[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
[ERROR] No.17618086 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

How do you feel about augmetic enhancements?

>> No.17618099

I'm amazed by the development in modern artificial limbs and the development of an artificial eye but that's about it at the time being.

>> No.17618103

Turn this into a robot girl thread or I report you for trolling us with unrelated topics

>> No.17618127

rolled 6 = 6

100% for them.

>> No.17618129

considering that prosthetic limbs aren't that uncommon for roleplaying this could very easily be /tg/ related, though op did fail to mention what system he wished to discuss.
oh and in case people need it you can find rules for fully functioning artificial limbs for 3.5 in "underdark adventure guide". expensive as fuck but highly customizable

>> No.17618139

>How do you feel about augmetic enhancements?


>> No.17618143

Wasn't there a kind of monster that consists of people taken over by their magical artificial limbs?

>> No.17618148

Fuck that. Robot girl thread!

>> No.17618165


>> No.17618175


>> No.17618180

>> No.17618183

>> No.17618184

>> No.17618190

>> No.17618193

>> No.17618195

I like the idea, but I would worry about doing too much. like if you got a replacement eye, could you then trust it? would what you be seeing what's actually there, or merely what the robotic eye is capable of picking up? perhaps the eye could be interfered with, to give you false information?

I think if I got anything augmented it would be limbs only.

>> No.17618197


Strand of Power, the Strands of Fate supplement, has rules for augmented limbs. We're playing a low magic game set in antebellum New Orleans, and my character is a Pinkerton with a slightly out of repair clockwork arm. The rules are fairly simple, though I set up mine to be more of a disadvantage, so it has a much lower stress track than an augmentation should have.

>> No.17618198

>> No.17618203

>> No.17618208

the vocaloids probably count

>> No.17618209

>> No.17618211



>> No.17618214

>asking for this

>> No.17618217

>> No.17618224


Have fun getting your arm hacked and firing on your fellow spess mahreen, or your legs going haywire and running you off a cliff or something. I'll be over here, hallucinating without having to take drugs.

>> No.17618225

they would if they looked like robots

like this >>17618190

>> No.17618228


The real eye is bad enough as is. Not only does it receive light upside down and backwards, but there is a pretty big blind spot right in the center of your vision.

Our brains do a pretty good job of covering this up, but really, a robotic eye would be a great improvement over our natural ones. No blind spot, information is received just like a camera, and you could have IR filters and recording capabilities, because in spite of what we believe, we really only perceive about 10% of everything we are "seeing", but that's the brains fault for not being able to handle everything we see at one time.

So being able to record a scene would be useful for going back over it later and picking out stuff you missed because you were more focused on the crackhead trying to tear your jugular out, so to speak.

>> No.17618232

>> No.17618234

There's a "monster" like that in Dark Heresy.
It's a sort of virus / crazy machine spirit program thingy that exists deep in a datacrypt and takes over techpriests venturing inside by taking over their cybernetics.

>> No.17618237

You do realize you can trick a normal eye easily and don't even need adegree in programming to do it, right?

As for what an artificial eye is capable of seeing, even the shitty prototypes with 8x8 resolution we have now can see into infra red.

>> No.17618242


But what about the Iron Hands?

>> No.17618251

stop talking about transhumanism, all of your opinions on the subject are equally bad, it will only end up in a shitstorm

>> No.17618256

>> No.17618258

>> No.17618261

but our brains are designed to recieve that. Could we even understand such information? I mean sure our eye is shit tier compared to a camera, but it's what the "software" of our brains is designed to handle. Plus an organic eye can't be interfered with by outside forces, while who knows what could be done to an artificial eye both during it's creation and afterwards. i would feel like the robotic eye, was just that. a robot eye. It could never be part of "me"

>> No.17618262

I personally prefer bioware mods over cyber. Although we're even longer away from usable bio-mods than cyber

>> No.17618265


Show me an Imperial Guard general without a Bionic Eye, and I'll show you an imposter

>> No.17618267

>> No.17618269

that... that was the wrong picture.

>> No.17618272

>> No.17618275


isn't the point of this side to discuss things, and to pollute it with our uneducated opinions?

>> No.17618276

for actual robotic limbs, the idea that the government or corporation can shut off my arm if they want with a remote signal really puts me off.
Still, its better than no arm, and a shitty plastic prosthetic one as well.

