You mean will evolution make us stupid? It doesn't appear we need evolution for that. As to evolving to something our present selves couldn't grasp, has that not already happened many times over?

You mean will evolution make us stupid? — tim wood

No, I mean evolution (technological or natural) will make something that our current brains could not comprehend. For example, they would invent science fields that our current brain cannot invent or understand, or invent some technologies that not only we would incapable to replicate, but we wouldn't be able to understand their purpose and meaning. Forget about a super space ship traveling from a universe to another, that would be rudimentary for them. Possible?

What do you mean by "understanding"? As the example per se: There is no dissent over the equations of quantum mechanics but what do those mean? The fact that there is discussion and different opinions indicates nobody knows what they are talking about.
There is no guarantee that things rooted in arbitrariness get "understood". On which basis should that happen?

Possible? — Eugen

I don't see why it wouldn't be possible. Though of course the notion of "us" being turned into "something else" is problematic, because at that point it isn't "us" anymore. Could humanity be replaced by a different civilization that is to modern humans as modern humans are to dogs? I think so. Not sure how likely it is.

Ok, let me give you an example: if you traveled back in time and met Ceaser your smartphone and explained to him that this tool is based on electricity, satellites, and waves, he wouldn't understand. But if you explained to him that a smartphone is a tool that helps people to communicate from long distances, he would definitely understand. Moreover, he would be capable to understand the functions of the electricity, satellites, etc, if explained properly.
Try this with a dog and he will never understand.
I am sure we will be ''Ceaser'' at one point in the future, but will be become the ''dog''?

So things like traveling from a universe to another or even create universes, understand the infinite and live forever are simply ''a dog bark'' for a super-evolved being? So our brains are not capable to comprehend everything that is comprehensible yet?

In other words, is our brain capable to comprehend everything comprehensible or we are far from that point?

So things like traveling from a universe to another or even create universes, understand the infinite and live forever are simply ''a dog bark'' for a super-evolved being? — Eugen

Possibly. But the "dog/human" analogy is flawed, because dogs don't have abstract reasoning, but humans do. A super-intelligence might be incomprehensible to us, but probably not in the same way a human is incomprehensible to a dog. We'd understand that it reasons, at least.

So our brains are not capable to comprehend everything that is comprehensible yet? — Eugen

What isn't "everything thats comprehensible" the same as "everything a human can comprehend"? I don't know what else it would mean.

As I tried to explain: What is comprehensible must be rooted in reality.
A color-blind cannot understand the difference between colos. He may understand that non-color-blind can distinct the look of objects. He can understand the theory of wavelengths and understand why non-color-blind can distinct those colors. So he only can distinct those "colors" with the help of some appartus.
If I just started to call some things "abezido" and some things "nuralemina" you will never understand.

Edit: And Caear would likely understand the cellphone - you would just have to take the long route of explanation.

I suspect we humans over-estimate our abilities to understand things.

We are the current dominant species on a nondescript rock circling a nondescript star in a nondescript galaxy. We almost certainly are no big deal.

If it happens that we are a big deal...we are screwing up a great thing in a major league way.

Maybe there's more to he reality than physical and abstract. Maybe there are things incomprehensible to human mind, but comprehensible to a more evolved mind. Do you think that is possible or physical + abstract contains everything possible?

As I tried to explain: What is comprehensible must be rooted in reality.
A color-blind cannot understand the difference between colos. He may understand that non-color-blind can distinct the look of objects. He can understand the theory of wavelengths and understand why non-color-blind can distinct those colors. So he only can distinct those "colors" with the help of some appartus.
If I just started to call some things "abezido" and some things "nuralemina" you will never understand.

Edit: And Caear would likely understand the cellphone - you would just have to take the long route of explanation. — Heiko

I totally agree. But the substance of my question lies exactly in the issue of our capability to comprehend every comprehensible thing of the reality, or if reality has things that aren't comprehensible to our mind but comprehensible to a more evolved brain.

Eg.: I don't see how humanity or any other super-evolved civilization would ever be capable of inventing a political system totally different from any other political system we have already discovered so far, because I consider that what we call extreme left - center - extreme right + total anarchy and everything in-between represent 100% of all possible political systems.
So my question is: could I be wrong about this and there are other political systems that my brain can't comprehend, but a more evolved brain could?

But the substance of my question lies exactly in the issue of our capability to comprehend every *comprehensible* thing of the reality, or if reality has things that aren't comprehensible to our mind but comprehensible to a more evolved brain. — Eugen

Comprehensible to whom? I would understand the difference between abezido and nuralemina :D

I don't see how humanity or any other super-evolved civilization would ever be capable of inventing a political system totally different from any other political system we have already discovered so far, because I consider that what we call extreme left - center - extreme right + total anarchy and everything in-between represent 100% of all possible political systems. — Eugen

What if our brains develop to be interlinked with one another through some as yet to be evolved mechanism? For such a social mind, existing socio-politico modalities might appear completely meaningless. The management of such a group mind likewise might not bear any resemblance to what we now recognize as politics.

Comprehensible to whom? I would understand the difference between abezido and nuralemina :D — Heiko

Than your answer to my question would be no and I personally agree with you. So why do you think that way, what are your arguments?

What if our brains develop to be interlinked with one another through some as yet to be evolved mechanism? For such a social mind, existing socio-politico modalities might appear completely meaningless. The management of such a group mind likewise might not bear any resemblance to what we now recognize as politics. — Pantagruel

Why I do not agree:
I believe that humans or any other super-evolved creature follow the purpose of surviving and fulfill their desires and for this they need resources. I believe there are only three possible extremes in every universe possible:

A. A political entity (could be made of people or A.I.) controlling the law and institutions + the entire process of distribution of resources among its citizens.
B. A political entity (could be made of people or A.I.) controlling the law and institutions + playing an arbitrary role in an economic competition by making sure laws are respected.
C. 0 politics, 0 laws + every human being for himself.

