47 replies to this topic

[Verne]

http://io9.com/58659...far-as-they-can

Humans evolving into hyper-intelligent beings is a powerful idea in science fiction, but that's probably where the idea will have to stay. Our brains have reached an evolutionary "sweet spot", and we can't get much smarter without making major trade-offs.
That's the finding of psychologists Thomas Hills of the University of Warwick and Ralph Hertwig of the University of Basel. They have examined a number of studies, and they have come to one inescapable conclusion: there's a steep price to pay for enhanced brainpower, and it's almost certainly not a good deal from an evolutionary perspective.
They point to how groups of people with enhanced cognitive abilities - including "savants, people with photographic memories, and even genetically segregated populations of individuals with above average IQ" - and these groups generally suffer from much higher rates of cognitive disorders like autism, extreme synesthesia, and other neural disorders. The researchers also point to attention-focusing drugs like Ritalin, which can really help people with ADD but can actually decrease performance when taken by people with normal attention spans.
Dr. Hillis explains their conclusions:

"These kinds of studies suggest there is an upper limit to how much people can or should improve their mental functions like attention, memory or intelligence. Take a complex task like driving, where the mind needs to be dynamically focused, attending to the right things such as the road ahead and other road users — which are changing all the time. If you enhance your ability to focus too much, and end up over-focusing on specific details, like the driver trying to hide in your blind spot, then you may fail to see another driver suddenly veering into your lane from the other direction.
"Or if you drink coffee to make yourself more alert, the trade-off is that it is likely to increase your anxiety levels and lose your fine motor control. There are always trade-offs. In other words, there is a 'sweet spot' in terms of enhancing our mental abilities — if you go beyond that spot — just like in the fairy-tales — you have to pay the price."

Of course, this still leaves open the possibility that a more radical adaptation could open the way to dramatically increased intelligence - although what exactly that would be is anybody's guess - but it does appear that we've reached the limits of incremental intelligence growth.

Personally; I think they're wrong and that, biologically, humans can still evolve faster, more efficient, more intelligent brains. And even if we don't, we can probably do it artificially some day anyway. But I don't believe in this whole "evolutionary sweet spot" idea. If we were to employ something unethical like eugenics, combined with a better political system which allowed people to eat nutritional foods as needed daily, sleep well, and get proper exercise and live in a stress free environment, I think that over time we would evolve better brains.


Where as right now people are often forced to go to work or school with as little as 3- 4 hours sleep (I know I have), even no sleep. Skip breakfast, lunch and/or dinner on a frequent basis, as well as the added stress of every day life brought on by things like not having money to pay bills and other expenses.
There are environmental factors that contributed to our increase in intelligence thousands of years ago, and I think there are environmental factors today that are contributing to our lack of intelligence today. Man started cooking his food, man started growing his food.

These two things alone had a tremendous affect on the evolution of our brains, imagine what would be possible if we could make our lives easier still, in the same way we did when we began farming our food.

Edited by Verne, 09 December 2011 - 07:48 AM.

[hivemind]

Biological evolution has been over for thousands of years already. We are going to build thinking machines. That's how we are going to change our thinking. Our brains will be merged with technology.

[Marios Kyriazis]

Our intelligence does not need to evolve through biology any longer. We have created technology and this will enhance us. I agere with the comment above.

We will continue evolving through other means.

[nickthird]

I find this idea that there is a limit not only baseless but also ridiculous. Its a good example of how people can misunderstand the theory of evolution. And also how they misunderstand what intelligence is.

Lets define intelligence as the ability to predict natural processes, and the speed it takes to do so.
Lets assume there is an evolutionary push for humans to become more intelligent, thus intelligent people should have an easier time finding a mate, and have more (surviving) children and generally you would expect there to be more intelligent people in each generation.
This is not the case, obviously.
So we are just not evolving in that direction at the moment.
So what reason would you have to assume this is the max? This is what you get by having a species for whom being intelligent is an advantage, but at a certain point this stopped being the case, apparently. Whose to say at which point we stopped evolving in terms of intelligence.

Another way of looking at it is this:
The advantage of intelligence is not against nature, because there is no reward for a small increase in intelligence for an animal (if a monkey gets a little smarter it won't help it survive to discover the theory of gravitation). The advantage is in the battle against other species of animals - you'll be able to outsmart them. So without competition from other species there is no development in intelligence, because there is just no reward for a small increase in it.
Our only competition is from the great apes and they are hardly reaching the max, so its ridiculous to expect that we are exactly at the top.

[AgeVivo]

Yep, it is likely that humans do not have fur because they invented clothes to improve our resistance to cold

With current techniques and current ways of thinking, it is not even a matter of understanding biology or not, we'll try to make 'modern clothe' for long & healthy lives, or for whatever is important to us

[PsychoAndroid]

sorry for bringing up this old thread, but is there any recommendable book that elaborates on this question a bit further?? I find this an extremely interesting and important topic, there surely must exist lots of material...

