219 replies to this topic

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Actually you can be as mean and nasty as you want as long as there is some actual validity to the doctrine of apocatastasis.

All sinners will be redeemed.

 

And, as far as IQ is concerned, have you considered that the elite won't allow us common folk to benefit from enhanced intelligence? I mean you will have the occasional Will Hunting that works in a menial job. But, if everyone had an IQ of 200, e.g., who is going to want to mop floors and flip burgers instead of working on some new approach to quantum gravity?

 

The elite need a peasant class to do the work they don't want to do and that needs to be done. So, it'll take big bucks to get your children a big IQ boost, and most people won't have those big bucks

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 31 August 2017 - 12:01 AM.

[mag1]

The approaching rupture in human society that will be brought about by the Genetic Singularity would be a highly opportune time

for a morality upgrade. In fact, such an upgrade might be a sine qua non for gene tech to roll out. As I noted earlier, a world with extreme

levels of g, would pose substantial security risks. One does not have to look very far or very hard in the modern world to find numerous

examples of abusive behavior directed towards our children. Any modern high school would likely provide numerous examples of this systemic problem. 

 

In the world that is approaching, we are clearly going to have to elevate our moral standards. This is almost certainly true. The rights of the eugenica

will be of far greater concern than the rights of the by comparison mentally disabled current members of the primate species Homo sapiens. 

A highly intrusive state imposing scientifically derived codes of child rearing parenting might be an absolute requirement.  Many might find the new

eugenica legal code to be incomprehensible.

 

Substance use as a crime?

Not reading to your kids a felony?

 

Genetically engineering eugenica more than likely will be much easier than trying to upgrade our moral and intellectual behavior.  

Edited by mag1, 31 August 2017 - 03:15 AM.

[mag1]

My impression of the "we need human drones to do the dirty work" argument is that it is not valid.
It is surprising how much innovation has been intentionally suppressed over the last many centuries
to maintain large numbers of low g jobs simply to ensure social stability.

In fact, the robotics and employment thread has been devoted to the idea that all employment will
disappear as we move towards The Singularity. What is especially interesting is how much attention
has been directed on that thread to find some way of counteracting the potential elimination of the
low g labor economy including a neo-Luddite stance of assaulting the robots. But robots will free us from being chained to a low g life that might reflect our actual g potential.

It would not seem overly technically challenging to create such a non-employment society. Japan's current
demographic collapse along with their attempt to replace people with robots instead of loosening the rules
for migration into the country suggest they think a technological solution is feasible.

Significantly the high g life style often seems to be devoted to quiet contemplation about the nature of the universe
or other metaphysical speculations-- without striving for all the consumer baubles of our economy.
Albert Einstein spent his entire life in such contemplation. High IQ people are low maintenance.

My guess would be that a eugenically engineered humanoid species with IQs into the 1000s would find the concept
that a underclass would be required to mop their floors extremely morally distasteful. The first job of the eugenicans perhaps will
be to unemploy all of humanity by substituting human labor with robotic labor. This would then free all of those who are now
forced to be human drones to a life of metaphysical contemplation.

The only reason why it has such long standing currency in human history is that there exists a substantial proportion of people with
low g and the elite groups are themselves not especially highly endowed with g either. If their had been even a few of the elite with
IQs near 1000, then the path of human progress and especially the nature of the labor economy would have been greatly different.

There is a substantial amount of popular misrepresentation about the behavior of the super intelligent. This is all the more so because
highly intelligent people need to interact with democratic structures politically controlled by populations with modest average g levels.
Albert Einstein has been reported to have been deeply unsatisfied with the motivations (and by extension possibly the intelligence) of
those that he had to submit his scientific grant applications. Moreover, the popular depiction of the wealthy has likewise been highly
misrepresented probably as a means of swaying political opinion. It will be extremely fascinating to finally see demonstrations of
very extremely high g displayed by the eugenicans and not the false stereotypes that we have had up to this point of high intelligence.

Perhaps the one thing that we might need to be concerned about is that some people simply might not be interested in high IQ children.
The Nobel prize sperm bank went bankrupt when too few people wanted children who were more interested in science than people.
For some, a life of intellectual activity devoted to contemplating the nature of the nature might not be the path they want their children to take.

The argument that a society highly stratified by genetics of IQ and other traits, also does not seem overly convincing to me. Even accepting the premise
does not result in a world anything like our own. Gamete donation from the eugenica would be difficult to prevent and it would then quickly increase the IQ
of all humanity at almost no cost. It would be difficult to imagine that a future world of high IQ (perhaps some with 5000, some with 1000, and some with 500)
would create a custodial state as now exists for those with low g. A lower bound of IQ at 500 would mean that even those at the lower end of the distribution
would not require social support.

Edited by mag1, 31 August 2017 - 04:09 AM.

[mpe]

Genetic engineering of some future generation is all very nice, but what about me.
I need some wholesale changes now,my current children would benefit to. Really if only benefits the unborn who cares?

[mag1]

mpe,

 

me! me! me!   needs to ---> WE! WE! WE!

 

Almost impossible to speculate what the world of a generation of 1000+ IQ could create.

A fair number on our forum have expressed in immortality.

1000+ IQ could make that happen.

 

mpe, you OK with being around for a quite a while?

 

 

 

Edited by mag1, 31 August 2017 - 05:31 AM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

mpe did imply WE WE WE when he wrote "me". You just need to employ some lateral thinking and consider a capitalized "me"--> ME, and then perform a simple vertical reflection followed by the appropriate palilogy construction, i.e., WE! WE! WE!. And, Viola! (or voila, as the French might write, but what do they know?) whirled peas!.

