Path to human superintelligence or rapid human evolution through artificial selection with embryos - is this method possible?

[fromderinside]

Originally Posted by fromderinside
Gee it looks like you are trying to reverse my original observation that your argument wasn't about whether intelligence increases were relevant to fitness as the OP presumes

Yeah? Interesting... Now please look at what I said in the first of my post you commented on:

Speakpigeon - There is also this question that we are social animals and that increasing the intelligence of the members of the social group may not necessarilly improve our chances of survival as a species.​

So how was my post not about the relevance of intelligence increases to fitness!?

Beats me.

Apparently so.

I saw your lines and I ignored them since they didn't attach to the presumption of gene change increasing intelligence.

The restore methods goals are not the same as increase intelligence goals. The methods and technology required to restore function are the same as the methods and technology to increase function.

Since even you can see the presumption in the OP I conclude the intelligence increase presumption is part of the OP.

Complaining about my post, even though you agree that intelligence may not be a determinant fitness objective, (there are no objectives beyond continued surviving) by conflating gene change increase with fitness increase is no argument. I clearly distinguished the two in what I wrote. Your discussion completely misses the point that artificial gene change and natural gene are conceptually identical in that the only contingency for fitness is surviving. So beyond the fact that you don't see the congruence between restore and change methods your characterization laced posts are moot.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Originally Posted by fromderinside
Gee it looks like you are trying to reverse my original observation that your argument wasn't about whether intelligence increases were relevant to fitness as the OP presumes

Yeah? Interesting... Now please look at what I said in the first of my post you commented on:

Speakpigeon - There is also this question that we are social animals and that increasing the intelligence of the members of the social group may not necessarilly improve our chances of survival as a species.​

So how was my post not about the relevance of intelligence increases to fitness!?

Beats me.

Apparently so.

I saw your lines and I ignored them since they didn't attach to the presumption of gene change increasing intelligence.

Beats me too, this.

The restore methods goals are not the same as increase intelligence goals. The methods and technology required to restore function are the same as the methods and technology to increase function.

I wasn't concerned about the difference in "goals" (who would care). Instead, I was pointing out that just because a technique has been shown to be good for something (restore) doesn't show it's good for something essentially different (improve intelligence).

Since even you can see the presumption in the OP I conclude the intelligence increase presumption is part of the OP.

I saw your lines and I ignored them since they didn't attach to the presumption of gene change increasing intelligence.

Complaining about my post, even though you agree that intelligence may not be a determinant fitness objective, (there are no objectives beyond continued surviving) by conflating gene change increase with fitness increase is no argument. I clearly distinguished the two in what I wrote.

Doesn't scan too good this ... Either way, I didn't conflate and I didn't say you did. Instead I pointed out that you didn't mention increase of intelligence in the passage I was responding to. See for yourself:

fromderinside - If scientists can do a procedure that would be necessary and sufficient to test whether changing genes can be done it can be used for any intelligence genes such as the FOXP2 language gene complex.​

And my comment on that was:

Speakpigeon - Still, you haven't in fact even tried to effectively argue that increasing intelligence was already going on. You merely remembered the irrelevance that gene therapy was a reality.​

So I didn't say you conflated. I merely responded that the argument was irrelevant.

Your discussion completely misses the point that artificial gene change and natural gene are conceptually identical in that the only contingency for fitness is surviving.

Conceptually identical? Who cares?! Just because a technique has been shown to be good for something (restore) doesn't show it's good for something essentially different (improve), and this of course can only be demonstrated in terms of survival, not in terms of "coneptual identity", whatever that means in this case.

So beyond the fact that you don't see the congruence between restore and change methods

Oh, I definitely saw that people posting here (like... you) were assuming the congruence, evidently so, without bothering to point out that the effectiveness of gene change in terms of restoring a function does not entail effectiveness in terms of intelligence increase.

I effectively addressed the two flaws in their reasonning: First, they assumed that the effectiveness of gene change as currently practiced for restoring function translated to increasing intelligence. I said that's not necessarily so. Second, they assumed that increasing intelligence would increase fitness. I said that's not necessarily so.

your characterization laced posts are moot.

I try my best to redress your repeated mischaracterisations of my posts.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

I try my best to redress your repeated mischaracterisations of my posts.
EB

As I do yours.

What I'm missing is how you conclude that a process to restore or mend genes can be different from a process to change genes. After all you said you weren't interested in goals.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Hasn't anyone seen Star Trek II? Those who don't learn from the errors from Motion Pictures are doomed to commit them again.

 

[gurugeorge]

Personally, I think continuation along the present route of cybernetics and prostheses (better integration between computers and brains), along with better and better smart drugs, are the answer. I tend to agree that the biology probably has a limit, and the best we can do is enhance (e.g. augment, speed up, etc.) what's there, until much, much further in the future when we actually understand more about how the brain works.

One thing I've noticed about the high IQ community is that while IQ up to 140-160 seems to be a valuable thing required for any great success in life or value to the rest of us, higher than that and they seem to be a) useless, and b) a bit crazy. It's like there are definite limits on the biology of the brain's intelligence per se., the ultra-high reaches seem to be unbalanced in one way or another.

 

[untermensche]

Personally, I think continuation along the present route of cybernetics and prostheses (better integration between computers and brains), along with better and better smart drugs, are the answer. I tend to agree that the biology probably has a limit, and the best we can do is enhance (e.g. augment, speed up, etc.) what's there, until much, much further in the future when we actually understand more about how the brain works.