I'm new to nootropics and also used to think that tinkering with such a complex system as our brain can only make things worse....
But I am not sure about that anymore: My current belief is that the evolutionary pressure was mainly to make our body (and so our brain) as energy-efficient as possible. Limited resources were the main challenge throughout our evolutionary past. So even though our brain is anatomically capable of executing complex mental functions, which was needed ocassionally to survive, it also must have an innate tendency to shut down all non-essential processing and save energy.
Yes, I am aware that current research (resting state fMRI etc) shows that our brain is very active even when at rest, so this shut-down is quite small... But still, there is a few percent of increase in blood flow and other physiological measures when we're performing complex tasks - so a small change may make a lot of difference. Also there may be some resource-saving that is not easily measureable, for example certain nutrients/chemicals that in the past were considered too precious and rare by the brain to be consumed immediately and instead stored and only slowly released, thus creating bottlenecks in the availability of certain substances, precursors for neurotransmitters, etc., which prevent the brain from performing at peak efficiency.
By providing the brain with an optimal environment, all the nutrients and energy that it could wish for, nootropics create a situation that was never achieved during evolution and should therefore provide a significant boost.
Also think about the blood brain barrier, this system is a huge trade-off. In order to protect the brain from pathogens and other external threats, we have to actively shuttle all nutrients through a barrier, a slow and expensive process. Since most nootropics are designed to freely pass the BBB where they are converted into their active form, we can effectively bypass this supply bottleneck, providing unprecedented conditions for brain functioning...

Edited by PsychoAndroid, 16 December 2012 - 08:17 PM.

[PsychoAndroid]

http://io9.com/58659...far-as-they-can

Personally; I think they're wrong and that, biologically, humans can still evolve faster, more efficient, more intelligent brains. And even if we don't, we can probably do it artificially some day anyway. But I don't believe in this whole "evolutionary sweet spot" idea. If we were to employ something unethical like eugenics, combined with a better political system which allowed people to eat nutritional foods as needed daily, sleep well, and get proper exercise and live in a stress free environment, I think that over time we would evolve better brains.

Where as right now people are often forced to go to work or school with as little as 3- 4 hours sleep (I know I have), even no sleep. Skip breakfast, lunch and/or dinner on a frequent basis, as well as the added stress of every day life brought on by things like not having money to pay bills and other expenses.
There are environmental factors that contributed to our increase in intelligence thousands of years ago, and I think there are environmental factors today that are contributing to our lack of intelligence today. Man started cooking his food, man started growing his food.

These two things alone had a tremendous affect on the evolution of our brains, imagine what would be possible if we could make our lives easier still, in the same way we did when we began farming our food.

I'm sorry to play smartass here, but it seems to me you have completely missed some key principles of evolution.
Two things are needed for evolution to take place: random mutations and selection.
However, I see no selection (natural or artificial) in the scenario you describe.
If you have better food, more sleep, a better surrounding.... this may increase your personal brain function, but environmental effects cannot be passed to your offspring.
On the contrary, a "dumb" person would benefit from such an ideal world just as well as a "smart" one and produce just as much offspring. I think the current belief among evolutionary biologists is that our intelligence has been decreasing since we became farmers. (there was no longer a survival benefit in being slightly smarter, the main evolutionary pressure became to have a good immune system, since living in large groups increased infection with pathogens...)

[Turnbuckle]

However, I see no selection (natural or artificial) in the scenario you describe.

I think that some are becomming smarter by sexual selection. Smart people tend to mate with smart people more than with dumb people, so we may eventually divide into Morlocks and Eloi.

On average, however, the human race is becoming dumber--at least, the average brain size has been shrinking for 40 thousand years.

[gamesguru]

Even the best experts are even at a loss when trying to qualify human evolution in the modern world, so it's unlikely the exchange of opinions on some internet forum will generate a solution to this tremendous problem.

The following quote, by Bertrand Russell is relevant:

From the purely biological point of view it is unfortunate that the destructive side of technique has advanced so very much more rapidly than the creative side. In one moment a man may kill 500,000 people, but he cannot have children any quicker than in the days of our savage ancestors. If a man could have 500,000 children as quickly as by an atomic bomb he can destroy 500,000 enemies we might, at the cost of enormous suffering, leave the biological problem to the struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest. But in the modem world the old mechanism of evolution can no longer be relied upon [presumably because it is too slow and aimless].

So if we don't rely on evolution? You guessed it, engineering. This article is interesting: http://www.hedweb.com/bokowfil.htm.

And in case you immediately thought of Brave New World, Nineteen Eighty-Four, or other dystopia novels, this is interesting: http://www.huxley.net/.