[PeaceAndProsperity]

You seem to assume that disease is the result of faulty genes and that fixing those genes will result in good health. This is probably true when it comes to obvious genetic errors that result in this or that known 'syndrome'. But in your AD example, that's not a genetic error they are talking about. That's a polymorphisms, a perfectly normal genetic variation, which only predisposes one to the disease. You cannot fix those -- I mean, technically, of course you can, but why would you want to?

The thing is, there is no such thing as perfect heath by itself. Health is relative to the the environment one is in, and that includes various factors from climate to type of food to the types of pathogens one can encounter in it. So, health is sort of a function of how well an organisms can deal with this or that specific environment or just a factor in it. And of course, genetic variations that are good for some environments may not be that good for others.

Please get a dictionary and take a class in philosophy so you can grasp the simpleton words you are using. Normal and health are not the same. Normal refers to what is the majority whereas health is an abstraction of purpose. Only things that have purposes can at all be healthy. And purpose is an abstraction of design. To say that one thing is healthy is literally to say that it is the way it was designed to be.
 

The reason geneticists use the word variant or polymorphism is either because they do not know what the correct gene or base pairs are or because they believe that humans are the byproduct of chance so nothing is correct or incorrect.

[mag1]

Advocatus, thank you for your witty and perceptive comment. It will take some considerable effort to equal the high intelligence register that you have established.

 

Through the dialectic, I did indeed see at a more profound level the duality between: me and WE. Bridging a gap with a synthesis is a small but significant

step up the IQ ladder. Only by contemplating this further did I realize that my suggestion to mpe that eternal life could be his as a result of the eugenica

generation was more an argument that would appeal to his "me" than "WE" side. However, I do leave open the possibility that someone might find an even

more occult yet more deeply penetrating understanding of this dualism.

 

Not a small number of arguments in life could be settled if people more fully understood that the differences are often less than the similarities

(Tweedledum and Tweedledee).

Edited by mag1, 01 September 2017 - 02:58 AM.

[mag1]

The internet is such an amazing communications tool.

 

There is a message (IQ gene editing is now imminent).

There is the intended audience.

 

The message has already percolated through the psychometric community and they have shown

a considerable amount of enthusiasm. 

 

Without the internet this message from the grassroots might never be sent and received.

There have always been considerable filters in place that have stopped such messages from being transmitted.

With many of these potential disruptors, there is usually a notable silence to report such developments by the

mainstream media. Considering how dramatic the effects on our society will be from genetically engineering a

super intelligent form of humanity, it is reasonable to discuss this now and not when this is even more imminent.

 

From what I can perceive in the global media space the message has not yet been sent or, if it has, it has not been widely

received and understood. I am going to be fascinated to see what the response will be.

 

[mpe]

Yes by me I did indeed mean we and it wasnt a typo.
Yes I do wish/ intend to be around a long time, but for that to happen the bioscience progress rate has to significantly faster than nuclear fusion; 35 years in th he future since I was a boy and nothing really changes.
SENS is almost exactly the same as nuclear fusion always so far in the future you and I will never benefit from it.
This technology has promise but if you watch its inventors youtube presentations it will be the same,decades into the future and handed over to big pharma so that you and i will never benefit.
Once the FDA gets involved heaven help us all, they will ensure it never sees the light of day.
I would gladly go to China for treatment as I suspect the great majority of currently living adults would.

[sthira]

nothing really changes

Even so, we need a place to collectively dream and plan for a better future. I admit I'm not following much of the description here because -- and I'm not trying to be rude -- but these lofty ideas in this thread are so far ahead of the science, so sloppily written and hyperventilated, that they lose me.

To OP: please more carefully express your potentially fine ideas and contributions, and you might gain more feedback.

Meanwhile, is anyone following Ben Goertzel's work? Anything new there? For example: https://youtu.be/qQvoVzDt2yk

Part of what I like about his public talks and work is the idea that "we" can create technology for higher purposes, like for the human good, like for curing diseases and human suffering. Isn't this what "we" should be using "CRISPR editing" to do? Solve our enormous problems?

Rather than creating, say, gene editing techniques or AGI for the exclusively militaristic aims of killing more and more people, can't "we" can craft technology to help us solve aging? While google's apparent mission seems to be "make more money" and get people to buy more useless crap we don't need, AGI could be envisioned to help us live better lives.

...the bioscience progress rate has to significantly faster than nuclear fusion; 35 years in th he future since I was a boy and nothing really changes.
SENS is almost exactly the same as nuclear fusion always so far in the future...This technology has promise but if you watch its inventors youtube presentations it will be the same,decades into the future and handed over to big pharma so that you and i will never benefit.

How do we help, in whatever ways we're individually and collectively able, to speed up slow biomedical progress? This site hints at ways -- donate to small SENS projects -- but this site is weak and is not very popular or effective, IMHO, although I don't know how to improve it, either.

[mag1]

Oh my!!

 

I am having my very own personal singularity event NOW:

September 1st, 2017 the day the freak-o-meter went straight up.

 

I mean intellectually at least how can there be a tomorrow?

 

I'll try and post before I lose consciousness or perhaps I am transported to a different universe or dimension.

 

1. Exhibit A for the prosecution.

http://www.biorxiv.o...175406.full.pdf

 

Go to page 20 of the pdf above or look at the figures attached below. Notice in Figure 3 of the pdf the two panes on the left which have continuous traits and their genotype sample tops out at 1 million. The three lines of interest are those in red in both of these figures. These lines are for intelligence, years of educational attainment and cognitive performance. The two left panes show that at a million samples one would expect 1000-3000 SNPs and these SNPs would explain 40-60% of the variance for these 3 traits.

 

Now go to page 19. This figure shows the distribution of expected effect sizes (look for the red lines).

 

So basically we have a nice big normal distribution with perhaps a slight bias to higher IQ, yet this is not clearly shown in the figure.

