The Moron's Guide To Transhumanism, Human Enhancement And Why It's Fucking Awesome.
472 replies, posted
[QUOTE=The one that is;32014567]I don't see the point in needing to augment for enhancing brain function considering I don't even need paper to do calc 2, my mind works a lot better and I'm the top student in my class.[/QUOTE]
I'm so glad that you were born with the ability to do maths that easily, however not all of us have that mental power.
[QUOTE=The one that is;32014921]It's funny because I honestly don't see any problem with IE that everyone bitches about. I have chrome and firefox literaly right next to IE and never use them for no real reason.
Beyond that, it's really not needed to augment any part of your brain considering it's easily 400x more capable than any computer we have now, the only augments I can understand there would be ones that unlock the potential of your brain to function at the levels that it is capable of.[/QUOTE]
Ok, draw me a graph for x from -1 to 0.5 for this x/5+(x^6)/9. I'll be generous and give you 100 milliseconds, even though a CPU does that a lot faster.
[QUOTE=Contag;32016101]I think this is one of the biggest issues of transhumanism.
These things will have problems - who do you test it on first?[/QUOTE]Willing idiots/pioneers.
[QUOTE=Stren;32018212]Willing idiots/pioneers.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps we could provide jobs this way. Relatively simple - but difficult - tasks that are needed to be done. We give willing workers these augments, and see if efficiency rises. If it does, great, we're done, package it, sell it, bail out economy.
If not, improve on it until it's done.
[QUOTE=Devodiere;32015727]I really doubt neuroscience will even get to that level where we can pinpoint which neuron gives off which thought and that kind of thing at a microscopic level. It's just not possible.
Microchips in general are near impossible to probe individual points. Even with top of the line equipment, it's not an easy task. Say you compare microchips to the brain, the difference being that we didn't design the brain, each brain is wired differently and it's a far more complicated system than most microchips. If it wasn't an impossible task already, it sure is now.[/QUOTE]
We've already vaguely mapped the brain so that we can assign different functions to different areas and are getting more specific with that. A neuron by itself isn't responsible for a particular thought (not likely anyway) but we're already able to assign them by the neurotransmitters they release and where they are in the brain.
[QUOTE=Cone;32018546]Perhaps we could provide jobs this way. Relatively simple - but difficult - tasks that are needed to be done. We give willing workers these augments, and see if efficiency rises. If it does, great, we're done, package it, sell it, bail out economy.
If not, improve on it until it's done.[/QUOTE]
I'd do it.
While augmenting your body sounds cool and all, I'd like to keep my eyes.
Unless they invent something that allows me to keep my sight and still be a Eyeborg (including LED light and Camera).
And if there were superior mechanical body parts, I'd mine replace with those.
[QUOTE=Jabberwocky;32019522]We've already vaguely mapped the brain so that we can assign different functions to different areas and are getting more specific with that. A neuron by itself isn't responsible for a particular thought (not likely anyway) but we're already able to assign them by the neurotransmitters they release and where they are in the brain.[/QUOTE]
We've mapped the areas of the brain which perform different functions like motor control or image recognition. We know what stimulation in each of those areas means but we have no idea what it's about. It is nowhere near such an easy task.
[QUOTE=Aerkhan;32019617]I'd do it.
While augmenting your body sounds cool and all, I'd like to keep my eyes.
Unless they invent something that allows me to keep my sight and still be a Eyeborg (including LED light and Camera).
And if there were superior mechanical body parts, I'd mine replace with those.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://content8.flixster.com/photo/53/59/43/5359434_gal.jpg[/img]
The body might be energy efficient in some ways, but a lot of muscles aren't efficient at all.
For example, the act of extending your arm out using your tricep. Imagine your arm as a lever with your elbow joint as the fulcrum. Using the tricep is the equivalent of putting the fulcrum extremely close to where you're applying force. Everyone knows the whole point of levers is to move the fulcrum farther away to make moving heavy things easier, but the arm is the complete opposite.
