3 Answers

  1. In order to have a good understanding of what I'm talking about, I'll start with the definitions:

    “Intelligence (from Lat. intellectus “perception”, “understanding”, “concept”, “reason”) or mind — a quality of the psyche consisting of the ability to recognize new situations, the ability to learn and remember based on experience, understand and apply abstract concepts, and use their knowledge to control the human environment.”


    The definition is quite abstract, which entails a number of different concepts of intelligence. I won't go into them further, as I've answered similar questions before. As for the limit of a person's intellectual abilities, it certainly exists, as evidenced, for example, by the striking superiority of computer grandmasters over people – even the power of a modern smartphone is enough to run a chess program that beats the world champion. How people lost positions when playing chess is well described ina series of articles about Garry Kasparov, his confrontation with artificial intelligence lasted 15 years and ended in an unconditional defeat.

    Further, in 2016, computers took a new level, beating one of the strongest players in go – Korean professional 9 dan Lee Sedol. For a long time, it was believed that for go, unlike chess, it is impossible or much more difficult to create an effective artificial player, and yet.

    If we are not talking about a person as a biological species, but about a specific individual, then the answer to the initial question is more trivial: of course, a particular person has limited intellectual abilities. In one area, someone is less capable than other people. On the other hand, this limit is not always obvious, and in the scale of life, a more persistent and purposeful person can surpass a more gifted person from birth, but not so motivated. A beautiful story of this kind is told in the science fiction film “Gattaca”: I recommend it if you haven't watched it yet.

  2. Good question. I do not know the answer to it, but I will try to speculate.
    To begin with, let's assume that we are not talking about a specific person, but about a person as a representative of the animal world.
    There is an implicit assumption in the question that we know the world through intelligence, using cognitive functions. To understand the world, it is possible (and necessary) to use not only the intellect, but also the abilities of a person in a wider range – his sensory part, spiritual, social and other instincts, and so on.
    All these abilities and capabilities have, of course, a certain limit: we will never be able to see X-rays or solve numerically the problem of flowing around the head of a rocket in dense layers of the atmosphere.
    But there is a nuance here, or rather, two.
    First – we don't need to reinvent the mobile phone every time we're born or invent Einstein's STS, we can just learn about it, study it, and accept it. With the accumulation and structuring of knowledge, it will be easier for future generations to come up with something new, relying on the old. That is , the process of learning will grow, there will be enough abilities and time. This is one point.
    The second one is equally important. Nature creates us with a large margin. For example, the number of synaptic connections in a child's brain is orders of magnitude greater than that of an adult. With age, unused connections die off. That is, if the world around us gives us new, previously nonexistent problems and tasks, the child's brain will quickly adapt to this, and the tasks will be solved. But not by us anymore.

    Now there is no reason to believe that there are any areas of knowledge that we would not have enough intellectual abilities to study. Humans (as a species) adapt quickly.
    Or die.

  3. Of course, because intelligence has a material basis, enclosed in the skull. Since the dimensions of this box are finite, so is the intelligence.

Leave a Reply