Superhuman Intelligence

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7606

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh, my mistake, I saw the title of this thread and assumed you all were talking about me... *sigh*... :-D

J/k, I do have a question though. Let's say you have a man of some level of intelligence, and you build an exact computer emulation of the man's brain (neuron for neuron) that, for all intensive purposes, functions exactly like the original brain, same intelligence, etc. Now let's up the clock speed of the computer emulation so it's thinking ten times as fast, so that to the computer emulation, one second in the real world is percieved as ten seconds. Can one consider it to be ten times as intelligent as the man? Or would it be as intelligent as before, but simply said to be thinking ten as fast?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I would put forth the question of what "intelligence" is, exactly, before discussing issues of superiority or inferiority in regards to intelligence.

I have brought this up in discussions many times before, and the idea of questioning what "intelligence" actually means, how to quantify it while removing the interpretive factor of other people, is almost invariably derided as nonsense. My experience on the subject is that the vast majority of people seem to consider the question of intelligence to be obvious; why, certainly Einstein is more "intelligent" than Frank the Gardner who never graduated High School, but what, exactly, is the quality that defines this superiority? Is the question ridiculous? Can you actually tell me what the difference is, beyond the achievements of Dr. Einstein versus the relative inachievement of Frank the Gardner? Is not the assignment of "importance" to Dr. Einstein's work a matter of taste anyhow, even if the vast majority would agree with said taste? Is that actually a basis for comparison? Are we evaluating via consensus?

I would suggest considering these questions, which are fundamentally philosophical in nature, before even beginning to discuss whether machines can be "more" intelligent than people. I'd like a definition that doesn't leave out some factor which anyone might consider a sign of intelligence. Let's get to the bottom of it.

 

I wouldn't. In any discussion some things are granted, if we have to discuss what intelligence is as though we could make a single definition of it, then there is no point other than to discuss 'what intelligence is' and should be in a thread of its own. Otherwise look it up.

 

Here's some thoughts. Can a design be more intelligent than the designer? After all, aren't all of our creations merely exstentions of our own mind, in our own image? With that in mind, the only other statement I have is this:

Until we figure of ways to increase our own intelligence, we cannot create machines that can increase their own intellect. Only until we learn to master our own mind, can we even begin to comprehend such a principle.

 

I think the universe is pretty intelligent, scientists and philosophers have tried for thousands of years, but have yet to figure it out

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Superhuman intelligence is possible. A machine designed to communicate ideas with a data base of facts. It would be able to show all relationships between all known ideas and facts. I would be able to more accurate assessments about the past, present and future. The problem is, that humans would have to trust it, because they would lack the intelligence to understand what it does. Humans are much more interested in fantasy, overgeneralizations, morals and traditiosn rather that fact. It would not be of too much use to the average person, they'd be too retarded to benefit.

 

So let's say that we learn that increasing the number or strength of connections between neurons in the frontal lobe increases the IQ of a human being. Couldn't we just engineer humans so that they have more neuronal connections in their frontal lobes, thus making "super-humans"? It would seem that something similar would be possible with machines. Once we have a complete understanding of the human brain and the way it works, will we not be able to create machines with greater intelligence than humans?

It seems to me that if we are to believe in a entirely materialistic, non-dualistic, universe, i.e. that the human brain is nothing more than a chemical and electical machine, than this is very much a possibility.

 

The way we are engineered does not allow for super-great advancements... but I think theoretically its possible.

A lot of our neuronal pathways are regulated and maintained by electro-chemical gradients... or more so just chemicals and the potentials they create. Quick response nerves are myelinated more and thus have less AP potentials to trigger on their way to target and receptors, thus they have faster response time. Some nerves are slow to respond and require elonged stimulation, thus have more gaps in between the myelin sheaths... but these fibers tend to be more for refined movement or endurance.

But that is just associated with motor/sensory neurons.

