Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.
If you could augment your intelligence, how far would you go?
#91
Posted 06 November 2011 - 02:00 AM
#92
Posted 06 November 2011 - 07:36 AM
Intresting answer DemiDao. What is Your race?
Sadly still a human.
Edited by DemiDao, 06 November 2011 - 07:48 AM.
sponsored ad
#93
Posted 28 January 2012 - 01:18 PM
Edited by Shoe, 28 January 2012 - 01:21 PM.
#94
Posted 07 February 2012 - 12:41 AM
#95
Posted 31 March 2012 - 01:59 PM
It doesn't matter how smart you are if you die to those with the bigger guns before you can reap the fruits of those extra smarts.
#96
Posted 02 April 2012 - 08:08 PM
I think it's somewhat silly to say that we want unlimited intelligence. We cannot, by definition, understand how being that intelligent would feel. Without challenges, life would be terribly boring. It would be impossible to keep our current personnality because our personnality is in part defined or influenced by our knowledge and our intelligence.
Scott Adams develop an interesting theory in his book "God's debris". Since God was able predict the future, he was very bored. So, he decided to blow itself up to see what will happen next. That was the Big Bang. It's not a concept I believe in but it's quite interesting.
I will let Marvin have the final word:
"Here I am, brain the size of a planet, and they get me to take you down to the bridge. Call that job satisfaction? 'Cos I don't."
Then the intelligent being (here called god) still has more options doesn't he?
#97
Posted 02 April 2012 - 08:18 PM
Intelligence could also be based in collective consciousness and in the collective memories of the human race as a whole. So you having perfect neurones may not be enough to attain perfect intelligence.
I've always had troubles believing the notion of some "over level" of human consciousnes, I try to be open, but really - what's the rationale here ? How can this be tested empirically ? Jung had some ideas that may be appealing but he wasn't the most intelectually disciplined scholar, sort of half - mystic actually.
One example here is the internet. You put knowledge into it and you draw knowledge from it. It is a collective thing. Is it intelligent? Maybe it is. It can predict my actions, knows my preferences, can learn from my past experiences and usage, etc. It is a small and crude example, but I am sure it will become much more powerful in the near future. I can see the time when it would be difficult to know where human (personal) intelligence stops and Artificiial Intelligence starts.
The internet would still follow the laws of computational power... I don't see why you invoke something else than neurones, or its silicon equivalent. Sure you need some intellectual peers, but those will always be around, it's not like one person gets chosen to do an 'extreme intelligence experiment', while all the others wait patiently in their stupidity.
#98
Posted 06 April 2012 - 03:28 AM
#99
Posted 10 May 2012 - 02:18 AM
As I become more and more intelligent, I'd have a clearer and clearer view of whether going further was a good idea or not....
#100
Posted 13 May 2012 - 10:47 AM
There's this saying that if you're the smartest person in the room, you're in the wrong room. Going to a world-class university usually helps with this problem.I was always the smartest person in any school that I went to.
#101
Posted 14 May 2012 - 08:46 PM
They aren't really aimed at the person who sees through everything and deconstructs it.
Deconstructing things is a child's game; it is simple enough. To build something truly useful or beautiful, however, requires some skill or genius.
Social structures are not made for the smartest people.
Nor for the stupid rich. But regardless for whom they were made, I'm pretty sure social structures dramatically reduce the chances of getting your (very abundant) grey matter bashed in by a hulking semi-moron.
#102
Posted 18 May 2012 - 10:09 PM
If you quantum link the distributed quantum radar to a human brain you could do remote sensing at a distance. One approach to quantum linking photons at neurons are optically activated neurotransmitters or peptides. fascinatingly, many cytes have crystalline structures away from liquid, these could contain biological quantum linkable photosensors yet modify the surface charge of their crystal to effect a peptide.
here is an article on how mitochondria have crystalline areas http://jcb.rupress.o.../3/511.full.pdf modify the mitochondrial genome to modify the crystals.
with remote sensing at a distance, as well as a regular crystal modification protocol, two entities could read each others mind data. If they were really nifty they could use radiographic photons that pass through minerals. If you liked you could engineer the soil bacteria to be a huge neutral data or processor resource then just quantum radar bus at will. Its kind of a now tech approach to computronium.
among the way to increase intelligence that people here have heard of might be the genetics of the glia to neuron ratio. Wikipedia says that the 20th century human brain is10 pct neurons, 90 pct glia. just going to 40 pct neurons might more than triple intelligence. The mouse popularly referred to as "doogy mouse" was genetically modified to produce more nerve growth factor, it had approximately double ntelligence. combining those two technologies at one human could create people seven times more intelligent with the same form factor as well as minimal change.
Edited by treonsverdery, 18 May 2012 - 10:34 PM.