>> No.17618284

>> No.17618291

>Could we even understand such information?

As I stated in >>17618237, patients that tested recent prototypes were able to pick up infrared.

>> No.17618299

can't find the one I was looking for so this will have to do

>> No.17618303

>> No.17618311

>> No.17618318

>> No.17618321

>> No.17618325

that's a suit

>> No.17618335

Augmetic is a word now? Doesn't augment and enhancement sort of mean the same thing? Are you sure you didn't mean to say "cybernetic"?

Anyways, seeing that I have glasses, use a calculator, drive a car and a bike, use shoes, etc. etc. I can't really say I feel bad about it. All those augment my normal qualities. Glasses correct my eyesight, calculator augment my ability to process numbers, car and bike move me faster than my own natural feet, and shoes make it possible for my feet to withstand rougher surfaces and colder weathers.

>> No.17618337

>> No.17618339


You'd be surprised at what the brain is capable of doing. Its not so much "Designed" to intake information that way, but more it does a very good job of taking shitty input and making it useful to us.

They even have evidence of the brains capability to "rewire" itself if it takes damage to a vital part. It will bypass the damage, and somehow recreates the processing bits it needs. I am explaining it very badly, but it is amazing stuff.

They did experiments with glasses that reversed the light coming into it, so that when the eye received the light, it was actually going in upright, and facing the right direction too. At first, the subjects were seeing things upside down, but it didn't take very long, I think less than half an hour, before the brain was able to correct for the new input, and they were seeing everything normally again.

The brain is very good at adapting, so much better than most people realize.

As for receiving a faulty eye, or worrying about outside influences, unlike your real eyes, you can go back and get a new one under warranty, and a hacking attempt wouldn't be much worse than someone throwing a flashbang in your face.

And, really. A cybernetic eye would be little more than a fancy camera, and unless you have a wifi port, someone would have to tie you down and take it out before they could fuck with it, at which point you go back and get it removed.

A cybernetic eye has almost the same number of disadvantages a real eye would have, only you can get it repaired, and be able to have a x100 times zoom.

>> No.17618343

where can I find the underdark adventure guide?

>> No.17618350

>> No.17618351

The sooner we aren't relling on our shitty fleshy parts, the better, I say.

>> No.17618359

>> No.17618370


>> No.17618372

Hm,.. this term would be better applied to something that enhances existing capabilities rather than something that replace the whole thing.

>> No.17618378


I doubt actual augmentations would have this.

Unless its a weaponized arm or leg, there would be no reason to put in a "kill switch", and the ramifications are kind of ludicrous. They'd have to have a department just for this, with real time tracking of everyone with a limb, and separate data streams from each one as well.

Just like the government doesn't have a kill switch on your car, it is very unlikely they would have a kill switch on your arm.

As for weaponized robotics, those would only be in the hands of a special few, unless the tech become so ubiquitous that everyone has razor blades under their fingernails, at which point the world has gone so far down the shitter that the government is the least of your worries.

>> No.17618389

And another thing, if we do accept "augmetic" as a word, such as "augmetic eye", wouldn't that be a derivative of "augment", which is about the same as "enhance". So "augmetic eye" means the same as an "enhanced eye". That means "augmetic enhanvements" would mean "enhanced enhancements", no? So they're even better than regular enhancements, they're super enhancements.

I'll get me coat...

>> No.17618413

Ermm, I don't follow you.
Augmentic is not is not a combination of augment and enhancement and it's not a superlative.
Augmentic Eye and Enhanced Eye are synonyms.

>> No.17618426


I think, for the sake and sanity of everyone involved, lets just ignore the word "augmetic" and just call them augmentations, or cybernetic enhancements.

We'll all feel better about it in the long run.

>> No.17618438

I like it.

>> No.17618439

Fine with me.

Back to robot girls.

>> No.17618441

Unhealthy enthusiasm. If I had my way, my neurons would be slowly replaced, and then my new immortal brain inserted into a body driven by carbon nanotube muscles (Do a search for the phrase and be amazed).

>> No.17618442

The human race needs to remain pure.

>> No.17618455

>> No.17618465


Purity is for chumps.

Give me a robotic eye and a hand I can plug directly into my keyboard.

Also springy legs and a reinforced spine so I can lift cars and help my friends move.