One thing I've noticed about the high IQ community is that while IQ up to 140-160 seems to be a valuable thing required for any great success in life or value to the rest of us, higher than that and they seem to be a) useless, and b) a bit crazy. It's like there are definite limits on the biology of the brain's intelligence per se., the ultra-high reaches seem to be unbalanced in one way or another.

The number, I think, (from Malcolm Gladwell's 'Outliers') is more around 130.

Anything higher than that might be able to do some obscure tricks but it is not associated with the formation of superior ideas.

 

[bilby]

I suspect that a large part of what we call intelligence is the ability to make connections between observations and situations that the less intelligent cannot see are related.

As this ability becomes more pronounced, it becomes more and more easy to make connections that are not only non-obvious, but also non-existent; rationality breaks down, and craziness ensues.

The tendency to specialisation in education means that rational filtering of these proposed connections between superficially unrelated observations is easier in one's area of expertise, leading to people who are well respected in their field having wild and crazy ideas in areas where their knowledge is less comprehensive.

As a result, very high intelligence may be a predictor of success in one or more narrow fields, but is not usually a predictor of general success.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I try my best to redress your repeated mischaracterisations of my posts.
EB

As I do yours.

I hardly comment on your posts except to redress some mischaracterisation of mine.

What I'm missing is how you conclude that a process to restore or mend genes can be different from a process to change genes.

That's just another example of mischaracterisation. I certainly never argued what you suggest here I did.
EB

 

[Underseer]

Is selective breeding a good idea no matter how it is implemented?

One particular gene changed in our ancestors. This gene made us smarter and gave us the capacity for spoken language, but it made our muscles weaker and our jaws smaller. As a consequence, we have to deal with wisdom teeth, which before modern dentistry was a pretty serious health problem for many humans. The consequences of weaker muscles go without saying.

Someone tried to breed a smarter fly. They were successful, but the resulting flies had shorter lifespans.

The point I'm trying to make is that when you change a gene, you're affecting more than one attribute, and you don't always know what other attributes will be affected. If we find a gene already out there and we know the benefits outweigh the costs in the resulting adult humans (such as the mutation that produces resistance to heart disease), then heck yeah. Go ahead and breed for that gene. But messing around with selective breeding when we don't know ahead of time what the outcome will be? I'm not sure rolling that dice would be ethical no matter how you did your selecting.

 

[untermensche]

I suspect that a large part of what we call intelligence is the ability to make connections between observations and situations that the less intelligent cannot see are related.

As this ability becomes more pronounced, it becomes more and more easy to make connections that are not only non-obvious, but also non-existent; rationality breaks down, and craziness ensues.

The tendency to specialisation in education means that rational filtering of these proposed connections between superficially unrelated observations is easier in one's area of expertise, leading to people who are well respected in their field having wild and crazy ideas in areas where their knowledge is less comprehensive.

As a result, very high intelligence may be a predictor of success in one or more narrow fields, but is not usually a predictor of general success.

Yes, you have somebody like Newton and his super intelligence with his incredible work in mathematics and physics and his ridiculous work in alchemy.

 

[Kharakov]

Is selective breeding a good idea no matter how it is implemented?

One particular gene changed in our ancestors. This gene made us smarter and gave us the capacity for spoken language, but it made our muscles weaker and our jaws smaller. As a consequence, we have to deal with wisdom teeth, which before modern dentistry was a pretty serious health problem for many humans. The consequences of weaker muscles go without saying.

I know you aren't talking about myh16.

Anyway, if you were, there is the possibility that the apes that selected mates with less dominating features (weaker jawlines, slightly weaker) were more intelligent already.

 

[Underseer]

Is selective breeding a good idea no matter how it is implemented?

One particular gene changed in our ancestors. This gene made us smarter and gave us the capacity for spoken language, but it made our muscles weaker and our jaws smaller. As a consequence, we have to deal with wisdom teeth, which before modern dentistry was a pretty serious health problem for many humans. The consequences of weaker muscles go without saying.

I know you aren't talking about myh16.

Anyway, if you were, there is the possibility that the apes that selected mates with less dominating features (weaker jawlines, slightly weaker) were more intelligent already.

I have no idea if it was myh16.

My point is that changing one thing can also cause other, unexpected changes, such as breeding foxes for shorter flight distances resulting in foxes with very dog-like physical features.

 

[Kharakov]

I know you aren't talking about myh16.

Anyway, if you were, there is the possibility that the apes that selected mates with less dominating features (weaker jawlines, slightly weaker) were more intelligent already.

I have no idea if it was myh16.

So you got this information from the ether? Dark elves made the ether, you know, and they want to return the universe to darkness.

My point is that changing one thing can also cause other, unexpected changes, such as breeding foxes for shorter flight distances resulting in foxes with very dog-like physical features.

Yes. That was the result of only one gene. No environmental pressure that effected the expression and/or activation of genes in the foxes was involved. You know how genes don't get activated or deactivated by our actions, right? Like how my sarcasm gene isn't activated by what people say.

 

[Shake]

My currently reading The Singularity is Near by Ray Kurzweil is having a strong impact on my opinion on this matter. If you've not read it, it's exciting, fascinating, and a bit scary all at the same time. Part of what is predicted is the merging of non-biological components to our bodies. As we are able to first augment, and then later improve, our biological brains we will become capable of bigger and better things. The Matrix style of 'learning' new skills — "I know kung-fu!" — may well become reality. I'm not convinced we will be able to create true AI (thanks, Hofstadter, from Gödel, Escher, Bach), but rather we may well see 'enhanced' humans. Kurzweil sees this 'evolution' continuing to the point where we may not even need physical bodies, but could even create them to our liking when we wished.