Genetic super beings and Superintelligence

[alal...@gmail.com]

I have fond memories of reading Dune and watching the movie, on several occasions. In Dune, Paul, the hero, is the product of a breeding program by a sisterhood. He is a genetic super being. He reaches his full potential on the desert planet, where he gains the ability to see the now and the future.

I believe that genetic super beings will be created in the real world, but not through manipulating bloodlines, but through genetic engineering and computer augmentation. Let me correct myself, naturally evolved genetic super beings may already exist. The main advantage humans have over other species is cognitive ability, so I believe that intellectually enhanced or super intelligent people are genetic super beings.

I was reading a book, "Superintelligence", and it defined three types of super intelligence. Speed intelligence: a mind qualitatively similar to an ordinary human, but working much faster. Collective intelligence: intelligence gained by a multiplicity of qualitatively ordinary minds working together. Quality intelligence: a mind capable of new forms of superior quality thinking.

Paul, of Dune, is a Quality intelligence. What other Superintelligences are explored in modern SF? Genetic, alien, magical, or machine. I am mostly interested in human Superintelligence.

I believe when a machine of human intelligence is created, it will soon become a Superintelligence. Because it is so easy to make machines faster, we will have Speed intelligence. The machine will continue to improve itself, thus maybe Quality intelligence. And if it makes copies of itself, Collective intelligence. Thus the creation of machine intelligence marks the end of the era of human intellectual superiority. Man may need to use genetic engineering and computer augmentation to stay competitive.

If a naturally Superintelligence should arise now, it may be enslaved and experimented on by shadowy government forces. He/she won't be free to profit from its intelligence.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

"Imagination is more important than knowledge"
-- Albert Einstein

[Default User]

I'm sure it's pretty useless trying to tell you this, but natural evolution doesn't work that way.

As far as genetic manipulation, I doubt that very much at least in the near term. You get a lot more bang for the buck by improving technology.


Brian

[alal...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 9:59:45 PM UTC+5:30, Default User wrote:
> I'm sure it's pretty useless trying to tell you this, but natural evolution doesn't work that way.
>

Natural evolution doesn't work what way? I know that people with superior intelligence have evolved.

> As far as genetic manipulation, I doubt that very much at least in the near term. You get a lot more bang for the buck by improving technology.

I hope that within the next 200 years genetic engineering will be used on humans. The first use will be to eliminate genetic defects. Then, as people become comfortable with genetic engineering, it will be used to enhance humans physically and mentally. I hope that genetic engineering will eventually be used to enhance human intelligence.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
>
>

> Brian

[Greg Goss]

alal...@gmail.com wrote:

>Paul, of Dune, is a Quality intelligence. What other Superintelligences are explored in modern SF? Genetic, alien, magical, or machine. I am mostly interested in human Superintelligence.

Vinge's Marooned in Real Time has humans interfacing with computer
assistance, and continually developing better tools and interfaces.
The final viewpoint before "the singularity" is from the point of view
of a community out in the middle of nowhere (or, I guess Mercury is as
close to the middle of everywhere as you can get) manipulating
unimaginable tools, and the rest of the solar system is vastly beyond
them.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[Default User]

On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 8:06:46 AM UTC-5, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 9:59:45 PM UTC+5:30, Default User wrote:
> > I'm sure it's pretty useless trying to tell you this, but natural evolution doesn't work that way.
> >
>
> Natural evolution doesn't work what way? I know that people with superior intelligence have evolved.

No, you don't. Humans have a range of normal intelligence levels. People on the higher end are not some newly-evolved species or sub-species. They are normal H. Sapiens.

This is the last I'll post on this, as I don't believe that you are rational.


Brian

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Default User <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:b1f8040f-e1bd-41c7...@googlegroups.com:

Considering who you're talking to, no, he's really not rational.

The scientists who study intelligence can't even *define* it in any
coherent way, at this point, beyond saying "there are many kind of
intelligence, and most of them do not seem to be interrelated all
that much."

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[alal...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 11:53:38 PM UTC+5:30, Default User wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 8:06:46 AM UTC-5, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 9:59:45 PM UTC+5:30, Default User wrote:
> > > I'm sure it's pretty useless trying to tell you this, but natural evolution doesn't work that way.
> > >
> >
> > Natural evolution doesn't work what way? I know that people with superior intelligence have evolved.
>
> No, you don't. Humans have a range of normal intelligence levels. People on the higher end are not some newly-evolved species or sub-species. They are normal H. Sapiens.

I never claimed that Superintelligent people are a new species. You seem more interested in proving me wrong, than discussing the truth.

>
> This is the last I'll post on this, as I don't believe that you are rational.