[Raza]

Article seems unimaginative, and somewhat dogmatic about the implicit drawbacks of abnormal psychologies. Transitional stages aren't always pretty, but there exist perfectly life-competent prodigious autist savants and syneasthetes. It's just a matter of fine-tuning.

I agree, however, that biological evolution won't play a very significant role in the future of humanity from this point forward, anyway. Artificial, technological advances will outpace it by many orders of magnitude.

Edited by Raza, 17 December 2012 - 01:48 PM.

[Turnbuckle]

I agree, however, that biological evolution won't play a very significant role in the future of humanity from this point forward, anyway. Artificial, technological advances will outpace it by many orders of magnitude.

Biological evolution, perhaps, but we haven't even started with technological manipulation of human genetics, and that will be very powerful.

[nowayout]

Well, in a way, once you have evolved a mind that can do universal computation (which the normal human mind can do), that's pretty much it - qualitatively you have reached the end of the line. The rest is really just quantitative improvements of memory and speed, which technology can provide us - many of us already rely to a large extent on the internet as a memory prosthesis.

[Major Legend]

I don't agree, I also think this is unimaginative, if we can selectively breed animals to super enhance/optimise certain traits, then I can't see why we can't do something similar with the human mind whilst ironing out the other issues, whilst yes photographic memory is probably debilitating, but there is probably a "peak" ideal performing brain most of us are not fortunate to possess yet. You just need to look across the population to know that some people have better minds without having lose out on other aspects, the fact is there are highly intelligent people out there who can still perform social functions out there to a high degree, its that they are rare, you do get people who excel in multiple feats like James Cameron, Einstein and so on. Your average doctor has better memory and it won't impair his success in other aspects in his life.

For example, i'm not intelligent, my memory isn't good, and i've had to hard learn many of my social skills, still people would consider me slightly autistic, my mind is far from "evolved as far as it can go", I know this because cognitive enhancement helps me a great deal even in this primitive state of science. I've spent most of my life looking in awe of others who find feats like learning language, or an instrument with ease, or being able to zone in and focus on something despite all the noise, these people are out there and every day I look at them and realise the disparity between the peak mind and the lesser.

It's not just speed and memory, some people have an unprecedented access to the void space we call creativity, some people are highly empathetic, others capable of being highly manipulative, some people have far less fear which is more appropriate to modern society, the problem is that manipulating and gene selecting is immoral and will ultimately lead to somewhere dark, such is the reason why this hasn't been pursued, without genetic engineering, selective breeding would take a few generations to take serious effect anyways, unfortunately that also means outside of enhancement cybernetically and biologically, the massive improvement to humankind will likely be in a generation after us.

Edited by Major Legend, 17 December 2012 - 06:00 PM.

[gamesguru]

I think it's unfair and prejudiced to say muddling with genes and eugenics will "ultimately lead to somewhere dark". That's like saying socialism is a bad idea. Sure, we've seen some unsuccessful attempts socialism, but to claim it's invariably and ultimately flawed, is like a child saying that all apples are red because he's only seen red apples; when you show him a green apple, though, he's going to feel like a wanker. The really plays in the problem of induction, going back to Hume and all the way Pyrrho.

I also don't think it's fair to say human beings are capable of this "universal calculation". We make some impressive discoveries, but that's about it. Even if my memory was three times as sharp, and my thought process three times as fast, there should still be innumerable questions which I could never answer.

Idk what is meant by "unimaginative". One does not read a non-fiction review hoping for it to be imaginative. This is not a piece of fiction. One reads such a review hoping for it to be critical and accurate, and you'll have fun trying to deny the review of Huxley's book of that.

Humans have the ability of universal computation? That's kind of like saying the microprocessor (or the soon-to-be quantum computer) could play Go perfectly. Well microprocessor is already the world champion of Chess (and obviously checkers), but the complexity is Go is 10^50 times higher than that of chess (10^120 vs 10^170). So it might turn out even with the best quantum computer, there's simply not enough atoms in the universe to evaluate all positions perfectly! So too, with humans, perhaps there's just not enough raw computing hardware in our brains to answer some of life's most interesting and perplexing questions. (There's a limit, I think, with brains just as much as with any computer technology. But maybe we haven't reached the limit quite yet: http://en.wikipedia...._the_future.svg). I leave you with another quote, this time by Hegel (I like the last sentence especially): "Reason is self-consciousness, and self-consciousness is Reason. Self-consciousness becomes all reality, in that Reason is the conscious certainty of being all reality. The Absolute is a universal reality which is conscious of itself. Hence all reality is Reason. Whatever is real is rational, whatever is rational is real. The reality of Reason has a universal necessity. Whatever is irrational cannot have a conscious certainty of its own reality."

Edited by dasheenster, 17 December 2012 - 10:17 PM.

[The Immortalist]

Challenge excepted.