I am somewhat skeptical of the idea that insulation of neurons will increase IQ. First off the definition of IQ is somewhat subjective enough already, as to how to measure that would be something that needs to be better outlined even though it has been done for decades.
Also, increasing the strength of connectivity within the frontal lobe may make it easier to attain new knowledge or understand certain things, but learning to train or make use of the existing non-strengthened neurons may just be as useful if not more. Just as some people are born with great athletic genes does not necessarily make them great atheletes, they still need to be trained to be able to use their atheletic gift in the most efficient and non-wasteful way possible. Computers also work the same way, a computer is nothing if it doesn't have a built-in firmware or software installed such an operating system that would allow the different functions of the hardware to be used. Quick real example would be how Windows XP does not recognize or utilize more than 2-4GB of DDR ram due to the 32-bit architecture that is was built on. Installing a 1TB hard drive on your computer and only being able to recognize 500GB of it would also be a software issue. The way in which the stimuli are interpreted and defragmented and organized within ones mind is probably more important than the machine in which it is being processed in. Having a large powerful machine is useless if you have no powerful or worthy information worth processing.

They say that we only use like what, 10% give or take a few % of our brains, and that the rest is used for other things and what not? I read somewhere that brains are like silicon based CPUs, the reason our brain only chooses to use 11% is because that way it leaves room for other things, the other 90% or so as a buffer zone. we only process only so many things at a time that matter to us, just as our eyes only focus on one point at a time even though we can visually observe maybe 95% of things around the focal point which aren't significant (peripheral vision).

If we were using up 90% or even 100% of our brain, we'd have no extra room to be able to process everything, on top of that the energy required and the heat produced would be phenomenal. We would actually be very inefficient, because that would mean we have no extra space to process additional information or receive new stimuli. A great analogy was that the more unused % in your CPU listed on your processes, the faster your computer right (that is given a controlled similar process being calculated). The same should apply to the human brain, the less % of our brain we use to do a normal task or whatever task it is efficiently and as desired, the more efficient and "powerful" our brain would appear to be.

 

in due time, I suppose we should be thinking about how we can increase the brain-processing power of our biological CNS's. But given the modern technologies, and that we probably aren't even using our brains to the full potential yet, or maybe never will within the course of the normal human life span, we would not need to enhance that power nor would it benefit us to.

It's almost the same problem we have with computer hardware these days, the programming has slowed down to behind the hardware. Whats the point of having a 1024-bit processor and 16x 8 GB graphics cards right now? It wouldn't really improve the quality of the programs/games we use now. Hardware evolves in necessity to the demands that programming/knowledge requires, but doesn't necessarily improve on the quality of that knowledge/program. Thus having a more capable brain would only allow us to read faster or store more information, but our ability to process that information would probably be just the same, if only a bit faster. It would probably grow exponentially once we reached a critical base of understanding however.

 

Pretty interesting article. Using twins is a pretty good attempt to control outside variables... but twins sometimes develop their cognition and intelligence rather differently, if not more so than each other in comparison to people of the same gender and social background and age in response to environmental influences. If anything, it can be said that they tend to develop in ways contrasting one another, and can quite possibly be attributed to the need to define ones identity from the other as the genetic makeup and physical attributes is nearly if not almost identical.

That isn't to discredit the research however. It does open some insight, as to the contrary of having myelinated neurons would be to have a neurodegenerative disorder... such as multiple sclerosis (hopefully that was the right disease i was trying to relate it to) where the myelin sheath gets attacked by the immune system and thus destroys the individual's ability to insulate the action potential propagation and nerve signals are lost along the way, causing the individual to lose control over their motor functions if not regulatory and cognitive functions as well. I lost a relative to Parkinson's disease and the symptoms were similar.

I guess if it was possible to increase the myelination of the neurons in the frontal lobe, quicker connections could theoretically be made and thus faster calculation times and associations to different references could be made. How would this be put into effect? What types of organic particles would be needed to feed the myelination of neurons? Fats and amino acids?

I heard some people say that omega fish oils help with your eyesight and ability to memorize things. I wonder what the underlying chemical reactions are that cause this. Maybe with a proper diet and mental training, one could micro-culture the myelinations that occur in the brain and the synapse connections between them. In fact.... that sounds like a somewhat safe and healthy experiment:

Eat a good diet of fish and vegetables, exercise daily, and participate in mental stimulation exercises like sudoku or math puzzles or logic games and the such, and try to somehow gauge the increase in cognitive abilities the month after. It would be relative of course, because there are too many variables to control and no standards or control group. It would be fun though, and I am sure that regardless it wouldn't hurt in terms of stimulating brain functionality.

 

O lordy... i suspect that wit-in 200 years... that the then extinct human brane woud be about as advanced as an ameba is to us today.!!!