That's alright, because I am not learning anything from you.

[hamis...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 4:23:38 AM UTC+10, Default User wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 8:06:46 AM UTC-5, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 9:59:45 PM UTC+5:30, Default User wrote:
> > > I'm sure it's pretty useless trying to tell you this, but natural evolution doesn't work that way.
> > >
> >
> > Natural evolution doesn't work what way? I know that people with superior intelligence have evolved.
>
> No, you don't. Humans have a range of normal intelligence levels. People on the higher end are not some newly-evolved species or sub-species. They are normal H. Sapiens.

However when hominoids diverged from other apes eventually new species did come about.

[Default User]

On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 7:01:59 PM UTC-5, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 4:23:38 AM UTC+10, Default User wrote:

> > No, you don't. Humans have a range of normal intelligence levels. People on the higher end are not some newly-evolved species or sub-species. They are normal H. Sapiens.
>
> However when hominoids diverged from other apes eventually new species did come about.

Of course. However, the new species didn't emerge intermixed with the existing.

It's a good idea to keep in mind when thinking about these things that evolution has no goal. Things change, in the environment and in the genetic structure of organisms. Absent substantial changes in the environment, evolution
tends to work very slowly.


Brian

[Quadibloc]

On Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 9:32:38 AM UTC-6, Default User wrote:

> It's a good idea to keep in mind when thinking about these things that evolution
> has no goal. Things change, in the environment and in the genetic structure of
> organisms. Absent substantial changes in the environment, evolution
> tends to work very slowly.

True. But if *we* have goals, we could use CRISPR to work very quickly.

John Savard

[David DeLaney]

On 2017-08-16, alal...@gmail.com <alal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 9:59:45 PM UTC+5:30, Default User wrote:
>> I'm sure it's pretty useless trying to tell you this, but natural evolution
>> doesn't work that way.
>
> Natural evolution doesn't work what way? I know that people with superior
> intelligence have evolved.

Sure but not by superior intelligence being some sort of "evolutionary goal"
in and of itself; evolution doesn't have "goals". It has small adaptations -
and, admittedly, sometimes switches being thrown that turn on or off entire
subroutines, DNA has a lot more in common with computer programming than we
used to think - to whatever the current conditions are that affect how the
next generation's genetic makeup is. It _can't_, as such, work toward adapting
to some set of conditions that don't exist in the years it's working in.

(Some sociologists think our brain structure and intelligence are a
side-effect of a runaway evolutionary process for adapting to ... modelling
other humans and the deceptions and social manipulation they use. Which can
affect breeding chances and choices a lot more than is fair.)

> I hope that genetic engineering will eventually be used to enhance human
> intelligence.

Well, first we have to figure out what human intelligence _is_, before we go
searching for what in the tangled web of genes-on-chromosomes starts the
pebbles rolling down the mountainside of fetal development to make it happen.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[Default User]

On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 3:00:24 PM UTC-5, David DeLaney wrote:
> On 2017-08-16, alal...@gmail.com <alal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 9:59:45 PM UTC+5:30, Default User wrote:
> >> I'm sure it's pretty useless trying to tell you this, but natural evolution
> >> doesn't work that way.
> >
> > Natural evolution doesn't work what way? I know that people with superior
> > intelligence have evolved.
>
> Sure but not by superior intelligence being some sort of "evolutionary goal"
> in and of itself

Sure? There's no evidence that I've heard about that indicates that there has been any evolutionary increase in intelligence in recent times.

Brian

[mcdow...@sky.com]

One possible finding (that I first heard of on Jerry Pournelle's website) is summarised with arguments in both directions at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence. Aspiring genetic engineers and eugenists should note that this seems to have been something of a devil's bargain - if intelligence was selected for, it came with some unfortunate side effects.

[Greg Goss]

I'm sure that I've read that Cro-Magnon man (our species five digits
of years ago or so) had a larger brain on average than we have.

[John Halpenny]

Neanderthals had larger skulls - and brains, probably more muscles and better hair. They also had smaller families, which is what did them in.

John

[Robert Carnegie]

On Sunday, 20 August 2017 19:43:50 UTC+1, Greg Goss wrote:
> Default User <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 3:00:24 PM UTC-5, David DeLaney wrote:
> >> On 2017-08-16, alal...@gmail.com <alal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 9:59:45 PM UTC+5:30, Default User wrote:
> >> >> I'm sure it's pretty useless trying to tell you this, but natural evolution
> >> >> doesn't work that way.
> >> >
> >> > Natural evolution doesn't work what way? I know that people with superior
> >> > intelligence have evolved.
> >>
> >> Sure but not by superior intelligence being some sort of "evolutionary goal"
> >> in and of itself
> >
> >Sure? There's no evidence that I've heard about that indicates that there has been any evolutionary increase in intelligence in recent times.

