# In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too far?



## CannonFodder (Sep 10, 2011)

We've all seen sci-fi shows like ghost in the shell, deus ex: human revolution and many others that either revolve around cyborgs or have cyborgs in it.  Well since we are advancing so far so fast technologically it's bound to happen eventually that we'll reach a point where such technology is possible.  I don't think it will happen this decade or the next, maybe in the 2030's or later on.  However how do you think such technology will start out, when and to what levels do you think it will become a part of our everyday lives?   Also if you could would you become a cyborg and if so in your book how far would be too far?

Like I think it will start out with the military, because they are already investing alot of money into exoskeleton technology and that to help soldiers.  It would be extremely useful to soldiers if they could just keep running and running and not get physically exhausted.  Also if they had non-organic organs that would reduce the fatality rate for internal injuries.  Like if a soldier gets shot in the heart, he's pretty much done for, but if the soldier had a machine to pump blood instead they could build failsafes into it to keep the blood pumping to his brain.  Needless to say it will become cheaper over time as does with most technology.  Right now they have prosthetics for victims who have lost limbs, but they are horribly expensive, whereas ten years ago if you wanted a prosthetic arm that gave you close the arm you were born with's level of performance you were out of luck no matter how much money you had.

Me personally I would wait until it was for certain safe to get one and it was reasonably cheap.  I'd start out with like my legs or that, cause I walk _alot_ and it'd help me out, but as time went on I'd probably opt for more parts as I aged.  I also think that if we started replacing out parts of our brain with electronics that is too far unless they had a medical reason and if there's the chance of someone hacking them and basically making you a puppet like in the movie "Slayer" that is waaayy over the line.


----------



## Rilvor (Sep 10, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

Would I support and use cybernetics? Absolutely.

I think it will become much more commonplace as time goes on, but part of our daily lives? Perhaps, if we ever get to some sort of culture similar to Shadowrun but otherwise no. Internal organs are internal, and cyberware on the outside will likely be for medical needs only for a very long time.

How far is too far? As long as my personality remains intact, nothing is too far to my current stance. Even if that meant looking like  Ghor.

As for the hacking bit, I think that is ridiculous and akin to people who think you can get aids just for breathing the air in a third world country.

Edit: All of that being said, this thread relates much to a thread I will be posting soon. I will not post it here as the discussion while of similar topic will be aimed at something else and go in a different direction.


----------



## iconmaster (Sep 10, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

I'm all for transhumanism! Like you, I probably would draw the line at the brain itself, but pretty much all else would be fine by me.


----------



## greg-the-fox (Sep 10, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

Tweeting via thought would be too far.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 10, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Rilvor said:


> Would I support and use cybernetics? Absolutely.
> 
> I think it will become much more commonplace as time goes on, but part of our daily lives? Perhaps, if we ever get to some sort of culture similar to Shadowrun but otherwise no. Internal organs are internal, and cyberware on the outside will likely be for medical needs only for a very long time.
> 
> ...


The reason I'm kinda iffy is that if the cybernetics can use the internet and that like in ghost in the shell that means somebody either locally or otherwise could possibly hack it.  Afterall the manufacturers would have security measures intact so that people wouldn't be able to hack it, however like most companies they'd have back doors in the software as well in case they really need to.  Like if the person was in a crime they'd just pull up what your eyes saw to use in court, or if something is wrong with the equipment and needs to be fixed.  God knows what kind of shit can happen if the software got into people's hands that could profit off it.  Like if someone externally went through your video feed to see your password to your bank account or such when you are typing it out.


greg-the-fox said:


> Tweeting via thought would be too far.


3:11:11 pm
@world
pooping
#person

3:11:12 pm
@world
thinking about sex
#person

3:11:13 pm
@world
hungry
#person

3:11:14 pm
@world
drinking water
#person

3:11:15 pm
@world
still pooping
#person


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 10, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

We'd have to reach the level of Ghost In The Shell before I'd even consider replacing perfectly good parts with sythetics... or replacing my entire body.  Though if I lost parts, I'd have no problem using available replacements.  Personally, though, given some of the tech I've seen in development, science is working on growing entire organs/body parts from the donor's DNA, so, if that tech worked out, I'd prefer replacing organic with organic.  Nothing beats OM parts, really...


----------



## Aetius (Sep 10, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

It would be amazing to have these in the future.

Just it might be too pricy : (


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 10, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Crusader Mike said:


> It would be amazing to have these in the future.
> 
> Just it might be too pricy : (


I doubt it'll start out cheap, but as time goes on most electronic things become cheaper... unless it's a calculator.


----------



## Tycho (Sep 10, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

Fuck yeah upgrades.  WTB super-duper extending arms.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 10, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Tycho said:


> Fuck yeah upgrades.  WTB super-duper extending arms.


But what if they want to upgrade everyone and stop a time traveling alien with a british accent who travels in a blue police box?


----------



## Rilvor (Sep 10, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



CannonFodder said:


> The reason I'm kinda iffy is that if the cybernetics can use the internet and that like in ghost in the shell that means somebody either locally or otherwise could possibly hack it.  Afterall the manufacturers would have security measures intact so that people wouldn't be able to hack it, however like most companies they'd have back doors in the software as well in case they really need to.  Like if the person was in a crime they'd just pull up what your eyes saw to use in court, or if something is wrong with the equipment and needs to be fixed.  God knows what kind of shit can happen if the software got into people's hands that could profit off it.  Like if someone externally went through your video feed to see your password to your bank account or such when you are typing it out.



The flaw in that is that you can cut wireless connectivity at any time.

You should be much more worried about RFID tags.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 10, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Rilvor said:


> The flaw in that is that you can cut wireless connectivity at any time.
> 
> You should be much more worried about RFID tags.


The worry some thing is there's already people with RFID tags.


----------



## Lobar (Sep 10, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

Hell yes.  The body is just a tool, upgrade that shit as much as you'll let me please.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 10, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Lobar said:


> Hell yes.  The body is just a tool, upgrade that shit as much as you'll let me please.


Would you want to have a cybernetic brain though?


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Sep 10, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

Actually there will not be a future, myth busted.


----------



## Rilvor (Sep 10, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



CannonFodder said:


> The worry some thing is there's already people with RFID tags.


 Yes, there is. I made a thread on  RFID tags that died. People also do not realize they are in many things they buy.


CannonFodder said:


> Would you want to have a cybernetic brain though?



If the choice between degradation or that came up, yes I would. Though you need to define exactly what you mean by cybernetic brain.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 10, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



CannonFodder said:


> Would you want to have a cybernetic brain though?



My main problem with that would be:  Can they actually transfer my "ghost" into the machine, or just a copy?  In other words:  Would I still be me?


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 10, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Rilvor said:


> Yes, there is. I made a thread on  RFID tags that died. People also do not realize they are in many things they buy.
> 
> 
> If the choice between degradation or that came up, yes I would. Though you need to define exactly what you mean by cybernetic brain.


It's only a matter of time.

Fully non-organic brain, like afterwards your entire brain is completely a machine.  Think like data from star trek.


Antonin Scalia said:


> Actually there will not be a future, myth busted.


Cause we're always in the present, unless you have a DeLorean and 1.21 gigawatts.


----------



## Tycho (Sep 10, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



CannonFodder said:


> Would you want to have a cybernetic brain though?



Wait wait wait a sec.

Before they go making a "cybernetic brain" they first have to have a very, VERY good understanding of how the brain works on every level.  A cybernetic brain is a FAR taller order than enhanced limbs.  Also, you can't exactly swap your old fleshy brain out and put in a brand new cyberbrain.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 10, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Tycho said:


> Wait wait wait a sec.
> 
> Before they go making a "cybernetic brain" *they first have to have a very, VERY good understanding of how the brain works on every leve*l.  A cybernetic brain is a FAR taller order than enhanced limbs.  Also, you can't exactly swap your old fleshy brain out and put in a brand new cyberbrain.



Not just that, but they would have to understand the source and nature of consciousness, itself... the "soul", if you will.  Like I said, it wouldn't work if all you ended up with was a copy, not the "genuine" article.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 10, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Tycho said:


> Wait wait wait a sec.
> 
> Before they go making a "cybernetic brain" they first have to have a very, VERY good understanding of how the brain works on every level.  A cybernetic brain is a FAR taller order than enhanced limbs.  Also, you can't exactly swap your old fleshy brain out and put in a brand new cyberbrain.


Yeah I know, realistically speaking we wouldn't see such a thing in the next few decades.  If someone kept upgrading themselves to extend their lifespan then they might see it in their lifetime, but that sort of tech would be more likely to show up in next century than this century.  It's going to be a long time until we have to consider that choice.


----------



## Stormtail (Sep 10, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

I would completely support cybernetic prosthetics. If they're used to replace damaged or useless limbs then there should be no problem with it. I think many people would choose to use them simply to upgrade healthy limbs, and I don't see much of a problem with this. My main concern would be whether the technology would be available to everyone. Sure, it would be expensive, thus limiting it's availability somewhat, but would it be available in all countries and to all peoples? If the technology were gradually developed it would probably be available to everyone, but if a certain person or group were to make a sudden advance in cybernetics they could easily use it to gain a lot of power in the world. Of course, this is true of almost any technology. *Mild Spoilers* It's not really a very parallel analogy, but I'm reminded of Leto in the book Children of Dune merging his body with the sandtrout and becoming virtually invincible, allowing him to rule all of the known universe for thousands of years.  



