflective" but not being able to admit when they're wrong.

>it's not arrogance because I can call it something else

>>6621000
I can tell you are passionate about the sciences however, there are just somethings we will never know it simply goes beyond the realm of our comprehension. This is what we have to live with our fervor for understanding crushed by a universe that will not reveal itself to just anyone it is rather poignant and very humbling.

>>6621009
>your correctness ends where my feelings begin

>>6621005
Listing your stats and posting in a way to reflect your fedora tipping enlightenment is autistic

>>6621016
No one said their feelings were hurt. Unless that means you. Poor thing.

>>6621021
>your stats

OP here, I really only wanted to convey as much personal info about me with as few key strokes as possible

I do not believe intelligence can be measured like this and even more so do I believe it is impossible to represent somebody's intelligence by a 1-dimensional graph

>>6621015

Just as I cannot comprehend the limitations of the universe (I may be alone in this), I cannot comprehend the limitations of my comprehension, as it is these epistemological tools which define both my ability and inability to do either (to comprehend my comprehension or to render my comprehension incomprehensible. Were I able to understand my limitations, there would effectively be no limitations as my inability to understand my ability to understand is effectively the limitation. So there's still a fighting chance I think.

What if there was a really far developed alien species that already transcended every mortal form of intelligence and their brains constantly go like ours when we're only LSD or shrooms, they have constant deep understanding of everything.

you will never understand what it's like to have no gf

;_;

>>6621034
Then why list your stats? Why include your personality type or that you study physics with relative ease compared to most? Do you really think that if there was something was unable to be understood by humans that your 40
>IQ
points or your personality type would be the difference would allow you the ability to understand it exclusively? If something can't possibly be understood by you it's because it is inherently impossible for any human brain to process.

>>6621046
>exclusively
here's an error in your assumption about my question

>>6620963
>"Everybody in this thread is able to understand that this sentence is true, except for OP."

I read the explanation for this one in Smullyan's "The Riddle of Scheherazade - Other Amazing Puzzles, Ancient & Modern" and it just fucks me the fuck up.

File: 1346015013205.jpg (38KB, 508x595px)

38KB, 508x595px

>>6621050
Then why list your stats? Why include your personality type or that you study physics with relative ease compared to most? Do you really think that if there was something was unable to be understood by humans that your 40
>IQ
points or your personality type would be the difference would allow you the ability to understand it? If something can't possibly be understood by you it's because it is inherently impossible for any human brain to process.

>>6621052
it would not be what made the difference, but it would certainly be an inclination

>>6620972
That's just ironic shitposting.

>>6621054
I like how you answer your way around questions. Ever consider being a politician?

>>6620963
What you on the other hand do not udnerstand is that understanding does not always equal having concrete or precise answers to everything.

Some things can merely be understood intuitively or appreciated for what they are. In this case it is enough to see the raw logical error this sentence produces, but do seriously think my mind cannot circumvent it?

>>6621046

Because we like to define ourselves in an otherwise nebulous void out of fear and as a defense mechanism in the face of pure insanity and pre-conscious activity. Learning to approach the unapproachable is a life long endeavour. I think the Myers-Briggs test is a useful tool to analyze ones self, but not define them. A tool to deconstruct rather than construct. Like Jung said, any pure introvert or extrovert would be in an institution. They are simply projected models of behaviour that we like to identify with. Arguments of IQ and multiple intelligence theories are their own beasts, but are similar in their nature. We gravitate, victims of a ruthless universe subject to its laws in universal and social constructs one in the same. It takes time to navigate and jump between orbits with boosts from incomprehensible sized spheres. For some it might be the case of arrested development, for others as I suspect in this case it might just be ongoing development. No one is a lost cause however.

>>6621060
In short, yes.
If they description made is accurate enough, but this exact accuracy is not provided by me, it is by your understanding of the description.

>>6621062
>Because we like to define ourselves in an otherwise nebulous void out of fear and as a defense mechanism in the face of pure insanity and pre-conscious activity.
Typically, yes. But I'm in a safe and secure environment and I can objectify myself without feeling I lose identity. I like to think I'm self reflective enough to understand the consequences and implications of my words without needing others to constantly explain them to me.

>>6621064
Do you find it hard to converse with neurotypicals?

>>6621064

Systematic thought is inadequate. Language, sound and symbols are false. Words merely refer but are not anything in themselves other than this. Accessing the body by any sensual means is impossible. A construction of the body is negotiated by forces external to itself. Safety and security in any environment at any given time are a woolen blanket and no more. Introspection is a misnomer - as its Latin and Proto-Indo-European roots will demonstrate - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? How can one watch oneself watching oneself? You cannot watch watching as watching is what watches. You need to destroy everything, and see what happens. I'm off to bed though, good luck.

