Brain of tomorrow

[Zandrav Ibistenn]

The human brain is the most complicated object in the universe, not to say the most important, but its functions are shrouded in mystery.

The large human brain has greatly assisted the species to success. Human life is characteristic by the way it molds the environment to better serve its needs, agriculture, domesticated animals and fire was just the beginning. A complicated dialectic process had begun: External conditions change because of ideas envisioned by the brain - new external conditions offer new possibility for the mind and so on, but in an accelerating pattern pointing towards increasing technological sophistication.

However, while the external conditions have changed quite a bit since the human factor entered the equation of the Earth's ecology, the brain is largely the same brain it was 50000 years ago. Evolution is far slower than our machines.

I think it is problematic that the brain is not particularly fit for the condition previous humans have created for it. It's quintessentially why there are so many psychosocial problems particularly in the developed parts of the world. It's also the cause of wars, religious conflicts, racism etc. Because the brain is designed for life in small packs of similar individuals in a tribal like society, problems ensues from diverging from such a "lifestyle".

While some people tend to think that education call correct all problems resulting from ancient human instincts, I think more radical measure will at some point need to be employed.
Fundamentally, the brain needs a major "upgrade" to be able to function better in a modern world. Generally, I think that the brain is too much inclined towards aggression, bigotry and hoarding, and that needs to be corrected by not yet developed genetic techniques.
Why would the brain be inappropriately predisposed toward such bad things as aggression, bigotry and hoarding you ask. That's because those thinks helped ensure survival in a more primitive time, aggression and hoarding I think are obvious, and bigotry because it strengthens the feeling of group in a pack, so that the pack in question can better cooperate against rivalling packs.

But more precisely, how exactly should the brain be changed (if it should be changed at all)? And how on Earth do you begin such an grand endeavor with so dangerously unpredictable consequences?

[Maz]

I think this is somehow true. I do agree with you in the fact that human has been developed by evolution in different times. But I disagree with you about the cause of bad behaviour & problems. I believe that the brains alone do suit pretty well for nowadays purposes. Back then, intelligence and ability to learn were the features brain did take care of. And those features are now the greatest things us humans have if we think of developing our race.

I am not a medic, and it's clear I am not aware of all of the facts lying within this topic... But I think that majority of those negative things are not caused solely by the brain, but co-operation of the brain and hormonal system. Even for me who am not at all good with biology/medicine, are words like testosterone and adrenaline quite familiar. I cannot even think of all the other possible hormones that can be used to make people more suitable to live in larger groups.. Perhaps we can use our technology to modify not brain, but those orgains who develop/deliver hormones, or if we cannot change the way they're being produced, perhaps we can change the amount of them affecting on theitr targets. Adding something that binds part of those, or affects on how they affect or... Or perhaps by adding the level of some other hormone? Lets spend the rest of our lifes with a high endorfine levels

Good thread W!

[Zandrav Ibistenn]

But do you deny that the brain was originally designed for a fairly specific environment and has remain largely the same, while the external conditions have changed dramatically, putting new demand on the old design, and that that divergence from the original purpose causes some problems concerning adapting behavior analogous to using newer and newer software in the same computer?
Another issue I think will present serious problems in the future is the fact that the modern society has little need of manual labour due to machine power. What will practical people not well suited for an academic career do? And what will society do with them?

Memory capacity and intelligence are not growing with the exponential increment of human knowledge, forcing scientists to specialize in narrower and narrower fields. Won't that eventually slow down research? -I mean the mountain grows taller while the mountaineer is stuck with the same gear.

But that's only concerning the upper limits of desirable functions. Don't you think that there are functions that have become obsolete? Like the sense of group I described in my first post - it works fine in small communities, but between nations it incites disputes; the prerequisites for war.