 

On first impression this does not really seem to be anything worth writing home about. 

After further contemplation one should feel a certain nagging apprehension that something might be amiss.

 

If this is all just a random process in a normal distribution with nano-scale effect sizes both positive and negative, then this should mean that

the actual samples that are drawn one by one for the thousands of SNPs for IQ will be nowhere close to an upper limit. How likely would it be

to flip 10,000 coins and wind up with 10,000 heads?

 

How could we all have been so dumb?

The implications of the genetic architecture of intelligence has been missed by almost everyone.

Few if anyone questioned the depiction of Brave New World in which the alphas were not really that special.

From what is clear now the alphas will be very very special indeed.

 

They will not be somewhat smarter than others, they will be an entirely different species intellectually and physically.

There should be no great concern about interbreeding between them and us.

This would essentially be impossible.

 

 

 

The Bell Curve argument was a fight among fools.

It was about fighting about less than 10 points in most communities.

That is what the basis of class is based on?

Are they kidding?

It is laughable.

 

The Other Bell Curve (page 19 above) is the real Bell Curve.

It looks exactly the same as the Bell Curve we know and love.

To arrive at someone's IQ we sample from this other Bell Curve. 

 

While the mean might still be 100 and the SD still 15, the broader implication can be more clearly seen.

The top of the range of this Bell Curve is no longer hitting 5100 positives versus 5000 negatives for a

net of 100. The optimized result is hitting 10,000 favorable coin tosses. In actuality the Bell Curve that we

have been arguing would form only a sliver at the center of the Other Bell Curve. Adding up all the pluses and

minuses gives you a slice of reality, though it is like looking through a pin hole. Randomly summing up all these

pluses and minuses basically gives you 0. While the optimal result would be 5000.

 

We have been drifting on the surface of an ocean of variation without realizing that there is a tidal wave underneath.

 

Um, oh yeah, so basically at 1 million sample size we already have 2000-3000 of the SNPs identified. That is basically where we already

are with the already announced 1 million Educational Attainment GWAS. So basically what that should mean is that if

we were to CRISPR a few thousand SNPs that are known we should be able to create super ridiculously intelligent people.

Possibly not the optimal, let's call it one third of optimal, so give or take 1000 IQ. Today, Tomorrow, we can engineer

people with 1000 IQ back of envelope calculating.

 

 

2. Exhibit B.

 

Almost the entire conception of the future had been based on an idea that there would be a gene for intelligence, a gene for that.

Even into the 1970s, futurists were talking about a 200 IQ genetically engineered world.

Even when the polygenic nature of IQ was first proposed it still was not recognized what this implied.

 

Here we are now and we have been bonked on the head and it is still a little foggy.

 

Basically the highly polygenic nature of IQ and many other traits will mean that intelligence levels will not be increased a slight amount,

they will be able to be increased a MASSIVE amount.

 

Why didn't all these people writing books ever visit a farm or talk to animal breeders? It has been known for centuries that some traits

(i.e., polygenic ones) can be manipulated to an extreme extent. The example given below is that egg laying frequency can be changed

by a factor of 30 through genetic selection.

 

This is not a guess. This is completely understood and accepted within the farm breeding community.

 

The article below notes that von Neumann was perhaps 6 SD above average IQ. However, it is thought using the calculations in the paper that

genetic engineering could produce people with intelligence 100 SD above normal. 1500 IQ roughly? It is not clear to me whether this

includes optimizing the negative effects which I guess would add another 100 SD? 200 SD above normal ? 3000 IQ?

 

A description of von Neumann's cognitive ability already gives me chills.

And he would in a genetically engineered world be over an order of magnitude below everyone else?

This level of intelligence is scary. It is very very scary.

 

Anyone think offering kids with a 3000 IQ a hit of LSD would be a good idea now?

 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.3421.pdf

 

This observation applies to all the rest of highly polygenic traits. Essentially we have argued endlessly about minor differences in traits for over 100 years.

No one bothered to mention that this has been a largely futile debate about very small differences. The social impact of this observation could be considerable.

Obviously the argument should never have been about the 30 point IQ difference that separates us from us (we from we), but the 3000 IQ point that will separate

us from them (we from them).

 

It will take no great perception to recognize the eugenica. With an IQ of 3000, a height of 25 feet, a perfect eideic memory, ... , they should be reasonably conspicuous.

 

 

3. Exhibit C.

 

In the figures above, the sample sizes topped out at 1 million.

At 1 million, they were already moving to 50% explanation of IQ variation.

1 million seemed like a very big number.

Sample size of 1 million for Educational Attainment is already in the publication pipe.

 

http://programme.exo...esentation/214/

 

Interestingly, Ancestry.com has a DNA database of 5 million growing at 1 million per quarter,

23andme has a 2 million person database, FT DNA has a 500,000 person DNA database ....

 

Apparently these databases are small potatoes.

 

The US government's NDIS DNA database has 15.5 million criminal DNA samples (5% of the US population).

(Is that even constitutional?)

 

The UK tops that it, it has a DNA database of 7% of its population (5 million people).

{I would not feel comfortable living somewhere in which DNA testing was that widespread and so coercive.

There are fundamental questions of human rights that are being pushed up against.}

 

http://www.nanalyze....t-dna-database/

 

It should not be unexpected that the criminal justice system has very sophisticated psychometric profiling within their prisons

so that highly accurate phenotypes should exist for most of these prisoners. Furthermore, using this resource for the benefit

of the taxpayers who financially support such institutions does not seem unreasonable. Identifying information would not be 

necessary. Research has found that the high and low ends of the IQ distribution mostly draw on the same genetic variants.