CannonFodder said:


> Would you want to have a cybernetic brain though?



If it would simply expand my knowledge, learning capabilities, etc, allowing me to still be myself, I don't see why I wouldn't. 



CannonFodder said:


> Think like data from star trek.



You've convinced me, I'm becoming an android if the technology becomes available! Just kidding. I love Data, but this brings me to the idea of whether or not I would still have emotions and human intuition, because those were his main concerns.

Overall, I would happily upgrade various parts of my body, but because of the concerns of whether I would still have my own soul and still be me, I probably would never replace my brain. Maybe I would sign something saying that they should replace my brain if I'm comatose and will never wake up otherwise, because, you know, if I'm going to die, then why not?


----------



## Rilvor (Sep 10, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

More than likely, we will be capable of replacing everything _but_ our brains with cyberware and having to worry about senility before there is a cybernetic brain.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 10, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Rilvor said:


> More than likely, we will be capable of replacing everything _but_ our brains with cyberware and having to worry about senility before there is a cybernetic brain.


We're working on growing organs and tissues, it's possible that down the line they'll be able to inject new neurons to repair the decay.


----------



## Ames (Sep 10, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Tycho said:


> Fuck yeah upgrades.  WTB super-duper extending arms.



You want to be Inspector Gadget?


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 10, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

Telling someone to delete system32 as a joke would then be murder >_<


----------



## Rilvor (Sep 10, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



CannonFodder said:


> We're working on growing organs and tissues, it's possible that down the line they'll be able to inject new neurons to repair the decay.



I suspect we will eventually have the choice of Flesh or Metal?

I believe I read that the first fully mechanical human heart is being tested in a live patient this very year.


----------



## Kranda (Sep 10, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

One thing I would replace in a heartbeat would be eyes. Eyes that could see in the dark record images and video and acted like binoculars would be awesome.


----------



## Hendly Devin (Sep 10, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

Its too late to argue about the ethics now.   The robo arms are already here!!!

http://www.ted.com/talks/dean_kamen_previews_a_new_prosthetic_arm.html

But to be clear are you talking about prosthetics to replace missing or defective body parts? Or are you supposing prosthetic augmentation to better the performance of an already functional human body?


----------



## Kyrodo (Sep 10, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



CannonFodder said:


> Telling someone to delete system32 as a joke would then be murder >_<


Blue screen of -DEAD-

Was watching some movie in one of my  not-so-recent classes. Heard they were already starting to develop  mechanical "eyes". Well, mechanical vision anyway. Basically, they'd  wire a certain part of your brain up to a cheapy camera or something.  Obviously, still under development. It would help the blind get their  vision back. And if they make "mechanical eyes", it would sure beat  contacts XD


----------



## Tycho (Sep 10, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



JamesB said:


> You want to be Inspector Gadget?



Go go gadget helicopter, fuck yeah

(No, really - if you ever watched that cartoon and you're telling me you never thought "that would be such an awesome thing to have" when you saw the crazy stuff he could do, you're a liar.  A filthy liar, I say!)


----------



## Kranda (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

I want Blind Mag eyes


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Hendly Devin said:


> Its too late to argue about the ethics now.   The robo arms are already here!!!
> 
> http://www.ted.com/talks/dean_kamen_previews_a_new_prosthetic_arm.html
> 
> But to be clear are you talking about prosthetics to replace missing or defective body parts? Or are you supposing prosthetic augmentation to better the performance of an already functional human body?


Well obviously the prosthetics are going to go to those who need it for medical reasons first or for military purposes and then later on when it becomes cheaper it will become available to the public.


----------



## Rilvor (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

Likely there will need to be something done to prevent a new kind of "cybercriminal".

The kind where you are dealing with a man with a mechanical body that is definitely not someone to be put into a normal jail.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Rilvor said:


> Likely there will need to be something done to prevent a new kind of "cybercriminal".
> 
> The kind where you are dealing with a man with a mechanical body that is definitely not someone to be put into a normal jail.


We could put their bodies in storage and their minds in a virtual prison, slow down their mental clock so that on the inside they experience like a couple weeks to decades.  Or if they would normally be on death row permanently put them in or put them in for such a long time.  Like if someone commits a killing spree and is sentenced to 400 years in prison, they could actually be put in prison for that time.  While it'd unleash a whole new level of ethics debates, it'd be a more human method to the death penalty.


----------



## Stormtail (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Rilvor said:


> Likely there will need to be something done to prevent a new kind of "cybercriminal".
> 
> The kind where you are dealing with a man with a mechanical body that is definitely not someone to be put into a normal jail.



Well, you know, If there are cybernetically enhanced criminals there will be enhanced vigilantes...   like Iron Man.

Edit: Still, this would probably be a bad thing more than a good thing.


----------



## Kyrodo (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Rilvor said:


> Likely there will need to be something done to prevent a new kind of "cybercriminal".
> 
> The kind where you are dealing with a man with a mechanical body that is definitely not someone to be put into a normal jail.


Ha, perhaps we could give them an "off" switch and stash them away somewhere?


----------



## Hendly Devin (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



CannonFodder said:


> Well obviously the prosthetics are going to go to those who need it for medical reasons first or for military purposes and then later on when it becomes cheaper it will become available to the public.



So both augmentation and medical replacement of bilogical failure? 

Unfortunately i feel like cybernetic augmentation sounds incredibly similar to the posibilities of eugenics and genetic augmentation in which it might very well be kept so expensive that only the richest of the rich can take advantage of its use.

So long as its all fair and affordable i got no qualms. Infact call me when they can dl my thoughts into a computer base and there by never physically age but instead live immortally via a digital self.


----------



## Tycho (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

I don't want to turn the thread into a total lowest-common-denominator jokefest, but...

Estimated time before the invention, sale and implantation of a bionic super-robo-mechapenis? Less than a decade, I wager.  The people who produce these things are gonna want to tap that market eventually, and everyone knows it's there.


----------



## greg-the-fox (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

I think it would be awesome but it has to be fully integrated into the nervous system and have the physical appearance and response of skin


----------



## Hendly Devin (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

Nah we just need robo cop. 

Maybe a double post? Maybe not?  Its a party lets see what happens


----------



## TreacleFox (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

A brain with a combination of original human parts and computer parts could have massive potental. The main problems would be linking your brain to the computer because linking hundreads of nerves to a computer chip would require micro surgery in which you could not make a single misstake, and also finding some kind of computer software format that your brain could understand. If someone could make a computer powerfull enough you might be able to get around these problems by replacing your entire brain with a computer, this could also give you perfect memory. The thing with this too is that it could possibley allow you to live forever inside a computer. I doubt many people would find this appealing though. If a computer with a massive enough harddrive was made, I dont see any reason why someone with some kind of scanner couldn't scan and save the location and type of every atom in your brain and apply some kind of physics engine to it. This is all very impractcal though.


----------



## Kyrodo (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Hendly Devin said:


> Nah we just need robo cop.
> 
> Maybe a double post? Maybe not?  Its a party lets see what happens


I have to admire you for taking your chances. XD

I can already imagine the annoying internet ads we'll see when they get a hold of this mecha-penis.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

I love the idea of being able to completely replace an entire person with a machine while still keeping the memories and personality exactly intact.  You could augment the hell out of a man by doing that.  No more of these silly chemical potentials over lipid membranes ruling the show: now your thoughts travel at the speed of light.  You'd be able to process anything in a nanosecond, and your limbs could react just as quickly.  It makes you wonder what a society of people like that would be like.  Whatever happens, it would move really quickly.
But I think getting up to that point would be rife with problems.  You know.  Who gets to be the first to become a demi-god, once this technology becomes available?  What would that person do with that kind of power?  How would we know what that person might do, and how do you decide to go through with it if you didn't know?  Would we extend it to other creatures too?  Like, maybe give a rat a computer brain so that it can learn language and mathematics better than we can right now?  Would there be any reason to do that?  Would there be any reason not to?
And... you know.  Some of these physical desires would become completely unnecessary, but would you want to keep them anyway?  Like, what would happen if we programmed ourselves not to ever want sex, food, that fuzzy feeling you get from drinking hot cocoa on a snowy day, things like that?  There are a lot of directions we could go.  Would there be any reason to keep emotion in general?  Aesthetics?  Art, music, writing, curiosity, things like that?
But the really neat thing, if all went smoothly in procuring these technologies, is that we could choose every aspect of that path individually.  So it'd be a neat world, for certain, and I'd be all for it if I knew we could get that far.  And since humanity is such a diverse starting point, I'm thinking the amount of potential customization here would probably only serve to increase that diversity, so long as everyone was allowed to pick and choose his own characteristics.  Could be a lot of fun.
But again, the problem would be in getting there.


