The 'brain chip dilemma' :)

[Hildegarda]

I stumbled across this one and was wondering whether a response from a 'composite SOTT forumite' will be different from that of the average Joe :)

*********

Imagine a hypothetical situation.

A certain brain chip has been invented that, if implanted in one's brain, increases the power of the intellect by 40%.

However, 10% of such operations fail. In case of failure, the intellectual power decreases by 10%.

Would you agree to undergo this operation? Give a 'yes' or 'no' answer, and explain why.


*********

Note: when considering the situation, it is good to try to resist the natural distaste for the very concept of having anything 'implanted' in you by the PTB :) This is a simplified situation, in which we are supposed to make a decision based on what's given, i.e., the possible outcomes of the operation, OSIT.

I'll give my own answer after there's a few from you guys, so as not to bias you from the start. Comparing one's reasoning to that of others is usually the most interesting part :)

 

[Zadius Sky]

My answer is no, I won't agree to undergo this operation. I would not have any implant in me at all. When my mom asked me if I should have an implant for my hearing in my head, to be 'plugged' into the computer for change of volume and such, and people would get meningitis for undergoing the operation. I said no, considering the long term effect. I rather stick with what hearing aid I have.

I rather increase my power of intellect on my own pace, and learn. That's my take. :)

 

[Al Today]

Like I believe that cell phone microwaves blasting though my brain is okay. NO WAY.
Like I believe that processed food ingredients that cannot be pronounced are okay. NO WAY.
Like I believe that global warming is man made. NO WAY.
Like I believe my vote really has an impact on bettering society. NO WAY.
Like I believe everything from the mainstream medias. NO WAY.
Like I believe genetically modified food is good for you. NO WAY.
Like I believe the gubement really cares about its citizenry. NO WAY.
My ole gramma used to tell me how sex could may one blind. Maybe we older people have heard that? And now, (snort snort lol), I hear that if one has a decrease is sight (vision) while taking those erectile dysfunction medications; they should get immediate medical attention. Really.?.?.?

And hypothetically, we could get neural brain enhancements, at a risk of course. Would the average Joe six pack really, seriously consider so? Inquiring minds wanna know!

Do I need a lobotomy or a bottle in front of me? If I have to choose, I choose the bottle…

 

[mudrabbit]

I guess intellect would be available only to those who could afford it. What a way to get the "little guy" under control. Some schools would become unnecessary, heck, just have a chip implanted. No hassles with books and paper. Behavioral problems? Just get 'em chipped. Attention deficit? Autism? Learning disabilities? Chip them!

It would only be a matter of time before we became Dr. Seuss's sneetches.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sneetches_and_Other_Stories#.22The_Sneetches.22

And down the road a generation or two, guess who would be the manual laborers?

Personally, I'll do without one.

Peg

 

[nf3]

This is a simplified situation, in which we are supposed to make a decision based on what's given, i.e., the possible outcomes of the operation, OSIT.

But there is nothing given. :)

How do they define 'power of intellect' and how do they quantify it? A 40% increase of an undefined 'something' means nothing.

But...playing along I'd have to say certainly not. The human brain, on its own, is capable of far more than we can even imagine in our current state. For all we know an artificial increase in simple data processing power would actually inhibit the potential for real development of consciousness and more abstract awareness.

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=1710.msg11329#msg11329

 

[Renaissance]

My answer: no. A spontaneous forty percent increase in intellect would probably throw you quite off your rocker. Todays technical and scientific world cannot put to good use the knowledge that we currently have, so the first priority would seem to make a good use of what we already have. Getting to understand experiences would seem more useful than overloading our brains with more knowledge that we're not equip to deal with. Once we have a good understanding and are able to put it to good use then we'd be in a situation for some more knowledge, but before that we'd be skipping some steps that would probably cause harm. Reminds me of an Orage quote, "Knowledge without understanding is the root of all kinds of evil."

 

[Peam]

The problem with trying to answer hypothetical questions like these is that it doesn’t take into consideration the ‘specific situation’ in which to make a calculated choice.

But no, I wouldn’t agree to it. Although I wouldn’t mind a 40% increase when trying to understand lot of the stuff on here and would help me a lot, I don’t think an increase would have any bearing on my frequency resonance vibration and any sto leaning I might have.

Take bush for example. A 40% intelligence increase of such a low starting point as he seems to have probably wouldn’t show much outward difference in my opinion, and if his implant went wrong (perish the thought) a 10% decrease from near zero wouldn’t be noticed either. So this operation wouldn't suit everyone.

 

[Keit]

The problem with trying to answer hypothetical questions like these is that it doesn’t take into consideration the ‘specific situation’ in which to make a calculated choice.

