[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

Search:


View post   

>> No.3641886 [View]
File: 74 KB, 771x500, event_horizon_6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

You go to hell.

Hope to Christ nothing comes back with you.

>> No.2414764 [View]
File: 74 KB, 771x500, eventhorizon.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2414764

>>2414399
>>2414420

Your eyes are just high resolution arrays of individual sensors that give a different signal to the brain when they are struck by varying wavelengths of light. They are nothing special.

It is your BRAIN that allows you to actually make sense of the storm of information your eyes give you. One artificial vision study I heard of a long time ago (but alas cannot recall the source) comes to mind wherein a camera was attached to a device that rested on a blind person's tongue. The device resting on the person's tongue would apply varying degrees of pressure on the person's tongue based on the intensity of light striking the individual pixels of the camera.

Put simply, imagine a grid of 10,000 pixels on the camera connected pixel-by-pixel to a grid of 10,000 tiny 'legs' pressed up against a person's tongue. Imagine, for example, that the more light a pixel gets, the more force it's associated 'leg' exerts on the person's tongue.

The results of this experiment showed that in a matter of weeks, formerly blind people were able to 'see' black and white images using the device.

Again, I recall hearing about this study from a long time ago, I don't have the sauce off the top of my head, but if you google "Artificial Vision" or similar topics I'm sure you can find it.

In short: Yes, OP. You can make an artificial eye, it doesn't have to be someone else's eye, it can be a camera. Yes OP, depending on how you arrange the sensors and haptic interface, your brain is generally sharp enough to 'figure out' how to interpret a signal if it needs to.

tl;dr Artificial eyes are not only possible, but have been done before. Google it.

Pic unrelated, because you don't need eyes where you're going.

>> No.1859236 [View]
File: 74 KB, 771x500, eventhorizon.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1859236

>>1859102
There's a number of biological impediments to human cryogenic freezing. First off there's a phenomenal cellular degeneration and dehydration risk that there's very little you can do about. No matter how fast you freeze yourself, consider your skin completely gone, at best you'll look like that one chick who got in the drunk driving accident they show all the kids these days to scare them into driving sober. At worst you're completely conscious of every cell in your body dying for the duration of your freeze, in a living hell for however long you've frozen yourself.

There's not really much 'advancement' in cryogenic freezing. You freeze shit and biological processes stop. It's pretty straightforeward and accomplished what big research wants to accomplish with it. Of course it doesn't stop neural activity as salt generated electricity doesn't give two shits about what chemical processes consider 'cold' (you approach absolute zero before that starts to matter) so assuming you weren't killed outright you'd be conscious for the entirety of your freezing. You just wouldn't be able to move, breath, see, or feel. Of course it doesn't matter, you wouldn't need eyes where you're going.

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]