Thus, a prison population would still provide very important information about the genetics of the entire range of IQs in the

community. Leveraging this database for the good of the community would be very difficult to argue against. The level of

political support for such an initiative would likely be overwhelming.

 

 

Attached Files

•  Figure 1.PNG   192.09KB   0 downloads
•  Figure 2.PNG   184.25KB   0 downloads
•  Figure 3.PNG   380.32KB   0 downloads

Edited by mag1, 01 September 2017 - 10:58 PM.

[mag1]

Oh, yes, I forgot to mention that it has recently been reported that China has over the last year or two devoted substantial 

resources to developing a world class PGD technology platform that now surpasses that found in the US.

 

This is all the more interesting when you read page 26 in the pdf below.

Apparently, using only a simple genetic selection amongst 10 embryos one could increase IQ by 1 SD.

 

1 SD is a lot or at least we have always thought that it was.

It is what the entire race debate has been about for the last 100 years.

 

This does not require any fancy technology at all.

Such genetic selection is something that could be done tomorrow and probably already has been done yesterday.

 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.3421.pdf

 

The Intelligence arms race is already under way.

Pretending that this is something in the future or that it will all just blow over makes no sense whatsoever.

 

It's now time that we all preparing for eugenica.

 

 

[mag1]

Just messing around with some numbers.

 

https://www.random.o...t=plain&rnd=new
 

Siblings on average can be up to a standard deviation different in terms of IQ.

 

A sample selected among 10 gives you a child with an IQ 1 SD above average.

 

What happens when we sample from a standard normal distribution 100 in size?

The number highlighted below shows over a 2 SD above average.

This is only using a low end genetic selection process and there is already a 2 SD difference.

That is fairly substantial.

 

Of course this would be of even greater significance to those at the high end of the distribution.

As it is now, the children of highly intelligent people are expected to regress to the mean.

With the selection below, there would never have to be regression to the mean.

 

As soon as anyone uses even primitive selection technology, everyone else will have little choice but to follow suit.

The IQ differences over even a few generations would become enormous.

 

Love to get the math done more clearly, though even without a fine grained focus on the details it appears that

there will be a huge intelligence wave on the way. Super Hi-tech would not be absolutely required.

 

Just tried a sample of 1000 and there was a +3 SD result.

That is a 145 IQ from just average IQ patients using selection.

Not sure if it actually works that way though it would be very impressive if it did.

 

One could also imagine that a simple way to amplify this would be to select each chromosome

and the crossovers it made individually. That should optimize the procedure in a way that simply

increasing sample size would not efficiently capture.

 

Seems to increase by a standard deviation for every increase of a factor of 10 in sample size.

 

If they could get this on an assembly line and get the price down to $1 a genome, then 

it would only cost $1000 for a 3 SD child, and $10,000 for a 4 SD, and only a million for a 6 SD (i.e. a von Neumann).

 

Our kids are worth a million!

 

 

 4.390e-1  -7.960e-1   8.080e-1   2.450e-1   1.050e-1
-8.610e-1   8.500e-1  -1.770e+0  -9.900e-1   4.620e-1
 3.230e-2  -3.880e-1  -1.180e+0  -9.550e-1  -8.960e-1
 1.330e-1  -1.270e+0   9.180e-2  -4.850e-1   6.280e-2
 1.900e-1   1.410e+0   2.970e-2   7.560e-1  -7.580e-2
 2.120e-1   1.410e+0  -6.290e-1  -5.320e-1   4.310e-1
-3.150e-1  -1.170e+0   1.430e+0  -8.300e-1  -1.490e-1
-1.340e+0  -1.850e-1   6.910e-1   1.380e+0   4.180e-1
-6.230e-1   1.290e+0  -1.650e-1  -1.560e+0  -1.980e-1
-7.190e-1   3.970e-1   8.270e-1   1.090e-1  -1.170e-2
-1.140e-1   4.160e-1  -1.090e+0   3.360e-1   5.930e-1
-3.070e-1  -1.050e+0  -3.150e-1   6.710e-1   8.980e-1
 1.570e-1   1.120e+0  -7.690e-1   1.180e+0   1.890e+0
-4.990e-1   1.060e+0   1.010e+0   1.070e+0   4.490e-1
 1.640e+0   1.840e+0  -1.990e-1   4.320e-1   1.420e+0
 3.920e-1  -1.740e+0  -8.200e-2  -1.530e+0   5.220e-1
-6.040e-1   3.490e-1  -9.000e-1   5.200e-1   2.310e+0
 1.030e+0  -5.650e-1   1.270e+0   1.570e-1  -5.630e-1
 3.400e-1  -3.110e-1   1.310e+0   5.550e-1  -1.430e+0
 8.260e-1  -1.130e+0   1.460e-1   3.430e-1   9.480e-1

Edited by mag1, 02 September 2017 - 02:39 AM.

[mag1]

This is important to understand.

 

Given the genetic architecture of polygenic traits such as intelligence, essentially everyone has the inherent genetic material to create extreme genius.

Up till this point there was no obvious way to ethically manifest such extreme intelligence. With simple PGD it is now quite possible. This represents

an overwhelming market for the sequencers or the gene chippers. There is quite possibly already a fairly inexpensive way that someone could be

genome sequenced once and then some sort of a marker could be applied to possibly thousands of embryos (pre-embryo?). The selected embryo

would then be at the extreme right tail of say the IQ distribution. To achieve such a result all that we need to know are the IQ SNPs. The recent GWAS SNPs

have went a far distance to answer this question.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

sthira wrote in post #131: "To OP: please more carefully express your potentially fine ideas and contributions, and you might gain more feedback."

 

Slow down mag1, your posts, both in frequency and in the number of ideas per post, are beginning to manifest a "volubility" of writing, if you will, suggestive of bi-polar mania.

