From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Next?
Date: 22 Dec 1992 20:31:24 GMT
Organization: Sun
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Dec21.183816.1986@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>In article <ljc0g8INNnps@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:

>> Even if we are not breeding for intelligence, that does not mean that
>> we will not continue to develop superior intelligences. I can give you
>> a couple of possible reasons for this, and both of them are based on the
>> premis of self-modification. 
>> 
>> 1> We develop direct neural/machine interfaces, thus artifically 
>> boosting intelligence by making vast amounts of information availible
>> transparently, as well as making the computational power of those machines
>> available to us. If such a technology should become mature, it would also
>> open the possibility of "group intelligence" where a number of people
>> plug in to a single shared awareness.

>	Now this is interesting. Having the sum of human knowledge
>	availible 'on line' direct to the brain would have a vast
>	effect on our abilities. Imagine something even so simple 
>	as a cheap calculator wired out of nerve cells, pasted
>	directly into the visual cortex. 

For that matter, why bother going through the visual cortex? Seems
to me that a better strategy would be to attack micro-wiring to a
bunch of neurons, and then train the neurons to to read/write to/from
the wiring. If it was done correctly, the brain ought to be able to
interface with the hardware using some sort of brain-hardware level
abstractions which the brain would then interpret with its own low
level mechanisms.

The whole idea is to truly integrate the external hardware at the
lowest possible level, rather than making it an add-on, like a
TV  that just happens to plug directly into the visual cortex, but
still has a clear functional distinction from the brain itself.

>	On the other hand, there are great dangers here. What you
>	think depends a great deal on what you have heard from
>	your sources. This link to the sum of knowledge implies
>	that this knowledge was filtered through people, edited
>	and massaged, so it would come out in a useful form. By
>	tilting interpretations, or simply omitting certian facts,
>	this database could serve as an incredible propaganda
>	engine. Indeed, based on past examples, that would be one
>	of the first uses of such a system. Even if no intentional
>	abuse were suffered, UN-intentional cultural biases will
>	exist no matter how hard one tries to eliminate them. In
>	fact, trying to eliminate these ethnocentric excesses is
>	in and of itself a sort of censorship. 

The problem with any new technology is that it is empowering, and
as is the case with any form of power it can be abused. I'm afraid
that I don't have an answer for this one, other than holding people
to some level of responsibility. Then again, one of the big issues
is that of who will be managing the databases; if people plug into
some sort of an international network (like usenet) of databases it
may prove to be impossible to manipulate the information flow in
the manner you describe.

Of course this brings us back to the issue of personal empowerment
and responsibility, which in turn raises the question of "how would
being plugged into such a system affect the world views of people?"
For example, on one hand I would hate to see a group of radical
religious zealots with such power; on the other hand, it is possible
that awareness of such an order of magnitude would raise our level
of "enlightenment" to a place were such zealotry (or even religious
beliefs) would simply not be comprehensible.
 
>> 2> We map out the DNA sufficiently that we are able to manipulate
>> the DNA in a growing embryo for enhanced capabilities, such as intelligence.

>	More dangerous because the effect is more permanent and will
>	probably be inherited. What decides what aspects of the
>	mind count as 'intelligence' - politicians, priests, science
>	or perhaps market forces ? Is the ability to do math 'more
>	important' than the ability to play the violin ?

Again, empowerment has its risks. If we had such technical abilities,
we would have enough ethical dilemmas to keep the philosophers busy
for decades - of course if they were enhanced... 

Like it or not, we may only be a decade or two away from gaining
such knowledge. This may not merely an academic question.

>>>Your speculation on machine intelligence is interesting though.  If parallel
>>>processing takes off then machines may actually be able to develop thinking
>>>abilities beyond that of human capacity.  It blew me away to read an Omni

>> Yes, we often think of ourselves as being at the top of the chain. It
>> is possible that we are simply another evolutionary step to something
>> radically different, such as machine intelligence.

>	Remember - what we are, the *way* we think, is a product
>	of our evolutionary environment. Our emotions provide
>	motivation and our intellect solves the problem - but
>	our intellect may not be equipped to solve problems that
>	are unlikely for humans to ever encounter. 

>	Machine intelligence will not be a clone of the human
>	article - not unless we intentionally cripple it with
>	our limitations that is. And again, machine intelligence
>	will never truely understand what it is like to be
>	a biological - it can never feel emotions quite like
>	we do because its evolution won't require them to be
>	integrated into consciousness. We may indeed be able
>	to build a replica of a human mind - one that experiences
>	exactly what humans do and how they do - but that may
>	actually be more difficult that creating something
>	optimized for silicon - an alien mind in all ways.

>	Check out the literature on 'Genetic algorithms'. These
>	are computer subroutines that are designed to re-write
>	themselves to be more and more effecient. Extend this
>	principal to a heavy duty intelligence simulation and
>	machine intellect could probably evolve itself without
>	much human intervention. 

I agree with all of this.

>-- Jim Mason 

Eric