Is it Ethical to raise everyone's IQ on this Planet to 180?

Status
Not open for further replies.
parmalee said:
Translating thought to action has often presented somewhat a challenge to me--but mostly with respect to matters of a more "intellectual" nature. Character flaw? Personality disorder? I dunno. But I do think that laziness is an enormous factor (for me).
Click to expand...

The puzzle is why . Lazy physically but not in intellect . The best is active physically with active intellect .
 
DaveC426913 said:
The short answer is: as long as you're not forcing anything on anyone, there is no ethical dilemma about giving anyone who wants it the opportunity to improve themselves.

But I think the OP knows that already. Which is why this whole thread is a vanity act.
Click to expand...
I suppose I could give the readers a warning on the front cover; 'Read at your own risk'.
 
HawkI said:
I suppose I could give the readers a warning on the front cover; 'Read at your own risk'.
Click to expand...
That is redundant. Any book is to be read at one's own risk. If one doesn't want to be changed by ideas, one should avoid books. :wink:

And frankly the only book I've ever seen that label would apply to might be Orwell's 1984.
 
How about this as a caution? 'This is not a book, it is sophisticated Psychotechnology'.
 
HawkI said:
How about this as a caution? 'This is not a book, it is sophisticated Psychotechnology'.
Click to expand...
Ah yes. The ol' Bio-Optic Organized Knowledge device:

Introducing the new Bio-Optic Organized Knowledge device, trade-named BOOK.

BOOK is a revolutionary breakthrough in technology: no wires, no electric circuits, no batteries, nothing to be connected or switched on. It's so easy to use, even a child can operate it. Compact and portable, it can be used anywhere - even sitting in an armchair by the fire - yet it is powerful enough to hold as much information as a CD- ROM disc

Here's how it works:

BOOK is constructed of sequentially numbered sheets of paper (recyclable), each capable of holding thousands of bits of information. The pages are locked together with a custom-fit device called a binder which keeps the sheets in their correct sequence.

Opaque Paper Technology (OPT) allows manufacturers to use both sides of the sheet, doubling the information density and cutting costs. Experts are divided on the prospects for further increases in information density; for now, BOOKS with more information simply use more pages. Each sheet is scanned optically, registering information directly into your brain. A flick of the finger takes you to the next sheet.

BOOK never crashes or requires rebooting, though, like other devices, it can become damaged if coffee is spilled on it and it becomes unusable if dropped too many times on a hard surface. The "browse" feature allows you to move instantly to any sheet, and move forward or backward as you wish. Many come with an "index" feature, which pin-points the exact location of any selected information for instant retrieval.

An optional "BOOKmark" accessory allows you to open BOOK to the exact place you left it in a previous session - even if the BOOK has been closed. BOOKmarks fit universal design standards; thus, a single BOOKmark can be used in BOOKs by various manufacturers. Conversely, numerous BOOK markers can be used in a single BOOK if the user wants to store numerous views at once. The number is limited only by the number of pages in the BOOK. You can also make personal notes next to BOOK text entries with optional programming tools, Portable Erasable Nib Cryptic Intercommunication Language Styli (PENCILS).

Portable, durable, and affordable, BOOK is being hailed as a precursor of a new entertainment wave. BOOK's appeal seems so certain that thousands of content creators have committed to the platform and investors are reportedly flocking to invest. Look for a flood of new titles soon.

https://www.fzu.cz/~sipr/documents/book.html#:~:text=BOOK is constructed of sequentially,sheets in their correct sequence.
 
parmalee said:
That's funny. I actually perceive you as generally being more thorough--and, perhaps more importantly, keeping to the topic at hand. I've always had a bit of a problem, in that respect: I digress... and I digress... and I DIGRESS. I could try and justify such by saying that I'm adopting one of Stephen Jay Gould's approaches--talking around and around, and gradually honing in on the topic of focus--and, yeah, I do do that, but often enough, rather sloppily. (With more academic writing, or stuff intended for publication in some form, I'm a bit more diligent on that.)
Click to expand...
lol! It happens. (going off topic) I laughed out loud (for real) re: the thread about you inciting violence? hahaha I was like, parmalee? -_O Of course, inciting violence isn't funny at all, but...I may be going out on a limb here, it seemed like you were being sarcastic all over the place, yea? I didn't get the sense that you were sincerely trying to incite violence.

Anyway...

Sci-forums can be funny, at times. You know who is the most thorough of all? James. Seriously, no stone (on the entire planet) left unturned. It's admirable, that someone can be so thorough and not back down from any argument. You, Dave, Jeeves, Bells, Sarkus, and a few others don't ever back away from a debate. I wish I could be more...resilient(?), in that regard.
 
Last edited:
wegs said:
It's admirable, that someone can be so thorough and not back down from any argument. You, Dave, Jeeves, Bells, Sarkus, and a few others don't ever back away from a debate. I wish I could be more...resilient(?), in that regard.
Click to expand...
Funny, I think taking people less seriously and backing off more frequently is something I could be better at . . . .
 
billvon said:
Funny, I think taking people less seriously and backing off more frequently is something I could be better at . . . .
Click to expand...
I forgot to include you billvon! Lol You’re super thorough too.
 
wegs said:
lol! It happens. (going off topic) I laughed out loud (for real) re: the thread about you inciting violence? hahaha I was like, parmalee? -_O Of course, inciting violence isn't funny at all, but...I may be going out on a limb here, it seemed like you were being sarcastic all over the place, yea? I didn't get the sense that you were sincerely trying to incite violence.
Click to expand...
Thank you for that. I really did not intend that to be read a sincere missive. Alas, my attempted parody was rather sloppy and not fully thought through. I think I may perhaps have better conveyed the parodic intent by prefacing it with something like, "A note to true patriots," or something along those lines, rather than "A note to Americans."