About hormones and brain function. I don't think the two should be kept separately, because so many brain functions are controlled by varying concentration of neurochemicals, neurotransmitters such as glutamate, acethylcholin, serotonin etc. So considering changing neutransmitter- and hormonal production you are actually talking about modifying the brain itself.
However, while the effect of one chemical parameter in relation to behavior can be studied easily (e.g. less serotonergic activity -> more aggerssion), taken together all neurochemicals and their interactions form a very complex equation.

[mistergreen77]

I don't dispute the facts - the conditions we live in are much different to the conditions we evolved in...and our brains might be modified to better handle the conditions we have created for ourselves. But, to play the devils advocate, would removing our instincts for aggression, hoarding and bigotry be an improvement? Considered extra-morally, are not these the instincts of life itself? These instincts arise from a deeper instinct - the will to growth. Could we stand to live in a society where all opposition was removed? All that would be left is Zarathustra's 'ultimate man'.

If we modify the brain to remove the instincts we have morally condemned, the side effect is to remove the instincts have morally justified - because they have the same root. Gratitude, for example, is a sublime form of revenge. Altruism is a very sublime egoism. If we could live without these instincts, we would be 'hemiplegiacs of virtue'. And finally, real virtues lies not in being harmless, but in having claws and restraint.

[Zandrav Ibistenn]

I've thought about this as well - and indeed it seems like a dull life if we take much of what we know today away, but isn't that the result of limited imagination? There are many variations of human life, everybody values different things. That variation that add flavour to life will remain; I only suggest altering some parametres slightly (too much too fast I think would be dangerous), e.g. less aggression would be good, but not so little that injustices will not provoke a response.

Motives exist as something in themselves (modes of behavior), but can be described as opposites. Obliterating one opposite destroys the dichotomy, not the reality of the other concept. Thus, in a world without revenge, being forgiving may be unremarkable, but it has intrinsic worth.

[mistergreen77]

But does forgiveness have intrinsic worth? Isn't it in most cases ambiguous. Isn't it in some cases a refinement of resentment, and in other cases an expression of contempt. Sometimes it is just expedient - in the cases where the cost of revenge outweighs the the offence it is just easier to forgive. Perhaps it has significance in the relationship of a higher power/authority to a lower. So when a boss forgives an employee for an offence he could be fired for, there forgiveness might have significance, but it would also be an injustice for the boss to show favouritism. Also, there need be no other motive except that the value of the employee outweighs the cost of his offence. In other cases it's practical value is that one is unable to exact revenge/justice, and it is unhealthy to carry around a grudge - so for one's own sake one forgives. So forgiveness is not the opposite of revenge. Revenge and forgiveness have the same motive - they both self-serving actions.

The question remains on whether it would be possible to modify the chemistry of the brain so that we are less aggressive. I think instead we should make people more intelligent - then they will be smart enough not to channel their aggression as violence. Aggression by itself is not a bad thing, it is the way it is expressed that is bad. The instinct for revenge is not a bad thing, without the instinct for revenge there would be no justice.

If we could increase our intelligence or capacity for knowledge, that would arguably be an improvement. But I don't think it would be a good idea to tamper with the circuitry motivating our behaviour. In any case, there seems to be plenty of evidence to suggest that we would be better to invest our efforts at improving the socio-economic conditions for people in conflict - better education and employment opportunity and minimim living standards for workers might be the right way to reduce the amount of violence and injustice in the world.

[Chroelle]

I can't help but notice you said:

The instinct for revenge is not a bad thing, without the instinct for revenge there would be no justice.

But what would happen if we removed the instinct for justice...? IF there was no justice, would there be injustice. I think that a lot of crimes are committed in the names of personal justice...
- Poor people robbing a store because it wouldn't be fair if they didn't eat tonight.
- Murderers thinking it wouldn't be fair for someone to go on living after what they did to them.
- Rapists thinking it wouldn't be fair that they didn't get any tonight...
Sorry for the explicitness, but to make the point clear.