----------



## TreacleFox (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



M. Le Renard said:


> I love the idea of being able to completely replace an entire person with a machine while still keeping the memories and personality exactly intact.  You could augment the hell out of a man by doing that.  No more of these silly chemical potentials over lipid membranes ruling the show: now your thoughts travel at the speed of light.  You'd be able to process anything in a nanosecond, and your limbs could react just as quickly.  It makes you wonder what a society of people like that would be like.  Whatever happens, it would move really quickly.
> But I think getting up to that point would be rife with problems.  You know.  Who gets to be the first to become a demi-god, once this technology becomes available?  What would that person do with that kind of power?  How would we know what that person might do, and how do you decide to go through with it if you didn't know?  Would we extend it to other creatures too?  Like, maybe give a rat a computer brain so that it can learn language and mathematics better than we can right now?  Would there be any reason to do that?  Would there be any reason not to?
> And... you know.  Some of these physical desires would become completely unnecessary, but would you want to keep them anyway?  Like, what would happen if we programmed ourselves not to ever want sex, food, that fuzzy feeling you get from drinking hot cocoa on a snowy day, things like that?  There are a lot of directions we could go.  Would there be any reason to keep emotion in general?  Aesthetics?  Art, music, writing, curiosity, things like that?
> But the really neat thing, if all went smoothly in procuring these technologies, is that we could choose every aspect of that path individually.  So it'd be a neat world, for certain, and I'd be all for it if I knew we could get that far.  And since humanity is such a diverse starting point, I'm thinking the amount of potential customization here would probably only serve to increase that diversity, so long as everyone was allowed to pick and choose his own characteristics.  Could be a lot of fun.
> But again, the problem would be in getting there.



I like the idea of scanning someone's brain and saving the location of every atom and then having a computer apply some kind of perfect physics engine to it so it can simulate how every atom within the brain would behave normaly. This way that person could exists forever with unaltered thinking. The computer would have to be unimaginaly powerfull though.


----------



## Tycho (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



TreacleFox said:


> I like the idea of scanning someone's brain and saving the location of every atom and then having a computer apply some kind of perfect physics engine to it so it can simulate how every atom within the brain would behave normaly. This way that person could exists forever with unaltered thinking. The computer would have to be unimaginaly powerfull though.



Funny thought - what if it DIDN'T have to be incredibly powerful? What if you could fit a person's mind into a desktop computer?  Our brains are very complex and undoubtedly powerful "computing devices", but are we REALLY something only a Cray could handle? Supercomputers run rings around the most brilliant human mind for mathematical calculations, if that is a measure of computing power.  How "high end" are we?


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



TreacleFox said:


> I like the idea of scanning someone's brain and saving the location of every atom and then having a computer apply some kind of perfect physics engine to it so it can simulate how every atom within the brain would behave normaly. This way that person could exists forever with unaltered thinking. The computer would have to be unimaginaly powerfull though.


Or export it in a way the computer could understand and run it in a virtual environment.


----------



## Kyrodo (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



CannonFodder said:


> Or export it in a way the computer could understand and run it in a virtual environment.


I'm sure this is possible, as both computers and the brain essentially work on binary. Don't quote me on this.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

To be fair, supercomputers are good at doing one thing billions of times really quickly.  But if you've ever written a piece of code, you'd know that computers get stumped if the instructions you give them aren't exactly right.  In other words, right now you can't expect a computer to be able to think on its own and realize when you screwed up the code, and what you actually meant to happen when you wrote it.  That's creative thinking, and that's incredibly tough to just program.  After all, we aren't sure how our brains do it.
I'm thinking that the whole 'build a computer' approach wouldn't work to make an artificial brain, mainly because the brain doesn't work like a computer.  It's a really complex system, in which every part is interconnected, and in which a lot of parts are capable of taking over for other parts if said other parts ever failed.  A better method would probably be to just figure out how to grow one like nature does, except out of metals and plastics instead of lipids and water.  Because otherwise, yeah, you'd have to come up with one hell of a complex computer system to mimic all those operations through simple yes and no switches like what we have in computers now.  That'd be a problem most scientists would call reasonably impossible.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

^Which is why I said that sort of tech is more than likely a century away, I'm sure we'll figure out eventually how to do so, but I'd be fooling myself if I had any idea of how.


Kyrodo said:


> I'm sure this is possible, as both computers and the brain essentially work on binary. Don't quote me on this.


I get your analogy, but with any analogy it breaks down the further you look into it, but I get what you mean so I'll just leave it at that.
I expect that the first version of what I'm talking about will be a really crappy program, basically Windows ME of virtual minds, and as time goes on they'll issue software patches and software upgrades to basically fix any problems that will arise until we actually get the hang of it.
To use a analogy-

```
MOVE "Brain: \mind" "Computer: \virtual environment"
C:\virtual environment\system32\wuapp.exe
C:\virtual environment\system32\wuauclt.exe /detectnow
```


----------



## TreacleFox (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Tycho said:


> Funny thought - what if it DIDN'T have to be incredibly powerful? What if you could fit a person's mind into a desktop computer?  Our brains are very complex and undoubtedly powerful "computing devices", but are we REALLY something only a Cray could handle? Supercomputers run rings around the most brilliant human mind for mathematical calculations, if that is a measure of computing power.  How "high end" are we?



It would have to be powerful though, im not sure on the exact number, but there are possibly trillions of atoms inside a human brain, and each would have to have a computer physics engine applied to it perfectly for my theory on this to work. Other more efficient methods such as exporting like what CannonFodder said could require less computer resources, but there is a margin in which the mind of the person could be altered or they might think diffrently.


----------



## Kyrodo (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



M. Le Renard said:


> To be fair, supercomputers are good at doing one thing billions of times really quickly.  But if you've ever written a piece of code, you'd know that computers get stumped if the instructions you give them aren't exactly right.  In other words, right now you can't expect a computer to be able to think on its own and realize when you screwed up the code, and what you actually meant to happen when you wrote it.  That's creative thinking, and that's incredibly tough to just program.  After all, we aren't sure how our brains do it.
> I'm thinking that the whole 'build a computer' approach wouldn't work to make an artificial brain, mainly because the brain doesn't work like a computer.  It's a really complex system, in which every part is interconnected, and in which a lot of parts are capable of taking over for other parts if said other parts ever failed.  A better method would probably be to just figure out how to grow one like nature does, except out of metals and plastics instead of lipids and water.  Because otherwise, yeah, you'd have to come up with one hell of a complex computer system to mimic all those operations through simple yes and no switches like what we have in computers now.  That'd be a problem most scientists would call reasonably impossible.



Ha, doesn't mean they aren't trying though. I believe the proper term for it is a 'singularity', an artificial intelligence with human behaviors, that can think for itself, and judge and make connections between similar items of information on its own. It has not been successfully executed yet, as far as I know.


----------



## Wreth (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

I'd be more worried about the whole rich people getting them and poor people not. Artificial organs could have any number of effects, and extended lifespans and abilities seem like a terrible thing to only allow to certain people.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



TreacleFox said:


> It would have to be powerful though, im not sure on the exact number, but there are possibly trillions of atoms inside a human brain, and each would have to have a computer physics engine applied to it perfectly for my theory on this to work. Other more efficient methods such as exporting like what CannonFodder said could require less computer resources, but there is a margin in which the mind of the person could be altered or they might think diffrently.


I think the very fact of no longer being organic would change a person.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



M. Le Renard said:


> I love the idea of being able to completely replace an entire person with a machine while still keeping the memories and personality exactly intact.  You could augment the hell out of a man by doing that.  No more of these silly chemical potentials over lipid membranes ruling the show: now your thoughts travel at the speed of light.  You'd be able to process anything in a nanosecond, and your limbs could react just as quickly.  It makes you wonder what a society of people like that would be like.  Whatever happens, it would move really quickly.
> But I think getting up to that point would be rife with problems.  You know.  Who gets to be the first to become a demi-god, once this technology becomes available?  What would that person do with that kind of power?  How would we know what that person might do, and how do you decide to go through with it if you didn't know?  Would we extend it to other creatures too?  *Like, maybe give a rat a computer brain so that it can learn language and mathematics better than we can right now?*  Would there be any reason to do that?  Would there be any reason not to?
> And... you know.  Some of these physical desires would become completely unnecessary, but would you want to keep them anyway?  Like, what would happen if we programmed ourselves not to ever want sex, food, that fuzzy feeling you get from drinking hot cocoa on a snowy day, things like that?  There are a lot of directions we could go.  Would there be any reason to keep emotion in general?  Aesthetics?  Art, music, writing, curiosity, things like that?
> But the really neat thing, if all went smoothly in procuring these technologies, is that we could choose every aspect of that path individually.  So it'd be a neat world, for certain, and I'd be all for it if I knew we could get that far.  And since humanity is such a diverse starting point, I'm thinking the amount of potential customization here would probably only serve to increase that diversity, so long as everyone was allowed to pick and choose his own characteristics.  Could be a lot of fun.
> But again, the problem would be in getting there.



With the ability to do this, what would keep us from puting a human's mind into an animal's body?




M. Le Renard said:


> To be fair, supercomputers are good at doing one thing billions of times really quickly.  But if you've ever written a piece of code, you'd know that computers get stumped if the instructions you give them aren't exactly right.  In other words, right now you can't expect a computer to be able to think on its own and realize when you screwed up the code, and what you actually meant to happen when you wrote it.  That's creative thinking, and that's incredibly tough to just program.  After all, we aren't sure how our brains do it.*
> I'm thinking that the whole 'build a computer' approach wouldn't work to make an artificial brain, mainly because the brain doesn't work like a computer.*  It's a really complex system, in which every part is interconnected, and in which a lot of parts are capable of taking over for other parts if said other parts ever failed.  A better method would probably be to just figure out how to grow one like nature does, except out of metals and plastics instead of lipids and water.  Because otherwise, yeah, you'd have to come up with one hell of a complex computer system to mimic all those operations through simple yes and no switches like what we have in computers now.  That'd be a problem most scientists would call reasonably impossible.



