104 replies to this topic

[seivtcho]

Intresting answer DemiDao. What is Your race?

[DemiDao]

<p>

seivtcho, on 06 November 2011 - 02:00 AM, said:

Intresting answer DemiDao. What is Your race?

Sadly still a human.

Edited by DemiDao, 06 November 2011 - 07:48 AM.

[Shoe]

I'd go balls to the wall, baby. Most likely it will be possible to make oneself dumber again if it sucks being too intelligent, so I don't see much risk in maximizing my intelligence.

Edited by Shoe, 28 January 2012 - 01:21 PM.

[Nicolas Dante Foster]

Simple answer i would wish to become as smart as possible and then some.

[Nimbus]

Smart enough to get myself off this planet and away from the threat that it is.  Spend long enough in the safety of that distance to figure out a way to safely reconnect with human society on Earth and elsewhere where others like me would have gone.

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.

[DAMABO]

jackinbox, on 01 March 2008 - 02:12 AM, said:

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?

[DAMABO]

mrszeta, on 03 October 2010 - 01:23 PM, said:

chris w, on 26 September 2010 - 11:34 AM, said:

mrszeta, on 26 September 2010 - 07:46 AM, said:

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.

[Luminosity]

I was always the smartest person in any school that I went to.  People idolize intelligence and think that it means they will have no problems and unlimited power.  That wasn't my experience.  Colleges are generally aimed at people who are average to somewhat smarter than average.  They aren't really aimed at the person who sees through everything and deconstructs it.  Social structures are not made for the smartest people.  You may have useful information but that doesn't mean it will be heard.  Your insights may be inconvenient to the powers that be.  If you look at the political structure or the financial, mortgage, banking or commodities industries many things are happening that should not be.  People who see what should be done are being ignored, at best.  If you were, for instance, a financial reporter at CNN who was reporting incisively on Bank of America you might be inconvenient to the advertising department and find your contract was not renewed.  On the other hand, if you were perky, attractive and smart enough not to embarrass the network, but not smart enough to ask incisive questions, you could get your own show.

[mikerossiter]

I would augment myself slightly, and since I'm smarter, then see how I feel about further augmentation.
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....

[platypus]

Luminosity, on 06 April 2012 - 03:28 AM, said:

I was always the smartest person in any school that I went to.

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.

[Connor MacLeod]

Luminosity, on 06 April 2012 - 03:28 AM, said:

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.

Quote

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.

[treonsverdery]

well as kind of a joke you could use quantum radar to augment intelligence. (how far would you go)  Wikipedia says a large aerospace company has a Quantum radar patent.  basically they send out groups of quantum linked photons at a shape to make a better detector, something like the way a multiantenna radio telescope uses a number of receivers to better image distant objects.

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.

[Dr. Bond]

Intelligence has no tangable connection with 'being smart' or 'abnormally aware.  However, the concept of that question is quite paradoxical because our current 'intellect' does not have the capacity to answer it with any reasonable clarity.  The human brain has 11 billion neurons; just neurologically and logistically we will never be able to understand our own brains.  The Universe has no 'size' as we conceive it.  Not in a million years could we ever dream to even understand a small percentage of what it all means.  And here's the kicker:  we, as modern humans have only been here for about 100 thousand years.  That is less time than any other creature who ever concieved on earth was born, developed to adult hood and died.  And it is believed by most scientists in the field that we have been such bad caretakers we will never see another 100 thousand years.  In fact, the heavy money is on a max of 100 more years being a long shot.
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.

[Dr. Bond]

Intelligence has no tangable connection with 'being smart' or 'abnormally aware. However, the concept of that question is quite paradoxical because our current 'intellect' does not have the capacity to answer it with any reasonable clarity. The human brain has 11 billion neurons; just neurologically and logistically we will never be able to understand our own brains. The Universe has no 'size' as we conceive it. Not in a million years could we ever dream to even understand a small percentage of what it all means. And here's the kicker: we, as modern humans have only been here for about 100 thousand years. That is less time than any other creature who ever concieved on earth was born, developed to adult hood and died. And it is believed by most scientists in the field that we have been such bad caretakers we will never see another 100 thousand years. In fact, the heavy money is on a max of 100 more years being a long shot. The most successful [intellent] beasts who ever lived were the dinosours who ruled exclusively for 160 million years.  With us, nature concieved an experiement and sadly it has failed miserably.

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.

[cryonicsculture]

I'm in all the way At a certain point, understanding things becomes a form of hedonist entertainment. I see no reason to have a challenge.