>> No.17618472

Why slowly? Just connect to multiple artificial brains, spreading your consciousness over multiple vessels so that once the original is lost you are still alive and all the memories from the original were copied over long before.

>> No.17618479

More like so you can do menial work in a factory cheaper than robots.

>> No.17618497


If it means steady work, yes please.

I haven't had a job in over a year, and would kill for some menial labor.

But really, this is an unlikely scenario. Upkeep for robotic factories is far less than paying for three shifts of workers.

Thats why hand assembled ferrari's cost more than your robotically assembled Camry.

>> No.17618498

>More like so you can do menial work in a factory cheaper than robots.

Not according to a factory in china, they are planing to replace all their workers with robots.
And as they become cheaper others will too.

>> No.17618511

>> No.17618519

Simply because China can not make its population cyborgs.

>> No.17618522

Did you read OP's message?

>How do you feel about augmetic enhancements?
>feel about augmetic enhancements?
>augmetic enhancements?

That's what I meant, if "augmetic eye" means the same as "enhanced eye", then "augmetic enhancement" means the same as "enhanced augmentation."

OP's not asking about how we feel about cybernetic augmentations, he's asking us how do we feel about enhanced cybernetic augmentations. This isn't humans vs. cyborgs, this is cyborgs vs. cyborg 2.0s.


>> No.17618530

I think the word "augment" gets bandied around too much.

It's really more enhanced prosthetics. And why the fuck would you put wifi on the things? I could understand wanting wireless networking for rapid information sharing, but its not like your arm or your eye really need to access wireless signals to work.

What gets me about this type of discussion is that rarely is it addressed why anyone would get an prosthetic, especially if they already have a working biological version. You would just be adding maintenance fees and upgrade costs over the course of your life.

>> No.17618547


Aside from a cyberpunk "I have razors under my fingernails now" standpoint, I think most cybernetic enhancements would still very much be in the purview of replacement limbs for those lost in battle or accidents.

But seriously, you're telling me you wouldn't get robotic eyes with a record and zoom function?

>> No.17618560

>You would just be adding maintenance fees and upgrade costs over the course of your life.

Updates that would keep me strong and fit for ALL of my life allowing me to live a full one up to the very moment of death. Standardized parts would allow for cheaper repairs than any biological alternative.

>> No.17618585

Do they look like regular eyes or freaky robot eyes? Do they chafe? How much maintenance goes into keeping them working?

>> No.17618590

Why should I limit myself to my biological definition?
If I can have four arms, why shouldn't I? The brain might not have evolved to handle such things, but then, who gives a fuck? Upgrade the hell out of everything.

>> No.17618597

>You are now aware that most of the time, those hips indeed do move on their own.

>> No.17618614

The flesh is week, and the steel is strong.
We must purge our weaknesses like an impure metal, and replace them with the strength and power of the machine.

>> No.17618623


>> No.17618624

Evolution is key, enjoy your stagnation metal husks.

>> No.17618626


I imagine they would try to make them look as normal as possible.

And I don't think it would chafe anymore than modern fake eyeballs would.

As for upkeep, how much maintenance do you put into your top of the line digital camera? Take it out and plug it in at night, have a fresh charge in the morning.

>> No.17618635


>does not understand evolution
>logic implies clothing is holding us back

>> No.17618640

Just replace your parts with an updated model.
Bam, upgrades.

>> No.17618641

I love the idea itself, it amazes me.

It would be neat to have some sort of augmentation in mass-production available in the future. But who knows how far off that could be?

I'd probably start small, probably with something under my fingertips.

But yeah, I make music about it and everything, so in the theme of cybernetic girls, here's my EP's cover.


>> No.17618650


Mechanical evolution outstripped biological evolution around the time we started building cities and farms.

And left it in the dust as soon as we started writing things down.

>> No.17618655

I never ask for it.
But do they feel the pleasure of being cum inside?

>> No.17618664

This is such a tryhard emo scenekid faggot douche pic.

>> No.17618667

<implying that using our intelligence to craft more durable, easily replacable, and upgradable augmetic parts for ourselves is not already a form of evolution. If you were willing to see the big picture you'd see that it will let the human race evolve much faster than nature ever would.

>> No.17618671

Try using some syntax sometime.

>> No.17618673


When everything's irradiated you'll wish you mutated instead of being a robot of a dead era.

>> No.17618675

lol I meant to hit >. That's what I get for typing as soon as I wake up.