>>6621069
Do you really need to be self aware of your self awareness at all times though or is it enough to appreciate this thought every once in a while.

Appreciation is first and foremost an expectation.

>>6621068
No, because I can control the way I talk.

>>6621061
Too many terms here are too vague to have a meaningful discussion about it.
Sure you can step outside yourself, change the name "OP" in the sentence with "my dad" and understand what causes the problem. You can understand what you call "logical error", i.e. that you must give up consistency to judge about that sentence truth.
But in the end, I didn't say anything wrong and what you do is making claims about what other people (me in this case) do not understand. Friendly approach.

>>6621071
Does it sicken you to meet someone smarter than you who also just happens to be much more sociable?

>>6621074

That is actually the worst - this happened in the Navy officer's school. Some of those guys were alpha as fuck you would not believe.

>Oh hi yeah I used to be spec-ops but now I want a job where I don't get shot at

>Marathons

>All the chicks

>Max grades on half the aptitude test

>Next-to-Max on the rest

>Yes I'm looking forward to going sailing out, there are some astronomical observations I want to do where there's no light pollution

Son you are trying to hard, how many points did it take to build your character? Did you hax?

>>6620914
>IQ 140+, INTJ
>implying psychology is a science

OP can you sight read music and play it?
Can you write your own music?

>>6621084
I cannot sight read, but when I still played piano (no longer got access to one and never possessed one) the teacher said I'm a prodigy

>>6621095
Can you compose?

>>6621099
You also misread the OP

pls leave me alone you insecure fucks, I don't care if you feel offended in your intelligence

>>6621102
I want to see if you understand how to compose meaningful music, which you probably can't because you're not artistic in anyway.
>pls leave me alone you insecure fucks
ironic kek

You seem to be too dumb to understand that IQ and mybbertoops are fkn stupid, so I guess there's that.

>>6621081
I don't really understand this post. They did run marathons or what do you mean?

File: image.jpg (28KB, 300x367px)

28KB, 300x367px

The fact that you feel the need to tell your IQ and the result of a fucking personality test implies you have a very myopic view of the nature of humanity and intelligence.

With that being said, any healthy person would in theory be able to understand anything which can be systemized by science. This excludes answers to meaningless philosophical inquiries, because such answers don't exist. So your "INTJ" personality is wholly irrelevant.

>inb4 I meant "in practice"

No you didn't. In practice, there are tons of things you won't be able to understand in your lifetime because you're too dumb. But in theory, you would be able to understand those things with enough time and/or proper guidance.

>>6620914
Given enough time, I think most anyone could learn whatever they want. Personality type is irrelevant, and IQ only affects the efficiency.

this thread has shown me how stupid /sci/ actually is

>>6620939
Okay, I fucking spat my drink all over myself, the floor and the dog

>>6620914

Yes, there are many areas of psychics and math someone with IQ 140 or even higher would not be able to understand on a fundamental level.

>>6620914
OP, I think there are some limits on human capacity to understand things, but I think they are very abstract. It's hard to answer your question without some shared framework within which we can discuss "understanding" so I'll have to lay some groundwork.

First, let me define "complexity" as being a sort of "density" for how difficult it is to understand a concept, and let me also relate "conceptual relationships" to "mass" of concepts. For the purposes of this conversation, we say that an idea is composed of a certain number of conceptual relationships, and we presume that all of these relationships require about the same level of "understanding" or thought to grasp.

So really what I'm saying is, that I believe we needn't be concerned with "complexity" of ideas as a separate barrier to understanding; more complex ideas just take more thought to be understood relative to a simple ideas.

Another definition that I need to get out of the way is Active vs. Passive understanding. Active understanding shall be defined as the space in which one can ENVISION (i.e. see with the mind's eye) conceptual relationships. Passive understanding shall be defined as one's reserve of knowledge, where one can draw facts from. "Active understanding" is really sort of my word for Working Memory, and Passive understanding is everything else.

I believe that one must be able to Actively understand something to truly understand it, i.e. one must be able to envision the system to truly understand it. Using the previous analogies, I think that there's a certain amount of "mass" that can fit in one's Active understanding-- in other words, a limit to the number of conceptual relationships that one can envision at once.

<To be continued>

File: bubble7.jpg (117KB, 1680x1050px)

117KB, 1680x1050px

>>6620914
>Do you think there's anything in the universe, in math, in physics, anywhere that I'm inherently unable to understand?

