They don’t need to be better, just different. I agree such a definition would be problematic for both parties anyhow.
I didn’t say ‘more’ intelligent for that and similar reasons.
Ah excellent point, though i would say we do arrive in the world ‘pre programmed’ with a set of instincts, though not for contemporary environments or situations.
We would still have to learn everything, but our form wouldn’t be so restricting/debilitating. We could physically walk and run quickly and the brain would be of adult size. It would however be a different experience and a different upbringing, but that’s ok for a different species, no?
Those issues aside, would you accept a very similar species then? One which grows up etc. How about some like that and one or more not like that?
The Chinese have the highest national average IQ, yet would you say they ‘arrive’ earlier or later? Don’t they grow up quicker and their children more generally disciplined, adept and mature?
Humans have been making conscious decision in selecting mates for a very long time now.
This is probably why we are so strange compared to other similar animals.
Hairless, large clumsy breasts and unfeasibly large dangling balls are just some of the results of what Darwin called “Sexual” or “Domestic” selection.
Variations in skin, hair, and eye colour are also probably the result of sexual selection.
One might have thought that intelligence might have also been selected for, but there is very little evidence for this.
Eugenic thinking has made some impact, and not just since Darwin and Galton.
Now we have the ability to genetically modify humans, and don’t necessarily think this will lead to better humans - just ones with more blond hair, blue eyes and big tits.
Does it make a difference? We ‘select’ probably upon base signals telling us this person is right for us, or upon fundamental animalistic [strong/weak clever/dumb etc] attractions. mostly we get it wrong [always].
Aren’t most of our genetic traits from pre-modern humans going back to apes? I.e. Prior to modern ‘growing up’ phase ~ mostly only happened over the last hundred years?
It is not quite sure that “the Chinese have the highest national average IQ”. However. What I said about the arriving in the world was meant in a more evolutionarily anthropological than currently national sense, although the arriving in the world has also to do with the current nations - of course. The Chinese nation can and does learn from the most of the European nations, because they were the first “arriving” nations. But the arriving in the world has not only to do with intelligence but also with responsibility, and - unfortunately - it is just the responsibility that lacks more and more, although it should grow more and more. So there is an error in the modern world - the lack of responsibility -, and this error is mainly caused by another error - the greed.
Perhaps the Chinese nation will cause a huge catastrophe because of this two “learned” errors: (1) the greed and (2) its main effect - the lack of responsibility.
But it is true that longer gestation periods are required for more complex development. That doesn’t relate much at all to national average comparisons due to social environment effects completely distorting any kind of testing (not to mention that complete idiocy involved in attempting to make such tests).
Or they invented gunpowder and clocks from which the modern world largely descend. The first weaving machines of the industrial revolution used mechanisms from automatons which derive from clocks etc. china.org.cn/top10/2011-03/0 … 4243_2.htm
Not entirely true but i think that one guy invents a thing then others start thinking about that, the ideas float around and another guy invents the next thing. Or in short the whole world influences the whole world ~ genius is the result of the entire product of man.
Interesting point. More individualism will result in less responsibility and that’s the way the world is going. However the Chinese have been civilised for a very long time and i [my genes] for example would have been a Viking only a thousand years ago. They have a high degree of regimentation, collective organisation and synchronicity and can work in close unison as if like a machine.
It is perhaps far more likely that the west is and will be far more irresponsible and greedy than China.
James S Saint
Not with a 3D printed life-form or some such thing perhaps? However i do realise that development of an intellect is most important, you could have for example an AI which is intelligent and perfectly functional, but it will take time to accumulate experiential knowledge. So a humanoid could quickly have a well functioning brain but would take time to develop.
The question then is if being small and ‘disabled’ [a child] gains anything over being adult from the outset?
It would still take more time to print a complex, sophisticated organism than a simple one.
And if the “completed/mature” state for that being is simple, it doesn’t take as long to get there.
Of course it does. It gives a chance to adapt and maneuver before the body and mind are set in stone. The mind is partly made of the physical development of the brain that occurs from earlier thoughts. The brain learns how to be smarter as it grows into more proper neural netting.