[Augmentation]

Our brain is currently as "efficient" as it is going to get for our body size, as far as a number of biologist are concerned. While there might be a greater difference in intelligence dude to selective breading as Turnbuckle mentioned, we appear to be reaching our maximum ability for our current body size. Would genetically engineering larger humans, with larger brains, necessarily lead to a potential for smarter more consciously aware humans?

[gamesguru]

Accepted*

As dogmatic as it sounds, bigger brains generally allow for richer experiences and deeper thoughts. So genetically engineered humans whose brains were 125x as massive (5x length), might have a huge advantage over us in learning and thinking and everything basically. I mean, our bodies could be fueled by better foods (more dense), and they could easily support a larger brain. You can't say our brain's prowess and ability is unsurpassable.

[lifebuddy]

Right. To say that any process is already maxed out or already in a terminal phase is short sighted, especially when we are talking about something as complex as the human brain. There is still so much that we do not understand about how it works, adapts, changed, grows, dies, etc.

[LBGSHI]

The crux of the matter is that people in this thread seem to be saying one thing, while they are really (perhaps unwittingly) saying quite another.

Some people are much more intelligent than others. While there is certainly a higher incidence of some specific diseases and disorders amongst intelligent people, this is not the norm. Most highly intelligent people do not suffer from a debilitating disease or disorder.

Throughout history, there have been many brilliant people. Let us use Leonardo Da Vinci as an example. Even if he were the most intelligent person to have ever lived (which is doubtful), and even if his level of intelligence were the absolute maximum that could ever be reached (which is doubtful), can you imagine what it would be like if everyone on the planet was as intelligent as Leonardo Da Vinci?

In condensation, even if the maximum intelligence has already been reached by a miniscule few and can never be exceeded, it is everyone's intelligence that we should strive to increase, and for anyone that isn't among the most brilliant minds that ever existed, that includes you.

All that being said, as for evolution favoring the most intelligent, that could certainly be stunted by the various effects of our current civilization. However, keep in mind that this age of American hegemony and mass media and current societal norms causing a social and intellectual disintegration is a temporary phenomenon. The US has only been around for a few hundred years. There were empires that lasted several times as long as we've lasted, prospered, and still fell (indeed, nearly every empire to date), and we seem to be accelerating this process at a record pace. So, if social factors are worrisome for those favoring evolution toward higher intelligence, worry not - those are always sorted out sooner or later. In the end, it takes intelligence and innovation, coupled with collaboration and loyalty, to compete successfully against other people...and such conflicts have always and will always occur, regardless of any temporary lulls in overt competition.

When speaking of things like evolution, keep in mind that these are long-term changes. What's been going on for the past thousand years is relatively small compared to what's been going on for the last hundred thousand, or million years, in terms of evolution. Try to imagine what the world will be like in only one thousand years from now - it will be very dissimilar to what it is today. Now imagine what it will be like in one hundred thousand years, or one million years. Finally, a backdrop of logic.

Edited by LBGSHI, 18 December 2012 - 05:01 PM.

[Major Legend]

The crux of the matter is that people in this thread seem to be saying one thing, while they are really (perhaps unwittingly) saying quite another.

Some people are much more intelligent than others. While there is certainly a higher incidence of some specific diseases and disorders amongst intelligent people, this is not the norm. Most highly intelligent people do not suffer from a debilitating disease or disorder.

Throughout history, there have been many brilliant people. Let us use Leonardo Da Vinci as an example. Even if he were the most intelligent person to have ever lived (which is doubtful), and even if his level of intelligence were the absolute maximum that could ever be reached (which is doubtful), can you imagine what it would be like if everyone on the planet was as intelligent as Leonardo Da Vinci?

In condensation, even if the maximum intelligence has already been reached by a miniscule few and can never be exceeded, it is everyone's intelligence that we should strive to increase, and for anyone that isn't among the most brilliant minds that ever existed, that includes you.

All that being said, as for evolution favoring the most intelligent, that could certainly be stunted by the various effects of our current civilization. However, keep in mind that this age of American hegemony and mass media and current societal norms causing a social and intellectual disintegration is a temporary phenomenon. The US has only been around for a few hundred years. There were empires that lasted several times as long as we've lasted, prospered, and still fell (indeed, nearly every empire to date), and we seem to be accelerating this process at a record pace. So, if social factors are worrisome for those favoring evolution toward higher intelligence, worry not - those are always sorted out sooner or later. In the end, it takes intelligence and innovation, coupled with collaboration and loyalty, to compete successfully against other people...and such conflicts have always and will always occur, regardless of any temporary lulls in overt competition.

When speaking of things like evolution, keep in mind that these are long-term changes. What's been going on for the past thousand years is relatively small compared to what's been going on for the last hundred thousand, or million years, in terms of evolution. Try to imagine what the world will be like in only one thousand years from now - it will be very dissimilar to what it is today. Now imagine what it will be like in one hundred thousand years, or one million years. Finally, a backdrop of logic.