Contracting the arm is even worse. The bicep pulls on the lever at the same side the weight is on, almost negating the whole point of the lever entirely.
Simply switching the bicep and tricep functions, making them push instead of pull, would by itself make the arm much more efficient. The way muscles work biologically simply doesn't allow that though. A mechanical arm with a more efficient design (push muscles) would eliminate a huge amount of power consumption. Hell, allowing them to push [i]and[/i] pull would make them incredibly efficient and not have to burn off as much energy as heat through heavy exertion.
This thread is starting to creep me out..
I'm totally for improving human physical capabilities but I'd drawn the line on operating on the brain. I'd gladly take a bionic arm (if it was better than human arms) but I wouldn't want a permanent HUD or any kind of chip in my brain besides what is needed to operate the arm(s). I think a lot of stuff like a HUD and whatnot can be accomplished through external means, no need to open up the brain in order to achieve that.
I mean, how cool would it be for engineers or construction workers to have helmets with visors that display the angles and whatnot they need to use or what sensors are reading on equipment? Surely something like that in helmet/visor form would be cheaper and more efficient than something being implanted directly into the brain.
[QUOTE=MaverickIB;32025236]I'm totally for improving human physical capabilities but I'd drawn the line on operating on the brain. I'd gladly take a bionic arm (if it was better than human arms) but I wouldn't want a permanent HUD or any kind of chip in my brain besides what is needed to operate the arm(s). I think a lot of stuff like a HUD and whatnot can be accomplished through external means, no need to open up the brain in order to achieve that.
I mean, how cool would it be for engineers or construction workers to have helmets with visors that display the angles and whatnot they need to use or what sensors are reading on equipment? Surely something like that in helmet/visor form would be cheaper and more efficient than something being implanted directly into the brain.[/QUOTE]
Where did you stand on operating on the spinal cord, as it's still part of the central nervous system?
I agree, a great deal of 'early' transhumanist stuff can be achieved through external systems.
Eventually, we're going to have to crack open the brain though. But it's so frail and prone to infections...
[QUOTE=Jawalt;32007320]Actually biology is more efficient than -just about anything- we can come up with. Compared to your car you're a fucking model of efficiency.[/QUOTE]
no not really
anyway I'm still sceptical of all of this.
a lot of the transhumanists I've read about and even met seem to have a sort of irrational mindset that any and all technological advancement will lead to the singularity. there's a lack of critically evaluating what these new developments will bring.
Biology is just about the only kinematic self-replicator that can exist at the nanoscale (Okay, microscale, whatever). Diamond/nanotech parts won't work for that.
But, it's just a matter of prioritizing function over form: I don't need my arm's ability to regrow some surface tissue when I can leave that and have an arm that performs its main function (Moving things, jerking off) far more efficiently that the meaty stuff.
there's also the issue of obsolescence. what happens when the companies stop supporting your arms that seemed so fancy and new a few years ago? you'll be stuck carrying around "legacy hardware" while everyone else has newer and better augs. you thought you'd avoid losing your job by getting augmentations, but that just meant you had to buy new parts every few years in order to remain competitive.
next, say if you could afford a new arm upgrade. the doctors disconnect your arm while they prepare for the operation, leaving you with a stump with a metal end that new stuff can be attached to, kind of like a USB interface. what if the manufacturer of the original arm restricts this interface to only accept arms of that manufacturer? you'd be stuck with that manufacturer forever, with all the obvious complications that would bring. what if that manufacturer goes bust, leaving you with obsolete cyberarms that can't be replaced? even if the company makes the interface work across all brands, what about when the industry-standard interface itself gets upgraded? I suppose you could just cut off the interface completely and install a new one on the new stump, but that means you've lost more flesh that'll never get put back. Keep doing this for each new iteration over the years and you'll run out of room to put the new socket.
(Sorry for how haphazard that went, I kept thinking of new stuff as I went along)
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;32027280]Biology is just about the only kinematic self-replicator that can exist at the nanoscale (Okay, microscale, whatever). Diamond/nanotech parts won't work for that.