 

Are you writing in a separate word processor and then pasting into the "Reply" window? Something is causing an annoying formatting of your posts that will probably put off many potential readers, as sthira suggests, similar to what "wall of text" does.

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 02 September 2017 - 03:45 AM.

[mag1]

Advocatus, thank you.

In the virtual age, a word of guidance can be helpful.

 

Some people do fly closer to the sun.

It is easier now; one learns to veer off.

 

Clearly there will soon be people who will soar far higher than could have been imagined.

This has been a revelation to me.

 

I wish I could travel back to the beginning of psychometrics and add this idea to the discussion.

History would then have unfolded quite differently.

 

The Genetic Singularity is near.

   

[mag1]

As noted above, many of my recent posts have been poorly written and they have also been hyperventilated, though I am now back to 95% oxygen saturation.

These are all true statements. I would obviously want to go back and correct the glaring typos that are present, yet this is not easily done on this forum.

 

Last item was that my comments are ahead of the science.

If anyone might clarify specifically which comments are ahead of the science, it would be greatly appreciated.

My understanding is surprisingly that my above are closer to truth than fiction and that at a minimum an initial low tech IQ raising PGD selection technique 

is now already feasible.

 

Comments please!

[sthira]

As noted above, many of my recent posts have been poorly written and they have also been hyperventilated, though I am now back to 95% oxygen saturation.
These are all true statements. I would obviously want to go back and correct the glaring typos that are present, yet this is not easily done on this forum.

Well, thank you for the chance to comment. I apologize if I sounded like a jerk, abrupt and rude, and I'm happy you're back to breathing properly.

I also want to say I very much appreciate your passion and enthusiasm for the promise of CRISPR in particular, and of technology in general (your excitement regarding "robobuggies", e.g: https://engineering....ng-buggies.html) .

I share your hope for damage repairs caused by defective genes and the disease of aging, and in my humble opinion, regenerative medicine for aging, suffering human bodies should be cultural priority number one. It should be priority number one at the very least on this site, Longecity, as we dream of slowing, stopping, and reversing aging. We're all on the same page here; I'm not clipping your flight wings, even if I could.

But let's get real: we've seen promise after promise after promise ad nauseum in this arena about the transformative technology that's imminent, it's coming right now, the science and pop journos keep shouting it, it must be true, exclamation point. And yet. What?

So, to offer a friendly response to the question you asked here:

Last item was that my comments are ahead of the science.
If anyone might clarify specifically which comments are ahead of the science, it would be greatly appreciated.

I reply that you wrote the below enthusiasm more than two years ago:

Thank you everyone for commenting on this topic! I really need to talk about this one.
Our world has changed forever, and in my newspaper, at least, the story was buried on the second page.
This story should have been front paged! It is the largest story of the last few decades (probably ever).

So, in the two years since CRISPR awareness has been popularized, what has changed about your life? What has changed about the lives of anyone around you due to CRISPR advances? Anything?

If not, then I guess that's part of what I mean by ahead of the science.

I'm not being provocative because heaven knows I'm also very excited about the promises of gene editing to stop useless human suffering. But I think we should temper our language a bit until something real emerges out of the replication clinical trials and into our lives. Until then, I don't know what's worth getting my hopes up for, and what's just the same ole disappointing fuckwad clickbaity hype.

Right?

I mean, certainly in the two years since you wrote what you wrote above, the progress in using CRISPR for human regenerative medicine has been rather, um, downbeat, no?

We all know human biology is nearly infinitely complex -- all those unintended consequences of any manipulated biological act -- and so it's gonna take a long time for grant funding-strapped institutions and startups to work through the damned mess of human metabolism.

Before we start inserting gene alterations into embryos to create 1,000 IQ-ed humans, perhaps we should let go of designer baby talk for awhile, and use this powerful tool CRISPR to, I dunno: http://www.npr.org/2...amentals-of-lif

Have I misunderstood your writing?

[mag1]

sthira, thank you very much for replying.

No reason to apologize. I am sure many others thought the same, though never put thoughts to keyboard so that I would never have the benefit of their perspective.
Truly out in the wilds of reality, I might take exception, yet here in the virtual realm there is a near total emotional amnesia. I am sure scientists have studied this
effect extensively. For me everything bounces off as if I had inhaled laughing gas.

With respect to the intended mission of LongeCity {as noted above on this page "Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans"}, this thread has a clear connection to this mission through the
idea of the Genetic Singularity and also The Singularity. Creating a world filled with von Neumanns would without question create a near term Singularity. In fact, von Neumann, himself, had a very
direct role in creating the first computer and he immediately realized that the technological force that he had unleashed would move humanity to such a Singularity. OK, er, not bad (I'm sure anyone of us
could do something like that if we really wanted to). Yet, he was only 6 SD. It is completely clear now that 6 SD is not the IQ speed limit, not even close: 100 SD give or take is.

The unavoidable conclusion from the above is that the wishes of those on this Forum to live out an unlimited lifespan is now entirely within reach. It is basically a certainty. Taking people's
money on a bet would not even be fair cricket, would it? It is not a 100-1 bet; it is a certainty. There is nothing to argue about there. Given the nature of the architecture of the genetics of human intelligence,
there is also nothing much to argue about the ability of humans to genetically engineer von Neumann scale IQ broadly in the population. I was able to run the simulation on the random number site
up to 10,000 and I hit a 4 SD. This simulation was simply using the assumption that you had 2 parents of average IQ. Selecting amongst 10,000 gave genius level IQ. The simulation would not let me
move over 10,000, though my best guess would be that a 1 million sample would give me 6 SD. This is with 2 average parents using minimal technology. Only question is how you could put that onto
a factory assembly line and make it ethically palatable.