This ^, wow there are some really intelligent people on these forums, I wish I didn't suffer brain damage, maybe then I could get closer to this kind of fluidity. I feel mostly like a retard on this forum, even though I read a lot. My mind is far far from the ideal form.

[xEva]

@Major Legend, don't despair. There is always hope, lol.


I don't think that larger brains are required to improve intelligence. Look at birds, who have highly compact brains (ex. rooks and related corvids). This implies that we do not utilize our brains fully.

More importantly, what you guys call 'intelligence' and 'reason' is a small section of our brain. You start appreciating this fact when you learn an eastern-type meditation. One of its side effects is that the hemispheres begin to oscillate in phase and the whole brain start working as one coherent whole. When this happens, you do not 'think' and have no need for words. When we talk or think in words we tend to use a small, relatively primitive section of our brains and the skill itself is useful only for talking to other, lesser, brains lol. But no words are necessary when talking to your kind, 'cause evolved brains know that ESP, in is various forms, exists. They know it, 'cause they use it.

In contrast, an average person not only denies existence of ESP, he supposes that a super-intelligent (in comparison to him) person must be defective in some other aspects or at least be in cahoots with the devil, lol, 'cause otherwise the realization of his own inferiority becomes too painful. But if you look around, the smartest people are also the best looking, simply because smarts, beauty and high athletic performance are mere signs of good health and unimpeded, proper, development.

From this follows that in order to improve humanity's intelligence we need to assure good health for each individual (which brings another point about USA -- calling it superpower is misleading, 'cause this country does not even have basic health care guaranteed for its citizens).

[LBGSHI]

@Major Legend, don't despair. There is always hope, lol.


I don't think that larger brains are required to improve intelligence. Look at birds, who have highly compact brains (ex. rooks and related corvids). This implies that we do not utilize our brains fully.

More importantly, what you guys call 'intelligence' and 'reason' is a small section of our brain. You start appreciating this fact when you learn an eastern-type meditation. One of its side effects is that the hemispheres begin to oscillate in phase and the whole brain start working as one coherent whole. When this happens, you do not 'think' and have no need for words. When we talk or think in words we tend to use a small, relatively primitive section of our brains and the skill itself is useful only for talking to other, lesser, brains lol. But no words are necessary when talking to your kind, 'cause evolved brains know that ESP, in is various forms, exists. They know it, 'cause they use it.

In contrast, an average person not only denies existence of ESP, he supposes that a super-intelligent (in comparison to him) person must be defective in some other aspects or at least be in cahoots with the devil, lol, 'cause otherwise the realization of his own inferiority becomes too painful. But if you look around, the smartest people are also the best looking, simply because smarts, beauty and high athletic performance are mere signs of good health and unimpeded, proper, development.

From this follows that in order to improve humanity's intelligence we need to assure good health for each individual (which brings another point about USA -- calling it superpower is misleading, 'cause this country does not even have basic health care guaranteed for its citizens).

Certainly, brain size is only one aspect of intelligence, as brain complexity plays a huge role as well. I would also agree that general health is very important in improving cognitive abilities.

As for your comments regarding ESP, that's ridiculous. A survey in 1990 of the National Academy of Sciences determined that 96% of its members did not believe in ESP or were skeptical of its existence. Are you stating that 96% of the NAS is cognitively deficient and not in possession of "evolved brains", as you put it?

I would not argue against the point that there are occasionally interesting studies and phenomena related to what some consider ESP. However, the vast majority of studies has disproved any notion of ESP, and those that have either been equivocal or supportive of ESP have been heavily criticized by the scientific community as having been carried out improperly, and when the same tests were performed by other groups, the results could not be duplicated.

Furthermore, you've stated that the area of the brain responsible for speech and verbal communication is a "relatively primitive section of our brains". If you mean the act of speaking, then you're referring to Broca's Area, which lies in the frontal lobe, which is the "part of the brain that is responsible for executive functions such as planning for the future, judgment, decision-making skills, attention span, and inhibition. These functions can decrease drastically in someone whose frontal lobe is damaged." (Stuss, D. T., Gow, C. A., & Hetherington, C. (1992). 'No longer gage': Frontal lobe dysfunction and emotional changes. Journal Of Consulting And Clinical Psychology, 60(3), 349-359). If you mean the act of comprehending the speech of others, then you're referring to Wernicke's Area, which is responsible for "retention of visual memories, processing sensory input, comprehending language, storing new memories, emotion, and deriving meaning." (Smith & Kosslyn (2007). Cognitive Psychology: Mind and Brain. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. pp. 21). I don't think either of these areas would be regarded as 'primitive'. As with virtually every part of our bodies, these parts of the brain exist in pongids (chimpanzees, orangutans, gorillas, etc), in much more primitive form than in man, yet the parts themselves are not therefore to be considered primitive, as they advanced as we advanced (indeed, one would more properly say, 'We advanced, because they advanced.).

