Question Question about technology.

[T.Neo]

Drilling holes into the skull is too unsanitary and dangerous. Implants are too impractical and clumsy, so some sort of electromagnetic stimulation would be the key, as long as it could maintain enough power and resolution.

Absorbing aircraft data as additional senses won't work, or at least, it shouldn't. Humans never evolved to make meaningful sense of airspeed or altitude data, for example, and never evolved the neural pathways to control a supersonic aircraft.

It's just more efficient to use physical control input and visual output (and even auditory input/output), these are already existing human input/output abilities and they work just fine.

 

[wehaveaproblem]

TNeo,

The ethical arguments you make against the concept are fair, but it is also based on a lot of 'what ifs' and doomsaying. I guarantee that a similar person voiced the same concerns when national insurance cards, passports, telephones, the internet, phone tapping, electronic bank accounts etc etc were explored as concepts. I know a direct brain tap is pretty close to the soul, but every invention has the possibility to be used in a negative way... but that doesn't mean they should be feared.

Also, such technology is not about laziness, it's about progress, it's about efficiency, it's about community. It's sounds stupid, but think of the resources that would be saved if we didn't need so much plastic and precious metals to make so many phones, bank cards, keyboards and monitors etc.

And I assume your comment about taking away people's abilities to think what they want was a joke... given that most of the people alive today are happy sheep.

 

[Wishbone]

functional MRI is part of our attempts to find out how the brain works, and there are other neurophysiological methods currently employed.

I don't think direct brain-control interaction will be beneficial for flying because terrain-following flight is too fast for a human pilot, and there are no other applications where shedding off a tenth of a second will offer gains more than compensating for the risks inherent in biometrics (the false alarm rate is abysmal!).

Brain-muscle coordination is actually a good thing for the human operator: mens sana in corpore sano.

 

[T.Neo]

I think that doomsaying, is about as bad, as blinding saying that such technology would have no problems at all, and that it'd "all be ironed out". Which is ignorant at best, and dangerous at worst.

My entire point is that tapping directly into the human brain is "close to the soul". If nefarious activities on the internet or phone tapping are bad, then this allows for an entirely new level of bad.

I don't trust my computer, and I don't trust the internet. You can never truely trust technology, and that's a good thing- that's why you have safeguards in place (antivirus software, backups, etc). And there's no garuntee that those are foolproof either (antivirus software will not block all malware, backup files could be corrupted, etc).

The good news is that it's all external. If it fails, I'm in a worse place, but I'm still alibe. I'd rather not have to worry about uploading antivirus sofware into my brain, thank you very much.

As far as I'm concerned, the amount of resources used in input/output devices is extremely minimal, and getting less as technology becomes more advanced and more unified (i.e. television and communication over the internet, etc). It is really nothing when you compare it to the huge amounts of waste that human civilisation produces, like the huge bundle of plastic packaging I threw away yesterday- resources wasted, that are just going to end up in a landfill. My input and output devices however see much use and have lifetimes in many years, and if they're lucky, will get recycled at the end of their useful lives. Of course it's motivated by laziness, and it's really sad when laziness is regarded as "progress" or "community".

Overall, it's almost as bad as suggesting the amputation of the limbs of space travelers- though admittedly the latter does not present any benefit whatsoever. That's the kind of lax bioethics, that really sets up society for thinking that controlling the thoughts of the population really is acceptable.

The populace really deserves more credit than they're given. I would not call the people protesting in Egypt "sheep".

Ideological control of the population might be attempted by governments (via propaganda, etc), but it is still nowhere near denying people free will.

I'm still really asking the question of what benefits this development would give, that would outweigh it's potential problems. There's nothing wrong with input/output devices as they stand now.

 

[wehaveaproblem]

TNeo, lovely points, well made as ever! I shall continue to play devil's advocate if you don't mind?

I'm not of the blind belief that technology is harmless, au contraire, but the fact remains that people are harmful, not technology. So you don't trust people would be more accurate perhaps?

And there's nothing wrong with walking or writing letters, but I bet you still drive and use email...? is that not progress? You could call both laziness, but then we'd still be in the middle-ages, supping on mead, full of scurvy and covered in boils... oh and Orbiter wouldn't exist.

Free Will is an interesting one, and there is an assumption that this invasive brain technology will allow external input to supersede the brains natural ability to think... I don't see why that would be the case any more than an email in my inbox forces me to act unwillingly.