>> No.17618680


>does not understand mutation
>does not realize a robotic arm or leg would allow for easy injection of anti-rad meds

>> No.17618683

Well, for one thing, I don't use my digital camera every waking second or rely on it to function. It's also a bitch when I go somewhere and don't have access to a charger.

It just seems really impractical and expensive for something I really don't need. I guess I could replay all the naked women I've seen when jacking off or something.

>> No.17618684

No, I'll wish I was a robot. At least then I wouldn't die of radiation poisoning.

>> No.17618693


So don't get one. But if you lose an eye to a car accident, would you want a hunk of plastic, or the upgrade?

>> No.17618697

Sorry to bother you with this, but I am for some reason unable to upload pictures, all I get is this page:

Any help?

>> No.17618702


Why would a soulless robot need meds?

>> No.17618722

He obviously meant a human being with implants could get shots and stuff via a direct output in his mechanical bits.

>> No.17618732

It might have caught a virus

>> No.17618741

I've wanted an augmented eye with infrared vision and zoom modes since I was in grade school.

>> No.17618751

>thinks there's something like a soul

>> No.17618767

Why do you believe in the existence of a "soul" to begin with?
Are you so afraid of death that you must believe at least some part of you is immortal? Or is this just something that has been inherited from your culture through your upbringing?
I'm actually curious..

>> No.17618772


Logic bros!

>> No.17618773

>The flesh is week, and the steel is strong.

>> No.17618783


>> No.17618800

Oh can every single one of you fuckers stop using the word evolution when you have no clear idea what the fuck you are talking about.

Evolution, to quote Wikipedia, is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations.
You don't stall by replacing an arm, you don't 'speed things up' or 'slow things down' by replacing an arm, you don't fucking control it by replacing an arm. You just Replace a Fucking Arm.

Evolution is not a chain or a ladder going somewhere, there is no fucking manifest destiny, it's just the biological changes that occur with each generation.
To speed it up, have lots of fucking children.
Slow it down by waiting fifty years before you have just one.
You control it BY HAVING CHILDREN.
And you stagnate it by taking a Stake Knife to your Sausage.

That Is Fucking All!

>> No.17618813

>To quote wikipedia


>> No.17618826

I don't think anyone raised in a judeo-christian culture would cling to the idea of a soul out of fear of death. Rather the absence of a soul would make death far more palatable. Non-existance is a rather mild medicine compared to the even faintest nagging possibility of an eternity of torment.

>> No.17618833

My body is pretty crappy in ways that cannot be cured by any number of /fit/ motivational posters, so I approve, though if at all possible I would opt for a Ship of Theseus approach.

>> No.17618849

I do.

>> No.17618865

I don't think anyone would think what you thought.

>> No.17618875

I don't know, surely though animal husbandry and eugenics you can push a population towards or away from what appears to be it's current evolutionary tragectory, as calculated with the Hardy-Weinberg equation

>> No.17618894

What, make a clone from your left over bits and have an identity crisis?

>> No.17618896

Not that guy, but just gonna say, he does make a point. People are saying that replacing parts of yourself with robot bits is evolution, but evolution is more or less the genes you pass on. So while you could call it evolution, augmentation isn't true evolution since it isn't forced on us from birth although augmentation atleast gives us a path out of the normal evolution chain in the event we get dealt the shit hand or if something shitty happens to our biological parts

Captcha: Jesucia acts

No he does not

>> No.17619010

>>what appears to be it's current evolutionary tragectory
Point, but no one was talking about that. they were all starting to step dangerously into manifest destiny bullshit.

I quoted Wikipeadia because it is, on the most part, correct and written for nitwits.

I mean, I could have dragged out my old five kilo uni text books and given you an exact meaning but it's simple be saying the same thing just with more dense language.

>> No.17619032


No they aren't.

Nobody has said that.

Other assholes have said that "evolution will pass you by" and then they were soundly told to fuck off with logic.

Now, would you kindly fuck off yourself.

>> No.17619042


The definition of evolution is constantly evolving.

>> No.17619058


Yeah, you could.

To tear a page from Dawkins, you could conceivably breed humans so that women have massively oversized breasts and produce more milk in a day than they would need in a month of feeding, but thats not evolution, its breeding.

Now, can we please get back to bionic dicks? I'd like a prehensile one, please.