Indeed, the brain works on a quantum level... is, in effect, an organic quantum "computer".  For want of a better term.




Kyrodo said:


> Ha, doesn't mean they aren't trying though. *I believe the proper term for it is a 'singularity'*, an artificial intelligence with human behaviors, that can think for itself, and judge and make connections between similar items of information on its own. It has not been successfully executed yet, as far as I know.



Ahhh, yes...


----------



## Wreth (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



CannonFodder said:


> I think the very fact of no longer being organic would change a person.




What are humans but biological machines, formed by chance?


----------



## TreacleFox (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



M. Le Renard said:


> To be fair, supercomputers are good at doing one thing billions of times really quickly.  But if you've ever written a piece of code, you'd know that computers get stumped if the instructions you give them aren't exactly right.  In other words, right now you can't expect a computer to be able to think on its own and realize when you screwed up the code, and what you actually meant to happen when you wrote it.  That's creative thinking, and that's incredibly tough to just program.  After all, we aren't sure how our brains do it.
> I'm thinking that the whole 'build a computer' approach wouldn't work to make an artificial brain, mainly because the brain doesn't work like a computer.  It's a really complex system, in which every part is interconnected, and in which a lot of parts are capable of taking over for other parts if said other parts ever failed.  A better method would probably be to just figure out how to grow one like nature does, except out of metals and plastics instead of lipids and water.  Because otherwise, yeah, you'd have to come up with one hell of a complex computer system to mimic all those operations through simple yes and no switches like what we have in computers now.  That'd be a problem most scientists would call reasonably impossible.



When you get down to it the brain is just a bag of particals governed by the laws of physics though. If a computer could have the location of all of those particals recorded, I see no reason it couldn't apply a program to make all of those virtual particals behave the way real ones would. You dont need creative thinking to apply how the physics would work either, physics are predictable and work in a logical way a computer could use.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



TreacleFox said:


> When you get down to it the brain is just a bag of particals governed by the laws of physics though. If a computer could have the location of all of those particals recorded, I see no reason it couldn't apply a program to make all of those virtual particals behave the way real ones would. You dont need creative thinking to apply how the physics would work either, *physics are predictable and work in a logical way a computer could use*.



Until you get down to the quantum level, then things get weird.  Heh... most likely why humans are so illogical.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Wreth said:


> What are humans but biological machines, formed by chance?


 To use a analogy to simplify the problem, imagine trying to get a windows native program to work in mac and at the same time stream it to the mac, without the mac being compatible.  Simplest solution run virtualbox.


----------



## TreacleFox (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Roose Hurro said:


> Until you get down to the quantum level, then things get weird.  Heh... most likely why humans are so illogical.



The quantum level is complicated but it still has computer definable laws governing it. :S

EDIT: Im not entirely sure how much of a role quantum mechanics would serve in such a program either, it might not be nessasry.


----------



## Kyrodo (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

As it is, we are having a hard time programming chat bots that can respond like a normal human would. Creating a singularity is a holy grail in the programming world, because the human mind is highly complex and not always predictable, for a myriad of reasons. If it were simple, someone would've done it already. 

In a completely unrelated matter, Skynet would be my favorite apocalypse scenario :3


----------



## M. LeRenard (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

Last I heard, signals pass through neurons by way of chemical potentials.  So yes, quantum mechanics is involved, but I don't think things like quantum spin and angular momentum values are particularly important to how the brain functions, except by the usual way in which atoms interact.  But they interact that way inside of computers as well.  The brain is more about having quadrillions of pathways for information to travel through and the interlinking of said pathways.  A quantum computer would actually be able to one-up the brain in terms of information processing (way more 'bits', in a manner of speaking, than a neuron due to the many quantum properties you may be able to compute with), but it still wouldn't have that complexity of possible paths for computation that the brain has unless we built it in the same way.  So imagine trying to wire up something like a brain from scratch.



			
				TreacleFox said:
			
		

> When you get down to it the brain is just a bag of particals governed by the laws of physics though. If a computer could have the location of all of those particals recorded, I see no reason it couldn't apply a program to make all of those virtual particals behave the way real ones would.


That would have to be one hell of a powerful computer to process something like that.  It takes some of the most powerful computers in existence today to model even something as relatively simple as a galaxy collision, and even then, you have to do it by substantially decreasing the number of particles involved in the model from what it really is in the universe.  It also takes supercomputers to model the behavior of single molecules under quantum mechanical laws.  So now imagine trying to model several hundred billion (or whatever the order of magnitude is) atoms and molecules all interacting with each other as they do in the brain.  That's a very, very long-term goal in computing power, I think.  I imagine someone will come up with a simpler method before we have that capability.  Just modeling the whole thing under physical laws seems like a really brute force approach to the problem.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



TreacleFox said:


> EDIT: Im not entirely sure how much of a role quantum mechanics would serve in such a program either, it might not be nessasry.


 It wouldn't be necessary.


Kyrodo said:


> As it is, we are having a hard time programming chat bots that can respond like a normal human would. Creating a singularity is a holy grail in the programming world, because the human mind is highly complex and not always predictable, for a myriad of reasons. If it were simple, someone would've done it already.
> In a completely unrelated matter, Skynet would be my favorite apocalypse scenario :3


I doubt in the next fifty years it will be done.


----------



## Rilvor (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Wreth said:


> I'd be more worried about the whole rich people getting them and poor people not. Artificial organs could have any number of effects, and extended lifespans and abilities seem like a terrible thing to only allow to certain people.



This worry always crops up, and I will always be here to point out that this is the Information Age and there is no keeping such things secret. When it gets found out that a tiny percent of the population has the transhuman toy, what do you think the massive majority is going to do about it?

Humanity is nothing but not willing to take what they want.


----------



## TreacleFox (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



M. Le Renard said:


> Last I heard, signals pass through neurons by way of chemical potentials.  So yes, quantum mechanics is involved, but I don't think things like quantum spin and angular momentum values are particularly important to how the brain functions, except by the usual way in which atoms interact.  But they interact that way inside of computers as well.  The brain is more about having quadrillions of pathways for information to travel through and the interlinking of said pathways.  A quantum computer would actually be able to one-up the brain in terms of information processing (way more 'bits', in a manner of speaking, than a neuron due to the many quantum properties you may be able to compute with), but it still wouldn't have that complexity of possible paths for computation that the brain has unless we built it in the same way.  So imagine trying to wire up something like a brain from scratch.
> 
> 
> That would have to be one hell of a powerful computer to process something like that.  It takes some of the most powerful computers in existence today to model even something as relatively simple as a galaxy collision, and even then, you have to do it by substantially decreasing the number of particles involved in the model from what it really is in the universe.  It also takes supercomputers to model the behavior of single molecules under quantum mechanical laws.  So now imagine trying to model several hundred billion (or whatever the order of magnitude is) atoms and molecules all interacting with each other as they do in the brain.  That's a very, very long-term goal in computing power, I think.  I imagine someone will come up with a simpler method before we have that capability.  Just modeling the whole thing under physical laws seems like a really brute force approach to the problem.



We dont know how powerfull computers might get. At some point they might get powerfull enough that we can use computers we built to construct even more powerfull computers. If we start off trying to simulate 1 brain, then maybe we wouldn't have to run the program in real time. Say we set it so the brain/person it it simulating is seeing time passing much much faster than what it feels like is passing. So 1 second the brain feels like has passed is actully hundreads or thousands in the real world. That would allow the program to run with much less resources.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



TreacleFox said:


> The quantum level is complicated but it still has computer definable laws governing it. :S
> 
> EDIT: Im not entirely sure how much of a role quantum mechanics would serve in such a program either, *it might not be nessasry*.



Without quantum mechanics, electronic devices wouldn't work... electricity is a very low level, basic use of quantum forces, a very base use of electron flow to generate power.  The problem you run into is trying to recreate quantum states virtually in an environment already functioning in a quantum state of flux.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

It's not too hard to model probabilistic situations with a computer, actually.  Maybe it seems counter-intuitive, but QM is actually the science with the absolute best precision out of all of them.  So I don't think that would be an issue.


----------



## Deo (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



CannonFodder said:


> However how do you think such technology will start out


They have already started. Sarcos, LOPES, LOKOMAT, ALTACRO, HAL 5, DARPA Arm, Dean Kamen's Arm, Dr. Hubert Egger's Arm, cochlear implants, and the Office of Naval Research and Optobionics both have chips and interfaces that allow the blind to see again. We have robotic knees, and biologically engineered livers, we have lab grown kidneys, we have robotic hearts, and so much more. 
Tell me, how this technology meshing into human perception and the body in modern times is not cybernetic? Cyborgs and the genisis of technology into the flesh is not a pipe dream of the future, this technology walks among us TODAY.



CannonFodder said:


> , when and to what levels do you think it will become a part of our everyday lives?


It will bring back independance to those who lose a limb, or their sight or vision. It will make our soldiers stronger. I don't know if we will "improve" the human body further by adding cybernetic technology to a perfectly healthy body. That seems a little too much "Brave New World" for me. But it is a distinct possiblity. It would be a scary one too. Only the rich would be able to afford such luxuries, and it would set up a wealth and class distinction like never before. 



