/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10571065]

Is the issue with cybernetic enhancement in our future probable or is it just a pop sci-fi daydream? I’ve been personally fascinated with it since I was a kid when I first saw it in stuff like in the Deus Ex game. It didn’t make me a weeb for transhumanism but made me want to work on making better prosthetics once I get my ME degree. However, I was thinking about what controversy would result if they ended up becoming better than they were before, sort of like that Paralympic runner who committed murder a couple years ago. Are we progressing this technology fast enough where this could be an issue before the close of the century? Are there any books or scientific publications anyone can recommend to read through regarding this?

[Anonymous No.10571103]

>>10571065
It's definitely probable, lots of work on it being done right now. Musk has Neuralink, and there are working prototypes of prosthetic that have a sense of feeling

[Anonymous No.10571116]

Machines or genetic engineering making a group of people that are objectively superior is really not going to be an issue. It's complete sci-fi fantasy. After all, we have already have castes of superior people for as long as humanity has existed. The elite, the rich, the famous, royalty, church leaders; people who can afford cybernetic or genetic enhancements will just be the latest in along line of people with an advantage. At worst, it will be like people whining about the 1%ers. Just a minority of bored college students throwing some pathetic little riots until they get bored of it and find some new thing to get outraged about.

[Anonymous No.10571138]

>>10571116
Do you think if it became more accessible it would be an issue? I see what you’re saying if it was just the tip top people possessing it but what if there was a large swathe of people possessing enhancements since someone thought “this is a marketable product”. (This question is sort of branching out from the OP since this is becoming more “what if” rather than “can we” so if it’s not possibly gonna get cheaper ignore this)

[Anonymous No.10571140]

>>10571065
>> is it just a pop sci-fi daydream?
currently it is. We don't have a good way to make stable neural interfaces. If you can't control limbs, there's no point in ripping them off and bolting new ones on.
>> Are we progressing this technology fast enough where this could be an issue before the close of the century?
hopefully. Biology is hard and we do not understand it all that well. Making neural interfaces is going to require a great deal of science, engineering, and medicine to realize. Just making good limbs is difficult to. There's connecting limbs to the body, which might get weird when parts have to go through/connect to skin. Connecting stiff metal part to soft jelly is a hard problem. The metal part tends to rip out(OUCH!). By mass, our actuators aren't as strong as muscle.
>>I was thinking about what controversy would result if they ended up becoming better than they were before
that's been done to death. There's the possibility that becoming better might come at a cost. For example, one scenario presented in deus ex is that you have to keep taking a drug for the rest of your life otherwise your body rejects the implants. That could actually happen. Artificial limbs can't self heal so break down could be an issue, and maintenance will certainly be necessary. There's also the risk that because some of these operations are irreversible, so once better tech comes out you might be stuck with it.
>>publications
this came out recently:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/578542v1

[Anonymous No.10571189]

>>10571065
>>10571140

I think that it will be achievable once we finally learn the codes represented by our neurons firing their electro-chemical signals. Once we're able to grasp things like this, we can move on to creating artificial extensions of our nervous system for our brain to interact with.
I could imagine very easily things like exo-suits built using lab-grown muscles, with an artificial respiratory system and all to keep them going.

The machines and computers of the future will appear more biological than they will mechanical, if I had to guess.

[Anonymous No.10571216]

>>10571189
>>once we finally learn the codes represented by our neurons firing their electro-chemical signals
it doesn't matter worth a damn if we've decoded them if we can't read or write to them. That's why we need stable neural interfaces. Current neural interfaces tend to cause neurons to die. Second, the brain's pretty good at learning to use whatever shit's attached:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSkcF6nuoQ
That monkey's driving the arm with its brain. Sure if you chop off your legs and put cyberlegs on you'll have to relearn how to walk, but you'll have to do that anyway because the dynamics will be slightly different.
>>exo-suits
if you use muscle, they'll be merely as good as a body builder.
>> lab-grown muscles, with an artificial respiratory system
we cannot grow vasculature. Because of this, lab grown muscle bigger than about 0.5 mm in diameter forms a necrotic core because it can't get nutrients.
>> machines and computers of the future will appear more biological
Biological computers are pretty unlikely. You won't be able to simulate stuff fast with biological computers. Noise is also a big problem. In order for this to happen, the tech for growing organs has to have gotten very cheap. We will need to make vast improvements in tissue culture to do this. Biology is hard. Feeding and waste disposal is an issue. Now we have to grow food just for these machines... You can't power them down ever because they'll die

[Anonymous No.10571255]

>>10571216
Maybe I shouldn't have been so literal. The underlying point was that, biology seems to be a whole lot more efficient than our technology, but since we're on the subject:
>if we can't read or write the code
That's the purpose of trying to crack the code though. Maybe I'm mistaken, but wouldn't the brain and neurons be comparable to say, a computer and binary code. Both convert electric signals into commands, which are sent through a nervous system of sorts, that makes stuff happen (also side-note, who's to say you couldn't crack the neural code, and translate that into 1s and 0s, and apply that to a machine? Just crackpot thinking).
I guess the benefit to being able to crack the neural code is that, if we were able to create a prosthetic that were more biological than mechanical, then we might be able to avoid the whole "re-learning how to walk" thing because the instructions are already there. (I'm not well read in the subject so I don't really know, but I think it would be a plausible thing)
>can't grow vasculature
True, but could it be possible to create an artificial alternative?

