From: jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: Re: Next?
Date: 21 Dec 92 18:38:16 -0500

In article <ljc0g8INNnps@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
> In article <1992Dec19.193454.25593@eskimo.com> alpinist@eskimo.com (David Butler) writes:
> 
>>Here you are making the assumption that because human beings appear to be
>>the most intelligent of species that greater intelligence is being selected
>>for.  But the problem with that assumption is that as a species we are not
>>breeding for greater intelligence.  The top ten percentile in intelligence
>>breed quite a bit less than the average population.  As a whole we are breeding
>>for average intelligence and are weeding out the highest intellects from the
>>population.
> 
> I agree that in many ways our evolution is not being driven by concerns
> of physical health/strength. I also agree that we are not deliberatly
> breeding for intelligence. However since many weaker people are surviving
> who might not otherwise be, and since more intelligent people often
> are somewhat less heathy/physical than others, it is possible that
> inadvertantly we are breeding for intelligence; however this is speculation
> and should probably not be debated much further.

	Tisk, tisk ! You should KNOW that the typical person with
	high intelligence also posesses superior physical attributes.
	The 'wimp genius' is a false image - probably created by the
	extremely stupid to preserve for themselves some sense of
	superiority over 'eggheads'. Ever see a photo of Einstein
	in a tight shirt ? Old Albert was PUMPED - and other of his
	contempories noted his great strength and physique. I suppose
	that strict campus life may bleed the strength out of many
	people of high intellect - but look for people with similar
	smarts in more 'outdoorsey' fields like archeology, 
	anthropology, engineering or the military.

	Also, intelligence is not 100% heritible - maybe not all
	that heritible at all. Many a genius pops up spontaneously
	from rather bland genetic stock. Many children of geniuses
	never measure up to their parents. If one 'breeds for
	intelligence' - it will be an imperfect attempt. Intelligence
	is surely a matter of learning a better *way* to think as
	well as having sufficient 'hardware' to think with. 

> 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. 

	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. 
 
> 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 ?

	If you want to alter the brain in the one single manner that
	will boost what we usually call 'intelligence' the most -
	aim to enhance memory recall. Memory is also rather politically
	neutral and its enhancement would tend to enhance ANY area
	an individual might delve into.
 
> Another thing you should consider is that intelligence is only one
> aspect of evolution. As I mentioned earlier, it is possible that mind
> is not simply a working of the brain, but an attribute of the universe
> itself. Should this be the case, it is possible that we could evolve
> towards greater mental powers without necessairly becoming more intelligent.

	Hmmm ... I would call this attempt to frame human abilities
	within a context of 'attributes of the universe' as egotism.
	We can barely find our cars in crowded parking lots - I would
	not try to link us to some sort of 'cosmic principals'. 
	There is no evidence whatsoever that we are anything more
	than 'wetware', naturally evolved and indeed haphazardly
	evolved. There is no shame in being wetware. Indeed, it means
	that everything we are will ultimately be discoverable.
  
>>Because of the destruction of the environment and greater proliferation of
>>pollutants it seems likely that we will see an increase in obsessive
>>compulsive behavior types.  People who was their hands a lot, are very nit
>>picky about getting any dirt on them, who carefully wash and prepare the food
>>they eat - will have an evolutionary advantage.

	Our current types of pollution are NOTHING compared to the
	biological holocaust that was always nipping at the heels
	of our ancestors - bacteria. Bathing used to be looked-down
	upon and food was often served rotten or heavily contaminated
	with feces. Lots of people died - but then they simply had
	more children so it didn't matter. Also, modern pollution
	tends towards having its effects in old age - well past the
	usual breeding span.

>>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. 

-- Jim Mason 
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness,talk.religion.misc