CannonFodder said:


> Also if you could would you become a cyborg and if so in your book how far would be too far?


I want my hearing back. Nothing more. Unfortunately cochlear implants won't work for me. :\ So no, I don't want technology "enhancing" me. Well, except for a brain-to-internet access. That'd be fucking cool to google shit with my mind and see it in my mind. But that is definitely technology that we won't see for another 40 years. And even then, with the possibility being so tempting I doubt I would.


----------



## Kyrodo (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Deo said:


> Well, except for a brain-to-internet access. That'd be fucking cool to google shit with my mind and see it in my mind. But that is definitely technology that we won't see for another 40 years. And even then, with the possibility being so tempting I doubt I would.


Make sure you use protection. You don't want to catch brain AIDS.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Deo said:


> They have already started. Sarcos, LOPES, LOKOMAT, ALTACRO, HAL 5, DARPA Arm, Dean Kamen's Arm, Dr. Hubert Egger's Arm, cochlear implants, and the Office of Naval Research and Optobionics both have chips and interfaces that allow the blind to see again. We have robotic knees, and biologically engineered livers, we have lab grown kidneys, we have robotic hearts, and so much more.
> Tell me, how this technology meshing into human perception and the body in modern times is not cybernetic? Cyborgs and the genisis of technology into the flesh is not a pipe dream of the future, this technology walks among us TODAY.
> 
> 
> ...


Touche

The class distinction in america is "holy fuck" levels already, honestly the only way I could see the super rich get even more corrupt is if with the new technology making them enhanced they deem themselves gods and pay money for people to worship them.

Whoa, I didn't know you were deaf.

I know using your mind to use the internet and see it in your mind isn't going to be here for a long time.


----------



## Deo (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



CannonFodder said:


> Whoa, I didn't know you were deaf.



Only partially. I have scar tissue on the tympanum of both ears so it muddies sounds together. The most trouble I get is a crowded room and trying to hold a conversation with someone sitting next to me. Everything just sort of blends in with background noise and ugh. But for the most part I'm fine and my deficiency is not really noticeable.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Deo said:


> Only partially. I have scar tissue on the tympanum of both ears so it muddies sounds together. The most trouble I get is a crowded room and trying to hold a conversation with someone sitting next to me.* Everything just sort of blends in with background noise and ugh.* But for the most part I'm fine and my deficiency is not really noticeable.


SHIT!  I thought that was just normal.


----------



## Deo (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



CannonFodder said:


> SHIT!  I thought that was just normal.


Well it sort of is. I got clocked around as a kid and ended up with cauliflower ear and internal scarring. I think you'll be fine bro. Unless you also got socked in the ear a lot.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

I have no moral qualms concerning artificial organs. I embrace change, and the fact that the thousands of "bourgeoise" doctors and designers and programmers will have finally created something they can utilize to liberate themselves from the oppressive "working class".


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Deo said:


> Well it sort of is. I got clocked around as a kid and ended up with cauliflower ear and internal scarring. I think you'll be fine bro. Unless you also got socked in the ear a lot.


I guess I had my hearing damaged when I was a toddler, I'm allergic to cedar and that's pretty much the only tree that grows around here.  So every year I end up getting sick when the trees are pollinated, many times I either end up with bronchitis or ear infection.  When I was little they put tubes in my ears cause of how much it hurt.  I guess all the ear infections damaged it.


----------



## Deo (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



CannonFodder said:


> I guess I had my hearing damaged when I was a toddler, I'm allergic to cedar and that's pretty much the only tree that grows around here.  So every year I end up getting sick when the trees are pollinated, many times I either end up with bronchitis or ear infection.  When I was little they put tubes in my ears cause of how much it hurt.  I guess all the ear infections damaged it.


Um, no. It takes more than ear infections (generally) to cause any hearing loss. Seriously, don't be histrionic. If it bothers you that much get diagnosed. I really hate it when people are like "OMG I AM DEAF TOO! I SELF DIAGNOSE ME!" It's just insulting to those of us who really are. I'm sure Gibby would back me up on that.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Deo said:


> Um, no. It takes more than ear infections (generally) to cause any hearing loss. Seriously, don't be histrionic. If it bothers you that much get diagnosed. I really hate it when people are like "OMG I AM DEAF TOO! I SELF DIAGNOSE ME!" It's just insulting to those of us who really are. I'm sure Gibby would back me up on that.


I know I'm not deaf.



Back on topic I think a ton of people would pay money if when we develop this technology they also have it so you can hook up your body to a video game you're playing or such.  Not like virtual reality, but sensory feedback not just sight or sound, but if they could hook up your sense of taste, touch or smell as well.


----------



## Seas (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

I'd agree to replace my limbs with cybernetical ones if they have much better performance in their function and don't cripple me if they don't get regular maintenance that can't be done personally. 
I'd love to do freerunning with extreme speed and inhuman reflexes without getting tired. That'd be a nice dose of adrenaline.
I'd keep my mostly-natural brain/hormones/feelings though, except if there would be advanced cybernetic replacement that can simulate all of these while still having improved efficiency.

Despite all of these, I still like the idea of advanced gene manipulation/bio-modification more. 
A person could have any kind of body and improved functionality in all organs without any possible drawbacks of mechanics/electronics.


----------



## Rilvor (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Seas said:


> Despite all of these, I still like the idea of advanced gene manipulation/bio-modification more.
> A person could have any kind of body and improved functionality in all organs without any possible drawbacks of mechanics/electronics.



Likely both will become available.

Like I said, it will be a matter of choice.

Flesh or Metal?

Coke or Pepsi?


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Rilvor said:


> Likely both will become available.
> 
> Like I said, it will be a matter of choice.
> 
> ...


I'd chose both!


----------



## Perception (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

I would support them, but im not sure to what extent. I mean we wouldn't want to end up as humanoid robots...


----------



## TreacleFox (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

I dont think getting mechinical parts of your body would be a good idea unless you could be able to feel them and they look similar to the normal human parts.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



TreacleFox said:


> I dont think getting mechinical parts of your body would be a good idea unless you could be able to feel them and they look similar to the normal human parts.


 Well obviously.


Ajsforg said:


> I would support them, but im not sure to what extent. I mean we wouldn't want to end up as humanoid robots...


Honestly it wouldn't surprise me if next century we do, the technology is going to eventually happen.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

Such mechanical devices[augmentations ] could be useful, but I believe the true breakthrough will be reached through our own bodies.
You don't need a mechanical heart when your body regenerates on it's own faster than usual. Take cancer, take liver - both have regenerating cells. Why not implant that ability in other organs, and refine it? Then, there would be less of a need to carry metals inside your body. 

Even though, we have yet to completely understand the brain, and I doubt we ever will. Replace or upgrade my limbs, that's fine, but I'd rather keep my mind intact. Machines can and will be stronger than my brain, but no machine is able to substitute it.
Can you massage a titanium leg?
The availability will cause riots though. Relligious people will deny it, and since even a modest surgery nowadays is so expensive... Something is going to be in the way. Even though, since we advance at an alarming rate, I believe most of us here will get to see a major improvement of lifespan, which will hopefully lead to another, and another - until a final solution is reached. Let's just hope that if we get to see things like that, we'll be able to pay for it when we need it.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Satellite One said:


> Such mechanical devices[augmentations ] could be useful, but I believe the true breakthrough will be reached through our own bodies.
> You don't need a mechanical heart when your body regenerates on it's own faster than usual. Take cancer, take liver - both have regenerating cells. Why not implant that ability in other organs, and refine it? Then, there would be less of a need to carry metals inside your body.
> 
> 
> The availability will cause riots though. Relligious people will deny it, and since even a modest surgery nowadays is so expensive... Something is going to be in the way. Even though, since we advance at an alarming rate, I believe most of us here will get to see a major improvement of lifespan, which will hopefully lead to another, and another - until a final solution is reached. Let's just hope that if we get to see things like that, we'll be able to pay for it when we need it.


Cancer doesn't work that way.

Cybernetics will be one of the great societal pushes in the future, and considering the imminent shitfest we'll probably even see a rights movement for the users.


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

Cybernetic limbs, cybernetic implants to boost our capabilities? If i was a rich bastard and the tech was failsafe, i'd go for it, but only if it was really necessary. I don't need an eye replaced with crap when it works just fine.


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

i would support it but i wouldnt want to have it in my own body of i dont need it. but if i would happen to lose a limb and this technology is available id be very glas about it!
in my opinion technology exists to make peoples lifes more comfortable and to help them when they need it. if cybernetic augmentations can do that then im all for it!


----------



## Dj_whoohoo (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

I would not support it , unless it's is for a good cause like an army vet who loses his legs.
It would be going to far if you have these augments in your body if your not hurt. It would be going too far if your 50 % robot.

But other than that really, it sounds very scary knowing that in the future. The medicial field is not good enough to save your body.
So they will just get you augment to be good as new. Instead of being "natural" , but then again imagining all the possibility of being augment is cool. 

And what I mean by that is a deformed child with no legs , or have a combine twin could both live normally. That kid with no legs will feel the air when he runs against it . 
The two combine twins will live normalish lives knowing they have a full body, and is not sharing the same two arms.