No. From the average scientists that contributes small increments to their field over a 30 year career to the most accomplished scientists the become famous for their achievements, they all have one thing in common, hard work, not intelligence, was the determining factor in their success.

There has never been a scientist that achieved anything on intelligence alone. You can look high and low throughout history and you will always find that scientists always have impeccable work ethics. They're always obsessed.

Understanding nature is difficult, and just like any other thing difficult and worth having in life, you can understand it if you work hard. That is true for any human on this planet that has undergone normal neurological development.

People have told me that I'm smart throughout my life, probably because they just think I look nerdy. All I know is is that it doesn't even matter if it's true or not because when I didn't study hard I got b's and c's and when I did study hard I really got it and I got A's in even the most difficult classes like quantum mechanics. It doesn't matter how smart you are or how smart you think you are, lemme tell ya that nobody's got a leg up on you when you sit down in a quantum mechanics class on that first day, I don't care how high their IQ is. This stuff doesn't just come to you, the understanding only comes through busting your ass every day until you get it.

So if you've got the passion to follow through with it then take that with you and just go for it. Whether you find success or failure will depend on self discipline and your resolve to succeed, not your IQ.

File: Limit to understanding.jpg (64KB, 800x600px)

64KB, 800x600px

>>6621271
<Continuing>
I mean, humans have an amazing ability to compress a concept that they understand into Passive understanding, and so you can generally build more complex concepts out of the building blocks of smaller ones. But I think some things (very, very few) are so massive that they don't fit inside of Active understanding and furthermore do not have parts that can be abstracted away.

I'm talking things that have extraordinary amounts of independent variables (independent ideas). Things so complicated they take groups of people to organize, where each person only really knows a portion of the total, and only when it's complete can the entire thing be abstracted away as a discrete unit.

Some examples:
>Modern microprocessors: http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/architectures-software-developer-manuals.html
I'm not entirely familiar with how they're designed, but they are much more complicated than even the layman would imagine. The full instruction set documentation for Intel processors is 1479 pages, although the actual description of how the processors work is only 436 pages long. Then of course you have the System Programmer's Guide at 1446, which I believe explains good practice regarding use of the processor by the OS's kernel.

Even given an infinite amount of time, I do not believe the human brain is capable of accounting for all the different pieces of information at once, being only capable of Actively understanding portions at a time. Even if one had perfect memory and could memorize the entire manual, I believe that one would need external assistance in utilizing that information. Hypothetically, if this person with perfect memory and infinite time allotment were to attempt to write a kernel utilizing a full understanding of a modern microprocessor, they would still need some outside agent to help them in combing through what they know.

<Continued again>

>>6620914

Inter-universal Teichmüller theory

>>6621308
<Continuing again>
To recap a little, we're speaking about someone who hypothetically has read and memorized the entire 3000+ page manual for Intel processors. I think this person COULD NOT understand the processor because I believe it is impossible for any one person to fully account for all of the conceptual relationships within a CPU; one gifted with the requisite knowledge could not take a step back and visualize the entire processor all at once, this person would be forced to examine pieces of it at a time, and that to me is not true understanding.

Some other examples that I think are incapable of being fully understood by a single human being:
>Biological development; how DNA corresponds to body shape (seems tough, anyway)
>Economics, etc.

>>6620914
metaphysics depending on your definition.
Lacking knowledge/information makes you dumb as i define it.
Having such things and being able to utilize them makes you smart.

>>6620914

You're a pretentious ass-fuck and you're not going to do much with your life if you seriously think like this

And tell me if you seriously understand P=NP or quantum nonlocality. People spend their whole lives trying to understand it. You don't know shit you fucking retard

>>6621344
>Calls OP pretentious
>And tell me if you seriously understand P=NP
>Implying P=NP is actually difficult to understand and not just difficult to prove through mathematical rigor

OP isn't pretentious, you're just dumb. Fuck off unless you want to actually contribute something to the discussion.

>>6621344
No need to be so hostile. He's just asking if there are things out there that are literally impossible for a single human to fully understand.

File: how_sci_regards_engineers.gif (2MB, 240x180px)

2MB, 240x180px

>>6621362
OP has gotten blown the fuck out multiple times in this thread, but instead of answering to something that stumps him, he just avoids the point of the post or ignores it completely.

