Are there biological limitations to what we can know or understand?

Question

The Pythagorean Theorem is true but dogs are incapable of grasping it because, presumably, their brains are less developed. Do our brains restrict our access to any truths in a similar fashion?

Answer 1

I gave up on philosophy 9 yrs ago...problem with it is it moves at tortoise's pace...No offense...

There are more important things in life that have bigger pririties now...and I only live 20 good years to live...and clock is ticking to waste those 20 years at something I know I won't obtain my answer...

Answer 2

A very interesting question. First it should be noted that dogs are not 'wrong', but limited. We have gone far beyond other animals, and our knowledge may be limited, but not necessarily wrong. Above all, it's our capacity for language (in a very general sense) that allows us to think more abstractly, because our language allows us to think about thoughts. (I will use "s to indicate the levels of language.) A dog may see a bone, and think

1. "I want that!".

We can phrase the thought,"I want that!", and think about it. We can think

2. ""I want that!" is true."

Or

3. """"2+2=4" is a mathematcial proposition" is true" is true."

Charles Darwin once said, "But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" On the other side, some philosophers like Karl Popper, and Willard Van Orman Quine see the fact that we are still here, and have done so much with science and math, as an indication that we can trust our minds, because evolution would have killed us off long ago if our minds were unreliable.

There are of course limitations to human thought, but perhaps with our capacity for language we have overcome one of the severe humps.

Answer 3

In a way I agree with you... biological limitations are primarily limitations arising out of the available sphere of physical experience.... our knowledge and understanding are developed by our logic faculty working on our experiential inputs to the brain. Although this logic faculty seems to have already taken us much beyond what experience alone could give us, it does seem to be inviolably bound and restricted by the time and space syndrome.... I believe that is the reason why we can never fully comprehend issues like 'timelessness' or 'nothingness' etc. which is then why we can not ever seem to know or imagine the "Origin of it all" or the "Purpose of it all" which of course means the "End of it all".

As Keith has wonderfully pointed out, to some extent, we have been able to beat the obvious biological limitations through technology (taking logic out of our brain into a non-biological medium), but I believe we are still suffocatingly bound within time and space....... perhaps this suffocation itself would evolve us biologically to a superior state and who knows, we might even one day transgress the time and space boundaries... who knows? Anything is possible because everything is uncertain!! And that means Hope!!!

Answer 4

This question presupposes that biology is a "pure category." This, however, is somewhat mistaken. Consider this; what if computers and other technologies (bioengineering, nanotechnology, genetic manipulations, etc.) could extend human knowledge (almost infinitely). Each of them would not themselves BE biological but would not have existed with out the initial biological knowledge to construct them.

So, if you mean biological WITHOUT any technological advancements (which themselves are constructed through and by the biological thought pattern), then I would say humans have a limited capacity for knowledge and understanding.

However, if you accept all technologies as enhancing the biological, then I would say that it is not infinite (for there are logical limitations--e.g., paradox) but it could be nearly infinite.