People will cancerous organs can just swap out for these "augments" .  And since this is a forum for furries , the extreme furries , who are in so much love with their "inner animal" , could get augments to make themselves more animal than before. But it still says that medicine is not that great in the future if they can't heal you and you gotta get augs.
It would be a huge push for the medical field , but also very dangerous and ethincal problems will come with it.


----------



## Deo (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Dj_whoohoo said:


> I would not support it , unless it's is for a good cause like an army vet who loses his legs.
> It would be going to far if you have these augments in your body if your not hurt. It would be going too far if your 50 % robot.


Just to play Devil's advocate, why would it be going to far to be 50% robot?  Why would it be wrong to be 99% robot? What is your reason that such advanced levels of roboticism in the human body is bad and should not be supported?



Dj_whoohoo said:


> But other than that really, it sounds very scary knowing that in the future. The medicial field is not good enough to save your body.
> So they will just get you augment to be good as new. Instead of being "natural" , but then again imagining all the possibility of being augment is cool.


If the cybernetic technology is better than a more human patch of cells, and easier/cheaper/longer lasting, why would it be so wrong to choose robitcs instead of "natural" flesh? It is far easier to build a robotic prosthetic than to lab grow a limb, the mucles/tissues/nerves/skin are so complex that the feat of growing an arm is not something we are going to see for at least another 20 years. And even then they would not be able to specifically grow one on a person by person basis because of the time involved and huge amount of money. And a person with such a "natural" arm would have to take medication to not reject the arm every day for the rest of their life, and even then their body may still reject the arm. Whereas the body would not reject a cybernetic arm.




Dj_whoohoo said:


> But it still says that medicine is not that great in the future if they can't heal you and you gotta get augs.
> It would be a huge push for the medical field , but also very dangerous and ethincal problems will come with it.


Again, why heal when you can improve? And why heal a person at monumental costs and enslave them to pharmaceuticals for the rest of their life when instead you could give them an arm that never tires?


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Dj_whoohoo said:


> And since this is a forum for furries , the extreme furries , who are in so much love with their "inner animal" , could get augments to make themselves more animal than before.


Oh dear, real life furries >_<
Atleast it wouldn't be as stupid as the people who propose genetic engineering for that sort of stuff, cause they'd actually be able to make them look like the drawings and that instead of, "kill me" levels of eye horror.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

Shit, man.  I'd totally go for the cyborg dragon-man look, myself.  That'd be fucking badass.


----------



## Tycho (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



M. Le Renard said:


> Shit, man.  I'd totally go for the cyborg dragon-man look, myself.  That'd be fucking badass.



No, wait, even better - go "Beast Wars Transformer".  That way you'll get to make the cool "Transformer sound" when you enter full-on robofurfag mode.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Tycho said:


> No, wait, even better - go "Beast Wars Transformer".  That way you'll get to make the cool "Transformer sound" when you enter full-on robofurfag mode.


Autobots rollout!


----------



## Sar (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

As long as my arms have swiss army knife functions like an egg whisk, a saw, a chainsaw launcher, etc.
Thats as far as ill go with it.


----------



## Tomias_Redford (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

I wouldn't mind getting an augmented upgrade to my brain that could improve it's processing power.  Humans use something like 5% of thier full mental capacity.  I want to find out what would happen if we unlocked more of that.  Similar to the way you add more ROM to your computer to make it run faster, similar idea here.  I like to thinkt hat superpowers such as Telekinesis or Telepathy and such would be possible, but of course thats just the X-Men fanboy inside me voicing his opinion.  

Of course, if that really did happen, I'd so want Telekinesis...


----------



## Kyrodo (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

I wouldn't mind being nearly a full blown cyborg, perhaps further as long as I can retain my emotions, personality, etc. as well as my basic senses. Kinda reminds me of Ghost in the Shell. Although transforming into a robo-furfag is admittedly a tempting but comical idea.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Deo said:


> If the cybernetic technology is better than a more human patch of cells, and easier/cheaper/longer lasting, why would it be so wrong to choose robitcs instead of "natural" flesh? It is far easier to build a robotic prosthetic than to lab grow a limb, the mucles/tissues/nerves/skin are so complex that the feat of growing an arm is not something we are going to see for at least another 20 years. *And even then they would not be able to specifically grow one on a person by person basis because of the time involved and huge amount of money. And a person with such a "natural" arm would have to take medication to not reject the arm every day for the rest of their life, and even then their body may still reject the arm.* Whereas the body would not reject a cybernetic arm.



I have to disagree.  When it comes to regeneration of limbs, the idea would be to regrow the limb just like a lizard regrows its tail.  And even if the limb was lab-grown and attached, in order to fit the person, it would have to be grown from their own cells.  Yes, it would take time and money, but either way, that's already a given.  The whole point of regrowing organs and body parts is to avoid the whole "donor" thing... the rejection.  So, any tech for regrowing organs/limbs will involve (and has involved, in research) using the patient's own tissues.  Or "sythetic" tissues that don't have the problem of rejection.

Far as I know, the whole push for this tech is to eliminate the rejection factor of donor organs, as well as to deal with the problem of donor organ availability.  Not enough people donate to help all those in need.




M. Le Renard said:


> Shit, man.  *I'd totally go for the cyborg dragon-man look, myself.*  That'd be fucking badass.



Reminds me of that episode of Ghost In The Shell where we met a guy who'd replaced his body with... a box with "legs".  Really, if you had a full-body prosthetic, you could have it designed to look however you wanted it to look.  Even add a custom flame paint job, if you were the hot-rodder type.




Tycho said:


> No, wait, *even better - go "Beast Wars Transformer"*.  That way you'll get to make the cool "Transformer sound" when you enter full-on robofurfag mode.



That would definitely be some badass tech, but I'd just stick with an autobot "transformer" design... I wouldn't mind being a Camero at will.




CannonFodder said:


> Autobots rollout!



Exactly!


----------



## Ames (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

I want to be like Ash from Evil Dead


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Roose Hurro said:


> Reminds me of that episode of Ghost In The Shell where we met a guy who'd replaced his body with... a box with "legs".  Really, if you had a full-body prosthetic, you could have it designed to look however you wanted it to look.  Even add a custom flame paint job, if you were the hot-rodder type.


 Well there'd be no real point in having your cybernetic body to look like you before, you could be anything, a transformer, a real life furry, a terminator.


Kyrodo said:


> I wouldn't mind being nearly a full blown cyborg, perhaps further as long as I can retain my emotions, personality, etc. as well as my basic senses. Kinda reminds me of Ghost in the Shell. Although transforming into a robo-furfag is admittedly a tempting but comical idea.


It'd be highly possible really, when the tech behind it became cheap enough, like waay off in the future, you could just order a mod kit to change your outer appearance.


----------



## Deo (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Roose Hurro said:


> I have to disagree.  When it comes to regeneration of limbs, the idea would be to regrow the limb just like a lizard regrows its tail.  And even if the limb was lab-grown and attached, in order to fit the person, it would have to be grown from their own cells.  Yes, it would take time and money, but either way, that's already a given.  The whole point of regrowing organs and body parts is to avoid the whole "donor" thing... the rejection.  So, any tech for regrowing organs/limbs will involve (and has involved, in research) using the patient's own tissues.  Or "sythetic" tissues that don't have the problem of rejection.


You don't understand. Organs are generally made up of the same tissue (same cells) with things like bloodvessels and such running though that tissue. A limb is not an organ. It's a much more complex integration of different organs/moving parts/muscles/etc. The limb is so much more complex than say, growing a portion of liver. It has to resist impacts, balance, feel heat/pressure, have reflexes, and have a complex network of nerves. (Because flesh needs reflexes and feeling to protect it.) To be honest this is easier to make and faster/cheaper using robotics. To regenerate like lizards we would have to alter the DNA or "write" new DNA in every single cell (trillions) or engineer children. Wither way that's loads more fucked up than robotic arms.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



			
				Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> Really, if you had a full-body prosthetic, you could have it designed to look however you wanted it to look. Even add a custom flame paint job, if you were the hot-rodder type.





			
				CannonFodder said:
			
		

> Well there'd be no real point in having your cybernetic body to look like you before, you could be anything, a transformer, a real life furry, a terminator.



Exactly!  Who would be so lame as to just pick the exact same body again, only augmented with robotics?  And hell, you could have multiple bodies if the brain was cybernetic.  Backups, if you will, or just if you happen to get tired of one you can switch to another for a while.  The possibilities are endless.
I'd take full advantage of that if I had the opportunity, for sure.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



M. Le Renard said:


> Exactly!  Who would be so lame as to just pick the exact same body again, only augmented with robotics?  And hell, you could have multiple bodies if the brain was cybernetic.  Backups, if you will, or just if you happen to get tired of one you can switch to another for a while.  The possibilities are endless.
> I'd take full advantage of that if I had the opportunity, for sure.


Around what year do you think this sort of tech will be cheap enough for the general population to buy and at that level?


----------



## M. LeRenard (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

No clue.  Ask Raymond Kurzweil.


----------



## Rilvor (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



CannonFodder said:


> Around what year do you think this sort of tech will be cheap enough for the general population to buy and at that level?



If you live long enough in a Cyber body, it hardly matters.


----------



## Wreth (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

You will be upgraded, or you will be deleted.