I think a lot of crimes that we demand justice for was committed in the name of justice already. As you see we have also build our own legal punishments on personal feelings of justice. What is imprisonment if it isn't a way of saying: "then you might learn to behave".
This again raises the question of what behaving is... Since behaving is being... I think I am wandering of track here...

I hope you catch my drift, and see that the implications of changing the human brain might have to go farther than we assume and think at the moment. Since some feelings and behaviours we can't seem to live without. If they are "kinda bad" then we legalize on them, so we either make them very bad or acceptable...

So basicly I don't think we can decide on where the brain goes, because the brain would have to work around us to get anywhere groundbreakingly new..

I think instead we should make people more intelligent - then they will be smart enough not to channel their aggression as violence.

I think it would be great if we could decide, but evolution shows otherwise. We have grown from warriors with clubs to warriors with nuclear devices.

[Zandrav Ibistenn]

I never proposed to remove a particular function entirely. The idea is to dull what is generally negative, like aggression; much is bad, some is suitable, but none is also bad.

Increasing intelligence is most assuredly a integral part of an improved design, but don't deceive yourself by thinking that alone will solve every problem. Reason is conflicted by other (evolutionary older) parts of the brain. And reason loose.
For example, a complex of nuclei in the brain known as the amygdala (situated at the pole of the temporal lobe) is involved in host of primitive functions such as fear and aggression. An experiment involving diver in a cage being submerged in shark-filled waters yielded some interesting results pertaining the relationship between fear and reason. The diver in the cage was of course perfectly safe and knew this. Regardless, when the shark came close by, the diver was overpowered by fear and panicked. Other similar situations with potential dangers show the same: Reason is not in control - the primitive instinct for selfpreservation override it.
Intelligence and education can get us part of the way, but unless removed, the primitives instincts (useful earlier, potentially harmful now) will hold us back.

Improving the socio-economic conditions in the poorer places of the world is not the means, but the goal. Human behavior itself is what results in the misfortune that continues to ravage the world, and human history leaves very little hope for it ever changing.

[Maz]

Space reserved for commenting... When kiddie is better, work hurries will ease, and next exams are over Sorry for being so away lately But I do promise, I'll express my point of view better

EDIT:

But do you deny that the brain was originally designed for a fairly specific environment and has remain largely the same, while the external conditions have changed dramatically,

No. I do not disagree with this.

putting new demand on the old design, and that that divergence from the original purpose causes some problems concerning adapting behavior analogous to using newer and newer software in the same computer?

Yes, I do disagree with this.
Brains itself (the 'neural network') has enormous capability. It is quite perfect for thinking, which is the most important thing in nowadays intelligence based society. In fact, I think that's what kept people alive in stoneage, and it's what still matters. Brains have eveolved to be affective 'thinking tool'.

Another issue I think will present serious problems in the future is the fact that the modern society has little need of manual labour due to machine power. What will practical people not well suited for an academic career do? And what will society do with them?

I'm not so sure about this...
1. I believe practical people will always be needed. There's always new things to be constructed. Even if we would create machines to do accurate work, we will still need people in creating and testing new things... And if we someday can create so advanced machines who can do all of the handwork totally, practical people can still do things for fun... (If they feel need for it). (arts etc.)
2. I believe that it's not so that those who have skills with hands cannot have mental capacity. I think that most of them do. At least in some extent...

Memory capacity and intelligence are not growing with the exponential increment of human knowledge, forcing scientists to specialize in narrower and narrower fields. Won't that eventually slow down research? -I mean the mountain grows taller while the mountaineer is stuck with the same gear.

But that's only concerning the upper limits of desirable functions.

Indeed. But we do also create machinery to handle some 'brainwork' for us. Computers are excellent example of it. I bet that 100% of nowaday's scientists do use computers.. And I bet there will be even more advanced tools to help us in the future. Of course there will be the limit, but there would be some limit anyways, no matter how advanced we would be...

Don't you think that there are functions that have become obsolete? Like the sense of group I described in my first post - it works fine in small communities, but between nations it incites disputes; the prerequisites for war.

