Comments on: Rehearsing the Future https://lifeboat.com/blog/2007/03/rehearsing-the-future Safeguarding Humanity Sun, 01 Apr 2007 18:00:02 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.6.1 By: sherjeel bedaar https://lifeboat.com/blog/2007/03/rehearsing-the-future#comment-1037 Sun, 01 Apr 2007 18:00:02 +0000 http://lifeboat.com/blog/?p=73#comment-1037 Shami this is inspired by my game theory…
none of this is true..

]]> By: Ehtisham R Khan https://lifeboat.com/blog/2007/03/rehearsing-the-future#comment-1005 Sun, 01 Apr 2007 03:22:41 +0000 http://lifeboat.com/blog/?p=73#comment-1005 The text is inspired from Richard Dawkins’ ‘The God Delusion’ and Ray Kurzweil’s ‘The Singularity is near’. I think that the theory I am about to propose will strongly help in providing strength to evolutionary theory, or otherwise! Well, it will at least be helpful in finding my answer to the age old question. Does a God exist? I am not an evolutionary biologist, just a plain nerdy Oracle geek. To minimize the grey area I will qualify certain ideas along the way. The sequence is how this theory makes sense to me. Feel free to explore beyond the limits of my imagination.
I propose an experiment to validate evolutionary theory. Your response will at least help me either stop wasting my time trying to solve this riddle, or stay in my present state i.e. Lack of enough evidence to light a candle inside! better take the safer route of keeping my faith. The picture of hell isn’t exactly Hawaii at sunset, in any religion! The purpose of this proposed theory is a casual debate and no offence to any religion. It will be awesome to get a response though; be it of ANY nature.
I want to test the theory that every kid born to a couple is smarter than the previous one. I am thinking that the human intelligence can potentially grow every second. All experiences gained with each passing second add to human intellect by lighting up a new neural connection in the human brain. Of course there might be an element of randomness being at work in the background here as well. I am thinking that when parents transfer the neuron map of the brain to their offspring, there are 3 outcomes; the offspring gets this neural connection from either the father, the mother or randomly. I am interested in the binary nature of the connection being transferred, not the physical connection itself. The order isn’t important. We somehow establish that there is a certain percentage associated to all three forces, say 40, 40 20. Again the percentages are not important. So basically we get a lit or un-lit neural connection in the offspring based on these percentages. My association is that the more lit neural connections you have in your brain, the smarter you are. That is, you have more lit connections available at your disposal whenever you use your brain. Once this image map of the brain has been transferred to the offspring the chances of further neural connections lightening up might depend on experiences with the passage of time. You come across a new experience, you either register it or you don’t, based on some random force at work. Of course, I am suggesting an association of human intellect with available lit connections in the brain. Talking about a human brain like an Intel processor feels really weird. That said we now determine whether this theory really holds up. The time interval between births might correlate to a higher number of lit neural connections for both parents every time they make their own offspring, which effectively can reflect in each offspring and suggest a trend in favor or otherwise of this theory. All we need are sample stats for IQ from all around the world for siblings still living in the same household (same house hold sort of ensures commonality of the environments for all siblings that is equal opportunity to everyone was available to light up their neural connections). With established constants for rates of growth of lit neural connection based on the samples collected we might be able to establish the proposed trend or otherwise. Questioning the validity of the associative trends based on sample stats is a different debate.
I will prefer an answer in the following format if the readers find it worthwhile to respond;
An answer that highlights an inherent flaw in the theory itself
An answer that highlights an inherent flaw in the concept to test the theory
An answer which inspires someone to test a better, more refined version of my theory

P.S: I want my privacy protected till I declare otherwise.

Ehtisham R Khan

]]>