A + B + C + everything in-between them = 100% of all possible ways of managing resources in a group of people competing for them in 100% possible universes.

If my assumption is wrong, than the answer to my initial question is YES. But I would need arguments.

Than your answer to my question would be no and I personally agree with you. So why do you think that way, what are your arguments? — Eugen

Would it? I see it this way: Imagine an intelligence being present in two parallel universes at the same time. We would never really get why it tried to evade invisible obstacles.
So your whole question breaks down to a speculation if there could be something that is per definition irrelevant as it has no reality for us perceived by some fictional super-brains.

Would it? I see it this way: Imagine an intelligence being present in two parallel universes at the same time. We would never really get why it tried to evade invisible obstacles. — Heiko

But being present in two universes at the same time is something that makes sense to us, we would understand this state, while a dog cannot understand us playing a videogame.

So your whole question breaks down to a speculation if there could be something that is per definition irrelevant to us as it has no reality for us perceived by some fictional super-brains. — Heiko

It is a speculation, indeed. A speculation that reality is more than our current brain can comprehend and that more neurons would comprehend more of the reality. But then again, I personally believe that everything that exists and it is comprehensible to an infinite-developed mind it is also comprehensible for our current mind.

But being present in two universes at the same time is something that makes sense to us, we would understand this state, while a dog cannot understand us playing a videogame. — Eugen

The tale makes sense, yes. This is just like the color-blind without any apparature. He does not really get the difference between colors.

The tale makes sense, yes. This is just like the color-blind without any apparature. He does not really get the difference between colors. — Heiko

Yes, I have thought about it many times. For example if humans were blind, would we ever think of inventing seeing? My answer to that is actually yes, because seeing means getting instant information from long distances. I am not saying we would invent eyes, but some kind of technology to extract information, yes.
Regarding the color example, yes, it's a good one. How could you imagine a color you've never seen? It would always be a combination of other familiar colors. But explaining to someone who, let's say sees only 2 colors, that there are other kinds of colors, he'd understand that yellow is a color like white, only a bit different.
So my curiosity is that if there is something so strange and incomprehensible to us like a book for a dog. A dog can see the book, can realize is an object, but it cannot comprehend the fact that a book provide humans with information. And it is not a matter of language barrier and the impossibility to explain that to a dog from a language perspective, it is a matter of brain's capacity.

I guess with formal means (maths) we can get quite beyond things we could understand intuitively. If we really "understand" those relations is quite a question. I remember the claim by a physics prof: "Who says he understands Quantum Mechanics has not understood them."

The lack of understanding in QM comes from the paradoxes of it and from the lack of willingness to admit that the way we're dealing with science from the observer perspective is subjective, therefore wrong. This is why QM has so many paradoxes.
But that's not to say we cannot comprehend QM - we realize there are paradoxes, we know QM is a matter of physics and atoms and so on. We can comprehend it, even if we are still stuck.
But my question would be: is QM incomprehensible for our brains? If it is, is it comprehensible for other more developed brains?

If humans advance enough in say... 1000 years, move to other planets, there by evolving and changing the definition of "human" altogether, then they would probably look at us in 2020 as a late stage of "early humans."

Will those future humans invent new science fields that we, ''early humans'', wouldn't be able to comprehend even by being taught?
To be more specific, I will use the Caeser example again: if you traveled back in time and met Caesar your smartphone and explained to him that this tool is based on electricity, satellites, and waves, he wouldn't understand. But if you explained to him that a smartphone is a tool that helps people to communicate from long distances, he would definitely understand. Moreover, he would be capable to understand the functions of the electricity, satellites, etc, if explained properly.
Same with future humans?
Or rather they will show us a ''bablucof'' and explain to us its purpose and we wouldn't be able to understand that either?

The lack of understanding in QM comes from the paradoxes of it and from the lack of willingness to admit that the way we're dealing with science from the observer perspective is subjective, therefore wrong. This is why QM has so many paradoxes. — Eugen

Given: Schroedingers cat would know if it is dead or not.
But e.g. finite space gives us a headache. Seems we cannot image finite space as there is always the mental picture embedded in an infinite space. There is always "space in space".

Exactly, there are things and notions like finite space or infinite, the beginning with no cause or no beginning at all that gives us plenty of trouble. But are these truly understandable things, or no matter how evolved our brain gets we'll never grasp the true essence or these very abstract things?

But are these truly understandable things, or no matter how evolved our brain gets we'll never grasp the true essence or these very abstract things? — Eugen

I tend to the opinion that we do not understand those as they are real corner-cases that are largely irrelevant to our existence. Hence they lack reality.
The german word "Begriff"(concept) has a notion of "grabbing". This carries some truth I guess.
I am not really into those speculations but even a quantum-amoeba could have a better understanding of it's normal environment than we do.

I am not really into those speculations but even a quantum-amoeba could have a better understanding of it's normal environment than we do. — Heiko

Me neither, but I am searching for arguments for that. I will meditate on this topic and I will write to you if I draw some conclusions. I hope to find some here.

Associative speculation: Artificial neural networks are modelled based on physiological properties of the brain. Mathematically what these things do is subdividing space and by this "encircling" regions. "Points" (inputs) that lie in this region are those for which the proposition (the network models) is true (though you can also express how "far away" a sample lies in space).
But here, again, there is always the notion of a (mathematical) space.

Some think we already hold something incomprehensible to ourselves.
See New Mysterianism.