7 ms·

I find it quite humorous that humans will end up plugging chips in their brains to make them "better" before even trying to do it without - once again the path

by Morg 14y ago

I find it quite humorous that humans will end up plugging chips in their brains to make them "better" before even trying to do it without - once again the path of least effort is the way.

moistgorilla 14y ago
What do you mean trying to do it without? We have been living without chips in our brain for as long as we have existed.
- nnq 14y ago
  ...tel that to you grand-children someday and watch them have a good laugh at it
- Morg 14y ago
  What I mean is trying to do without training their brains. I know I'm far below the potential I had when I was 10 in terms of raw intelligence, and I believe many people could've been a few thousand times smarter if we had only tried making them smart. Going to chips when we haven't even learned to train our brains looks ridiculous to me.
gouranga 14y ago
I'll probably get downvoted for this, but the Nazis had the right idea: eugenics. This is not something I am opposed to from a scientific point of view. We do it with livestock, so why not us? (Before I accidentally invoke Godwin's law, I'm not saying I agree with the other things the Nazis did or that I agree with eliminating non-eugenic friendly individuals). EDIT: I actually disagree entirely with eugenics - this was an experiment ot see what happens if you apply plain logic and no ethics to the problem. The number of upvotes was slightly worrying!!! For reference, my daughter is disabled and would fall foul of any appropriate eugenics principles which is not right.
- dawson 14y ago
  Interesting, what kind of family policy would you propose, if not that of eliminating non-eugenic individuals? I mean, is there a way eugenics can work without removing human rights? (serious question, no judgement made) I haven't read Francis Galton's original doctrine so apologies if this is obvious to those who have.
  - burke 14y ago
    Strong financial incentives for selected individuals to reproduce; penalties for others.
    - dawson 14y ago
      I didn't think of that! Which is strange considering I'm in China at the moment and it's not too far from the one child policy and their penalty system. Though I would have difficulty defending the human rights argument :) To be honest, I've been thinking about my question since asking and the only answer I can come up with is genetic engineering (designer babies).
    - mattmanser 14y ago
      Woo! Force people to have an abortion because they can't afford to reproduce. I want to call that torture, but feel extremist if I do. I can't think of any other way to vocalise it though. I guess there is nowhere good this conversation can go.
      - nnq 14y ago
        You wouldn't have to force an abortion on anyone. Just force a "basic baby tax" to discourage the dirt poor to have children they can't even afford to feed or properly educate and a HUGE "extra baby tax" for any family having more than 2 children (or plug your favorite number in here if you want a certain level o population growth), and invest the collected money in improving education. And boom, instant improvement to all aspects of life! Not really a breach of human rights since you could take it as a minor amendment to the implied social contract. (the tax will not mean much for billionaires, but at least they can afford the best possible education for their kids and with some tax exemptions for important but not so well paid professionals - like university professors) (and you could add something like forced sterilization for people not affording to pay the "extra baby tax" after they've made one.
wtetzner 14y ago
What is your alternative way? And why would it be the better way? If we can use this to help paralysed people move again, it seems to me that it would be a win.
- Morg 14y ago
  My alternative way is to learn to develop our brains first. I know I'm several orders of magnitude less smart than I could be, and that could've been very different with better nurture - although I was born in a University, both my parents are physicists, speak several languages etc. etc. IMO there is a LOT of untapped potential in the human brain yet and going to chips for speed upgrades looks ridiculous.
nnq 14y ago
Isn't "path of least effort" == optimal_path ??
- Craiggybear 14y ago
  I'd suggest the road least travelled is probably the best choice.
- Morg 14y ago
  Not really. It's about short term vs long term - mostly the path of least effort is a short term view, long term is more about the path of maximum potential imo.
Symmetry 14y ago
Do you lament the fact that having books means people no longer have to memorize everything?
- Morg 14y ago
  I have no clue as to how life was before books. I can tell you I have incredibly good and fresh memory but it's much worse when it comes to web-accessible stuff, like what's PHP's function for this or that, while at the same time I can recall conversations from south park episodes I haven't seen in years. I have googled the same function at least a dozen times while at the same time I could recall every detail of the Silmarillion after having read it only once (that was a while ago and I had much better memory but still). It is highly likely that accessibility lowers the ability to retain knowledge in its raw form, as increasingly the brain relies on pointers to base a google search on instead of keeping track of the whole thing.
crusso 14y ago
I find it quite humorous that you're participating in an online conversation through use of a computer when you could go talk to someone instead.
- Morg 14y ago
  Not really, if I bug my colleagues anymore, they'll realize I'm not working that much.
Morg 14y ago
Just to clarify my cryptic statement: We're all incredibly less intelligent than we could have been. Trying to supplement the brain with technology while we haven't even started trying to develop our intelligence, is a stupid idea imho.

