3 replies to this topic

[Nihilated]

What will happen to society when those who have the capital are allowed to "amplify" their own intelligence? First of all, if anyone denies that this will happen within the next 50 years, please feel free to state a reason. But what will happen to people who have strived for years to earn their intellectual standing, and are likely to be more intelligent/knowledgeable than the average American Idol worshipper? Is intelligence amplification a win-win scenario? Would you object to allowing certain technologies such as intelligence enhancement to be legal/egalitarian, assuming that even affordability ceases to become a problem? How do you think society (those who are more intelligent, less intelligent, and society as a whole) will respond when we enter the transitional phrase from 'man' to 'machine'?

In essence, what kind of people would you allow to manipulate/add neural components (extra cortical columns, neurons, embedded calculators, artificial memory banks, databases, etc.) to expand their intelligence? What kind of people would you not consent to? Do you like the idea of anyone who is starting from a voluntarily unproductive lifestyle being able to achieve a quantum leap of intelligence?

Edited by Nihilated, 12 August 2008 - 03:10 AM.

[bacopa]

What will happen to society when those who have the capital are allowed to "amplify" their own intelligence? First of all, if anyone denies that this will happen within the next 50 years, please feel free to state a reason. But what will happen to people who have strived for years to earn their intellectual standing, and are likely to be more intelligent/knowledgeable than the average American Idol worshipper? Is intelligence amplification a win-win scenario? Would you object to allowing certain technologies such as intelligence enhancement to be legal/egalitarian, assuming that even affordability ceases to become a problem? How do you think society (those who are more intelligent, less intelligent, and society as a whole) will respond when we enter the transitional phrase from 'man' to 'machine'?

In essence, what kind of people would you allow to manipulate/add neural components (extra cortical columns, neurons, embedded calculators, artificial memory banks, databases, etc.) to expand their intelligence? What kind of people would you not consent to? Do you like the idea of anyone who is starting from a voluntarily unproductive lifestyle being able to achieve a quantum leap of intelligence?

I think intelligence amplification will definitely happen within the next 50 years and I think anyone who wants to should be able to do so. Look right now I'm still sufferning from terrible memory loss and would jump at the chance to have my intelligence augmented. I don't think it should make a difference for the person who has strived his/her whole life to become super intelligent vs. someone with lesser ambitions. This is a country founded on democracy and everyone should get a chance to modify themselves anyway they so choose. I think it should be legal and I don't think society will at first jump at this opportunity cause as you said the transition from man to machine might ostrasize some folks. Again I would have no problem with just anyone deciding to augment their intelligence it is our right to do with our minds and bodies as we so please.

[bgwowk]

In essence, what kind of people would you allow to manipulate/add neural components (extra cortical columns, neurons, embedded calculators, artificial memory banks, databases, etc.) to expand their intelligence? What kind of people would you not consent to?

On what basis do you presume the right of consent or denial over what others choose for themselves? You can offer an opinion about what others should do, but you cannot consent or decline on their behalf.

Edited by bgwowk, 12 August 2008 - 05:59 AM.

[E.T.]

On what basis do you presume the right of consent or denial over what others choose for themselves?

I believe rights are subjective/relative: science cannot prove any right to be absolute. On the other hand, religion claims absolute rights: no evidence is required for the religious, e.g. it is so just because the Bible says so.

You can offer an opinion about what others should do, but you cannot consent or decline on their behalf.

Democracy is all about enforcing laws on others. Even laws against murder: you are forcing a person to not murder another person. Even the laws of physics coerces people into certain behaviors: I would like to have anti-gravity powers, but nature does not allow it.

Even in an anarchist society, there is coersion: each individual enforces his personal laws on others.

How do you define a society where nothing inhibits anything?