>> No.17619116

>bionic dick

I don't know if I want one or if it's a horrendous image.

>> No.17619161

I wouldn't want to loose mine, but I sure could use an extra dick, I mean how am I supposed to fuck a girl full force in the anus and vagina at the same time? An third one on a mechadendrite could take care of the mouth.

Metallic mechanical penises, a rapist dream.

>> No.17619185

>posts laughing eldar
>disregards ghost robots

>> No.17619188

>> No.17619198

My idea of old is the 2006 update, not the 2010.

Besides, the sentence I gave you guys from Wikipedia has been the same for over a decade now.

>> No.17619208

That says more about Wikipedia than it does you.

>> No.17619239

>mechanical evolution
As a biostratigrapher I just want to say Goddamnit you fucking stupid. Evolution is the accumulation of traits through breeding and selective processes imposed by the environment. If you really wanted to push it selective breeding could be considered evolution since the humans chosing the animals mates is technically selective pressure and produces animals that better propagate in their human controlled environment.

But as we don't have self replicating robots yet you can't have mechanical evolution. You are thinking of comprehensive adaptive redesign by an intelligent actor(the people making the goddamn machines).

Fucking laymen.

>> No.17619244

I'm not sure if "enhancements" is PC.
Can we just call them differently abled?

>> No.17619276


Well, I certainly ain't gonna call them cyber gimps to their face.

They can probably bend steel with their mechanical freak arms.

>> No.17619283

Personally I would find it amazing to replace certain sections of the human form that are amazingly weak and exposed. A protective casing for my internal organs and brain. Replace my arms for superior strength, re-enforce bone structure with metal rods, a protective layer for the spine, and have one of my eyes replaced for better vision and cool shit. Night vision, thermal imaging, zoom, all sorts of badass.

>> No.17619304

Never take a page from Dawkins, just as a general practice His gene-centric model of evolution is incomplete and was descredited soon after it was posited. And meme theory is non-predictive shit, whose basic premise is pseudo philosophical bunk anyway. The only decent work the guy ever did involved the phylogeny of birds back when he was still a student. Almost everything he does if full subjective philosophical shit, hence why he is not well liked in biology because of his introduction of subjective crap into his own observations and models.

I suppose he could get good again, but only have he sheds this philosopher-scientist bullshit like everyone else did. He's a relic of a bygone and less efficient age of methodology.

>> No.17619322

as a normal guy I want to say goddamnit you are fucking stupid.

ev·o·lu·tion   [ev-uh-loo-shuhn or, especially Brit., ee-vuh-]
1.any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.

Fucking wannabe smartass

>> No.17619347

As an actual normal guy, I'm here to say you're both retarded. There's nothing wrong with using generally accepted (if technically incorrect) terms. It's incredibly stupid to try and argue over the technical definition when you're clearly WRONG though.

Just go back to talking about mechanical dicks already.

>> No.17619354


What did you expect, it's 4chan. One guy can strut around throwing wikipedia info, reaction images and "layman" and claim to be a graduate in physics, biology and whatever. Anonymity gives shelter, you can't discredit him so he is right. U mad?

>> No.17619362

so you basically said what I implied but you are calling me retarded?
GJ you sure told me.

>> No.17619376

Well you know what? How about the general population stops appropriating scientific terms and then muddling their meaning, can we try that? Like how theory in popular parlance is equivalent to hypothesis or supposition in proper scientific diction.

Not to mention that the retarded op directly compared redesign of mechanical systems to evolution. They are apples and oranges. And infact if you started to augment people both processes would be occurring simultaneously since personalities and temperaments that would cause people to choose certain styles of augmentation might start to be selected for.

>> No.17619402

>How about the general population stops appropriating scientific terms and then muddling their meaning, can we try that?
but we already do that
And look up where the term "evolution" came from and what it originally meant.
Do you also rage when you see books like "evolution of the plane"?

>> No.17619405

>his introduction of subjective crap into his own observations and models.

Every scientist does it. Some are just more honest about it. Objectivity is impossible to attain. And no, this isn't exactly an epiphany, I'm well aware it's an old observation.

>> No.17619409



The word "evolution" was not thought up by scientific community. It's appearence in "Theory of Evolution" is one of its many uses.

So why don't you actually think what you're going to type is you want to be elitist on 4chan.