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_FRI8NZ068...x1AM/s1600/tumblr_l1cz4nmeKf1qa7yfto1_500.jpg


----------



## Tycho (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Wreth said:


> You will be upgraded, or you will be deleted.
> 
> 
> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_FRI8NZ068...x1AM/s1600/tumblr_l1cz4nmeKf1qa7yfto1_500.jpg



They look like walking kitchen appliances.  Any wonder the Doctor could defeat them?


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Tycho said:


> They look like walking kitchen appliances.  Any wonder the Doctor could defeat them?


What do you think the middle chest piece is for?  Cybermaytag washing machines, wash your armor in the convenience of your own armor.


----------



## Spatel (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

I'm skeptical that cybernetic parts will ever match organic parts. By the time machines start outperforming muscle... they will BE muscle, with all the blood vessels, repair systems, and self-replicating abilities human cells have. We are already machines, and our hardware is the best hardware. The transhumanist future will be all about improving the systems we have. It's a future of genetic engineering and growing new parts in vats. We'll get very far with that before we find anything better.

Deep Blue might've beaten Garry Kasparov, but only by the skin of its teeth. Kasparov's brain takes the same amount of energy as an 86 mhz laptop, and he can walk out of the room with it. It's lightweight, it's efficient, and it's a million times more robust. An organic brain the size of Deep Blue would mop the floor with Deep Blue.


----------



## Moonfall The Fox (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

I'd use them but only if something went wrong. The only exception to that is that I would LOVE a tail. I would get a prostetic of that anyday, especially if it were fluffy and my brain were able to control it.


----------



## Leafblower29 (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

I'll accept it as long as it is fully open source and has no internet, 3G, or similar types of connections.


----------



## Deo (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Spatel said:


> I'm skeptical that cybernetic parts will ever match organic parts. By the time machines start outperforming muscle... they will BE muscle, with all the blood vessels, repair systems, and self-replicating abilities human cells have.


Actually that day came and went a loooooong time ago. Cybernetic parts now far surpass organic (in what we are capable of making and implanting). We have cameras that interface with the human brain and optical nerves, where we cannot grow a human eye and mesh it back into the optical nerves. And guess what? They aren't muscle. Just really awesome medical technology. WE LIVE IN THE FUTURE!!! *X-Files music pls*



Spatel said:


> We are already machines, and our hardware is the best hardware. The transhumanist future will be all about improving the systems we have. It's a future of genetic engineering and growing new parts in vats. We'll get very far with that before we find anything better.


We are highly advanced with growing organs and such, but not far enough to grow more complex structures like legs (that have to balance, withstand impacts, reflex, etc). Yes, we can grow liver tissue. But we cannot grow an eye or an ear. And no this doesn't count because it is not functional at all, only asthetic, but I know lots of people think of this when they think "ZOMG WE ARE GROWING BODY PARTS!"


----------



## Krystal Harmonia (Sep 11, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

Does anyone remember that old space pirate from the Disney "Treasure Planet"? 'Cuz his arm was pretty badass. It was like the Swiss army knife of limbs.


----------



## Stratto the Hawk (Sep 12, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

I immediately thought of the movie Repo Men when I read the title. That's about the point where I draw the line, although more to do with the ability to "repossess" something critical to someone's survival, rather than the technology itself. I would be perfectly fine with a Ghost in the Shell like world as well.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 12, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Leafblower29 said:


> I'll accept it as long as it is fully open source and has no internet, 3G, or similar types of connections.


There's a app for that.


----------



## Stratto the Hawk (Sep 12, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Leafblower29 said:


> I'll accept it as long as it is fully open source and has no internet, 3G, or similar types of connections.


http://xkcd.com/644/

It's times like these that I wish I was using (or that I hadn't messed up my install of) Linux. ;v;


----------



## Corto (Sep 12, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

The moment these become accesible is the moment I grab an axe and chop off my own limbs.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 12, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Corto said:


> The moment these become accesible is the moment I grab an axe and chop off my own limbs.


I sure hope you mean just your hands and legs.


----------



## Stratto the Hawk (Sep 12, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Corto said:


> The moment these become accesible is the moment I grab an axe and chop off my own limbs.



Good luck with that after chopping off your first arm. :V


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 12, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Stratto the Hawk said:


> Good luck with that after chopping off your first arm. :V


I would axe him if he was okay if he did.  I'd always saw if he actually got the cyborg parts and drill for answers why he did something that stupid.


----------



## Corto (Sep 12, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

Your face is stupid. If I could replace everything in my body with awesome robo parts I'd do it. A robo arm than can be replaced with a robo chainsaw, some robo legs that turn into wheels, a robo dong that is also a flamethrower.


----------



## DevistatedDrone (Sep 12, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

I would try my hardest to not have robotic/cybernetic vital organs for the sole reason that I like to hug my microwave whenever I'm making cup-o-noodle.

I'm all for other enhancements, though. MACHINECOCK!!!!


----------



## Kyrodo (Sep 12, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

An arm for an arm, a leg for a leg. An arm and a leg? Oh what fun~


----------



## Don (Sep 12, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

Only through the purifying sanctity of the machine can humanity ascend before the eyes of Omnissiah.

Yeah, I'm _way_ too much into Warhammer 40,000. But yes, I'd most certainly get cybernetic replacement limbs if I had the money and they didn't have ridiculous features. I wouldn't be particularly concerned about aesthetics either, and I'd intentionally get them without false skin and so forth.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 12, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Don said:


> Only through the purifying sanctity of the machine can humanity ascend before the eyes of Omnissiah.
> 
> Yeah, I'm _way_ too much into Warhammer 40,000. But yes, I'd most certainly get cybernetic replacement limbs if I had the money and they didn't have ridiculous features. I wouldn't be particularly concerned about aesthetics either, and I'd intentionally get them without false skin and so forth.


Would you go without pain sensors?


----------



## Tycho (Sep 12, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Corto said:


> a robo dong that is also a flamethrower.



*backseat of car*
WOMAN: "Oh, I think I forgot my pill.  Oops."
FLAMEDONG GUY: "Oh, no problem. *secretly switches robodong to Extra Crispy*"


----------



## lupinealchemist (Sep 12, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

I'd be worried about hidden killswitches in the cyber pieces, similar to what my grandpa thinks that there are killswitches in updated microsoft computers in order to crackdown hacking and piracy.


----------



## Tycho (Sep 12, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



lupinealchemist said:


> I'd be worried about hidden killswitches in the cyber pieces, similar to what my grandpa thinks that there are killswitches in updated microsoft computers in order to crackdown hacking and piracy.



Pretty sure shit like that has been CONFIRMED before.  Not necessarily Microsoft, but...


----------



## Don (Sep 12, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



CannonFodder said:


> Would you go without pain sensors?



I'm sure that by the point they've created efficient, effective, and (relatively) mass-producible augmentic limbs that they'll have sensors to report damage without pain.


----------



## Dj_whoohoo (Sep 12, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

It would be going to far if you have to put a plug yourself in to the wall to get going


----------



## Kyrodo (Sep 12, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Dj_whoohoo said:


> It would be going to far if you have to put a plug yourself in to the wall to get going


Need to recharge my flaming dong, be right back.


----------



## Telnac (Sep 13, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

I totally support cybernetic implants.  How far is too far?  There is no such thing.


----------



## Lunar (Sep 13, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

Of course I support it.  In my opinion, we've moved too fast with technology in the past decade or two, and most of it's been for useless stuff: new Smartphones, better televisions, all this fancy social networking and whatnot that we really don't need.  Why hasn't anyone started on these implants and the cyborg material sooner?  You'd think that would be more of a priority than a faster Internet.


----------



## ampersandestet (Sep 13, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

I am in full favour of full-prosthetic upgrades, provided that consciousness can avoid singularity.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 13, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



ampersandestet said:


> I am in full favour of full-prosthetic upgrades,* provided that consciousness can avoid singularity*.


You will be assimilated, resistance is futile!


----------



## Xeno (Sep 13, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

I support augments until the point where you have no personality and lack the ability to think.


----------



## Heimdal (Sep 13, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

Cybernetics? Disregarding the vague levels of technology thrown about in this thread, a great many people can already be considered to be under the use of this kind of technology. I'd be in bad condition without artificial insulin. That counts.

Anyways, would I support what is essentially 'medical technology' in the future? Well... Yeah. To what extent? To its full extent.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 13, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Heimdal said:


> Cybernetics? Disregarding the vague levels of technology thrown about in this thread, a great many people can already be considered to be under the use of this kind of technology. I'd be in bad condition without artificial insulin. That counts.
> 
> Anyways, would I support what is essentially 'medical technology' in the future? Well... Yeah. To what extent? To its full extent.


Depends, like would you support ghost in the shell type of technology?  What about where we no longer have a use for organic bodies? Think science fiction.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 13, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



CannonFodder said:


> Depends, like *would you support ghost in the shell type of technology?*  What about where we no longer have a use for organic bodies? Think science fiction.