Someone advocating belief in ESP, specifying that people with 'evolved brains' believe in ESP and are capable of telepathic communication (and use speech only to communicate with those who possess 'lesser brains', including, apparently, 96% of the National Academy of Sciences, as one example), and showing a marked lack of knowledge concerning the brain and its constituent parts, quite literally defies logic. It's disappointing to see on such a great site as Longecity.

Edited by LBGSHI, 18 December 2012 - 10:33 PM.

[Psionic]

Our brain is currently as "efficient" as it is going to get for our body size, as far as a number of biologist are concerned. While there might be a greater difference in intelligence dude to selective breading as Turnbuckle mentioned, we appear to be reaching our maximum ability for our current body size. Would genetically engineering larger humans, with larger brains, necessarily lead to a potential for smarter more consciously aware humans?

The form (and thus brain) will follow requierements of the consciousness as its can be seen in every nature´s creation.

But I also advocate on reading this:

https://en.wikipedia...ravec's_paradox

Moravec's paradox is the discovery by artificial intelligence and robotics researchers that, contrary to traditional assumptions, high-level reasoning requires very little computation, but low-level sensorimotor skills require enormous computational resources. The principle was articulated by Hans Moravec, Rodney Brooks, Marvin Minsky and others in the 1980s. As Moravec writes, "it is comparatively easy to make computers exhibit adult level performance on intelligence tests or playing checkers, and difficult or impossible to give them the skills of a one-year-old when it comes to perception and mobility."^[1]
Marvin Minsky emphasizes that the most difficult human skills to reverse engineer are those that are unconscious. "In general, we're least aware of what our minds do best," he writes, and adds "we're more aware of simple processes that don't work well than of complex ones that work flawlessly."^[3]

[impdaddee]

Amusing.

I can only imagine a pack of bored wolves sitting around thinking, "Our teeth aren't going to get any bigger because they serve us so well. That's it. The end of our evolutionary path. It can't get any better than this."

Maybe what comes after intelligence will be about as comprehensible to the intelligent as intelligence is to the sharp-toothed wolf? The real kicker: we can never know.

[xEva]

As for your comments regarding ESP, that's ridiculous.

No, ridiculous is you guys here who decided that you can't possibly get any smarter, while in fact you have only scratched the surface of what your brains are capable of.

And it is not studies that convince you of ESP but direct personal experience. If you have reached the adult age and never had them, then you may as well continue denying its existence. It's better than suffer from an inferiority complex.

Furthermore, you've stated that the area of the brain responsible for speech and verbal communication is a "relatively primitive section of our brains". If you mean the act of speaking, then you're referring to Broca's Area, which lies in the frontal lobe, which is the "part of the brain that is responsible for executive functions such as planning for the future, judgment, decision-making skills, attention span, and inhibition.

All of this are relatively primitive functions of our brains. Being so 'logical' and 'reasonable', they are easy to implement in a machine, which the poster after you brought up. Our complex abilities involve direct knowing, which is actually an extension of empathy.

These functions can decrease drastically in someone whose frontal lobe is damaged.

See, I talked about using the whole brain and you talk about its broken parts. Modern humans rely too much on their 'talking' 'reasonable' parts, to the point that they are unaware of their brains other abilities, and when they hear about them, they deny them as impossible.

And by the way, I do not advocate belief in ESP. I know it exists. The belief that it does not exist belongs to you.

Edited by xEva, 19 December 2012 - 12:10 AM.

[LBGSHI]

No, ridiculous is you guys here who decided that you can't possibly get any smarter, while in fact you have only scratched the surface of what your brains are capable of.

I never posited that we 'couldn't get any smarter'. I merely said that, if we were not able to exceed our greatest, currently-known geniuses in intellect, but were able to reach such a level on average, that wouldn't be such a bad thing.

And it is not studies that convince you of ESP but direct personal experience. If you have reached the adult age and never had them, then you may as well continue denying its existence. It's better than suffer from an inferiority complex.

Studies and tests are how something is measured and identified. That is how science works. As for an inferiority complex (your attempt at a thinly-veiled insult), there is no risk of that. Certainly, there are superior minds to mine (something I don't have a complex about), but you do not possess one of those.

Furthermore, you've stated that the area of the brain responsible for speech and verbal communication is a "relatively primitive section of our brains". If you mean the act of speaking, then you're referring to Broca's Area, which lies in the frontal lobe, which is the "part of the brain that is responsible for executive functions such as planning for the future, judgment, decision-making skills, attention span, and inhibition.

All of this are relatively primitive functions of our brains. Being so 'logical' and 'reasonable', they are easy to implement in a machine, which the poster after you brought up. Our complex abilities involve direct knowing, which is actually an extension of empathy.

