Hacker News Reader

On the IQ question, from the paper (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/095679761876805...):

> Intelligence was assessed by asking, “If you could choose your level of intelligence, what level would you choose?” and referring participants to an IQ diagram, with labels for “moderate disability” (40), “below average intelligence” (70), “average intelligence” (100), “above average intelligence” (130), and “exceptionally gifted” (160). Participants were told, “We would like you to indicate your desired intelligence level using an IQ score. NOTE: although IQ has no ‘maximum’ score, a score of 100 indicates an average level of intelligence.” Participants were then asked to write their preferred IQ level in an open-ended box.

Later, from the results section:

> In terms of intelligence, the mean ideal IQ score was distorted by the fact that a small group of participants recorded very high ideal IQ scores (> 1,000), creating positive skew. To adjust for this, we placed an artificial ceiling on scores that corresponded to the highest IQ score ever recorded: 228. After winsorizing the 0.3% of participant responses greater than 228, the mean IQ score was 122.52 (SD = 25.23).

IQ is defined with a standard deviation of either 15 or 16 depending on the test. IQ 1000 is 60σ, or z>1.238e-784. As this is significantly less likely than randomly guessing the correct {plank volume, plank time} pair out of the visible universe from Big Bang to now, much more, I’d agree the such responses didn’t understand the statistics.

I don't think they're misunderstanding, though they may be ignorant of the stats, what they're saying is they want to be unimaginably intelligent. Perhaps assuming that special powers will go with that, like precognition.

>Perhaps assuming that special powers will go with that, like precognition.

Across all species and stock market trading firms, this trend can actually be seen to some extent.

It’s surprising how little extra skill in some area is required to seem like a wizard to outsiders. For example, I’m still amazing people by demonstrating Google Translate’s AR mode, and I remember when the tech was first demoed as WordLens 7.5 years ago.

Maybe they should exclude people who've seen Lucy and other such movie silliness.

> IQ 1000 is 60σ

But that is assuming that intelligence is a normal distribution, i.e. arises from a contributions of many independent random variables. Which is a decent approximation for underlying natural processes (human genetic pool and environmental contributions). But it is just an approximation. For starters, there is a lower bound to intelligence (inert matter) so we're not really dealing with a normal dist, the truth would be closer to a skewed, semi-bounded distribution, we just don't see that because we're just measuring humans instead of also including animals on the left and hypothetical superintelligences on the right.

Secondly, modelling it as random independent variables breaks down if you start to deliberately engineer all those contributing factors. Natural processes are exceedingly unlikely to hatch ants from fly eggs due to random genetic mutation. But a process like evolution or engineering can bring such things into existence.

So asking for an IQ of 1000 is simply saying that you want to be more intelligent than random, natural reproductive processes could give you anytime soon.

> But that is assuming that intelligence is a normal distribution,

No, not intelligence, just IQ. They are not synonymous.

Modifying your example, if there is more than one braindead person on life support at any given moment, the minimum IQ for humans is greater than zero.

There is a lot wrong with IQ as a metric.

> There is a lot wrong with IQ as a metric.

This.

IIRC, the concept of IQ originated as the ratio between the individual's intelligence, evaluated through some way such as standardized test scores, and the average test score for individuals within a statistically representative group that reflects the individual's profile (for example, people of a certain age). The mere fact that the IQ is calculated as the ratio of two meaningless values used to reflect an intangible and subjective concept is enough to cast serious doubts about the accuracy of this particular test.

Honestly, looking at modern 90 and 100 year olds, who would want to live like that? But if I can be as vital as even say a healthy 50 year old (healthy 30 year old even better), then bring on the centuries! As many as you can give.

It’s always important to ask your genie not for eternal life, but for eternal youth and vitality.

I'd still want to have an off switch. Eternity is very long time and I'm afraid I'd get bored less than half way there.

Ah mind you I didn’t say undamageable. Gotta be able to die from injury because surviving the heat deatj of the universe, while fascinating, sounds kinda terrible.

Basically you want to avoid aging, not death. Imagine being immortal, but not infinitely healable, and someone chops you up into pieces. Not fun. Can’t even imagine the pain and you’d have to endure it for quite a while.

I have spent too much of ky youth working out details or such potential asks. Never know when you gonna meet a wish granting genie

I seem to recall that someone worked out that even for somebody who never aged, the cumulative risk of suffering a fatal accident of some kind meant that life expectancy would actually only be about 400 years or so. Unlikely events become more likely over the centuries :)

I also wonder if people felt like they had to give what they thought were "normal" responses just to hide what people really thought of them.

Maybe I'm crazy but I find it really hard to believe anyone would rather die than live forever if it meant being able to take a pill that prevented any form of aging or health related issues.

Eventually you'd probably just get bored, or tired of seeing your loved ones die around you.

On the other hand, Highlander explored some of the social and emotional consequences of outliving all your loved ones, needing to hide the truth about yourself from everyone else, etc.

"Who wants to live forever, when love must die?"

I think you might not have thought it all the way through yet.

For real, true immortality (a span of not hundreds, but also thousands, millions, billions of years), the problem shifts to what it means to be 'you'. You're not the same person you were when you were 5, 15, or 25, with different goals, preferences, and motivations.

Extend that to geological time, and there become only a few reasonable cases:

1. You stop changing; the core of your personality becomes completely fixed. I would claim this is a form of death, because although you are still physically healthy and moving about, change is an inherent part of life and growth.

2. Your personality drifts to the point that previous incarnations of your 'self' (even if you remember them) become very far from who you are currently. In which case, you're not really immortal, you're just a series of 'different people' who happen to share a single memory and narrative.

3. Your personality shifts at some point to wanting to death, at which point (assuming suicide is allowed) life ends

I highly recommend Schild's Ladder[1] and Permutation City [2], both by Greg Egan, which do an excellent job of asking 'who am I?' if we had the ability live for infinite time.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schild%27s_Ladder

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaspora_(novel)

I'm fine with 2.

It seems to be the case already.

I've thought a lot about death, mortality, living in a futuristic world, etc..

I would immediately sign up for immortality instead of dying in ~70 years given the magic pill rule scenario.

Just think of all of the amazing things you'll witness while not having any forced pressure for all aspects of your life. You'll never get sick, you'll never need to worry about finances because there's nothing that would put you into a fear driven scenario where you "must" make money.

You could go through the years doing whatever you want and you'll live long enough to escape technology bubbles that each generation lives through. Like you said, you're pretty much a different person than you were 15 years ago. If you were 150 years old but still 25 inside, you'd get to experience a completely different world. It would be like having infinite lives with no reset switch on your memory.

Also quality of life takes a sharp decline after 90 as many parts of your body really struggle. Feeling your brain decay, dealing with incontinence, being unable to get out and embrace the world while watching your friends and partner pass on while the world moves further and further from you doesn’t seem that much fun.

Most people confuse age with aging, because aging is still unavoidable, and as it's always been the case, it looks like it will remain so forever.

But that's wrong. The outlook is different now. Yet, unfortunately, most still see it as unavoidable.

Everybody should watch The Fable of The Dragon Tyrant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZYNADOHhVY

That’s why the experimenters added the “assuming a pill that grants eternal youth” detail to the question. But it’s possible that inattentive test subjects didn’t fully internalize that.

>narrative structure

Correct. This is a construct that for most part has been tested and validated. More here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative_identity

Really, it has no appeal to you to live longer?

And yet people get divorced and often stop talking to their family. Are you saying you’d commit suicide in that case? I doubt it.

How do you ultimately figure out what you think would be the best for you?