Relsqui comments on Intelligence Amplification Open Thread - Less Wrong

46 Post author: Will_Newsome 15 September 2010 08:39AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (339)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Jonathan_Graehl 16 September 2010 12:31:15AM *  8 points [-]

There must be a reason, though. If it were that easy to increase your brainpower that way, and there were no other drawbacks, this modification would already have been selected for.

If you take them, perhaps you will discover later why this potential evolutionary change was not beneficial, and not selected.

Maybe the ability to synthesize a particular chemical could not (or merely has not yet in humans) be reached by a single change, or a path of individually selected-for single changes. In other words, your argument only works if the reachability of the improvement is high enough, and our species has existed for enough time in an environment where it would be rewarded.

Comment author: Relsqui 16 September 2010 01:56:19AM *  3 points [-]

I think you're saying what I mean, but I'm not quite sure, so here's how I came at it:

Evolution relies on mutation, and mutation is random. If a certain feature is currently observed, that doesn't mean the mutation has already occurred and been selected against; it might just not have occurred, or not widely enough to catch on. For example--just because skinks lay eggs doesn't mean live birth isn't a good mutation for some of them.

In general, I don't know that it's ever accurate to talk about evolution in the past tense when referring to a living species.