I guess I shouldn't have called it a computer really, because if it has a brain as complex as ours, I would call it alive. I guess it would have been an android. You're right about biology being really fucking hard. If only there were a way to bypass the whole needing calories, nutrients, and waste thing.

I think it's obvious that you're more knowledgeable on the subject than I am, so I have to ask, what do you think the future will look like?

[Anonymous No.10571275]

>>10571065
>are enhancements probable
from a materialist/physicalist view, their existence is an inevitability like the invention of electricity and automobiles in some form
>issues with cybernetics
yes, there's tons of them to the point where Star Trek often espouses for ludditism concerning cybernetic and genetic modification past medical necessity. cybernetic and genetic engineering will require dynamic oversight in development past what the institutional means present today are capable of providing.
>is the science progressing fast enough
pretty good rate right now for medical cybernetics within half a century, most robotics/neurological research isn't anywhere close to cybernetics yet and human genetic engineering is tacitly feared by most larger organizations

[Anonymous No.10571277]

>>10571216
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_brnKz_2tI

[Anonymous No.10571309]

>>10571255
>> biology seems to be a whole lot more efficient
just because it's been around longer. Things like solar cells are more efficient at solar conversion than biology.
>>code
you don't get it. I'm saying it's a hardware problem and not a software problem. We can put electrodes in the brain and read electrical impulse neurons make and stimulate them back, but after a while it just stops working. We don't know why. It's going to take a lot of science, engineering, and medicine to fix this problem.
>>artificial alternative
you still need tiny tubes to carry nutrients. We don't have good ways to make tiny tubes. Even the recent results at printing them are pretty meh
>> if it has a brain as complex as ours
then using it for labor is immoral.
>>android
an android is a robot that looks like a man
>> calories
some bacteria can live off of electricity, but engineering animal muscle to run off of electricity would be fucking insane. You might even need to start from the ground up, especially if you want to eliminate waste.
>>what do you think the future will look like
I dunno. There are some pretty big wildcards. Nanotech could change basically everything, or it could turn out to be impractical except at small scales. Think huge factories churning out just kilograms of nanobots. I think getting robots to the point where they have a reasonable amount of motor skills will change a lot of things. They'll enable robots to be able what we've been wanting to do with 3d printers. Being able to put stuff together without human supervision will radically change manufacturing. I'm worried we may enter a period of stagnation:
https://web.stanford.edu/~chadj/IdeaPF.pdf
But hey, maybe some miracle will occur and we might be able to fight these trends.
>>10571277
it's absolute shit.

[Anonymous No.10571322]

>>10571309
>it's absolute shit.
I mean it's not a perfect solution, but the principals used are pretty good food for thought, I'd say. Of course there's tons of intrinsic issues, slow, weak, and heavy motors, electrode stimulation, unfortunate attachment, and I'm sure power delivery is a bitch. It does at least function as intended (apparently). The surgical intervention seems like it was kind of haphazard too, but I'm sure there were other concerns outside of electrode fitment that I'm as of yet ignorant of.

[Anonymous No.10571326]

>>10571065
its wild how stem fags don’t understand basic grammar or have a vocabulary more expansive than that of the dialogue in a pokemon game

[Anonymous No.10571424]

>>10571309
>code
Shit, so in a way it's already in the works? That's pretty fucking 'citing. I suppose it's only a matter of time before it's perfected, as with most things.
>printing the alternative
I suppose that in the future they could have much more advanced printers. I had an idea though. What if you used nano-tech to assemble these small bits and pieces?
>using the artificial life for labour
I would never advocate for that, it's plain evil. If I were in a position of power and higher intellect, I would work towards achieving a new genesis for man in the form of new humans, but with all of the advantages of technology on their side. Absolutely angelic-tier. If we're talking real futuristic though, we could give these machine-men the honour of being the pioneers of the universe, you know, pick up the torch where the men of flesh failed.
>android
Yeah, I feel tarded for that one, I guess it could be a cyborg.
>>10571309
>engineering animal muscle to run off of electricity would be fucking insane
Agreed, but imagine all of the benefits of having alternative energy sources.
>entering a period of stagnation
Absolutely.
I'm personally holding out for artificial intelligence to get to the point where it could calculate and make accurate predictions, so well that it could be picked up by governments as a new form of government, eliminating inefficiencies, and allowing more time and energy to be spent on R&D, and scientific advancement.
Unrelated:
Honestly, it's a pipe-dream of mine to at least try to aid in the creation of such things. I'd be willing to give my life for it, but I'm pretty young, dumb, and don't know where to really start with such things.
Most people I know irl shoot my ideas of actually becoming dedicated to this idea tend to shoot me down, but it only fuels the rage and desire to do it anyways.