>>6620914
A system could be built to an arbitrarily level of complexity. Building a system that is so complex that no lone human within it's life span would be able to make sense of it is obviously possible.
So possible that it's mundane, anything we humans have made inquiries into troughout hte millenias after the advent of virtual memory have had this characteristic.
Building something that we actually couldn't understand once it's functionality and governing rules had been mapped trough generations of research and machine aided computation and memory seems less likely.
Some problems like "what is gonna happen next" type ones will be solved abstractally and theoretically but left unsolvable in practice due to computational impossibilities.

>>6621081
>when other people are smart and cool they are trying too hard
>when it's me it's just being i'm a genius 140 IQ INTJ you know what I mean guys

do you drive a prius and smell your own farts too?

>>6621396
>A system could be built to an arbitrarily level of complexity.
You could understand the algorithm.
Also consider you built it in finite time and you clearly must understand it yourself in order to build it in the first place.

>>6621308
>I think that there's a certain amount of "mass" that can fit in one's Active understanding

OP here, maybe you read what I said earlier who I think that feelings = thoughts. Notice that this also goes backwards, thoughts = feelings.

I can fit entire trains of thoughts into a single feeling that represents an expectation of how I would feel if for instance, I was asked about this specific thing, and I would intuitively know what it would feel like to answer that question in a very precise manner.
And that answer can be lengthy, the precise answer could take minutes and minutes of constant talking, while in my brain, it is literally just a snap with my fingers, and I sorta lean into that feeling, I get a very short intuitive impression of what it would be like to have this feeling for longer and actually express it as thoughts.

I think the human mind is able to think in realms we haven't even see yet.

Probably the greatest knowledge of all would be to reach englightenment.

>>6621494
This is a very interesting way to think about it. I know what you're talking about with the feelings, people often get that "gut-feeling" that "just so happens" to be correct. It's much more noticeable in bluffing games where you're reading other people's body language and there is nothing that you could actually identify that leads you to your conclusion.

I accept that we've not reached the human limits of understanding, you have a very compelling argument. I hesitate to call that "understanding" though as the understanding is sub-conscious. Additionally, one would never be quite certain that they were giving the correct information unless one had super-human familiarity with their intuition. Investigating the limit of human intuitive powers would be very interesting indeed.

I would also object to this being true "understanding" on the grounds that one would be unable to explain their abilities to other people. I recently heard about a type of wasp that builds a complex nest underground to deter other bugs from getting inside. When it brings back prey to it's nest to eat, it sets the prey down, checks the nest for clearance, and then pulls the prey into the nest. Researchers did an experiment where they'd take the food and move it father away from the nest, and this effectively reset the wasp's mind into thinking that it hadn't yet checked the nest for obstructions.

Would someone with only an intuitive understanding of a highly complex concept fall victim to the same problem, and if so, can we really call that understanding? Certainly it's true that the human would recognize that something had gone wrong, but if they're relying on intuition wouldn't their only options be to abort completely or to continue to follow their intuition until the problem resolved itself?

<to be continued>

The fact that existence has always been here. Forever, going backwards.

It's not something humans can comprehend.

>>6621781
<continuation>
In order to answer the question in OP, it becomes important to really define what is meant by "understanding", and although semantics is usually a fruitless argument, I would put forth that the crux of "understanding" is being able to use what you know to respond to changing situations. But then again maybe a perfect intuitive understanding is sufficient for any conceivable error condition/anomaly.

>I think the human mind is able to think in realms we haven't even see yet.
I've kind of wondered what it'd be like if I didn't think it words and just thought in feelings, but I haven't really pursued that idea too far because I considered that putting thoughts into words is in itself a valuable thing to do that facilitates understanding & communication. If I just thought without words all the time, how would I be able to explain my ideas to other people when the time comes?

>Probably the greatest knowledge of all would be to reach englightenment.
I'm not sure what your idea of enlightenment is, but one of my hobbies is investigating this mental state called enlightenment. Buddhist books have some very interesting descriptions, one of the exercises is to determine the origin of your thoughts. I don't place stock in any of the hokey spiritual effects of enlightenment, but it seems to me that there is a legitimate mental state to be found.

>>6621781
>This is a very interesting way to think about it.
Without trying to sound arrogant, I think I'm an introspective prodigy. I hope one day to be able to give completely new insights about consciousness and self awareness

What Freud and others have said seems like the most intuitive child play to me. I feel like I am my own mirror.

>>6621798
>Without trying to sound arrogant, I think I'm an introspective prodigy. I hope one day to be able to give completely new insights about consciousness and self awareness

Me too. It's amazing how most people need someone else to explain their desires to them.

>What Freud and others have said seems like the most intuitive child play to me.
Freud was a loon though.

How can cause and effect not run into some variation of the bootstrap paradox?

you haven't dropped acid apparently.