>> No.17619473

Lol at meat creatures trying to mimic the perfection of machine life.

>> No.17619484

Don't look at me, I wanna stay meat. Delicious delicious meat that gets to eat delicious delicious other meat.

>> No.17619509

Yes but he does it intentionally by the very nature of the stupid pseudo-philosophy he insists on promulgating. He not even trying to reduce his biases and seems to promote hypothesis based on some sense of "elegance" or how "deep" they are. And it ends up as non-predictive bullshit. There is making mistakes. There is having a bias based on your personality that you try to remove as much as you can. And then there is intentionally introducing subjectivity while couching it as something of value. Meme theory being the worst example.

Then you have the guy talking about science having ethics, morals, and standards. Or trying to turn science into a worldview, which is the exact opposite of the trend in methodology in the rest of the scientific community. We made science into a brutal tool that exists to make predictive models in the last 20 years and he wants to turn it back into a a philosophy like rationalism again. Which ironically will make the models shittier by introducing subjective criteria into the methodology rather then teaching people that they should not even feel curiosity when collecting data as we do now.

My livelyhood depends of the scientific method, and other people being about to use it properly to collect data and make models that are useful to me and predictive. I consider him and anyone else trying to introduce subjective bullshit as an actual physical threat to my financial well being.

>> No.17619533

What about machines made from flesh?

>> No.17619558

We already have those. They're called humans and they're awful.

>> No.17619569

anyone got this translated?

>> No.17619575

Says you robot.

>> No.17619611


>> No.17619637

>Then you have the guy talking about science having ethics, morals, and standards.
The nerve of this guy!

>> No.17619652

Obviously you people have never seen ghost in the shell. What happens when faggots hack my eyeballs so they can get around behind me and stab me in the dick? I guess that's why you only get one eye, so they can't fool the other one.

>> No.17619671

Just testing, don't mind me...

>> No.17619674


Jesus, try reading the thread, dickcheese.

Unless you're stupid enough to hook your eyes up to a wireless network, there would be no way to "hack" someones eyes without first incapacitating them, and doing it manually.

Are you worried about someone hacking your digital camera wirelessly?

>> No.17619687

>there will never be a fat robot chick
Feels bad man.

>> No.17619710

Aigis is mai waifu

>> No.17619725

>rather then teaching people that they should not even feel curiosity when collecting data as we do now.

This is a mistake. A grave mistake that hands the field over entirely to religion, and leaves those who do not believe in a ethical and philosophical void. I am all for strict methodology if actual experimentation and theorymaking process, but science should NOT be reduced merely to a blunt tool, it's a false path, because if we like it or not, humans NEED, for the lack of better word, methaphysical. Today, when a man asks "but what AM I?" he gets ONE answer. It says "child of God". Scientists shrug and say "well, fuck if we know, but look, here's a very nifty cell we just found!". This coupled with even further specialization in scientific fields and unwillingness to actually interact with the society, leads to return of magic. There are fucking high-paid managers that visit the fucking fortune-tellers regularily, because scientists couldn't be arsed and left society to the religious, and to the marketing people.

>> No.17619740

>get around behind me and stab me in the dick
>he has an augumented dick on the back

>> No.17619757

>he has one too.
>Penis Fencing engaged.

>> No.17619825

"My penis has eleven settings, from smooth sailing to prison rape."

>> No.17619877

Except when Togusa with nothing but a simple interface implant got hacked anyways. Laughing Man made him see/not see things and that robot dude in GiTS2 made him and Batou trapped in some infinite reality shit.

>> No.17620205

>I want to taint science with subjective bullshit
>thinks religion or atheism in of themselves have any implicit impact on objectivity when they involve shit that is supernatural and neither make claims, they just state a subjective divination that can never be supported or refuted and therefore is outside the interests of science
>wants some faggot morality just as subjective as any supernatural criteria just based on emotions instead the will of dark and thirsting gods
>"only answer is 'child of God'" doesn't know about dozens of other philosophical and relgious traditions both compatible and incompatible with that divination that also give other "answers" besides it
>thinks religion is about "answers" or that anyone besides him wants or needs "answers"
>doesn't know that 70-80% of scientists under the age of 30 with at least one graduate degree are religious already
>implying a bunch of morons doing things for subjective secular reasons are going to be more fit for survival than a bunch of morons doing things for subjective religious reasons

Science is the path to power over the physical world. Any supernatural shit that may exist is of no interest to use as scientists. You want to be religious, atheistic, or philosophical on your own time? Fine go ahead. But when you work you better be cruel, heartless, cold, and above all objective. Because that is how you get results. The survival of our species is dependent on our power and technology not our morals.

