Re: [evol-psych] Re: News: FUTURE HUMANS: Four Ways We May, or May
Phil Roberts, Jr.
> Genetic engineering or natural selection? I wonder.
I doubt we will have the time or the resources for any
genetic engineering if we are indeed down to another
bottleneck like at 70,000 BP. For one thing, I doubt
that the few pockets of humans left alive will even
be in contact. Well, I hope to live long enough to see
how this plays out. I now am really motivated to reduce
my caloric consumption by at least 30%! : )
Helga
The development I would like to live to see would be
the ability to interconnect human brains to each other
via something like the connections between the two
halves of the brain (the corpus callosum) as
a means of bringing about the omega point predicted
by DeJardin. Wow! Talk about an internet! :)
There is reason to suspect this would
result, not in human beings communicating better, but
rather separate beings merging into a single being
(e.g., my identity pervades all my thoughts and I think
it unlikely one would be able to "read" my thoughts
without becoming me).
Of course, if we could build in the option to make
this communication only one way, then we could monitor
for "good" minds and "bad" minds and only allow the
"good" minds to contribute to the new being, with
those of us with "bad" minds having to be content
to simply sit back and enjoy the show. :)
Phil
William Morse
> Helga V wrote:
>
>> Genetic engineering or natural selection? I wonder.
>
> I doubt we will have the time or the resources for any
> genetic engineering if we are indeed down to another
> bottleneck like at 70,000 BP. For one thing, I doubt
> that the few pockets of humans left alive will even
> be in contact. Well, I hope to live long enough to see
> how this plays out. I now am really motivated to reduce
> my caloric consumption by at least 30%! : )
>
> Helga
>
>
> The development I would like to live to see would be
> the ability to interconnect human brains to each other
> via something like the connections between the two
> halves of the brain (the corpus callosum) as
> a means of bringing about the omega point predicted
> by DeJardin. Wow! Talk about an internet! :)
>
> There is reason to suspect this would
> result, not in human beings communicating better, but
> rather separate beings merging into a single being
> (e.g., my identity pervades all my thoughts and I think
> it unlikely one would be able to "read" my thoughts
> without becoming me).
You raise a very interesting question. Following Hofstadter, much of our
"self" has to do with feedback loops. Would interconnecting many brains
lead to feedback loops between the separate organisms. resulting in a
merged consciousness, or would it disrupt the feedback loops needed to
maintain individual consciousness, resulting in mass stupidity akin to
mob behavior?
> Of course, if we could build in the option to make
> this communication only one way, then we could monitor
> for "good" minds and "bad" minds and only allow the
> "good" minds to contribute to the new being, with
> those of us with "bad" minds having to be content
> to simply sit back and enjoy the show. :)
This last suggestion is facetious, but I would still like to comment
that in any case it is not the minds that are "good" or "bad", but the
thoughts that are "good" or "bad". Going back to Mr. Rogers, good people
do bad things, and bad people do good things. Like natural selection,
which only cares about results, it would be impractical to monitor
minds, only "good" thoughts and "bad" thoughts. And since the road to
hell is paved with good intentions, even attempting to monitor for happy
thoughts is pointless.
Good to see you are still alive and kicking.
Yours,
Bill Morse