[Anonymous No.10571634]

Here's some corny shit for you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FlzxKuqzUM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZBD2tcKOU4

[Anonymous No.10571657]

Well, I think that building machines to directly interface with our magnificent machine we call the body is the way of the future and will be ultimately achievable to the point of seemlessnes. First we must seek to fully understand how we actually operate in order to create a system that is automated maintenance and sustainable long-term. I am fascinated on just how much storage capacity our DNA posess, the key is there no doubt! And for now I am always amused when I look at humanoid robotics I mean we have yet to figure out the foot, so flawed and easy an overlooked! But so necessary! For now! lol

[Anonymous No.10572265]

>Is the issue with cybernetic enhancement in our future probable or is it just a pop sci-fi daydream?

I'm assuming your talking about implants? I could go on about the technology and such. But let me bring something up that I don't think a lot of people do on the topic. Surgery. No one likes getting surgery, even more so unneeded surgery. Even if we had prosthetics that were better, or even outclassed baseline limbs. I feel the number of people that would willing spring/have the money to go ahead with not only the surgery but the limb itself would be pretty dang slim. I recall I had to get a tooth removed due to pain. A procedure that needed to be done, and I hated the idea of being put under. And paying the admittedly low price for booth the operation and the nicety of being knocked out. This was for something that needed to be done, not something voluntary. I'd imagine most people feel the same about the act of removing limbs and such, even if better synthetic version were available.

[Anonymous No.10572270]

>>10571065
Anyone who wears glasses or contact lenses is technically a cyborg.

[Anonymous No.10572315]

>>10572265
>>10571065
>However, I was thinking about what controversy would result if they ended up becoming better than they were before

I'd imagine the amount of ruckus would be rather slim. Like I alluded to in my last post. Even if we did have the technology it wouldn't be some major thing everyone uses/wants. Now if you already had a limb missing. Than I'd assume most people would be happy about having your functionality restored. So I'd say what little ruckus would be produced would be people that simply couldn't afford the on par stuff. And of course the people shouting over equality. Though again. I'd picture very social uproar if such technology was invented.

>Are we progressing this technology fast enough where this could be an issue before the close of the century?

This century? I'd think not. Though admittedly from what I typed up on the subject you'd assume I don't think it ever will be an issue. Though I'd love to see what a high-price/high-end prosthetic looks like/is capable of at the end of the century.

[Anonymous No.10572321]

>>10572315
>Very little social up roar. Sorry.

[Anonymous No.10574214]

bumpin

[Anonymous No.10574345]

>>10572270
I think this is stupid, especially when there are people with artificial lenses.

[Anonymous No.10574368]

>>10571065
http://www.unz.com/akarlin/transhumanist-techs/
http://www.unz.com/akarlin/neural-augs-are-hard/

[Anonymous No.10574811]

>>10571309
Let's say we perfect nanometer scale 3d printing. Would it not be possible to circumvent most of these missing understandings by simply recreating structures known to work but in different configurations?

[Anonymous No.10575221]

>>10574811
First you actually have to have nanometer scale 3d printing. If you mean being able to make molecular nanotech like pic related, it's pretty OP. It would probably be easier than working with biology. The problem is being able to make such structures and make them practically. It might turn out that 'nanometer 3d printing' isn't very reliable that is every some odd steps our printer makes a mistake and whatever we're printing is completely fucked. So the only way to overcome this is with a HUGE amount of '3d printers' running all the time generating tonnages of waste and only kilograms of tiny machines. Alternatively, the energy requirements might be very high or the speed could be very slow.

[Anonymous No.10575930]

how do I help the transumanist cause?

[Anonymous No.10576261]

>>10575221
so you know when you bang on a peice of metal alot it wears or mushrooms out, how would this machine wear? Is one of those atom/balls going to be the one that bears the most load over a length of time and what...the atom just wears away..."it corroded into quarks" oh fuck

[Anonymous No.10576290]

>>10575221
I feel as if , you made something out of these nano gears, it would have cooling problems and end up melting, or would it be the opposite? I don't know much about mechanical stuff, just curious.

[Anonymous No.10576507]

>>10576261
They don't. In principle you can make weird machines that don't fatigue. In practice, they'll eventually get destroyed by radiation knocking a few atoms out of place.
>>10576290
That depends on how much heat the gears actually generate. The heat generated shouldn't be too bad. You can read Drexler's Nanosystems book, for more on this. Keep in mind that everything in it is basically scifi because we don't have a process for making them. The process suggested for making such machines, mechanosynthesis might not be possible or even practical. But other than that, there are things like molecular rotors which exhibit interesting spinning behavior like that you would find a the macroscale
https://cen.acs.org/articles/96/i1/Materials-rotors-spin-freely-quickly.html