Genetic Engineering, Selective Breeding, & Designer Babies.

[Angela]

I think you've summed it up very well, Angela. I don't know how anyone can look at the invention of the atom bomb and assume that scientists will use their abilities to guide us in the right direction. However, I unfortunately agree that the genie can't be put back in the bottle at this point. Genetic engineering will happen and while some of it will be good (i.e., those who can afford it will make sure their children don't have genetic diseases), some of it will be bad and some choices will just be stupid. Regardless of whether one believes that we're fallen creatures or whether one believes that our subspecies of ape have gotten too big for our britches, the end result is pretty much the same.

Is my "Christian Humanist" slip showing? :grin: Well...let's say sub-strata. Remember...if we have them till they're seven....

Most of it actually comes from having spent a good part of my professional life seeing people at their absolute worst. It can take the bloom off the rose pretty darn quickly to use a cliche.

 

[motzart]

.
Why would they need to be large..and why would they be floating in jars? And how exactly and from where do these giant brains obtain these incomprehensible thoughts? I will not make light of any-ones thought regarding such, but I had rather thought if I were to give up my destiny to a hyper-intelligence [ which I think I might not] it would not be a brain in a jar...floating or otherwise.
I confess this thread has taken a slightly odd sort of turn since I last read it and commented on genetic engineering and it`s possibilities.

Everything else being equal, a larger brain of the same perfect quality as a smaller brain would simply be more powerful. Trying to genetically engineer a super intelligence would be made much more complicated if this being required a complement of functioning anatomy. Think of it this way, when engineers create an engine for a car do they design a unique engine for every car design or are engines reused? Think of your computer, your processor is an independent modular unit from the rest of the machine. Computers are essentially designed around a processor because it is the most complex piece, Intel made a decision not to sell pre-built computers along with their processors because it allows them to focus exclusively on their primary product. If scientists can encode DNA to create a very large powerful brain with only the other bare minimum requirements and provide nutrients and vitamins in an artificial environment, it will make the task of genetically engineering that brain much simpler; hence brains in jars.

 

[motzart]

As long as we don't know complexity of rats brain and its all inner working, it is impossible to assess who is more complicated and more capable of, Watson or rat's brain. Regardless, I gave you an example how capable computers get today, in human like settings. It is short 70 years since first computer was invented. Extrapolate it on next 70 years or perhaps 7 thousand years.

Neurons are logical gates (they behave like transistors in a computer) and we could recreate rat's hardware/brain in terms of mathematical formulas and algorithms. Rat's behaviour is rather simple and predictable. Throw it into water and it will swim to the closest shore. It won't dive, it won't do laps for pleasure or go fishing. Give it food and it will always eat till full. Put male with ovulated female and male will always try to have sex. Simple behavioral programs like rats life are not difficult to write for computer simulation. The biggest difference at the moment is that rat intelligence comes mostly from hardware, his brain, with almost no software. Our computer's intelligence comes mostly from software.
I'm actually astonished that you are not impressed with Watson. A computer which has beaten people in their own game! In something people are the best of all the animal kingdom. Game of talking, understanding speech of tens of thousands of words, remembering millions of details about the world, and coming up with the right answer. Should I mention again that it is only 70 years since first computer, or should I say calculator?

So, what is the task for people of the future?

Algorithms that operate in 3d space are very complex, as are algorithms that require learning. I'm not as impressed by Watson as a layman because I have a degree in Computer Science and I work as a software developer. Computers are not as complex as one would imagine. Watson requires an entire data center to function (billions and billions of dollars and thousands of kilograms of materials) and still has less memory and computational power than a rat's brain which is the size of a marble, builds itself from DNA code, and only requires a trivial amount of organic compounds to create itself.

 

[LeBrok]

Algorithms that operate in 3d space are very complex, as are algorithms that require learning. I'm not as impressed by Watson as a layman because I have a degree in Computer Science and I work as a software developer. Computers are not as complex as one would imagine. Watson requires an entire data center to function (billions and billions of dollars and thousands of kilograms of materials)

First NASA computer was more expensive than this one and had computing power of a calculator. Do you see the progress during last 50 years? In another 50 years Watson and more will fit inside your phone. Heck, it can already fit inside your phone and million other users by cellular and network connection. The way we use a powerful Google search engine, located who knows where, but seems existing in our phones.

and still has less memory and computational power than a rat's brain which is the size of a marble,

and yet it can't even count to ten unlike my calculator. Most of mammals brain is oriented and skilful in looking for food, sniffing, tasting, recognizing danger, mating, partner selection and raising kids. Would you just scale it up and expect miracles in creating new "tasks" for people? First you need to invent this monumental task, a new higher goal for humankind. Then you need to design brain structure, the hardware, being able to accomplish this task only and hundreds times better than humans (so the project is worth the billions spent), without being distracted by mating and food. Once you know the architecture of the brain you might start designing DNA which will grow this super brain.
The problem is that, this task is above ability of human knowledge and designing skills, so first you need to create supercomputer being able to understand and design such brain and run millions of simulation from DNA construction, through growth, to final product. Otherwise you need thousands of years of experiments on live brains using natural or breeder selection to get to your goal. Having such supercomputer able to create a new entity, this superbrain, why would we need this super brain at all? In other words, to build superbrain we need to build supercomputer first of similar computational power.
Oh, and don't forget to get rid of feelings, whichever way they exist in our brains. We don't want this superbrain to get angry at us. We would be doomed. It might actually get very angry, because it will be serving as one purpose slave for humankind.
I would rather stick to supercomputer without feelings, computer that doesn't care if it exists or if I exist, or if I throw it to the garbage.

PS. Did you have a chance to find out what the super task for humankind will be? It would be awesome, because the last time I checked the main human tasks were the same as chimps, ants and bacteria (all life forms on Earth); Eat, Survive, Multiply. Do you think we can escape it one day, and feel really special? Spirituality and religion was suppose to do the trick for us, and generally speaking it does for most.

 

[hope]

Everything else being equal, a larger brain of the same perfect quality as a smaller brain would simply be more powerful. Trying to genetically engineer a super intelligence would be made much more complicated if this being required a complement of functioning anatomy. Think of it this way, when engineers create an engine for a car do they design a unique engine for every car design or are engines reused? Think of your computer, your processor is an independent modular unit from the rest of the machine. Computers are essentially designed around a processor because it is the most complex piece, Intel made a decision not to sell pre-built computers along with their processors because it allows them to focus exclusively on their primary product. If scientists can encode DNA to create a very large powerful brain with only the other bare minimum requirements and provide nutrients and vitamins in an artificial environment, it will make the task of genetically engineering that brain much simpler; hence brains in jars.

No Mozart, you`re still not selling me the giant brain in a jar. [This is really off topic, so just this one post]
Forget the floating jar and I still ask ..why a giant brain? Think of it this way instead...I have a small gadget in my hand that can access me so much information on so many topics. This gadget would have at one time been bigger but with technological improvements, it has gotten smaller... yet more advanced. So why not go with technology..no need for giant brains in jars. You`re thinking inside the box [or jar.] Back to proper topic now....

 

[motzart]

PS. Did you have a chance to find out what the super task for humankind will be? It would be awesome, because the last time I checked the main human tasks were the same as chimps, ants and bacteria (all life forms on Earth); Eat, Survive, Multiply. Do you think we can escape it one day, and feel really special? Spirituality and religion was suppose to do the trick for us, and generally speaking it does for most.

The super task for humankind will be to create the super intelligence, the meaning of a human life is to survive and multiply because we have feeble minds incapable of comprehending the true nature of existence. This is why we create the super brain, to lead us and guide us.