From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@www.aeiveos.com)
Date: Fri Sep 03 1999 - 10:07:26 MDT
On Thu, 2 Sep 1999, Spike Jones wrote:
> > At 12:35 PM 9/2/1999 -0400, ??? wrote:
> > Joe Z Tsie of Princeton University has used genetic engineering to
> > create a mouse with greater *intelligence* than any found on Earth...
> >
> > Philip Witham wrote:
> > How could it be that nature didn't select for this? So simple, so
> > apparently effective, there must be a down side, like - the *brilliant*
> > mouse decides that having children would pinch her lifestyle.
>
> Exactly! Evidently most ecological niches offer little or no reproductive
> advantage to higher *intelligence*, so the species in those niches get
> no smarter.
>
I am cleaning out my mailbox, so I wanted to go back and annotate this
post. What the original article was about was about affecting long
term potentiation and *MEMORY*. We should be careful not to "smudge"
memes and excessively extroplate because it ends up with a lot of
discussion about something which may be unrelated. Now, I will
admit that the article, especially in the abstract implied, that
the work could lead to improvements in intelligence, so we aren't
completely the source of the problem (though we should do our best
to function as accurate reviewers and correct meme-stretching when
we see it). I'm very surprised that Science let the article go
to press the way that they did (but when it ends up in the NY Times
the next day one has a hint as to why).
While a large memory is a factor in intelligence, there are many other
factors as well -- perhaps the ability to simultaneously hold multiple
concepts (and be aware of them), perhaps the ability to translate in
interesting way between audio/video/speech experiences, perhaps the
ability to effectively copy an idea from one side of the brain to
the other, perhaps subtle differences in axonal architecture that
alters the propagation delay of the electrical signal, etc.
Intelligence is this catch-all word that we use to describe a huge
collection of processes. I think we are up to 8-12 different types
of "intelligence" now (someone who knows this better may want to
comment on what they are putatively thought to be), and the
LTP/Long-term-memory is likely to be only part of the story
in some of them.
Which I suppose is good, since that means we have lots of room for
improvement. Generally speaking though, I'd agree with Eugene that
the delays in approval processes for genetic intelligence augmentation
make it unlikely that we will see much of this before we can put
nanobots in our skulls. A key prerequiste will be the gene-chips
that allow inexpensive discovery of all of the gene variants (alleles)
that contribute in one way or another to various aspects of intelligence.
As the brain has more genetic complexity than most other organs --
I've seen some #'s as high as 20-25% of the genes in the genome
being expressed in the brain -- decoding it all will be time consuming.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:01 MST