Yes, of course. But I just throw out an idea, that instead of modifying our brains, we would modify the chemical system. And even though it is difficult as you stated, I bet it is much more difficult to alter the physical dimensions of brains to get desired results...

About hormones and brain function. I don't think the two should be kept separately, because so many brain functions are controlled by varying concentration of neurochemicals, neurotransmitters such as glutamate, acethylcholin, serotonin etc. So considering changing neutransmitter- and hormonal production you are actually talking about modifying the brain itself.

Yes. But injecting neurochemicals, or some other chemicals that increase/decrease their production (or production of other hormones) should still be easier than modifying brains by other means... (If I'm correct?)

However, while the effect of one chemical parameter in relation to behavior can be studied easily (e.g. less serotonergic activity -> more aggerssion), taken together all neurochemicals and their interactions form a very complex equation.

Again yes. But again I bet it's still simpler than modifying brains itself by other means...

[mistergreen77]

Okay, so even if we can reach agreement on what changes would be beneficial - there might be some problems with implementation. Are we advocating surgical or genetic modification? I can see a problem convincing people to go under the knife to have their instinct for fear and aggression turned down a few notches. You would certainly see how far fear can drive someone. I am not really up to date with genetic engineering and the like, but my guess is that you will have the same problem getting people to accept the changes, whether it is for themselves or for their children. Making it a voluntary change is also a big problem - because I for one wouldn't volunteer and I don't expect there would be many people who would. Even if some people did volunteer, would they be ill equipped to deal with the fear and prejudice their existence might produce in the remaining population? You can't force people to undergo the changes - so there would need to be a big incentive other than having their capacity for aggression limited. Even if I agreed in theory with your proposal I think the chances of being able to conduct such a system of 'improvement' are remote.

I am satisfied with my amygdala the way it is. Sometimes adrenalin is paralyzing - but it can also be exhilerating. For example, if we dull down the fear response, would roller coasters still be fun?

"..but unless removed, the primitives instincts (useful earlier, potentially harmful now) will hold us back." I think you mean unless controlled. I think we agree that you cannot remove them altogether.

It is interesting that you say human behaviour itself is what results in the misfortune that continues to ravage the world. I think that poor socio-economic conditions as the cause of violence and conflict - you think violence and conflict as the cause of poor socio-economic conditions. Perhaps one begets the other. We can reduce the level of violence and conflict in the world by improving socio-economic conditions or improve socio-economic conditions by reducing the level of violence and conflict. Demographic studies of crime would probably show that violent crimes occur more often in lower socio-economic classes - I might be mistaken here but I think this is right. Now it has never occurred to anyone that we should castrate the members of these classes in order to raise their socio-economic standing - but it certainly makes sense that if we raise their socio-economic standing then there would be less violence.

[Zandrav Ibistenn]

putting new demand on the old design, and that that divergence from the original purpose causes some problems concerning adapting behavior analogous to using newer and newer software in the same computer?

Yes, I do disagree with this.
Brains itself (the 'neural network') has enormous capability. It is quite perfect for thinking, which is the most important thing in nowadays intelligence based society. In fact, I think that's what kept people alive in stoneage, and it's what still matters. Brains have eveolved to be affective 'thinking tool'.

It's not what works well that concerns me, it's the hardwiring and the behavioral problems it creates.
You may wish to reference the first part of this thread (before HD's petty bickering) for specifics concerning my opinions about one example: the problems related to the sense of group. - Link: Mind of the Crowd

Are we advocating surgical or genetic modification? I can see a problem convincing people to go under the knife to have their instinct for fear and aggression turned down a few notches.

