Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

shirk-work t1_j9u9lic wrote

In every single creature we are acutely aware of their limited awareness of reality. We don't assume ants can understand calculus. While we seem to understand more it shouldn't be the assumption that we aren't limited in our perception in the same way ants are. The absolute strangest option is that our perception of reality is anywhere near complete and accurate.


GeraldBWilsonJr t1_j9vv82a wrote

This reminds me that I'm jealous of those shrimp that can see a plethora of colors that we can't


vaportracks t1_j9wopo4 wrote

Mantis shrimp! Their punch also accelerates faster than a bullet. Superheroes of the sea.


dbx999 t1_j9wjcrl wrote

I am a fully developed human and I failed calculus. TIL am ant.


shirk-work t1_j9xrqkh wrote

You can probably understand the principles just fine. Just trying to find the area under a curved line by cutting it into infinitely small blocks. Turns out there's families of curvy lin s where we can prove that there's rules to determine some finite sum and at least segments of other curvy lines that can be approximated within a given start and end point. It turns out that a lot of things in reality share this same relationship of curvy lines and the area below them and it's super useful for engineering. So that's why we learn calculus.

The real pain comes when you try to prove those rules in the complex plane. Makes even math majors cry. That said I've always preferred discrete math and more so the compsci side of things, algorithm analysis. Now machine learning is messing it all up with it's probability and statistics.


dbx999 t1_j9xu1de wrote

Yeah I was able to handle derivatives fine but for some reason I just blocked at integrals. I just couldn’t do them.


shirk-work t1_j9xvdju wrote

Do you know that puzzle game where you have to slide the blocks to remove a piece? I always thought of it like applying the right moves at the right time to unlock it. Once you know the possible moves you can get a feeling for unlocking things. In that way it's pretty similar to algebraic manipulation. Some people are amazing at that but it's not my favorite. Proofs, number theory, group theory, discrete math is moreso my jam.


Ok_Tip5082 t1_jabo06f wrote

100%, was a pure math major who sucked at algebra and arithmetic. They're more brutish skills than are often needed to do math, and definitely than needed to understand it.


quantumdeterminism t1_j9vwb1o wrote

The completeness and accuracy of perception can only be measured in relative terms, as you aptly put.

If we are to assume humans have a higher level of consciousness, than say, ants who don't understand calculus, our 'perception' of reality must be the most accurate amongst all 'perceptions' of reality.

Objective awareness of reality, distinct and detached from our consciousness is physically impossible, and if we are at the highest level of consciousness, this just might be it.

Unless there comes along a superior alien race, or AI takes over, we look like we are stuck in this perception for the foreseeable future.


edstatue t1_j9wcotn wrote

I don't agree that a higher level of consciousness necessarily correlates with a more accurate or complete perception of reality.

Perception doesn't require consciousness, and I think ants are probably not conscious, but we know they can perceive the world around them. Not exactly as humans do, but with various sensory organs.

Why then, would consciousness bring us closer to reality? How often does our conscious mind lie to us? We know that each time we recall a memory it gets modified before we move on... We know that our subconscious mind can even perceive stimuli better than our conscious mind (there's a reason you pull your hand off a hot burner without even thinking about it).

I posit that consciousness is a beautiful lie our bodies tell us, and that if we are to look for a living being on earth that experiences "reality" as closely as possible, it's going to be something that doesn't have sentience as a misleading bottleneck.


quantumdeterminism t1_j9whmpf wrote

This is an interesting take.

For all we know, Maybe there is an inverse correlation there, the more conscious you are, the more disconnected you are from objective reality.

May be the ants really have the upper hand on us when it comes to reality. There is just no way to know.


Ryduce22 t1_j9wv0bl wrote

Or at least until the acid kicks in.


jdubf13 t1_j9wwyp1 wrote

I’ll bet my life that ants know calculus in some shape or form?? They carry up to 5,000 times there weights…they bee calculantusan son!!!


shirk-work t1_j9xra3h wrote

I mean molecules follow equations in calculus, doesn't mean they know the equations. I do like the idea of one singular sage ant being hyper aware or better yet some hive mind being chemically processed at a slow speed and low bandwidth (compared to neurons being directly connected) being all hyper aware.


jdubf13 t1_j9y8qej wrote

Dude, everything is all knowing and all one …if we know calculus Ants know calculus


shirk-work t1_j9yayfb wrote

What does it mean to know?


jdubf13 t1_j9ybaub wrote

Ever taken a couple hits of good acid??


shirk-work t1_j9ysrnt wrote

Alright if that's how you're taking it then yeah I get you. A very tangible knowing. You may enjoy epistemology.


jdubf13 t1_ja1j713 wrote

Why thank you I most celery am into that shit


Significant_Pain2883 t1_ja1bmhy wrote

The difference between us and animals is that we know our limits and we can create instruments to transcend our biological limitations.


shirk-work t1_ja24zfx wrote

Animals make tools as well and to a limited degree go beyond their biological limitations. Of course the degree at which we make tools is far far superior. No matter the tools though we are left with the same brain to understand the information we find. When we start developing new brains and new consciousness that will be very different.