Also sage for faggot rationalist that is just as bad as a faggot spiritualist rather than just being atheist or theist and remaining objective

>> No.17620231

That's a scale of fuckability, from left to right

>> No.17620263

You heard it here first, in the future all conflicts will be solved with bionic penis fencing matches.

>> No.17620266

>The survival of our species is dependent on our power and technology not our morals.
Welp, let's go back to use our power and technology to amorally slaughter children, the survival of the species is at stakes!

>> No.17620303

There's no serious inherent problems with them. Assuming we've reverse-engineered our own nervous systems, biological "hacking" of our own natural limbs would also be plausible and thus not a disadvantage for prosthetics.

The real problem is implementation. Would you trust another human being, perhaps a faceless corporation or an uncaring bureacuracy, to change the composition of your body? There's about a million opportunities for malicious behavior and the changes are more or less permanent. Especially if we're talking brain tissue.

It doesn't even have to be that profound of a change, either. They could manipulate your thoughts, make you associate their products with the release of endorphins or some shit. I dunno.

>> No.17620314

Wait wouldn't killing tons of kids reduce breeding options for your offspring and possibly destabilize the social structures you find conducive to your survival? Not to mention that if you just killed them at random it would not induce any selective pressure. You wouldn't even being getting rid of the intrisincally weak or stupid.

That doesn't seem like a good plan from the perspective of biological fitness. Also more humans = more power collectively as a species.

>> No.17620343

I think you're confusing True Neutral with Chaotic Stupid.

>> No.17620383

>if you just killed them at random it would not induce any selective pressure
Just kill 'hem all and let Darwin sort them out.

>> No.17620402

What purpose would that serve? Not considering ethics doesn't mean you just kill people indiscriminately.

>> No.17620462

>Any supernatural shit that may exist is of no interest to use as scientists
But it quite obviously is.

Scientists want to know how the universe works. If the supernatural exist, we need to include it in our models. Meteorologists, for example, need to know whether or not rain spirits exist in order to predict rainfall patterns; whether or not God created the universe in seven days is of huge importance to cosmologists and people working on cloning and artificial intelligence need to know whether or not their is a soul.

>> No.17620665

Actually since by the definition of the word any supernatural force would exist outside causality and any effect it would have on natural phenoma would be seen as an alteration of causality not a distinct supernatural process and therefore would always be attributable to a progression of natural phenomena.

Even if ghosts or daemons(liitle gods) existed, this being a supposition, they would still be supernatural and would stand outside causality. If they somehow caused an object to move it would be observed as a physical phenomena. For example the daemon might move the page of a book, but the page would observed to be moved a draft of air, which originated from the propagate of low pressure system in the environment, and every subsequent phenomena needed to cause that movement of air back to the big bag and beyond if there was any ground-states before that.

And the seven day creation myth is specifically to establish a 7 day week, similar mythos exist in all religions that were influenced by Summerian theology and tradition. Why do you think there is a snake that steals immortality in Genesis and the Epic of Gilgamesh?

>> No.17620682

>people working on cloning and artificial intelligence need to know whether or not their is a soul.

Are you fucking stupid. Chinese and Abrahamic religions the soul is specifically not the same as the physical mind but rather a supernatural construct somehow attached to the physical mind or body. The only religion were they are equivalent are some of the weirder sects of Buddism.

In that way machines made by humans might have souls since they are phylogenetically descended from them. Or they might not.

And clones are just new humans with identical genetics to a living human, no different biologically than an identical twin. Just way younger.

Mind copying and uploading is impossible soft-scifi bullshit. But lets assume it happened. The supernatural soul might be divisible an arbitrary number of times among copies. Or it might not.

Next time you want to sound "profound", do yourself a favor and don't try.

>> No.17620685

The concept of a soul may or may not be an artificial concept of the sapient human perspective. We don't know, but either way, it is as real as any other idea. The Soul may simply be nothing more than the unbroken stream of perspective that a living being experiences through their life. And it is not the believer's job to defend why they choose to believe, it is the accuser's.

