Mentats
Mantrid
Lockpick Join Date: 2003-12-07 Member: 24109Members
Lockpick Join Date: 2003-12-07 Member: 24109Members
in Discussions
So I've been reading Dune, and I began to wonder about something, after taking in the vivid descriptions of the human body being taken to its farthest limites. I began to wonder if it would really be possible to train a person to be a mentat.
Obviously, they would need to be trained from birth. And not every person would be a succesful Mentat; some natural giftedness would probably be neccessary.
But, ultimately, is it within the reach of the human body, psychology, and science to train someone to be able to perform quick computations, notice and remember tiny details, sift data, and come up with almost frighteningly accurate conclusions, while all the while managing their emotions so they don't interfere?
If so, is this ethical? Can we really decide someone's future without their, or with limitied, consent? Do the benifits of such people outweigh those issues?
And, if it is possible, and ethical dillemmas can be overcome, why haven't we already begun experimenting?
Obviously, they would need to be trained from birth. And not every person would be a succesful Mentat; some natural giftedness would probably be neccessary.
But, ultimately, is it within the reach of the human body, psychology, and science to train someone to be able to perform quick computations, notice and remember tiny details, sift data, and come up with almost frighteningly accurate conclusions, while all the while managing their emotions so they don't interfere?
If so, is this ethical? Can we really decide someone's future without their, or with limitied, consent? Do the benifits of such people outweigh those issues?
And, if it is possible, and ethical dillemmas can be overcome, why haven't we already begun experimenting?
Comments
People are named princes and locked into a particular way of life already; I don't see how this is any different. The ethical part notwithstanding, it's been done before in human society.
You just described autism.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If so, is this ethical? Can we really decide someone's future without their, or with limitied, consent? Do the benifits of such people outweigh those issues?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe. No. Yes, although society isn't utilitarian. Just because the benefits of these people outweigh the downsides, doesn't mean it is ethical.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And, if it is possible, and ethical dillemmas can be overcome, why haven't we already begun experimenting?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even though ethical dilemmas can be overcome, they haven't, because it wouldn't be ethical to do that. People are still, understandably, squeamish about genetic engineering. I wouldn't start experimenting on humans, while people are still in an uproar about genetically engineering vegetables.
To answer your question: Nessesity is the mother of all invention. Untill we need something like a Mentant, there will never be one.
Picture, if you will, a metal box fixed to a wall, painted red with a safety glass panel facing you. Kind of like a first aid box on public transport, but red.
Etched onto the glass is the phrase "In Case Of Emergency, Break Glass"
Inside the box is a pen, and a 50 page notebook.
What has this got to do with this thread?
The box is fixed above a desk.
The desk belongs to a secretary. With a computer on the desk.
What happens if the computer crashes? The secretary breaks the glass, and does things the old fashioned way.
If that box is not there, the secretary cannot do their work, unless they find another alternative.
That is why people should be trained to do a computers job. Yes the computer may be able to do it better, but what happens if the computer stops working, by the means of a total power failure? Then no-one can do it's job, and the system that it was holding up breaks down. People can never be replaced by computers. Yes they may be faster than we are, or may be better at filing, or anything else than we are. But we are not as fraglie as computers by ourselves.
What he described is no where near Autism.
Autisim is a learning disability (in the most sever casses they can only learn by rote, and even then it takes ages). They often never grasp the concept that other people think also (thus the egocentric nature offent viewed).
What you are thinking of is an "idiot Savant". Something that I am not AS familiar with, but I can tell you basicaly:
Take an Autistic person (similar actions) and make them able to do one thing amazingly (generaly via memorization).
Some have photographic memories for specific things, some can do complex mathmatics instantly (but can't work with money) etc etc.
As for Mentats (some one who could do the processing of a computer via their mind). There are people who can do things like that (lightning calculations). But as was pointed out, the reason why we don't have it is b/c we have no need.
And can any one actualy think of a way that we could instantly become with out computers (real, not SF/F)?
If you need to ask this question, you might consider reading through the dune series a few more times. It has a very roundabout way of answering the question, but does answer it. I'd also tell you straight out, but i've already given my answer in the past in the form of a college term paper that ended up over 30 pages long. It was then that my teachers recommended I pursue a degree or even masters in English or one of the other literary arts... to which I responded, "Screw you and you're damned Butlerian Jihad!!! I'm going to program computers!!!"
Instantly, no. However after much research into computation theory (my area of study for my thesis), I can tell you that unless radically new materials are created and new (as in not known yet) models of computation employed then the effectiveness of a computer will begin to plateau and eventually fall within a matter of 30-50 years. This is not to say that computers would not be utilized, but necessity at that time would point its finger at some new technology (or biotechnology such as a breeded mentat) being used.
What might they be used for you ask? For starters, take into account that the amount of information stored on computers grows at a roughly logorithmic rate. It may be slow (mathematically speaking), but it is still growth. Add to that a rising urgency to archive this information as essentially 'required' history to perform one thing or another. Over time it simply starts taking too long to search through this data even using advanced algorithms. The technology used by companies like Google who have to process inordinate amounts of data use an approach that resembles "throwing more machines at the problem is the answer". Since physics tells us that there is actually a minimal size of circuitry pathways before electron travel become erratic and unpredictable there exists a minimal size of a computer (despite the argument posed by moore's law). When this minimal size is attained and the information continues to grow, so will the networks of machines and the other machines needed to cool them and maintain them. Further down the road (theoretically centuries) there are not enough resources in the known universe that could be used to build a machine that could know everything and be able to effectively parse it in a time viable to that information's use. This doesn't even bring into account the added overhead required to actually use a computer to analyze such data. Thus the estimates are drastically reduced to something that could be realized within our or our grandchildren's lifetime.
Though I must admit, the Butlerian Jihad is a much more interesting and exciting way of losing all our technology.