It was not my intention to praise the Europeans, but nevertheless: the European nations were the first “arriving” nations. Nations are typical European. The Chinese did not know what nations were before they “met” them for the first time.
Yes.
If we “merely” look at the present and the near future, yes, but did you notice that I also used the future tense by the word “will”? My estimation is that in the future the Europeans as “the West” will play a less meaningful role than in the near future and than they do today.
Does it matter? ~ with a printer complex enough to build an adult human, a simpler form would just be a less complex schematic to print.
‘simple’ would be more infant-like though? Or/ Why is a simpler adult form more expedient at acquiring knowledge and experience?
How does adapting with an inept form help in learning, compared to adapting with an adept form? The neural network changes and adapts over time anyhow, so an adult of 50yrs is probably quite different to one age 25.
Arminius
My point originally was that the Chinese grow up [arrive] quicker and are lets say at least equal in intelligence. So the point is that lengthier growing up transitions don’t provide a better or more advanced product [adult human].
‘arriving’ in terms of cultural and industrial advancement for nations, isn’t relevant because children of all cultures grew up faster pre-20th century. Unless we say that recently the longer growing up periods have improved us. Then we would also have to say why that requires child-like form rather than beginning at adult form?
And what did you make of the point? Lol
I see. Less prominent perhaps, and the east will catch up. Imho the future will see a collective world rather than east/west dualisms etc.
“Arriving” in terms of cultural and industrial development is very important, because many other important things are based on them. And, yes, the longer growing up periods have proved us.
How do you exactly mean by the term “child-like form”? Do you mean it metaphorically or in the sense of the neoteny, the neoteny hypothesis? Or even both?
A child-like form is very important.
Beginning at an adult form is a risk, because its failure is very much more probable than it would be, if the development started at the earliest prenatal form. The sooner the better. If such a development is too short, too fast, then it is very probable that it will burst like a balloon very soon. All those developments refer to something like bubbles.
What’s your point here?
The problem is that humans are not able to culturally exist wthout dualism.
I was wrong you were right ~ concerning growing up needs time.
How many times will you here a philosopher say that lol!
Well we have to say why e.g. 16 years learning and maturing is different [better/worse] in an ‘infant’ with child or adult form. Why is it important to be small and disabled?
Lets start with small; i can see how that gives us a perspective ~ ‘growing up’, getting bigger like the big ones, the adults. However, we see our peers in much the same way.
Being ‘disabled’ means we have to overcome that to become able. However, an adult form would still require training.
Interesting, and i like the visuals to go with it too. Why is failure more probable? Hmm i suppose being the size of an adult, other adults would expect the infant to act like an adult, perform tasks like an adult and such things. Is that the sort of thing you mean?
What are these balloons!?
Duality is fine if balanced ~ ergo the yin/yang. You want duality as it drives everything forwards, creates diversity and makes humanity more dexterous.
Ok the war is on, your machines Vs my alt-humanoids with robotic exoskeletons!
Failure is more probable because of the fragility of the “bubbles” or “balloons”.
These “balloons” or “bubbles” are groups or societies - I call them “cultures” - with a same identity (they can but do not need to be nations) like, for example, the Occidental culture. But these “balloons” or “bubbles” can also be smaller groups as they were e.g. before the so-called “Neolithic Revolution” which led to the establishment of the agriculture and to the first towns, thus to more fragile “balloons” or “bubbles”. And because of the historical fact that these groups became bigger and bigger they also became more fragile, thus, to use the metaphor again, this small “balloons” or “bubbles” became big “balloons” or “bubbles”.
Outside and - especially (!) - inside of these “balloons” or “bubbles” and their developments there are also contrary developments, and the latter are often the reason for the bursts of the “balloons” or “bubbles”, especially of the big “balloons” or “bubbles”.
Now you can conclude that it is almost impossible to start as a big “balloon” or big “bubble”, but it is not entirely impossible, if the “balloon” or “bubble” can be inflated in a very short time (as I said: almost impossible).
