Comment on Time Travel, Simplified

BenRayfield Mon, Jul 5, 2010
As an artificial intelligence programmer and mad-scientist, I understand what you said ("we barely use 10 percent of our brains") in a unique way.

It does not mean we only use 10% of our brain cells. Brain cells that are not used die, and slowly new cells grow.

Instead, its about the way most people are unable to combine patterns from different parts of their brains, because most people think its ok for their thoughts about one subject to contradict their thoughts about another subject.

I'll give a common example. I'm not saying Jesus did, or did not, walk on water (since I don't have enough information to say), but I'll use it as an example of how people allow contradictions in their thoughts. Many physics researchers simultaneously (1) think its possible (for some people, or in some rare cases) to walk on water, and (2) create theories of physics that say water behaves in ways that does not allow it to support anyone walking on it. I don't support religious discrimination, but I do support discriminating by intelligence, and it is my opinion that no government funding (my tax money) should ever go to scientists who simultaneously think 2 contradicting things are true, after they have been informed of the contradiction and had time to say "I don't know" about the 2 logical statements.

Most people have more contradictions in their thoughts than they can count. I avoid that problem by saying "I don't know" any time I don't have enough information, and I think I use a lot more than 10% of my brain at once when combining ideas from different parts of it. I'm not aware of any contradictions in my thoughts, but if I find them, I'll immediately say "I don't know" about all related things. Because of this strategy, I can know things are true based on long sequences of logic that most people probably would not consider, like I know its possible to move faster than light using very little power. I know there is at least 1 way to do it, but I do not know what that way is. Similarly, I know how to build artificial intelligence that will work with people to learn the laws-of-physics, but I do not know what the laws-of-physics are.

I prefer a future where the Human species has more faster-than-light spaceships than they have a need for (maybe 100 million?), more than I prefer any future where I had the most money or political power, therefore, to be practical and reasonable, I should spend more of my time improving the ways people work together, to slightly increase the exponent of the total productivity of the Earth, for the end result of mass-producing intergalactic starships. Anything less would be an unreasonable way to spend time.