Yes, but that doesn't necessarily need to be a problem, if you know what I'm saying...
As for the methods: Surgery is out of the question, since it would be much too impractical to have neurosurgeons manually modify each and every individual on the entire planet (and "catch" every new one born). Besides it would probably incite chaos, panic and even rebellion into the populace. Additionally I don't think that simple surgery is capable of introducing the necessary behavioral changes. The same applies to performing regular neurochemical injections.
Genetic engineering is much more desirable, preferably if it relies on a viral agent for its transmission. - People cannot counterattack what they don't know is attacking them... Plus, the altered genetic makeup pass itself on to subsequent generations, so that further interventions are unnecessary.
This approach however has its own problems though and requires much from the design of the virus itself:
It must be a retrovirus, which modifies the DNA of its host. However, retrovira are very unstable and mutate rapidly - some of the mutations may be dangerous or induce other behavioral changes that are unwanted. The design of the virus must therefore be so that mutations destroy its own functionality - and to compensate for this much more virus must be produced. It also must infect every individual in the world within a foreseeable time, so it needs to be extremely infectious, but without causing adverse symptoms to avoid arousing suspicion. Its transmission could also be aided by humans convinced in the necessity of The Cause.
Fortunately, the virus doesn't need to change the DNA of every cell in the organism, nor does it need to produce effects in the infected person - it only needs to seed its DNA into the gametes, thus affecting the children of those infected. However, for high infectiousness the virus must be transmissable as airborne aerosols - it won't spread to enough people quickly enough if sexually transmitted. Admittedly, infection of the respiratory passages and the gamete-producing cells is an odd property of a virus to have, and if it is going to masquerade as a common cold, it must not provoke symptoms related to the genitals, so its design will probably share traits with immunodepressing vira such as HIV.
Now, while the insidious feature of altering the DNA in the spermproducing Sertoli cells in the male testis, thus affecting all subsequently produced sperm is a possibility, there is a problem with the females, in which the follicles are already present from birth. This problem stopped me for awhile, but then it occured to me, that it isn't necessary to infect the females at all: Because if the DNA modification is designed in the form of a repressor (a DNA sequence that inhibits the function of another part of the genome), then it is only a question of the mutation to be present in the genome of the offspring for it to take effect.
- At some point people will notice that the youngest generation shares curious traits dissimilar to the parents, but then it will be too late...

You might see this as insane, but consider the world today: Half of the world's population "live" for less than 2$ per day, death is regularly allowed (sometimes even invited) to feast upon humanity in times of war and genocide and the international community doesn't give a damn about places in dire need of help, such as Darfur and Somalia.
What is least insane?


About the dynamics of behavior and socio-economics I fully agree that we're talking about a dialectic interaction between the two. But, I think that behavior precedes socio-economics, because, after all, behavior was there in the first place and everything else can be seen as the consequences of the interplay of behavioral variations and opportunities. We can't change socio-economics, because the behavioral prerequisite needed for its alteration is missing: There's not enough altruistic genes in the genepool.

I am satisfied with my amygdala the way it is.

And you should be (at least for the time being ), because if it was suddenly destroyed, you'd end up with Klüver-Bucy syndrome - a curious combination of bizzare behavioral abnormalities including inability to show aggression, "flattened" emotions, visual recognition problems, hypersexuality and oral tendencies (putting things in the mouth to identify them).

[mistergreen77]

There are no altruistic genes in the gene pool. Every living organism wants the same thing - life and growth - at the expense of other organisms. This is natural - if we project our moral evaluations in to this reality then we condemn it.

[Zandrav Ibistenn]

Am I sensing a waning critique?

Unfortunately you have a not insignificant trend in modern biology against you.
However, when talking about altruistic genes, the word "altruistic" is not really to be taken literally, because we more talking about a kind of "delayed self-interest"; "I help you, you help me in the future" - and that's a sound evolutionary strategy, targeted at higher fitness for all the members of a cooperating community.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/berman/P4S1.htm (further links in this one)

Against one who use so many Einsteinian quotes I may have a trumf card:
"We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive"
- Albert Einstein

[mistergreen77]

I can easily accept that there are genes for altruism in that sense - would it be possible to make a retrovirus that spreads that gene?