What happens in perhaps two three years when a couple to be go to snpedia, pay their $5 and are shown the optimized IQ of a potential offspring were +10 SD. This is not far on the horizon anymore, without question the merry go round is only going to spin faster and faster.
What keeps popping up are these positive feedback loops. It is amazing. Typically in life there might be an a single attractor that drags the entire social political space in one direction. With the Genetic Singularity there are multiple attractors all pulling the same way: a Super-Attractor. With all this force pulling the same way how could the Genetic Singularity not happen on a near term time horizon?

The question that is becoming more and more clear to me: who else but an extreme genius is going to be able to put up with all this social disruption?

The logic circuit has closed.
People with high IQ can create a world that we all dream of: unlimited lifespan, enormous wealth, happiness, ...
<-->
It is possible with existing technology to make people of very high IQ.
Once this positive feedback cycle starts up, it should not take long for t_G (time to Genetic Singularity).



This is quite true about science fiction remaining fiction for extended periods of time. I was just rereading a futurist book from 50 years ago, and most
of what was suggested has still not occurred, including widespread genetic engineering. The reason why I am so optimistic is the payoffs involved are
so overwhelmingly large. Would America alone gain $40 trillion if t_G were advanced by 1 year? The rate of return should be driving resources into making
this happen. It is becoming increasingly obvious that with the Genetic Singularity, we have reached the point where the question is about should instead of could.
CRISPRing an embryo and then doing extensive and exhaustive genomic analysis is without question within our technological reach. There will still be some
uncertainty about what consequences might result from rewiring the biological networks of an organism in such a directed way. Would turning on every
SNP that increased neurogenesis actually be a good idea? Might a form of extreme schizophrenia or autism be the result? It is not clear how these questions
will be answerable with in vitro models.

There have been a number of substantial developments in the last 2 years that have taken a lot of people by surprise. The move towards very very large scale GWAS
has only crystallized in the last few months. Everyone is trying to re-orientate to a very different technological landscape. It is quite possible that a significant portion of the population will continue to behave as if we still lived in the GWAS world of 2016. We are not. Those on the leading edge should be relatively nonchalant about the nearish term prospect of complete genome knowledge of IQ.

It is startling. 2017 is the year that large numbers of SNPs for IQ and EA have finally emerged. Before 2017 there were
zero or close to it. We are now up to around the eighth of a mile pole. It is reasonable to expect that this rate of discovery might even accelerate from here. If 23andme
were to simply ask its customers about their educational histories, we could have a 2 million person sample for EA tomorrow, This would achieve near saturation.

Unlocking a government database such as NDIS using highly respectful consenting, would allow for a near instant decoding of IQ genetics.


Having close to complete knowledge of IQ genetics would be of profound significance. When I started this thread I thought this might be a decade or more away. It wasn't
clear to me that some of the small SNPs might ever be found. How do you find a SNP with 0.01 % effect size? Having the SNP list would then give us the roadmap to
the future.

The real watershed for me is the idea that we are no where close to being at the top of the IQ distribution. That had completely eluded me. The entire conversation has
been stuck with this idea that von Neumann was the top of the curve. Humanity has collectively not had the imagination to even dream about this in the right way.
Did anyone forecast 100 SD IQ? This is the idea that changes everything!

Knowing that this is where we are now heading should make everyone right now sit up
and contemplate deeply how they intend to live their lives. Right, this instant, would be a very good time to do a morality upgrade. 1500 IQ kids could start
throwing snow balls at you sometime and it would be a good idea to think how you might respond.

It is very difficult to understand why it was not more fully understood that deeply polygenic traits implied much much higher potential top ends of the range. Animal breeders have
known this for a long time. If there were only 5 SNPs that produced IQ, then 1 in 32 would be an alpha. Yet, with 10,000 SNPs we have never gotten anywhere close to the top.
It is extremely unfortunate that Spearman in 1904 was not able to realize this when he saw a continuous gradation of the IQ of the school children he studied. If this had been
recognized by the psychometric at that time, backward thinking could have been avoided.

Edited by mag1, 02 September 2017 - 11:23 PM.

[mag1]

The implications for the IQ divide are also profound. Even though it is now clear that we have been fighting a futile fight on an ant hill over what in the overall scheme of things are very small absolute differences in IQ this does not mean people will or should stop such a struggle.

In the current context a couple both with 3 SD IQs would expect their offspring to regress to the average. There is a continual force attracting everyone back to average. The obvious prediction would be that likely is now no longer true. Now that the GWAS have found reliable SNPs for IQ, selection can begin. This means that if those with above average IQs were to take advantage of e.g. PGD their offspring would never regress to the average again. The IQ divide could widen out into the distant future. The 3 SD couple could have their 7 SD offspring who parented their 11 SD children...

For those at -1 SD, it is reasonably likely that nearish term they would remain stationary. This would result in a substantial hi-low increase of the IQ gap.
Even those in the middle would likely slip relatively to those nearer the top. Whereas some nearer the top might be able to afford a 4 or 5 SD boost those of more modest means might be to afford 2 or 3 SD. The top end of the IQ distribution is now able to pull away from others every generation. However, it is unlikely that the Singularity event is now even a few generations distant.


Clearly at some point very soon into the process namely 7 SD first generation the real possibility emerges that the children would be able to work out any outstanding details to allow a direct leap to the 100 SD maximal offspring.

This scenario represents another powerful positive feedback mechanism. Many people might not fully understand that we have now already reached the start of the genetic engineering era. At a minimum one could simply use PGD to select for a 1 SD IQ upgrade for one's offspring. For such a selection only SNP information is a limiting factor, though the ball is already in motion for that.

Once it became clear that people had so called defected on the international germ line engineering ban governments would almost certainly need to socialize the access to IQ and other enhancements. There are endless such examples of possible feedbacks.

