From: ds0007@medtronic.COM (Dale Skiba)
Subject: Re: Next?
Followup-To: alt.consciousness,talk.origins
Organization: Medtronic, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 14:38:08 GMT

jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu wrote:
: In article <1992Dec27.025046.27077@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, gbloom@nyx.cs.du.edu (Gregory Bloom) writes:
: > 
: > [lots-o-scenarios omitted...]
: > 

: 	Intelligence seems to form a positive-feedback situation
: 	once it reaches a certian level. The smarter you become,
: 	the easier it is to discover the means to becoming even
: 	smarter.

I sorry, but I don't see this at all, at least not right now.
"Smart" people do get more education than "stupid" people.  That
will make them smarter.  One can even argue that their children
will be smarter than average, especially with smart parents
tutoring them.  Also, "smart" people are better able to obtain
money to spend on their children, so one can then conclude that
this should help their children survive...

However, in the USA there is a NEGATIVE correlation between the
number of offspring and intelligence.  "Smart" people have much
fewer children than "stupid" people.  Currently, this more than
offsets the lower mortality rate of "smart" peoples children.  So,
if you define the sucess of a species by the number of surviving
offspring, "stupid" people are more sucessful than "smart" people.

:  We have already invented computers capable of
: 	remembering the volumes of info necessary, retrieving
: 	it in a useful form and testing hypotheses via simulation.
: 	Through this tool, we have essentially increased our
: 	intelligence.

This is also debatable.  Computers currently are stupid computation
devices.  If you give people calculators, does that make them
smarter.  If you give them electronic dictionaries/encyclopedias
to help them remember, does that make them smarter?  I guess it
depends upon how you define intelligence.

[predictions about the future deleted]

: 	future. We need to be able to fabricate and solve
: 	complex math equations just as easily as we do for
: 	general language now. Memory enhancement will help
: 	along this line, but I doubt that there is a nice
: 	easy 'math gene' we can tweak. To this end, we are
: 	going to have to integrate machine elements into our
: 	brains. 

You seem to have a very narrow view of what intelligence is.
Analytical skills to solve math equations are very useful,
but I think there is more to human intellegence than just
raw analytical math equation solving skills.  What about
the Arts?  What about the Humanities?   Be careful not to
ignore the creative aspects of human intellegence.

Sometimes it appears that enhancing one aspect of ones
intelligence detracts from another.  This is pure speculation
on my part, but it seems that Engineer schools produce people
that are not very creative and Art schools produce people who
can not think analytically.  By focusing on just one aspect
of intelligence, the other areas may atrophy.

: 	These 'machine elements' will probably not be silicon, but
: 	instead circuitry made of neurons. There is a fair chance
: 	that these man-made elements can even be tacked-on to the
: 	genome - so they will grow in place naturally and connect to
: 	the right spots in the brain. A whole slew of special
: 	skills could be added in this manner. The single hardest
: 	thing to enhance though may be ones 'general' 
: 	intelligence --- the ability to deal with and make best
: 	use of all these enhancements. This will come, just
: 	more slowly. 

Wait, I've seen this before somewhere.  Oh yes, the Daleks on
Dr. Who.  The Borg on Start Trek TNG!  Is this what you want
humans to become?

[stuff deleted]
: 	Lastly, ask any engineer ... positive feedback loops
: 	can be destructive, whether in electronics, mechanical
: 	design or (probably) intelligence. If all necessary
: 	elements do not advance reasonably in step I suspect
: 	that problems may arise. Also, if intelligence is,
: 	as some suggest, an "emergent behavior" of our mass
: 	of neurons - sort of a chaotic 'attractor' - know
: 	that a push in the wrong spot could erase this 
: 	pattern. We should be optimistic about our future,
: 	but not to the point of recklessness. 

Exactly;  I think you make alot of sense here.  Worst case, we
may adapt ourselves too well to an environment and become extinct
when that environment changes.  Almost worst case, we become a
cold analytical computer in a human body. 

: 	Oh yes, I vote a 95% chance that MARKET FORCES and
: 	FASHION TRENDS will be the driving force behind the
: 	genetic mind & body modifications - not government
: 	or the military or cabals of evil scientists.
: 	Smarter pays better, and good looks and a robust
: 	physique enhance ones enjoyment of life. 

This is so controversial.  I can just see it.  The best
seller of 2167 is the 4B gene patch -- "Blonde, Busty,
Blue-eyed Bimbo".  :-)

More seriously, the past history of human genetic engineering
is haunted by the Nazi atrocities.  This area may be too
tempting for "evil scientists" and "evil goverments" to
stay out of.  :-(


: -- Jim Mason 

--
Dale Skiba
Xref: sparky alt.consciousness:841 talk.origins:16015