[Zandrav Ibistenn]

Perhaps.
The virus idea was the closest thing I could think of using contemporary technology, but it will most likely not be possible.
The introduction of the modifications will almost certainly have to rely on not yet developed technology. (If possible at all).

[mistergreen77]

But more precisely, how exactly should the brain be changed (if it should be changed at all)? And how on Earth do you begin such an grand endeavor with so dangerously unpredictable consequences?

I would say in answer to your first question: it must first be shown experimentally that proposed changes are beneficial, I have strong doubts that experiments will show it to be beneficial. But if there is scientific evidence I will accept it. Once you can show experimentally that this can work then we can think about the second question. Once we can ascertain that, I don't think there is any chance of getting it approved by any political process, so you would have to do it secretly, and without consent.

You could make it voluntary - if it was just upgrade of intelligence or memory capacity and not tinkering around with instincts or emotions I might volunteer for such.

[Zandrav Ibistenn]

I would say in answer to your first question: it must first be shown experimentally that proposed changes are beneficial, I have strong doubts that experiments will show it to be beneficial.

Such an experiment is impossible. The effects can only be observed if all members of a community are modified.

You could make it voluntary - if it was just upgrade of intelligence or memory capacity and not tinkering around with instincts or emotions I might volunteer for such.

Unacceptable; half the solution is even worse than failure. Allowing people control of genetic engineering would serve to amplify the devisive forces evolution that I wish to abolish.
(That matter I have addressed in another thread (at a time when I believed all genetic alterations to be unfavourable)) - Link: The onslaught of technology
Fundamentally this is all about one thing: Taking evolution into our own hands. But before that huge responsibility can safely be given to individuals, they must first be liberated from the bias of the old evolutionary strategies solely attributable to archaic evolutionary tendencies. (Breaking the circle (or curse, if you will)).

The issue of aggression must be addressed.
Since you mentioned criminal statistics I find it appropriate to interject the fact that males figure in such statistics much much more frequently than females. Not surprisingly, males are also more aggressive than females...
In the animal kingdom, our closest relative (the chimpanzee), known (or notorious) for its aggressive behavior, is, unsurprisingly, also the most murderous of all the primates; frequently fighting and killing members of rivalling packs as well as member of their own group, which the most dominant (the most aggressive) males also constantly tyrannize to consolidate their own power.

There's no way that aggression can be responsibly ignored.

[mistergreen77]

I think this will happen bit by bit in a way that there is no decisive moment in which we can say "Hey, that's not human!". To begin with, disabled people will be using robotic prosthetics. Next thing you know, old people are having there lives extended artificially, simply because they can. Cosmetic surgeons invent an implant watch. Neuro-surgeons invent an implant calculator. Computer scientists invent a memory upgrade. Chemist sell human growth hormone. Nobody knows where to stop! The tide of technological progress generated by the success of capitalism will be unstoppable.

I'm not saying I agree with this - or that there isn't a better way to do it. But if this is the case, I would rather be one of the 'transhumans' than not.

[Zandrav Ibistenn]

Yes, I also think this is the most likely scenario, unfortunately. I think it will create great tension between unimproved and improved humans, and that the world order of today will be cemented; those who can afford improving themselves do so, thus relegating the remaining homo sapiens to an existence as a less important and less deserving subspecies.

[Chroelle]

I'm not sure that it will create a tense atmosphere. We have people who prolong their lifes today through their living, and others shortening it. There is of course tension and to some extend jalousy, but the great tension you speak of, I am not too sure about.

As said before tehre will of course be jalousy and to some extent tension, but I think people will keep on living their lives as they are. There will propably be notions of "Who would do this to themselves" (look at the debates on artificial breats).

But I will have to make a small disclaimer:
This answer should be seen as if these improvements were to surface within the next ten years, and having existed for a short while (say 10 more years). There will be more tension when there is a definate segregation between improved and unimproved people... (Say after a century or two).