My recent posts have been intended to suggest that we have now crossed a critical line in the discussion. I do not entirely disagree with the sentiment that headlines are frequent while progress is rare. It is quite possible that in a year or two life might more or less appear as it does now.

Nonetheless the necessary ingredients- identifying the SNPs, the 100 SD speed limit idea, and PGD genotyping/sequencing are now maturing technologies. Everything is ready for ignition and liftoff. For many the last delay will be answering the question: Should we?

Edited by mag1, 03 September 2017 - 12:58 AM.

[mag1]

These posts have been based on the assumption that people did not have easy access to CRISPR technology. Remember of course that this thread has followed carefully the crafting of an International Ban on Germ Line Editing. It is interesting to note one possibly unintended result of this moratorium: the end of romantic love.

CRISPR would allow any star crossed lovers to fulfill their wish to have control over the genetic inheritance of their offspring. There would be no particular motivation for them to behave in a strategic way in order for them to have their 100 SD offspring.

However, the International moratorium has obstructed the development of CRISPR technology. Now our ill fated Romeos and Juliets have a much less certain path to the and they lived happily ever after. Instead of 100 SD offspring that would result using CRISPR from any genetic starting point, they need to carefully and strategically consider how to maximize the genetics of offspring leading to at most 7 SD children.

Juliet loves Romeo, though when she carefully and objectively considers Romeo she realizes Romeo is no Romeo. This is all the more clear when she has a full genome scan run on Romeo and has it carefully analyzed by a geneticist. Romeo also loves Juliet, though through further analysis he realizes that Juliet is no Juliet either.

After a careful and extensive analysis they both realize that it would be in their self interests to marry someone they did not love but would provide the correct genotypes to maximize their offspring's phenotypes. Perhaps a computer could find such a match after a worldwide search to create a global maximization of the objective function and they could submit gametes that could then be raised in some government institute.

Such can be the unintended consequences when obstacles are placed in front of those trying to live their lives. The moratorium has in no way removed the desire for parents to give their children a better life.

Edited by mag1, 03 September 2017 - 01:36 AM.

[mag1]

Probably best to consider one topic at a time to keep everything straight.

 

The most significant recent change in my understanding about IQ is this idea about the upper limit not being perhaps 7 SD, but 100 SD.

This has extremely profound social/political/technological implications.

 

This has been the main cause of my recent frothiness.

Anyone interested in engaging with this topic?

 

There appears to be not much of an argument there.

One of the few things that I am uncertain about is whether this is 100 or 200 SD?

 

Is anyone aware of any popular work of science fiction that predicted 1500 IQ?

I have a futurist book from the 1970s that is staggered by the potential of a perhaps maximal 200 IQ.

Edited by mag1, 03 September 2017 - 03:16 AM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Re post #127. xEva, I would recommend the Oxford English Dictionary (known by the cognoscenti as the "OED".)

 

Also, classes in philosophy aren't needed. If you Kant afford appropriate philosophy books, get a library card. Or, as Matt Damon says in "Good Will Hunting": "you dropped a hundred and fifty grand on an education you coulda' picked up for a dollar fifty in late charges at the Public Library."

 

Hint, don't bother with Derrida, he is known for his intentional obfuscation.

 

 

[mag1]

Advocatus, thank you for posting.

 

Were you previously aware of the potential of 100 SD IQ?

That has rattled my cage quite a bit (not sure whether that one is officially in a dictionary).

 

I would not be able to advocate for the resolution :

 "Be it resolved that genetically engineering humanity to an average IQ 1500 will not significantly change its technological trajectory. "

with any great enthusiasm.

The only out would be to argue that the full 100 SD is at least some ways off.

 

"Be it resolved that 300 average IQ will not significantly change human society" ?

Would this alteration meaningfully delay the Singularity? Probably not that much. 

 

Edited by mag1, 03 September 2017 - 03:53 AM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

IQ is not explicitly stated, so 1,500?, maybe, maybe not:

"Odd John -- a Story Between Jest and Earnest" by Olaf Stapledon (I have the Berkely Medallion August 1965 edition paperback, a lot cheaper than the hardbound). "The novel explores the theme of the Übermensch (superman) in the character of John Wainwright, whose supernormal human mentality inevitably leads to conflict with normal human society and to the destruction of the utopian colony founded by John and other superhumans."

 

Not 1,500 IQ, but 250 isn't bad:

"The Prodigy: A Biography of William James Sidis, America's Greatest Child Prodigy" by Amy Wallace (I got my copy on Amazon). Her book explores his life. And, "After his death, his sister made the unverifiable claim that his IQ was 'the very highest that had ever been obtained', but any records of any IQ testing that Sidis actually took have been lost to history.".

 

I wonder how John von Neumann would have fared on an IQ test.

[mag1]

Is Nietzsche's Übermensch the first depiction of an approximation of the ideal that we have discussed on this thread?

 

There have been various other religious figures and references to highly intelligent beings that have become part of our global

heritage. Yet, in the modern psychometric sense initiated by Galton, Nietzsche might be one of the first to attempt to describe

eugenica.

 

It is all too clear to draw a line from the misguided idealization of extreme cognitive achievement to 1930s Germany.

As a possible intellectual antidote to a sequel, it should be recognized that from what is currently scientifically

established, the potential to genetically select for extreme intellectual ability is present in every region and in every

nation without dependence on prevailing levels of IQs. The Master Race is the Human Race.  

 

Very astonishing about Sidis. It is extraordinary how badly our community has managed the development of 

those with very high end ability. Will we actually not provide those with 100 SD intelligence the resources they

will need to succeed?

 

What I find so interesting about the selection of scifi above is that the genetic engineering aspect was so muted or even non-existent.

For example, in Brave New World, the classes were distinguished more by conditioning than by genetics.  

