Nerds

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by gamelord, Jun 15, 2018.

  1. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Also not true.

    Ideas can be small, yet still have their share of naysayers.

    We are lucky you came along.

    We have the bar set at the top. We are the smartest things in the universe, and we are solving the world's problems.

    That's certainly what Hitler thought when he started on his √úbermensch.

    So, slaves - on pain of death.

    The only people who can rebel are people who are oppressed in the first place.

    You expect them to behave like animals do? I thought they were people. Well, slave people.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. gamelord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    661
    Set logic use it.

    I never said small ideas cannot have naysayers. What i said was, large and unusual ideas generally have naysayers usually.
    Where is the implication that small ideas cannot have naysayers? Though if an idea is usual, small or easy, it does not have naysayers because it is mundane, expected, and predicted - unchallenged.

    This is your ego getting in the way of progress. Yes I wont deny humans are the smartest on Earth but the bar is set so low. The universe? Come on. How do you know there is no other planet in the universe with intelligence? It seems your ego is clouding your clarity.

    Godwins law again your ego clouding your clarity.
    It is inevitable that godwins law happens on the internet almost inevitable.
    Firstly hitler killed the jews because he was in a bad mood, his mom died at an early age and had a jew doctor when she died. hitler was in poverty and homeless. hitlers squadmates all died in the war and he was blind for months. Not the image of a happy person in a good mood.
    I am in a good mood despite all your naysaying. Because i see the glorious future ahead if this idea goes thru. Has nothing to do with your naysaying and has nothing to do with hitler.

    again more negative paranoia of naysaying. Utter nonsense and i suggest you put your logical methods under scrutiny because i said nothing of the sort and you are saying the opposite of what i said. Commonly known as lying.

    What I said was, if they dont cooperate we will grow another one on the lab. When did i say anything about killing them? I never did because you are either willfully or accidentally misinterpreting me.

    More illogic from you. People can rebel for any reason. For instance if someone does not like the color pink they can rebel against the color pink. But I guess there is some logic to it. Because the very essence of humanity may be oppressive to some anti-social types and i guess your argument is that you fear they will be anti-social types, which I already explain earlier they would be genetically engineered as happy kind people and not likely to hurt humanity. Next you will whine to me about how morally wrong it is to engineer DNA that is nice happy and kind to each other and tell me how wrong I am for it.

    Humans are animals. If you give it love it will usually give love back. If you give it flak it will give flak back. Like you are doing to me here. You are giving me flak so I am giving you flak back. Its social science.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    What you said was:

    The corollary of that statement is that you believe non-ground-breaking ideas will have few naysayers.

    Which is faulty logic.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. gamelord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    661
    Well the fact seems to me that non-ground breaking ideas do have few naysayers. If I say, I will build a paper airplane, I will have no naysayers.

    If I say I will build a flying machine, or a ship to mars, out of nothing more than old rusty garage parts, then the naysayers begin to pile up.
     
  8. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Your idea is literally "we should engineer a race of supermen".

    Those who forget their history are doomed to repeat it.

    So, they're not free people, with rights. They've got to cooperate.
     
  9. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    If that were true, then the world's problems would already be solved.

    Every good idea anyone came up with would be immediately acted upon. No one would argue impracticality, cost, or feasibility.
     
  10. gamelord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    661
    Again misinterpretting doomsaying and spreading all manner of doomsaying and negative energy.

    Did you not hear what I just said? I said if they don't cooperate, we grow another in the lab. So what is so bad about that? Noone is forcing them to help however they get financial incentives for doing so. If that is a crime then so should be starting a family. Because when you have a child you keep it under captivity until it adjusts enough in the wild. Likewise our genetic creations would be raised with a loving mother and once it reaches a certain level of growth given the choice if it wants to work at our company. No different from real life. They would have better lives than most people actually.

    Far as engineering a race of supermen, I was thinking the amount of these genetic creations ultimately to be around 5 or 10 but no more than a few hundred. Then after a few years they would design a way to modify your genes and turn yourself into them. This would purely be optional of course.
     
  11. gamelord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    661
    I am the one arguing the impracticality of your (the human cultures) current idealogy. Ego based, barely free from the shackles of religion.
    The current idealogy is throw endless of money at nasa rather than creating a supermind to assist them with the big stuff. And no dont go on a tangent about AI, i dont support supermind AI only supermind people, flesh and blood that have a conscience.
     
  12. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    I think you're having us on.
     
  13. gamelord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    661
    I dont know what that expression means.
     
  14. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    It means I think you're pulling our collective leg.

    No one who can type is this naive. You're messing with us.
     
  15. gamelord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    661
    Nothing naive about me. On the other hand I know the internet is filled with annoying people who seem to have some subconscious desire to stall and shame progress.
     
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,166
    Ah, so the size of the brain isn't the biggest factor. Good, you are starting to get it.
    Another good observation. So if you saw an enormous computer giving off waves of heat, you would not assume it was better until you knew how it worked. And improvements in the design matter far more than physical size.
    Perhaps. But again, improved <> bigger. We could have a society of Einsteins, Newtons, Hawkings and Watsons and do much the same - without needing any larger brains at all.
     