But, it's just a matter of prioritizing function over form: I don't need my arm's ability to regrow some surface tissue when I can leave that and have an arm that performs its main function (Moving things, jerking off) far more efficiently that the meaty stuff.[/QUOTE]I think the meaty stuff would make for much more effective wanking.
[editline]30th August 2011[/editline]
Unless you plan using it somewhere else...
balls of steel
I can't wait until we are a floating cluster of ever expanding and learning nanobots. shit will be so cash.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;32028638]I can't wait until we are a floating cluster of ever expanding and learning nanobots. shit will be so cash.[/QUOTE]
Sounds rather boring.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;32028638]I can't wait until we are a floating cluster of ever expanding and learning nanobots. shit will be so cash.[/QUOTE]
maybe that's what we are [I]right now[/I]
[QUOTE=Supacasey;32029465]maybe that's what we are [I]right now[/I][/QUOTE]
uh
there's no such thing as sapient cancer
[QUOTE=Contag;32030378]uh
there's no such thing as sapient cancer[/QUOTE]
that's what they want you to think
[editline]30th August 2011[/editline]
no wait I've got a better one: you ARE the cancer, MAAAN
[QUOTE=Supacasey;32030511]that's what they want you to think
[editline]30th August 2011[/editline]
no wait I've got a better one: you ARE the cancer, MAAAN[/QUOTE]
[img]http://www.facepunch.com/fp/ratings/weed.png[/img][img]http://www.facepunch.com/fp/ratings/weed.png[/img][img]http://www.facepunch.com/fp/ratings/weed.png[/img]
I feel like the brain shouldn't be worked on because it doesn't really need to improve. I mean, the main thing holding our brains back is our bodies. In a sense, our brains are being bottlenecked. You could probably hook someone up with 4-6 arms and they'd manage it just fine after getting used to it, without taxing the brain too much more.
We have a long ways to go in terms of improving our bodies before we even need to begin thinking about improving our brains. The only brain related modifications I would consider reasonable at this moment are ones to prevent deteriorative effects like Alzheimer's.
[QUOTE=MaverickIB;32022705]The body might be energy efficient in some ways, but a lot of muscles aren't efficient at all.
For example, the act of extending your arm out using your tricep. Imagine your arm as a lever with your elbow joint as the fulcrum. Using the tricep is the equivalent of putting the fulcrum extremely close to where you're applying force. Everyone knows the whole point of levers is to move the fulcrum farther away to make moving heavy things easier, but the arm is the complete opposite.
Contracting the arm is even worse. The bicep pulls on the lever at the same side the weight is on, almost negating the whole point of the lever entirely.
Simply switching the bicep and tricep functions, making them push instead of pull, would by itself make the arm much more efficient. The way muscles work biologically simply doesn't allow that though. A mechanical arm with a more efficient design (push muscles) would eliminate a huge amount of power consumption. Hell, allowing them to push [i]and[/i] pull would make them incredibly efficient and not have to burn off as much energy as heat through heavy exertion.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, muscles are pretty retarded only being able to contract with any real force. At the very least we have a force driver that can apply force in both extending and contracting so both the tricep and bicep are used at the same time.
Still, the major obstacle is coming up with a mechanical transducer so we can convert the energy from electrical power or whatever into force. If this kind of thing ever becomes common, there's highly likely to be a big industrial arms race.
[QUOTE=MaverickIB;32031638]I feel like the brain shouldn't be worked on because it doesn't really need to improve. [/QUOTE] Thats why a 50cent calculator can beat it.
Calculating raw numbers isn't really a skill needed in the modern world. I mean, a disposable camera can capture and "remember" a picture better than the brain can, does that make it superior to the brain?
When it comes down to processing large amounts of data and [i]applying that data using logic and reason[/i], the brain is unmatched. A calculator can beat a brain at raw equations but a calculator can't decide which equation needs to be used for a specific problem or consider margins of error.
Read as Mormon's Guide, was very excited to read it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