Are you talking about Abhijna? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abhijna

It's all so simple, to grab an arbitrary religious belief from India, and talk about how much more advanced it is than our petty belief in science and logic. However, it doesn't hold up, is disproved when tested, cannot be confirmed, cannot be duplicated for examination, and point in fact, did not allow the people of the Indian subcontinent to independently reach the level of advancement of Europe, nor to avoid being defeated and conquered by Europeans with a more technologically advanced, more organized, more structured, and more logical civilization, only to regain independence after Europe was devastated by World War II and wracked with internal conflict over the fairness of colonies (which of course, were unfair). There are plenty of people tossing around ideas of various cultures having 'gotten it right' and having been 'superior' to the Western cultures, yet cultures that embraced these ideas never progressed to anywhere near the level of advancement of their Western counterparts. For example, Japan, peopled with a very intelligent, united people, reached the level of advancement it enjoys today by adopting the technology and to a large extent the culture of its Western allies (and enemies). People like yourself who tout the amazing abilities bestowed upon you by adopting quasi-mystical practices, which cannot be measured and which you zealously avoid having measured, do much more harm than good by convincing desperate people that there are magical answers to their problems. If you hate science and logic, as you seem to profess, then it would be better for you to simply stay out of the conversation.

And by the way, I do not advocate belief in ESP. I know it exists. The belief that it does not exist belongs to you.

I see. Please explain what your extra-sensory abilities are. I would like to be further educated, so I can explain to you how to study and observe these 'abilities', to determine if they're real or imagined. It should be a rather simple matter.

[Major Legend]

Its possible, that parts of the brain, well the right side actually is more in touch with the universe, however i think its not that logic doesnt exist, more like tradutional logic doesnt apply to parts of the inaccesible human concious because it doesnt factor in time, remember the human brain logic is governed by the awareness of dimishing energy thats how we survive, therefore parts of our concious are simply more holistic and present in the moment without survival instincts such as emotion (evolutionary preference) or time ( aware of dimishing energy),

However this is only a feeling medidtative states only give the feeling of interconnectevness and transcendence in my opinion no different than taking certain drugs which shut down and enhances parts of the brain, its essentially a perception twist, therefore its not granting the brain any special abilities but an abrupt change in say subroutines i guess. Its no different from dopamine making people feel like they are better at everything, its an illusion not enhancement.

[xEva]

I never posited that we 'couldn't get any smarter'. I merely said that, if we were not able to exceed our greatest, currently-known geniuses in intellect, but were able to reach such a level on average, that wouldn't be such a bad thing.

Fair enough

Studies and tests are how something is measured and identified. That is how science works. As for an inferiority complex (your attempt at a thinly-veiled insult), there is no risk of that. Certainly, there are superior minds to mine (something I don't have a complex about), but you do not possess one of those.

lol What makes you think so? You speak condescendingly to me about the subject, with which you, by your own admission, have no experience. You took insult from me for stating a mere fact based on observation of the human nature. -?

Are you talking about Abhijna? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abhijna

lol no, never heard of it. What made you bring it up? You show difficulty sticking to the topic.

People like yourself who tout the amazing abilities bestowed upon you by adopting quasi-mystical practices, which cannot be measured and which you zealously avoid having measured.... If you hate science and logic, as you seem to profess, then it would be better for you to simply stay out of the conversation.

Having made assumptions without any basis in reality, you typed up the wall of text -?

You also don't pay enough attention to what you read. I said above that people who know that ESP is real learn it on personal experience while they are growing up. I happen to grow up in an atheist country, so my experiences had nothing to do with 'mystical practices'.

But I must say that everyone has ESP, even though an average person is not aware of it. Like any other human ability, some naturally have it more, some less, but everyone can improve with proper practice. If such a practice strikes you as 'religious' or 'mysterious' that only shows your lack of understanding.

Please explain what your extra-sensory abilities are. I would like to be further educated, so I can explain to you how to study and observe these 'abilities', to determine if they're real or imagined. It should be a rather simple matter.

LOL You will explain to me how to study and observe? It's easy for me to forgive your impertinence and condescending tone, like I would forgive a deaf man for ignoring what I said.

And since you talk about science, I'll tell you about an experiment you can conduct yourself, so that you can decide for yourself what's what, rather than relying for your opinions on the well-known 'party lines of science'. It's an easy experiment, but requires dedication and discipline from you and a person who has been close to you, but is living far away now. Properly conducted, it will show you that each time you have a thought about that person, at that very time that person too has thoughts about you, and the topic of your thoughts will often match. Tell me if you got what takes to conduct such an experiment and I'll give you the details. If not, you better not talk about science.