by Morg 14y ago

I find it quite humorous that humans will end up plugging chips in their brains to make them "better" before even trying to do it without - once again the path of least effort is the way.

moistgorilla 14y ago

What do you mean trying to do it without? We have been living without chips in our brain for as long as we have existed.

nnq 14y ago
...tel that to you grand-children someday and watch them have a good laugh at it
Morg 14y ago
What I mean is trying to do without training their brains. I know I'm far below the potential I had when I was 10 in terms of raw intelligence, and I believe many people could've been a few thousand times smarter if we had only tried making them smart. Going to chips when we haven't even learned to train our brains looks ridiculous to me.

gouranga 14y ago

I'll probably get downvoted for this, but the Nazis had the right idea: eugenics. This is not something I am opposed to from a scientific point of view. We do it with livestock, so why not us? (Before I accidentally invoke Godwin's law, I'm not saying I agree with the other things the Nazis did or that I agree with eliminating non-eugenic friendly individuals). EDIT: I actually disagree entirely with eugenics - this was an experiment ot see what happens if you apply plain logic and no ethics to the problem. The number of upvotes was slightly worrying!!! For reference, my daughter is disabled and would fall foul of any appropriate eugenics principles which is not right.

dawson 14y ago
Interesting, what kind of family policy would you propose, if not that of eliminating non-eugenic individuals? I mean, is there a way eugenics can work without removing human rights? (serious question, no judgement made) I haven't read Francis Galton's original doctrine so apologies if this is obvious to those who have.
- burke 14y ago
  Strong financial incentives for selected individuals to reproduce; penalties for others.
  - dawson 14y ago
    I didn't think of that! Which is strange considering I'm in China at the moment and it's not too far from the one child policy and their penalty system. Though I would have difficulty defending the human rights argument :) To be honest, I've been thinking about my question since asking and the only answer I can come up with is genetic engineering (designer babies).
  - mattmanser 14y ago
    Woo! Force people to have an abortion because they can't afford to reproduce. I want to call that torture, but feel extremist if I do. I can't think of any other way to vocalise it though. I guess there is nowhere good this conversation can go.
    - nnq 14y ago
      You wouldn't have to force an abortion on anyone. Just force a "basic baby tax" to discourage the dirt poor to have children they can't even afford to feed or properly educate and a HUGE "extra baby tax" for any family having more than 2 children (or plug your favorite number in here if you want a certain level o population growth), and invest the collected money in improving education. And boom, instant improvement to all aspects of life! Not really a breach of human rights since you could take it as a minor amendment to the implied social contract. (the tax will not mean much for billionaires, but at least they can afford the best possible education for their kids and with some tax exemptions for important but not so well paid professionals - like university professors) (and you could add something like forced sterilization for people not affording to pay the "extra baby tax" after they've made one.

wtetzner 14y ago

What is your alternative way? And why would it be the better way? If we can use this to help paralysed people move again, it seems to me that it would be a win.

Morg 14y ago
My alternative way is to learn to develop our brains first. I know I'm several orders of magnitude less smart than I could be, and that could've been very different with better nurture - although I was born in a University, both my parents are physicists, speak several languages etc. etc. IMO there is a LOT of untapped potential in the human brain yet and going to chips for speed upgrades looks ridiculous.

nnq 14y ago

Isn't "path of least effort" == optimal_path ??

Craiggybear 14y ago
I'd suggest the road least travelled is probably the best choice.
Morg 14y ago
Not really. It's about short term vs long term - mostly the path of least effort is a short term view, long term is more about the path of maximum potential imo.

Symmetry 14y ago

Do you lament the fact that having books means people no longer have to memorize everything?

Morg 14y ago
I have no clue as to how life was before books. I can tell you I have incredibly good and fresh memory but it's much worse when it comes to web-accessible stuff, like what's PHP's function for this or that, while at the same time I can recall conversations from south park episodes I haven't seen in years. I have googled the same function at least a dozen times while at the same time I could recall every detail of the Silmarillion after having read it only once (that was a while ago and I had much better memory but still). It is highly likely that accessibility lowers the ability to retain knowledge in its raw form, as increasingly the brain relies on pointers to base a google search on instead of keeping track of the whole thing.

crusso 14y ago

I find it quite humorous that you're participating in an online conversation through use of a computer when you could go talk to someone instead.

Morg 14y ago
Not really, if I bug my colleagues anymore, they'll realize I'm not working that much.

Morg 14y ago

Just to clarify my cryptic statement: We're all incredibly less intelligent than we could have been. Trying to supplement the brain with technology while we haven't even started trying to develop our intelligence, is a stupid idea imho.