  17. gamelord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    661
    I already knew that to begin with thus here is the thing: It's hard to redesign the brain archetecture. Much easier just to keep the same archetecture and simply pile on more stuff, add more of it, make the brain bigger.

    Not good enough. Hawking never solved all the secrets of the universe, neither did Einstein or Newton. None of these three scientists did much in terms of biology either. But yes if all of humanity was as smart as these scientists it would be nice. But quality ultimately beats quantity. It took Einstein 10 years to develop the theory of relativity. But I think with the superbeing it would maybe take 10 weeks maybe even less.Ultimately I do not think any human is possibly capable of solving certain hard problems, such as unified field theory or the hard problem of consciousness. But with the superbeing it would be cake.
     
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,166
    Then you would get a whale brain. Just piling on more "stuff" doesn't make you smarter, as anyone with a brain tumor will tell you.
    All of them turned a lot of secrets into science. That's what will get us "the secrets of the universe" - a long line of people like that, each standing on their predecessor's shoulders.
    Right. Watson did.
    You've been watching too many science fiction shows. Intelligence is not a matter of adding more "stuff." It is being able to manage complexity.
     
  19. gamelord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    661
    Incorrect.
    Whales do not have the same structure of human brains also their neurons are spaced out way more. I am not even sure if whale brains have as many neurons as humans. But if they do, then they are dumber because their neural structure is different.
    Thus all we have to do is use the human nueral structure, and just pile on more of it.

    A tumor is a bad example I'm afraid. Tumors are not made of the same material usually did you know tumors can be hands, fingers or eyeballs even. Decidedly adding a tumor to a brain will not enhance it because it is not made of healthy neurons. But deep down I think you knew that and are just being silly.

    And this is exactly the problem. No human being can handle that complexity to create a theory of everything. Some things are beyond our minds comprehension.
     
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,166
    Yep. And if you made a human brain larger without changing the connectome, or just changing it at random, or just "adding to it" - you would get the same (or even less) intelligence.
    Right. Because if you have a car engine and just dump a bag of pistons and camshafts on it, it will go twice as fast.
    They are made of exactly the same material. Which is why your immune system can't fight them off; it's your own brain. All a tumor is doing is adding a whole lot more neural material - and it keeps doing that until the remaining parts of your brain can't function and you die.
    Yet you are claiming that you can handle the level of complexity that is the human brain - and make it much better.
     
  21. gamelord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    661
    Not gonna google about tumors at this hour of night but I'm fairly certain they are not creating perfectly healthy neurons in the brain.

    Thing about it is, the beauty of DNA is you can make things bigger and keep the same organization. For example you have small tress and big trees. The big trees are just as healthy as the little trees if not healthier. Now if you apply this to the brain you can apply a sort of "miracle grow" and retain the same general organization, but bigger and better. It is not like your metaphor of "dumping a bag of random pistons". instead it is an automatic and organized process done by dna.
     
  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,166
    Many of them do. Since they are disorganized, unconnected and uninsulated, they don't work.
    You seem to have a profound misunderstanding about how DNA works.
    There is no "automatic" in DNA. DNA does not "know" how to take an instruction like "bigger brain" and turn it into a functioning brain.

    In reality, here's how it would work:

    Let's say you wanted to breed smarter people. So you look up the genes that code for big brains, as best we understand them. You insert extra copies of those in a fertilized ovum via CRISPR/CAS9. The resulting fetus doesn't even make it past the first month with all the pathologic growth occurring.

    So you figure DNA modification is too hard; you go to selective breeding. You isolate a population and sterilize everyone whose head is smaller than average. Within ten generations you have people with very big heads. But their average intelligence is very low! Turns out that there are lots of pathologies (like hydrocephalus) that result in low IQ.

    So you try again. This time you isolate a population and take a CAT scan of all children at age 10. The ones with smaller than average brains you sterilize. After ten generations you get bigger brains. But again IQ doesn't seem to be going up! Any benefit you get from having more neural material is more than cancelled out by problems with childbearing and pathologies unique to larger brains.

    Eventually you might hit upon selective breeding for intelligence; you sterilize everyone who, at age 10, performs below average on an IQ test. Then average intelligence does indeed start to go up. But oddly, you notice that their heads are about the same size, since head size is only weakly correlated to IQ.

    (Of course, the Nazis tried the above during World War II, so you're not likely to get much support for such an effort.)
     
  23. gamelord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    661
    The nazis did the opposite, and banned all the smart jew scientists from their country.

    Option 1 is the most ethical, and also, the most time efficient option so I vote for it. Not an expert on CRISPR/CAS9 but whatever it is, it is primitive and we need an upgrade for it.

    What I propose is creating a super computer for a super simulation of DNA. We simulate all possible combinations of DNA and what it would build in a lifeform. Then we use that code and put it into a fetus.
     

Share This Page