[LBGSHI]

Studies and tests are how something is measured and identified. That is how science works. As for an inferiority complex (your attempt at a thinly-veiled insult), there is no risk of that. Certainly, there are superior minds to mine (something I don't have a complex about), but you do not possess one of those.

lol What makes you think so? You speak condescendingly to me about the subject, with which you, by your own admission, have no experience. You took insult from me for stating a mere fact based on observation of the human nature. -?

I speak condescendingly to you about a subject which has been consistently shown to be false, and which has consequently occupied only those corners of thought which cannot be disproved. In other words, in any test which would unequivocally prove ESP to exist, those purporting to possess such abilities have failed to display them. The only ones who have not been proven to be frauds were those who refused to participate in a given test. I 'took insult' from your statement, "If you have reached the adult age and never had them, then you may as well continue denying its existence. It's better than suffer from an inferiority complex.". Apparently, either I possess ESP, don't possess it and ignorantly believe it doesn't exist, or don't possess it and have an inferiority complex due to my knowledge that it does exist and I don't have an 'evolved brain', as you put it. I'd say that qualifies as an insult, despite your attempt to dress it up otherwise.

Are you talking about Abhijna? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abhijna

lol no, never heard of it. What made you bring it up? You show difficulty sticking to the topic.

Your sentence, which I quoted before asking that question, was "Our complex abilities involve direct knowing, which is actually an extension of empathy." The phrase 'direct knowing' (Abhijina) is an important phrase in Indian Buddhism, which refers to abilities congruent with ESP (seeing the past or future, reading minds, consciously ridding the body of toxins, etc). I was certainly sticking to the topic. My guess is, you learned your terminology and catch phrases from Buddhism, but never bothered to learn the original nomenclature. No matter; there's no reason to adhere to a specific script when you're just passing off nonsense as science anyway.

You also don't pay enough attention to what you read. I said above that people who know that ESP is real learn it on personal experience while they are growing up. I happen to grow up in an atheist country, so my experiences had nothing to do with 'mystical practices'.

But I must say that everyone has ESP, even though an average person is not aware of it. Like any other human ability, some naturally have it more, some less, but everyone can improve with proper practice. If such a practice strikes you as 'religious' or 'mysterious' that only shows your lack of understanding.

First of all, I said 'quasi-mystical' - as in, not really mystical, but that which you treat as such. It doesn't matter if you grew up in an atheist country or not. Superstition, mysticism, belief in the occult, and similar practices are almost endogenous to man; they can be created any time someone feels the need, and indeed new religions and superstitions are started frequently, and certainly, new spins on old religions and superstitions are generated regularly.

A feeling that you have the ability to read minds, or see the future, or whatever other form of ESP you claim to possess, does indeed fall into the category of the occult. That's how claiming to have special abilities which you can't actually show anyone and which all scientific inquiry either disproves or cannot reproduce, works. Until you can show evidence of a fantastic claim, the burden of proof is on you.

And since you talk about science, I'll tell you about an experiment you can conduct yourself, so that you can decide for yourself what's what, rather than relying for your opinions on the well-known 'party lines of science'.

'Party lines of science'? All the scientific community asks for is evidence that ESP exists. And thus far, none has been forthcoming. Science questions everything, to determine what is true, and what is not. If it weren't for this process, we would never have progressed technologically, to the point at which we could have such a debate as this, using electronic devices, and communicating across thousands of miles (to say nothing of the millions of other achievements this process has resulted in).

It's an easy experiment, but requires dedication and discipline from you and a person who has been close to you, but is living far away now. Properly conducted, it will show you that each time you have a thought about that person, at that very time that person too has thoughts about you, and the topic of your thoughts will often match. Tell me if you got what takes to conduct such an experiment and I'll give you the details. If not, you better not talk about science.

Sure, I'll play your little game. My guess is, if (when) it doesn't work, you'll claim that I was 'doing it wrong'. But, fine, I'm always up for a little experiment. If I'm wrong, I'll be the first one to admit it.

That said, you never answered my question. What are your 'special abilities'? Please be specific.

Edited by LBGSHI, 19 December 2012 - 05:48 AM.

[Major Legend]

People thinking about each other as magical...esp as an extension of empathy....I don't know isn't it theoretically possible that it could happen by chance anyways? Given most people don't know more than 300-400 people (don't remember the exact numbers), and if you whittle down to the amount of people you are close too, have fond/ingrained memories off, seen on a regular basis, maybe 20 to 30 people at most, if not like 5 for most people, thus the chance of the person thinking similar thoughts to you could happen coincidentally quite a lot.

For example if you see the same people for lunch at the same time everyday, its highly plausible that the people would be thinking of each other about lunch not long before the actual event, remembering past events, interactions, emotions shared. If it's somebody you and loves you back, then its even more likely these shared thoughts happen all the time, plus when people who are close are seggregated the amount of time, before the person reminisce the other person maybe vastly similar for example a couple might think about each other if they haven't seen each other 2 months.