Animals with highly developed brains never simply accept
their fates. After all, they understand that if they
manipulate nature in certain ways, at least some parts
of their fate can be averted!
Your argument has the appearance of something that's badly contrived (or derived).
You may have not chanced on arguments surrounding your premise on "highly developed brains" and natural limits imposed on such brains owing to a multitude of things including encephalization quotient (if not exclusively that).
It's verging on the conceited to make such claims without at the very least mooting the points and counterpoints surrounding such assumptions.
The following is a decent one:
Argument for a finite upper limit to human knowledge
1. The human brain consists of a finite number of particles
and energy states.
2. This matrix of particles and energy states is less than
what exists in the cosmos.
Ergo: The human brain has insufficient capacity to contain
a matrix containing the total map of all the particles and
energy states that exist in the cosmos.
Ergo: A human's knowledge is limited.
Further: All of the humans that exist, or will ever exist,
will always comprise a subset of the cosmos; Ergo, the
collective knowledge of humanity is also limited.
Argument dismantling the aforementioned
That isn't convincing. All you have shown is there is not
a one to one ratio of particles in a human brain and the
sum of the universe. This isn't an indication of epistemic
limitation. Although, I agree we have epistemic limitations.
If a natural upper limit does exist - that also stunts our ability to rise above certain petty disputes arising out of a set of very human instincts such as ego, vanity and
self-preservation - then progress could indeed be an illusory concept.
Source(s):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encephalization_quotient
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?s=8e29f5dcbb9c8b27...
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?s=8e29f5dcbb9c8b27...
Edit: Additions
You may have not chanced on arguments surrounding your premise on "highly developed brains" and natural limits imposed on such brains owing to a multitude of things including encephalization quotient (if not exclusively that).
It's verging on the conceited to make such claims without at the very least mooting the points and counterpoints surrounding such assumptions.
The following is a decent one:
Argument for a finite upper limit to human knowledge
Argument dismantling the aforementioned If a natural upper limit does exist - that also stunts our ability to rise above certain petty disputes arising out of a set of very human instincts such as ego, vanity and self-preservation - then progress could indeed be an illusory concept.Source(s):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encephalization_quotient
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?s=8e29f5dcbb9c8b27...
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?s=8e29f5dcbb9c8b27...
Edit: Additions