I always think science fiction when it comes to "future" tech possibilities.  And yes, I would support Ghost In The Shell type tech.  If I'm gonna ever need to replace my entire body (after wearing my organic form out), yes, I'd want that level of sophistication in a full-body prosthesis.  Just like Major Kusinagi (or however you spell her last name).  Though personally, to avoid all that "regular high-end maintenence", I'd like to add auto-repair capability, using nanotech.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 13, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Roose Hurro said:


> I always think science fiction when it comes to "future" tech possibilities.  And yes, I would support Ghost In The Shell type tech.  If I'm gonna ever need to replace my entire body (after wearing my organic form out), yes, I'd want that level of sophistication in a full-body prosthesis.  Just like Major Kusinagi (or however you spell her last name).  Though personally, to avoid all that "regular high-end maintenence", I'd like to add auto-repair capability, using nanotech.


The problem is realistically speaking if we go that way with our tech, starting out we would need high end maintenance.  However it's also possible that once it becomes widespread and after a decade or two they would fix that problem.  What I am hoping for is that the mechanisms become modular, that way if something does break they would be able to get in, take out the piece that broke, replace it, close you up quickly.


----------



## Spatel (Sep 13, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Deo said:


> Actually that day came and went a loooooong time ago. Cybernetic parts now far surpass organic (in what we are capable of making and implanting). We have cameras that interface with the human brain and optical nerves, where we cannot grow a human eye and mesh it back into the optical nerves. And guess what? They aren't muscle. Just really awesome medical technology. WE LIVE IN THE FUTURE!!! *X-Files music pls*



They can't repair themselves or interface with the body they're attached to. They are crude prosthetics, far less useful than the organs they're trying to replace. Mechanical parts wear and tear over time. They need to be cleaned. They need to be powered. They don't last.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 13, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Spatel said:


> They can't repair themselves or interface with the body they're attached to. They are crude prosthetics, far less useful than the organs they're trying to replace. Mechanical parts wear and tear over time. They need to be cleaned. They need to be powered. *They don't last.*



I just read in my issue of Car and Driver that the average lifespan of an automobile is LESS than ten years.  Funny story:  My car is 11 years old, and still running like a champ.  I'll most likely still be driving it in another 11 years... and another 11 years after that, if I live that long.


----------



## Telnac (Sep 14, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



ampersandestet said:


> I am in full favour of full-prosthetic upgrades, provided that consciousness can avoid singularity.


Sadly, the Technological Singularity almost certainly won't happen.  (I say sadly b/c I'd want my brain wired to the system if it could!)  There are no true geometric curves in nature, and the nature of our advancing technology is no different.  What's happening instead is technology is increasing at a very rapid pace that's accelerating because we haven't yet begun to approach the limit of all there is to know.  As we approach that limit, new inventions will be harder and harder to create because we will have already invented most everything we could!

The limiting factor is the laws of physics.  Moore's Law can hold only so long as we can find ways to make smaller & smaller transistors.  When our transistors get so small that they start to approach single molecule devices, they'll become exponentially harder to shrink.  By the time we invent AI that approaches the intelligence of a human being, we will already be damn close to that limit.  How do I know that?  Because the human brain is already a very efficient processor of information!  Will we make smarter machines?  Of course.  Will they be millions or billions of times smarter than us?  No.  And more than that: by the time we can create machines that are 2-5x as smart as we are, we will almost certainly find ways to enhance the human brain to allow us to be that smart, too.  But I really don't think we'll find a way to get much smarter than that, short of throwing caution to the wind and becoming the Borg (something I support 100%, btw!)


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 14, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Telnac said:


> Sadly, the Technological Singularity almost certainly won't happen.  (I say sadly b/c I'd want my brain wired to the system if it could!)  There are no true geometric curves in nature, and the nature of our advancing technology is no different.  What's happening instead is technology is increasing at a very rapid pace that's accelerating because we haven't yet begun to approach the limit of all there is to know.  As we approach that limit, new inventions will be harder and harder to create because we will have already invented most everything we could!
> 
> The limiting factor is the laws of physics.  Moore's Law can hold only so long as we can find ways to make smaller & smaller transistors.  When our transistors get so small that they start to approach single molecule devices, they'll become exponentially harder to shrink.  By the time we invent AI that approaches the intelligence of a human being, we will already be damn close to that limit.  How do I know that?  Because the human brain is already a very efficient processor of information!  Will we make smarter machines?  Of course.  Will they be millions or billions of times smarter than us?  No.  And more than that: by the time we can create machines that are 2-5x as smart as we are, we will almost certainly find ways to enhance the human brain to allow us to be that smart, too.  But I really don't think we'll find a way to get much smarter than that, short of throwing caution to the wind and becoming the Borg (something I support 100%, btw!)


Oh oh, someone that knows about this topic.
P.s. you just blew my mind.

Also I don't support becoming the borg per say, what I would support however could be described as think tank.  So instead of a hivemind, we'd share computational power.  So if someone is working at the LHC or something the people would be able to share their thinking power with each other and bounce ideas off each other at the speed of electricity!  Imagine how fast we would advance though if millions of people could all crunch information as a collective?


----------



## Telnac (Sep 15, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



CannonFodder said:


> Also I don't support becoming the borg per say, what I would support however could be described as think tank.  So instead of a hivemind, we'd share computational power.  So if someone is working at the LHC or something the people would be able to share their thinking power with each other and bounce ideas off each other at the speed of electricity!  Imagine how fast we would advance though if millions of people could all crunch information as a collective?


Ooo... taking the concept of cloud computing and applying it to the human brain!  I highly approve! :mrgreen:


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 15, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Telnac said:


> Ooo... taking the concept of cloud computing and applying it to the human brain!  I highly approve! :mrgreen:


Imagine how fast we would advance technologically wise if a couple million people were cloud computing?


----------



## Mentova (Sep 15, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

I can't believe there hasn't been a "I didn't ask for this!" or "My vision is augmented." post yet. This is the perfect thread for deus ex references. :C

And I would totally be for this. I want vision enhancements, cloaking tech, and augmented arms with blades so I can live my dreams of being a future ex-swat guy damnit.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 15, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Heckler & Koch said:


> I can't believe there hasn't been a "I didn't ask for this!" or "My vision is augmented." post yet. This is the perfect thread for deus ex references. :C
> 
> And I would totally be for this. I want vision enhancements, cloaking tech, and augmented arms with blades so I can live my dreams of being a future ex-swat guy damnit.


I did make a Deus Ex reference, we haven't really been nerding out this thread though.


----------



## Mentova (Sep 15, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



CannonFodder said:


> I did make a Deus Ex reference, we haven't really been nerding out this thread though.


What a shame.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 15, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Heckler & Koch said:


> What a shame.


But my vision would be one of the first things for me to augment, cause I hate wearing glasses.


----------



## Karnak (Sep 15, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

http://articles.nydailynews.com/201...ical-heart-artificial-heart-surgical-director

Dick chaney has no pulse with artifical heart pump

its pretty creepy but i agree with yahtzee of zero punctuation when he says people who advocate a world free of technology should be dumped with nothing but a fig leaf into the jungle. He goes on to remind us that we suppliment our bodies with technology daily with mobile phones for one thing. The only danger is if control of the new technology is monopolized in a single groups hands, cybernetics better be open source is all i'm saying


----------



## Tycho (Sep 15, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Telnac said:


> Ooo... taking the concept of cloud computing and applying it to the human brain!  I highly approve! :mrgreen:



Fuuuuuuck that.   GTFO of my brain everybody.  Personal space, respect it.


----------



## Karnak (Sep 15, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

not up for telepathy then? well i dont mean for NO WALLS NO BOUNDARIES NO PRIVACY lol its not like you log onto the internet and every web page out there loads at once. I wouldnt want to be one of the Borg either


----------



## Kyrodo (Sep 15, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

Any kind of hive mind crap is too far for me XD Just putting that out there.


----------



## Sar (Sep 15, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Kyrodo said:


> Although transforming into a robo-furfag is admittedly a tempting but comical idea.


Surely you would want something like Stealth-camoflauge than ears and a tail. (Both would work.)


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 15, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Karnak said:


> http://articles.nydailynews.com/201...ical-heart-artificial-heart-surgical-director


 No matter how many times God tries to kill Dick Cheney, he just can't kill a politician with the buddha cheat code from HL2 on.


Tycho said:


> Fuuuuuuck that.   GTFO of my brain everybody.  Personal space, respect it.


 Good news everybody!  Professor Farnsworth is already in your head.


Kyrodo said:


> Any kind of hive mind crap is too far for me XD Just putting that out there.


For me depends on what type of hive mind,
borg: no
geth: yes, because they just communicate so fast that what to us seems like a short time, to them it sees like a entirety and can reach a general consensus quickly from human viewpoint.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Sep 15, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

If you want a hive mind, Conjoiners are the way to go. Just wait for a more advanced version of the BrainGate, add radio elements and you're set.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 15, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Gryphoneer said:


> If you want a hive mind, Conjoiners are the way to go. Just wait for a more advanced version of the BrainGate, add radio elements and you're set.


I like the idea of the conjoiners.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 15, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*

Thought I'd throw this in, just for fun:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iks8HAq7Q30&feature=related


----------



## Mentova (Sep 15, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Sarukai said:


> Surely you would want something like Stealth-camoflauge than ears and a tail. (Both would work.)


There are about a billion different aug ideas that I would rather have than robo ears and robo tails.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 15, 2011)

*Re: In the future would you support cybernetic prosthetics and how far would be too f*



Heckler & Koch said:


> There are about a billion different aug ideas that I would rather have than robo ears and robo tails.


I'd want rocket powered fists.


----------