#103
Posted 01 October 2012 - 03:34 PM
Nature concieved an experiement and sadly it has failed miserably.
PS: on another topic, I.Q is mentioned also - Intellegence and actually knowing anything of value is very rare. Just think of the concept, there is actually a club, 'Mensa' they are very exclusive and you cannot be a menber if your I.Q. is not in the genius level. They meet alot and have dinners and talk about how smart they are, have badges and plaques hanging all over their offices and walls at home stating how 'smart' they are. Such self serving behavior is indicative of many things but being smart or aware or insightful is not one of them. On the other hand, Einstein, now considered to have been the greatest mind ever to have graced our world, had an I.Q. in the160s. If it were me; I'd kinda put that 'Mensa' stuff in the garbage can where it belongs.
#104
Posted 01 October 2012 - 03:51 PM
PS: on another topic, I.Q is mentioned also - Intelligence and actually knowing anything of value is very rare. Just think of the concept, there is actually a club, 'Mensa' they are very exclusive and you cannot be a menber if your I.Q. is not in the genius level. They meet alot and have dinners and talk about how smart they are, have badges and plaques hanging all over their offices and walls at home stating how 'smart' they are. Such self serving behavior is indicative of many things but being smart or aware or insightful is not one of them. On the other hand, Einstein, now considered to have been the greatest mind ever to have graced our world, had an I.Q. in the160s. If it were me; I'd kinda put that 'Mensa' stuff in the garbage can where it belongs.
#105
Posted 28 December 2012 - 04:44 PM
#106
Posted 14 October 2013 - 12:43 PM
#107
Posted 01 November 2013 - 04:07 PM
As smart as possible. I wish to become the singularity. Exponential free fall into an eternal, kaleidoscopic vortex of existential knowing. Now and forever
yep, would kinda want to be at the same level as well, more or less.
/lol
#108
Posted 04 November 2013 - 01:18 AM
Regardless I would love to modfiy my intelligence and would have no problem modifying my genome as well, or merging with non-biological computational matter, I love exploring different states of consciousness and would like to sample the ones we do not have the tech for yet.
Great poll!
Bill at etizusasupply.com
#109
Posted 01 December 2013 - 04:51 PM
#110
Posted 16 April 2014 - 05:01 PM
If able to comprehend the choice, would a bug choose to have the intelligence of a human or keep the intelligence of a bug?
Any truly rational person would choose risk-free augmentation.
Although, I'm dubious as to whether the current evolved state of the "wetware" could keep up. How would the increased intelligence be executed in the brain, even if much of the work is being performed by machine? There will be an interface and work will be done by the brain to process the increase in per second information. How will that translate into oxidative stress? I can make the jump to believing in the possibility of future intelligence augmentation, but I have trouble resolving how increased physical demands on the brain's architecture will be handled. Perhaps something akin to a CPU fan or water cooling system? :-) What is the qualitative and quantitative difference between our brain matter and the brain matter of a hamster, cat, and monkey (increasing up-the-line in measurable intelligence)? Perhaps that will hint at an answer. Brain size/weight is the first obvious observation.
Hypothetically, even if the machine does the entirety of the processing and is just feeding your brain information (which is not true intelligence augmentation and is more akin to a simple computer uplink) your brain still has to be able to comprehend the information and at the rate of speed that it is delivered. I don't see a work-around to the wetware processing issue that will almost certainly increase stress past the capacity of the architecture.
Edited by golgi1, 16 April 2014 - 05:04 PM.
#111
Posted 16 April 2014 - 07:13 PM
If possible, I would like to become part of a hypermind. Linked minds across a wireless network. Basically imagine a social media network where instead of posts, thoughts themselves could be shared, and particularly hard computations could be outsourced to as many minds as possible, the result being stored in the hypermind for future reference. Google for your brain. Facebook for neurons.
It would be a glorious future.
We are the hypermind. Resistance is probably futile.
#112
Posted 02 July 2014 - 03:18 PM
Once gods, you can go from knowing all and or super brain to not knowing nothing really and or normal brain and would be fun for "love", also knowing all or super brain doesn't take any fun or anything out of anything.
sponsored ad
#113
Posted 06 July 2014 - 11:44 AM
Hyperminds are stupid, unless you want to throw personal liberty, privacy and all sense of adventure by the wayside.
In a perfectly ideal setting I'd go for the "I'd give myself super human intelligence but I'd keep some limitations so I could still be challenged " option, but after a few hundred years have passed so technology catches up with human intelligence. I want FTL, I want supernootropics, I want genomic enhancement, I want cyborg augmentation, but I also want to be wrong every now and again. Life is no fun when you're right all of the time.
Edited by Lobotomy, 06 July 2014 - 11:46 AM.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users