But this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

> I'm sure that I've read that Cro-Magnon man (our species five digits
> of years ago or so) had a larger brain on average than we have.

That doesn't make it better. I used to have a larger
desktop computer...

And some birds have a lot of smarts in a very small brain -
"because" efficient flying requires less body weight.

[hamis...@gmail.com]

On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 5:21:18 AM UTC+10, John Halpenny wrote:
> On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 2:43:50 PM UTC-4, Greg Goss wrote:
> > Default User <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 3:00:24 PM UTC-5, David DeLaney wrote:
> > >> On 2017-08-16, alal...@gmail.com <alal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 9:59:45 PM UTC+5:30, Default User wrote:
> > >> >> I'm sure it's pretty useless trying to tell you this, but natural evolution
> > >> >> doesn't work that way.
> > >> >
> > >> > Natural evolution doesn't work what way? I know that people with superior
> > >> > intelligence have evolved.
> > >>
> > >> Sure but not by superior intelligence being some sort of "evolutionary goal"
> > >> in and of itself
> > >
> > >Sure? There's no evidence that I've heard about that indicates that there has been any evolutionary increase in intelligence in recent times.
> >
> > I'm sure that I've read that Cro-Magnon man (our species five digits
> > of years ago or so) had a larger brain on average than we have.

> Neanderthals had larger skulls - and brains, probably more muscles and better hair. They also had smaller families, which is what did them in.

As I understand it the muscles is certain, massively higher muscle mass and higher bone density with much larger muscle attachments

The brain chamber is also definitely larger (barring a massive coincidence where we've only found neanderthals on the upper limits)
There's strong suggestions that the larger volume was improved visual processing and body control and that there was less development in communication and social skills areas

I'm not sure that there's any agreement on what killed them off

[Default User]

On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 5:22:31 PM UTC-5, Robert Carnegie wrote:

> > >Sure? There's no evidence that I've heard about that indicates that there has been any evolutionary increase in intelligence in recent times.
>
> But this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

I didn't see anything in there about evolutionary advance in intelligence.


Brian

[hamis...@gmail.com]

"The Flynn effect has been too rapid for genetic selection to be the cause"

[David DeLaney]

In recent times? Huh? Humans' intelligence is superior to that of chimps or
gorillas, as far as I understand what is currently thought. So: people, us,
with superior intelligence have in fact evolved.

The minor variations in intelligence among humans, or even the major spikes
like Jacob Barnett (and, to a good deal lesser example, me), are much more
like height variations in a population, or skin color variations; IQ, whatever
it _is_, doesn't seem to have just one gene or even just one gene complex
determining it, and nurture is also a major factor, so sometimes the various
factors, as in Heinlein's Year of the Jackpot, all synchronize in one person
with no deleterious influences, and you get someone who can't talk fast enough,
literally, to keep up with his thoughts, or a Ramanujan or Newton.

Much like I knew a pair of brothers in college who were 6'9" and 6'10",
respectively, but just ordinary white guys other than that. Not a master race
or a superhuman outbreak.

[Default User]

On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 8:29:36 PM UTC-5, David DeLaney wrote:
> On 2017-08-20, Default User <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Sure? There's no evidence that I've heard about that indicates that there has
> > been any evolutionary increase in intelligence in recent times.
>
> In recent times? Huh? Humans' intelligence is superior to that of chimps or
> gorillas, as far as I understand what is currently thought. So: people, us,
> with superior intelligence have in fact evolved.

I don't think many dispute that. My understanding of the OP was that he was saying that some humans have evolved "Superintelligence", or a significant evolutionary advance in a portion of the population, in a short time period (relatively).


Brian

[David DeLaney]

On 2017-08-21, David DeLaney <davidd...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> The minor variations in intelligence among humans, or even the major spikes
> like Jacob Barnett (and, to a good deal lesser example, me), are much more
> like height variations in a population, or skin color variations; IQ, whatever
> it _is_, doesn't seem to have just one gene or even just one gene complex
> determining it, and nurture is also a major factor, so sometimes the various
> factors, as in Heinlein's Year of the Jackpot, all synchronize in one person
> with no deleterious influences, and you get someone who can't talk fast
> enough, literally, to keep up with his thoughts, or a Ramanujan or Newton.

If you read this paragraph, which is in fact one sentence, all in one breath,
you'll get a glimpse of what it's sometimes like...

Dave, inadvertently exemplifying at least since I was 4

ps: normal supply and distribution of commas shall resume shortly. remain calm.