And yes, the sheep comment, like the leg amputation comment, is a little tongue-in-cheek. But not totally false or farcical. Most people are willing to just get on with there lives, being told the rules, once of course they live in a state of, at least perceived, freedom from oppression. There is a key difference thought between "freedom from" and "freedom to". And as to the leg thing, my real point there is that centrifuges, or returning to earth, are not the only possible ways to deal with microgravity. Sure, we might not have the 'bone regrowth pill' now, but if we follow your conservative technological thinking, we never will...
:tiphat:

 

[Wishbone]

Conservative ethical thinking... it is not about technology.

 

[Urwumpe]

Laser listening became useless in USSR as soon as someone described how it's done in some novel and people figured out to close the windows.

laser microphones work even with closed windows, you can only lock them out by external window blinds, which are not that common everywhere.

What is a very reliable way: Mosquito nets on the outside of the windows. :thumbup:

 

[T.Neo]

No, of course I don't trust people. People are not perfect, therefore what they construct and operate is not perfect either. Am I perfect in my operation of technology? Not nearly!

It's really silly to compare an age of scurvy, starvation and disease to the modern era, and then claim it's paramount to complaining about laziness. It isn't- such basic needs are human rights. Or at least, they should be.

Sadly, Orbiter isn't a human right... :dry:

In this case, what you're talking about is more akin to using a roving chair to move around instead of walking, not driving a car. Email is really more of a novelty, I don't think you could regard it as more than a digital analogue to letter-writing.

The fact that this is an invasive technology is already bad, but I'm not saying that it in itself will be used to affect people (not necessarily be used for 'mind control' or to turn individuals into zombies), rather that it could lead to development of technology that could, or create attitudes that such technology is acceptable to use.

A lot of people indeed do adhere to the establishment, but they still have free will and they will still rebel if they feel the establishment isn't benefitting them. They're not mindless drones. Even though I can get quite annoyed with the ignorance people can sometimes display, I would not go as far as to suggest that the populace are metaphorical "sheep".

Simulating gravity is the best way to deal with microgravity, it isn't just about muscoskeletal and cardiovascular atrophy, and inventing a sort of "pill", for example, to combat those things, is probably not particularly easy either.

I would call it pretty technologically conservative to suggest that artificial gravity in space is impossible or difficult to produce. It isn't, it is by far the best option, the easiest option, and the option with the least collateral consequences.

 

[Ghostrider]

supping on mead, full of scurvy and covered in boils... oh and Orbiter wouldn't exist.

Well, maybe it would exist but it would be made of wood, and we would be scurvvy orbiteers, arrr.

Free Will is an interesting one

Yes, never thought Michael Madsen could play the good guy. I kept expecting him to shoot the killer whale.

Oh wait.

 

[wehaveaproblem]

Well, maybe it would exist but it would be made of wood, and we would be scurvvy orbiteers, arrr.

Pack ye lemons cargo!

Sorry, TNeo, Ghostrider has derailed me with humour, so I shall break our (albeit very interesting) cyclical debate.


Sod it, I will offer one last point to you though. Re: laziness.

The laziness argument is interesting. I would argue that it's not laziness when the technology enables you to do something in a new way, in a more efficient way, or even allows you to do what couldn't be done before. Also new tech often offers up new ways that you didn't foresee.

Computers using CAD for architectural design - laziness? (cardboard and glue works fine), or enabling you to calculate complex maths faster and more efficiently/safely?

Trucks/lorries/cars - laziness (horse and cart works ok) or enabling you to get aid to the starving or use as an ambulance?

Hypothetical receptive emotion chip in my brain - laziness (I don't have to ask how you're feeling) or truthful, as I actually know how you're feeling?

 

[T.Neo]

What's less efficient about using a keyboard or computer screen? Especially when you still have to excersise thought processes to perform a connection with a computer(s)? Hands, eyes and ears are not clumsy or inefficient, they're part of the human body and the brain is wired to make use of them.

Computers for CAD and mathamatics don't relate well. That is a high demand field, not something you can really call "laziness".

Trucks and cars are not laziness, they allow for capability where horses and carts did not, and the ability to add capabilities not possible with such transport.

Is asking someone how they're feeling really that hard? Do you not trust them enough to ask them yourself? Are you ok with degrading concern for people's emotions to a mere technical enquiry?

 

[wehaveaproblem]

Trucks and cars are not laziness, they allow for capability where horses and carts did not, and the ability to add capabilities not possible with such transport.

(my emphasis) That is my exact logic for all technology really, and I see homo-technorati as a natural progression of evolution in that way...