Interestingly, John Mulaney was investigated by the Secret Service last year for his SNL monologue in which he pondered why "stabby senators" (re: Julius Caesar) were no longer thing. He said that they--the Secret Service--were actually quite decent and respectful, as they recognized there was no serious threat or incitement intended.

If you're interested you should check out the Joaquin Phoenix produced documentary, The Animal People, on Netflix. It's about the trials (literal) and travails of the SHAC 7 (Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty). These guys were convicted of domestic terrorism in 2006, largely thanks to the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, of 1992, and some seriously unscrupulous prosecutors (including fucking Chris Christie!).

We've been indoctrinated with so much b.s. about how MLK, Gandhi, Mandela and the like effected tremendous social change solely through non-violent and (mostly) non-illicit means, but that's utter nonsense! For the most part, they did not participate in direct action, which included both property destruction, as well as occasional violence proper, but others did--and they were very much inspired (but not incited) by the words and actions of the former. That said, I ain't advocating anything here, but I do support those who do, nonetheless. Heh. It's a tightrope walk, often more resembling a slackline, perhaps.

See what I mean about digression?
Anyway...
Click to expand...
Sci-forums can be funny, at times. You know who is the most thorough of all? James. Seriously, no stone (on the entire planet) left unturned. It's admirable, that someone can be so thorough and not back down from any argument. You, Dave, Jeeves, Bells, Sarkus, and a few others don't ever back away from a debate. I wish I could be more...resilient(?), in that regard.
Click to expand...
See, I also actually regard all those named, 'cept myself, as being far more diligent and thorough with their efforts. And I sincerely admire them for their patience and tenacity, despite whatever differences and disagreements we may have otherwise.
 
HawkI said:
No need, I can see it's already working on me. My evidence is how I've been performing majorly better at games I play a lot, than ever before.
Click to expand...
Is your IQ now 180? What test(s) did you take to verify this?
 
Dywyddyr said:
Tsk.
So you couldn't even get that right, eh?
Click to expand...
It's a bit of a conundrum: in order to achieve such a state, one must make considerable efforts; however, said efforts oftentimes (though by no means always) have the opposite effect.

Alternately, the approach of Hui-Neng, Sixth Patriarch of Ch'an Buddhism, sounds promising, but is it? Bodhidharma proposed wu-hsin ("no mind"), whereas Hui-neng postulated that wu-nien (roughly, "no thought," though "no memory" is also adequate) might prove more fruitful--or fruitless, as the case may be. Wu-nien is somewhat equivalent to the Sanskrit term, asmriti, meaning "extinction of meaning" or " forgetfulness."

But, like I said, said approach sounds promising, but as for achieving a state of total idiocy? It just doesn't pan out. At best, one will attain a state not unlike Dostoevsky's Prince Myshkin (The Idiot): lacking certain social graces and evincing the naivete of a toddler, or perhaps a foundling (the proper sort--not a phony like Kaspar Hauser). This is hardly sufficient.

I should note here that, not unlike the OP, this has been my lifelong hobby. I feel a consummate failure.
 
James R said:
Is your IQ now 180? What test(s) did you take to verify this?
Click to expand...
No, he's already stated he's not done with the book - but he did mention it's making him smarter. Perhaps you get ten IQ points per chapter or something?
 
parmalee said:
It's a bit of a conundrum: in order to achieve such a state, one must make considerable efforts; however, said efforts oftentimes (though by no means always) have the opposite effect.

Alternately, the approach of Hui-Neng, Sixth Patriarch of Ch'an Buddhism, sounds promising, but is it? Bodhidharma proposed wu-hsin ("no mind"), whereas Hui-neng postulated that wu-nien (roughly, "no thought," though "no memory" is also adequate) might prove more fruitful--or fruitless, as the case may be. Wu-nien is somewhat equivalent to the Sanskrit term, asmriti, meaning "extinction of meaning" or " forgetfulness."

But, like I said, said approach sounds promising, but as for achieving a state of total idiocy? It just doesn't pan out. At best, one will attain a state not unlike Dostoevsky's Prince Myshkin (The Idiot): lacking certain social graces and evincing the naivete of a toddler, or perhaps a foundling (the proper sort--not a phony like Kaspar Hauser). This is hardly sufficient.

I should note here that, not unlike the OP, this has been my lifelong hobby. I feel a consummate failure.
Click to expand...

Your hobby is also to become a genius? Ha HA hA ha; It's been a wild ride for me but I can now at last see the monochrome checkered finish line. I just need help coming up with an appropriate cautionary warning and then I can carry on with this simultaneous: Book, Device and Psychotechnology.
 
Coming up with a suitable cautionary message is tricky...

'Caution; The 'Bell Curve' of intelligence will be made obsolete due to prolonged exposure from this Psychotechnological device'

'Caution; Society will be undermined after prolonged exposure from this Psychotechnological device'
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top