In the case of China one has to say that it is a ca. 4000 years old „balloon“ or „bubble“, thus the preconditions are given that it will not fail because of its cultural tradition, but it is probable that it will fail because of the changed situations and the fact that all current cultures are - more or less - also old „balloons“ or „bubbles“ and escape responsibility more and more, so China will probably fail because of the latter.
And in the case of the so-called “world society” one has to say that it will probably fail before it will really start (to blow itself as a “balloon” or “bubble” in a very short time [see above]).
Interesting theory, but it also implies an accumulative strength ~ the bubbles have got bigger.
Why do balloons equal failure? And why have you given sphere’s of influence and meaning such a fragile and singular shape? Can you define a single bubble?
World society wont fail if it is not based upon ‘bubbles’ then? What does failure change? You have a world then after failure you still have a world. It’s only a failure if utterly destructive and there is no world, and largely we could redefine borders ‘til the cows come home without it necessarily making much difference in reality.
Yes. But because of the contrary developments I mentioned (see above) this strength shrinks by degrees, at last exponentially.
They do what balloons usually do.
They are fragile, but not always to the same degree because of the differences of age and influences. You may also compare them with living beings. Living beings are fragile, if you compare them with their environment, the influences. Thus these “balloons” or “bubbles” are not exactly as fragile as the real balloons and bubbles and also not exactly as fragile as living beings. And they are relatively singular because they have no other chance for existence.
The best analogy are living beings, especially the immun systems of living beings. Immun systems are fragile, if you compare them with the environment, the influences. The “weapons” of an immun system and those of a culture are similar. Probably you know them from science - especially from biology / medicine (immun system) and from evolution / history (cultures).
All societies are cultural “bubbles” or “balloons”. So also a so-called “world society” has no other chance than defending its “bubble” or “balloon” by its cultural “immun system” (b.t.w.: this “immun system” does not work well yet - compare for example: UNO), and if it is not able to defend itself, then it disappears, thus its “bubble” or “balloon” bursts.
This world is full of living beings. Each living being has an immun system. Immun systems are relatively fragile (see above). Nevertheless: the world is full of living beings.
One living being goes, another living being comes. One group goes, another group comes. One culture goes, another culture comes. …
I don’t see anyone has a choice in the matter. Experimentation with the human genes is inevitable.
Personally I worry that, given our own complexity and the careful balance that exists in the human brain, any such experiments will lead to some form of imbalance and eventually problems.
However, I have no moral problem with such experiments taking place.
So things/bubbles come and go and the world carries on turning. Where are we going with all this? How does it affect humans V2, ~ if we consider they would simply adapt?
brevel_monkey
Agreed. I expect genes generally will be manipulated to hell, possibly to the point where ‘human’ isn’t relevant.
Neurons adapt, but yes we really need to know every implication of every change ~ which is near impossible. Though mapped neuronal networks is feasible, but lord knows how that could go horrible wrong and we could have all sorts of insane beings walking around out there. …bit like humans
If the last human “bubble” will burst, then there will probably already be a stronger “bubble” of machines (robots, androids). Machines (robots, androids) are not humans; so the first birth of a so-called “human V2” will merely have a chance then, if humans will be still alive (unless the machines will make a mistake - but the probability that they will is very low). So first of all we should speak about the future of the “humans V1”, as you would call them, and about the future of A.I.:
I don’t care if humans V1 come to an end tbh, i think evolution was simply a means to get life going and once intelligent life occurs, evolution will end. H1 are evolutionary beings, so it doesnt matter if they too are replaced, though they dont need to be imho, because they can transform anything about themselves.
The ability to change means that H 1, H 2, AI and robots etc are all capable of advancing indefinitely. There is no need for AI or any said party to destroy another. There may be [is imho] a need to reduce populations, but there is no need to terminate them completely.
That aside, i understand that such considerations don’t matter to ‘power’, so AI may well act like the borg or whathaveyou. I think that would be stupid and inept, and i wonder what possible aims and reasons could back up such an attack on fellow sentient beings?
Ok the war is on, your machines Vs my alt-humanoids with robotic exoskeletons! 
