[cutcss]

False; mostly because a simple analogy can make one understand at least slightly topics that one has no prior knowledge; dogs cannot understand even the simplest of analogies, mostly cause they have no language.

And even if that argument isn't good enough; the dog has no tools to escape its constrains; humans do; we are messing with our brains constantly looking for a way to make it better; may it be by genetic therapy (DNA mods), chemically induced (drugs) or hardware implants (artificial neurons).

[libraryofbabel]

As I read it, the point of the dog story is really to suggest that there are probably limits to understanding at every level of intelligence. Sure, humans have a lot of cool tools for thinking about the world that dogs don't have (analogies, language, symbolic thinking, whatever). But it's only a kind of happy accident that they have also made us pretty good at doing science. Is it really so unreasonable to think that there might be things about the physical world that we can't understand with these tools?

> we are messing with our brains constantly looking for a way to make it better; may it be by genetic therapy (DNA mods), chemically induced (drugs) or hardware implants (artificial neurons).

What makes you so sure humans can bootstrap their way into ever higher levels of intelligence, ad infinitum? Sure, it's possible to take that view, but I would say it's incredibly optimistic. And not one of those ideas you mention has yet made humans any better at doing science (well, maybe 'drugs' - scientists do love their coffee).

[cutcss]

We don't need it to be ad infinitum; we only need it high enough to understand that which we still don't.

[MikkoFinell]

You have not made a convincing counter argument.

The set of things humans are in principle capable of understanding at least slightly are covered by the analogy about dogs. Try to imagine the relative complexity of concepts, for example how much more complex the concept of calculus is than the trick to sit when given a verbal command. Now imagine some concept that is equally more complex compared to the most advanced human math/physics as calculus is to the sit-trick. There is some scale of complexity where analogies break down, and even though they convey some concept that is familiar to the audience, its connection to the actual matter is so vague and strenuous that you haven't actually explained anything. There may be facts about the universe that are completely counter-intuitive, and the understanding of which depend on a regression of trillions of other counter-intuitive facts and processes.

We already see computer assisted mathematical proofs heading in the direction where there are simply too many steps for a human to understand. And thats merely us scratching the surface of the tip of the iceberg. At some point, I believe, computers will generate new maths such that not only is the proof incomprehensible, but the result too. There is no reason to believe that the universe is simple enough that humans can understand everything.

[jack9]

The ability to have mental models requires some form of perceptive learning, as far as we know. This has seeped into AI study.

An analogy is just a described mental model. A "thing that is thrown" is something a dog can understand. I throw a ball or a bone or an orange mouse toy, it makes no difference to the dog...unless I "fake throw" or perform a "magic trick". I think the dog is likely to understand some part of calculus, given it has a sufficient number of neurons and was to use them optimally. The study into injecting information into a monkey's brain is particularly tantalizing toward that end.

A mental model is the primary tool necessary to escape constraints e.g. the ingenuity of Crows. Without external pressure or evolutionary pressure, humans haven't observed most animals get measurably smarter.