 

"The biological techniques used to control the populace in Brave New World do not include genetic engineering;

Huxley wrote the book before the structure of DNA was known. However, Gregor Mendel's work with inheritance

patterns in peas had been rediscovered in 1900 and the eugenics movement, based on artificial selection,

was well established." wiki

 

Classical conditioning would not move us to 100 SD. The self esteem approach can only help to a certain extent.

Psychometricians maintain that g is a biological property of the brain that is essentially unchangeable.

 

With Odd John, the story describes his strange path of development (possibly de novo genetic). The rest of the

family were not noted as being overly exceptional.   

 

Regression to the mean is an inevitable consequence when IQ genes are unknown. For all our scientific advancement,

genetic IQ has been declining for at least the last century. If science fiction writers at the start of the 20th Century had

wanted to write an accurate depiction of life at the start of the 21st Century they would have needed to include the throwing

of the chair on Talk Shows etc. .

 

I would interpret these examples as being a depiction of high end achievement as it was observed in the late 19th to mid 20th Century

more than imagining to the 100 SD extreme that has been talked of on the thread. The most honest response that we could give for what

100 SD would be like is that we simply do not know. This could be unknowable until eugenica actually exist. Their arrival will mark

the start of an entirely new era in the history of humanity.  

 

If the random sampling idea applies at the scale of humanity, 100 million births globally should produce an 8 SD child each year.

The scifi literature suggests that our imagination has been stuck thinking of eugenica at this IQ ceiling. With a thousand fold

genetic selection, the earth's effective population for IQ purposes increases from 10 billion to 10 trillion.

 

von Neumann would have broken the test. At a certain range of IQ, any standard IQ test would no longer be especially helpful.

It surprises me that psychometricians would even bother with testing someone like him. I think that for someone over 30

simply talking about how life has unfolded for them would be equally insightful. What would be especially relevant would be

how specifically one has achieved/invented things/ideas that were entirely original. von Neumann might mention amongst his

many achievements that he invented the first computer and in doing so he had initiated a process that would lead to the Singularity

Event. 

 

The new IQ scale really should be described in SD and not IQ points. This will give a much better indicator of how far behind

everyone will be from eugenica. That means that the average person (within 1 SD of mean) should describe them selves as

0 SD; those within 2 SD but not I SD would be +- 1. Eugenica would have an intelligence of 100.

 

Some on the thread have argued that the thread is misnamed; The Genetic Singularity is not much different from the printing press

etc. . I agreed to an extent with this sentiment at the time. However, given the recent revelation that we can move up to 100 intelligence,

I think it is fair to propose that The Genetic Singularity ™ should be recognized as a thread official terminology. We can do an open out cry

vote with only the nays needing to lodge any objections.

 

There is a clear logical path now from The Genetic Singularity ™ and The Singularity. It should not take long from 100 IQ until The Singularity.

I think the Singularitarians were very well aware of this connection and thus there 2045 is a very reasonable guess (though by current reckoning

somewhat conservative).

     

Edited by mag1, 03 September 2017 - 07:05 PM.

[mag1]

My understanding of when and how humanity's genetic upgrade will occur has been evolving in the last few days.

Here is my current concise summary.

 

The critical line at which The Genetic Singularity ™ becomes self reinforcing through positive feedback has now been crossed.

This is the analogue of the invention of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) for The Singularity.

This should mean that an increasingly rapid ramp up should now occur to roll out various manifestations of a genetic upgrade. 

 

The common perception that the IQ distribution represents a permanent or optimized manifestation of human traits/abilities (especially IQ)

is entirely misplaced. The Other Bell Curve ™ that describes the achievable range of human performance does not have a practical upper

optimized mean of 8 SD and 1 SD SD, but perhaps an optimized mean of 100 SD and 0 SD SD.

 

Once the genetic upgrade truly begins, The Singularity would likely occur within at least 20 years.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

"von Neumann would have broken the test. At a certain range of IQ, any standard IQ test would no longer be especially helpful."

 

Yeah, the problem is that the test makers wouldn't have the ability to synthesize items that could challenge a von Neumann-level intelligence. He likely would always reach the test's ceiling no matter how hard the test makers tried.

[mag1]

The article cited above stated that when it was suggested to a group of some of the leading intellectuals of the 20th Century (including Albert Einstein)
that von Neumann was the smartest person in the room, no one raised an objection. It is very impressive how finely tuned
humans of a wide range of ability levels are in detecting even small differences in g; this has perhaps been positively selected. I think that
by merely becoming acquainted with someone that I could discover even a 2 point IQ difference. However with von Neumann the difference involved probably exceeded 2 points.

When you consider that the world population was approximately 1.5 billion when von Neumann was born, this sets a reasonable
upper bound of 7 SD to his intelligence. However, with the suggestion of using PGD as a selection mechanism, we probably should prepare now
for this simple incremental technology to create a substantial number of children with IQs up to a few SD above even 7 SD.
Genetic selection technology combined with the SNP database results in a non-random process. Up until this time in history,
reproduction while accounting for assortative mating still produced random chromosome segregation and regression to the mean.

It would be best not to believe the fallacy that those at the upper end of the current IQ distribution have essentially immeasurable
IQs. Intelligence tests will need to be developed to test those with 100 intelligence. Funnily enough, those with 100 intelligence who for whatever
are less able slower than others will be considered slow. Each SD up to 100 and perhaps beyond will possibly have meaningfully
distinguishable levels of ability. Yet, the actual upper limit of importance for human concerns might be far below 100. There are only 20,000
genes in the human genome, there are only so many floor mopping robots to build. We might create super turbo charged racing cars when
all we need is an econocar.

Edited by mag1, 03 September 2017 - 09:15 PM.