I think that this is one of the major factors that must be considered ;)
For example, imagine the situation where brain chip is equal for university degree. Those who are chip/DNA enhanced get better job (survival) opportunities. (Yes, I know, too much sci-fi reading ;) )
I bet much more people will be willing to consider this option if it will bring them better life conditions and it will be a consensus or some what social mandatory thing like credit card.
It's easy to answer "chip? no way!" today, but still, with everything we know, we still carry cell phones and credit cards and sometimes consume fluoride. Why? Because lot of us don't have no other/better choice.

 

[Beau]

It's easy to answer "chip? no way!" today, but still, with everything we know, we still carry cell phones and credit cards and sometimes consume fluoride. Why? Because lot of us don't have no other/better choice.

So does that mean you would take the brain chip? :D

 

[Keit]

So does that mean you would take the brain chip? :D

I don't have a degree ;)

 

[Tenten]

Well ... If we think collectively this could be interesting.
Suppose a network of 100 people (with an average of 100 for intellect) with moral qualities - pure supposition of a perfect world ;o) -, strong ties, common interests and goals, etc ..

They could collectively organize this operation and decides to be brain chipped. All of them.

What will be the result?
We will have now a network of 90 brilliant people (with an average of 140 for intellect ) and 10 diminished people (with an average of 90 for intellect).
It's still a network with common interests and goals.
They all of them took the risk and sacrifice potentially/or really for 10 of them, a part of themselves. But now, collectively, they are able to achieve greater tasks.

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

 

[Zadius Sky]

I don't have a degree ;)

I have three, but having degrees still haven't make me any smarter. I felt like I just graduated from high school. But, I'd like to think of having degree being equal to having a brain chip. They both supposed to 'make' you smarter, but do we actually understand what we know? With this brain chip, it's like having information downloaded into you, and how do you know if this information isn't disinformation? And, if we need this chip to become smart, do we have to become dependent on it?

What if we do get brain chips in our heads, but what happens if we get 'shocks?' Will that disable our 'chips?" Will we lose what we know? Will we stop becoming nerds?

Sorry for all the questions. My "tickle Me" program wants to know. :P

 

[Azur]

The question to ask in the decision process is this: what is it that will be gained with 40% more processing power?

What is it that you are now processing that you perceive needs a "faster" response?

What is it you think that you cannot process now (or perceive as being currently too limited to process) that would suddenly "open up" for you?

Would having more processing power mean being better at synthesizing information? Seeing the ontologies of information strata where you couldn't before?

Or just faster (time wise) processing of the only "algorithms" or thought patterns you already have? (A more efficient route to the water cooler, with many more factors "processed" than before, so that you can get back to your cube to more efficiently complete the meaningless task you get paid for?)

Would faster give you a means of re-mapping your neo-cortex reactor/predictor?

Would you have access to ALL of the information that your eyes see, but that your brain mostly throws away before you are even conscious of it?

The other side of this dilemma: adding a chip is similar to modifying DNA to achieve the same results. If some kind of stem cell concoction were developed with the same parameters of effect, would it be more palatable?

And last but not least: is the operation reversible? :)


Cheers.

 

[Renaissance]

Well ... If we think collectively this could be interesting.
Suppose a network of 100 people (with an average of 100 for intellect) with moral qualities - pure supposition of a perfect world ;o) -, strong ties, common interests and goals, etc ..

Well, we might be able to know if the group was co-linear pre-chip, but can we assume the same post-chip? Kiet already suggested the following concerning university, but in other words has our technology acted as such a chip for society? And if so has that assisted in moral degeneration? It would seem so with the industrial super powers experiencing 'happy times' while the rest of the world suffers. Ponerology is the key element once again, but it also seems useful that we're utilizing such a 'chip' right now to understand it's influence so we can escape from it.

 

[Azur]

Well ... If we think collectively this could be interesting.
Suppose a network of 100 people (with an average of 100 for intellect) with moral qualities - pure supposition of a perfect world ;o) -, strong ties, common interests and goals, etc ..

They could collectively organize this operation and decides to be brain chipped. All of them.

What will be the result?
We will have now a network of 90 brilliant people (with an average of 140 for intellect ) and 10 diminished people (with an average of 90 for intellect).
It's still a network with common interests and goals.
They all of them took the risk and sacrifice potentially/or really for 10 of them, a part of themselves. But now, collectively, they are able to achieve greater tasks.

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

"Greater tasks"? There is more than enough "Brain" horsepower on this planet to solve our problems, yet they persist.

Maybe a definition of "moral qualities" could explain it.