Is asking someone how they're feeling really that hard? Do you not trust them enough to ask them yourself? Are you ok with degrading concern for people's emotions to a mere technical enquiry?

haha, you're the one that doesn't trust people remember
But seriously, just because something is transmitted electronicaly, doesn't make it just a cold technical enquiry, afterall, biology is just the flow of energy in a similar way. So such a hypothetical emo-chip integrated into my brain would feel like the emotion, not just a label of fact. It would actually bring me closer to you, I'd be better able to understand you. What is more, I could tell when you were bored or pissed off, lol... now surely those last two would be useful.

 

[T.Neo]

We've been using technology for thousands of years, we don't need to do such rubbish as implant it within ourselves. I don't want brain surgery, when I want to upgrade my cellphone.

I trust a person enough to believe them when I ask them how they're feeling. I also have enough respect for people that I'll at least appear to believe their emotions. :dry:

My point with "ability to add capabilities not possible" is that it doesn't exist with... emotion chips and other such nonsense. That there is not enough of an advantage to that technology to warrant it's existence. We have methods of doing such things that work just fine, humans are fully capable of sensing emotions and tapping on keyboards.

I really, really cannot see what is so advantageous for this clumsy, ethically problematic technology. It's a dangerous novelty, and a speculatory waste of time in light of true revolutionary technologies that would be far more helpful (and sensible) to mankind.

The "getting to know you better" opinion on brain-chips is a nice one, but probably a rather limited one as well. Most people would just think you're either extremely distrustful, or extremely socially inept. Or Autistic, which might make a bit more sense.

 

[jedidia]

It's a dangerous novelty

Actually, it isn't anywhere near any usable state yet. It's about as hypothetical as FTL travel currently... We're still a loooong way fom the "Wright's plane of brain implants".

 

[wehaveaproblem]

I see where you are coming from, and it does make a lot of sense, although I'm clearly less hung up on the ethical dilemma of people volunteering themselves to have such things... But I get the case you put forward.

The only last thing I would say about advantage is this: Often times it is hard to predict how a technology might help any given field, until after that technology has been developed.... AKA by accident.

Or perhaps let's take another tack. What about brain damaged or the mentally disabled people? What if this technology might emerge to help them, or those with alzheimers for example?

I guess the only point I'm making is that technologies should be explored, before they are classed as 'nonsense'.

To put an orbiter themed spin on it. You: "What? go into orbit? that sounds dangerous and pointless, I can do things on earth perfectly well, thank you very much"... Me: "Well actually there is some break-through medical science we can only do in microgravity... but we don't know that yet because you won't let us go."

 

[T.Neo]

I wouldn't say that. Brain implants don't require negative matter. :shifty:

Dangerous now, no, but in a potential future, it could well be.

I'm trying to see the advantage of being too lazy to read the emotions off of someone's face...

Brain damaged or mentally disabled people? Those with alzheimers? That's a totally different story. In that case, it's like a pacemaker or an artificial limb; you wouldn't cut off a healthy limb to replace it with a C-leg, and you wouldn't implant a pacemaker in a person with a perfectly healthy heart. In either case though, a biological solution would probably better (and biological solutions are being researched even now). In the future, artificial limb or organ implants would be pretty pointless, when we can grow our own replacement tissues that are far more capable.

My point is that exploring these technologies is pointless and potentially dangerous, and a waste of time. And no, I'm not dismissing the idea of going to orbit offhand...

There are far more pressing things that need to be researched, and far more advantageous things as well. Like for example stem cell therapy that could be used to prevent or treat alzheimers or similar diseases.

 

[wehaveaproblem]

I don't think we should drag this out much longer, but

How can you dismiss something as a 'waste of time', before you even learn what it is capable of?

And as an aside, considering your ethical dilemma on this issue, I'm surprised you have brought up stem cell research as an alternative...

 

[T.Neo]

Learn what it's capable of? What's it capable of? Like I said in my previous post, it's a tad difficult to find practicality in being too lazy to recognise emotions... (I'm using it as an analogy, not a sole literal application)

My ethical dilemma with this issue is pretty much the same thing that motivates my support for stem cell research. I may sound like a "bio-conservative", but I'm only pointing out the practical and ethical issues of such technology... to deny that it has ethical issues at all, is pretty dangerous...

 

[wehaveaproblem]

My emotion example was only plucked out of thin air.

Like I said, we don't know what things are capable of until we explore them...

Anyhoo, that's definitely repetition, so for fear of us going in circles, I'll call my side of the debate done.

Thanks for back-and-forth.