You must keep this in mind: Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

>> No.17620706

>it is as real as any other idea

Yes, a fanatic otherkin would be a valid comparison.

>> No.17620743

>YFW the sexual enhancement industry will become legitimate overnight.

Augmetic enhancements? Sure, I've got plenty.

Penis lengthener, penis widener, penis enhancer, penis defibrilator, penis ribber, penis smoothener, automated penis engorger, you know, all the basic stuff.

>> No.17620745

Otherkin may have a skewed perspective of truth, but from a certain point of view they are right and valid.

It is more of a sense of alternate community that comes from it. But it is still real.

>> No.17620748

>doesn't know that 70-80% of scientists under the age of 30 with at least one graduate degree are religious already

You tried to claim this bullshit on /pol/. Didn't fly there and doesn't fly here. Go back to posting 40k reaction images and masturbating on your fictional "cruel and objective" scientist.

>> No.17620783

How is Mind Copying/Uploading bullshit? We don't know if it is or is not impossible without literally creating a brain and copying the neural impulses.

>> No.17620817

Not the guy you are responding to, but. http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2009/08/culture_change_younger_scienti.php

Now that is an older survey. And the Youngest demographic is for 18-34. And it is for BS holders instead of the holders of Master degrees so it doesn't confirm the previous statement. Though it is moderately supportive of it. The younger ones seem to be religious for some reason or another.

I can't see that as a positive or negative development in of itself.

sage for religious debate on /tg/ but just want to shut you the fuck up so this thing 404s

>> No.17620826

My aunt is a cyborg.

She has:
Ocular hearing implants in both ears.
Built in heart-defibrillator
Two artificial knees
Artificial left hip
Two very large breasts she wasn't born with
Face completely different than the one she was born with
Plastic cheekbones
Plastic implant into her uterus to prevent further pregnancies

Most of this started from reconstruction after her ex-husband threw her off a 3rd-story balcony into a pit of gravel while she was pregnant with their child. But some of the stuff was purely for her own esteem.

Side note: Don't let it get out in state prison that you killed an unborn child. He was found in a work locker, raped to death by the pointy end of a broken broom. There was no instigation.

>> No.17620843

Academic culture changed from atheistic to postatheistic, which made religion more acceptable. Same thing happened already is several European countries with history of bloody catholic/protestant conflicts.

>> No.17620862

>Side note: Don't let it get out in state prison that you killed an unborn child. He was found in a work locker, raped to death by the pointy end of a broken broom. There was no instigation.

Ahahahahahaha! Something similar happened to the uncle of an acquaintance of mine a few years back in county jail. It got out that he was a child molester and rapist having raped two girls and one boy all under the age of 10.
He was found drowned face first in a mop bucket full of bleach. I think here was an investigation, but nothing came from it.

>> No.17620949


It isn't even a development necessarily. First of all, the survey is in the US, one of the more religious western countries.

If someone has a similar poll from thirty years ago, the proportion of religous people would be higher. From this poll we could merely see that people with degrees are wont to become less religious with age. These same people could be polled after twenty years and the results compared.

Also, according to the same poll, science degree holders in America are significantly less religious than general population, 95% of which believes in gawd or a higher power while the number among young degree holders (the most religious among sci folks) is 66% and among old degree holders it's 46%.

Side note, how many 18-19 year olds with degrees were really polled?

>> No.17620974


That claim can't be made without sufficient accumulation of evidence, for example decades-old statistics about the religiousness of natural science degree holders compared to more recent ones.

>> No.17621105

>If someone has a similar poll from thirty years ago, the proportion of religous people would be higher

According to the pew survey that was cited in the link the older scientists that would have been the young ones 30 years ago are less religious not more. Look at the 65+ age bracket in the pew data. Assuming that they are indicative of their age group they would be less religious back then, but that is suppositional. Now since they didn't do government PEW surveys until the 80s there is no way to know if that is the case or if your supposition is the case. I use the word supposition because a hypothesis needs to be testable, which your claim is not since they don't have data. It could have been the case but as things are now we will never know, though the PEW data is not in support of the supposition.

Also it's 68% that said they had some form religious feeling, not 66% but I assume that was a typo.

>From this poll we could merely see that people with degrees are wont to become less religious with age.
People don't really get less or more religious as they age, I don't know why degree holders would buck that trend. But if they do you could test it by following the results of the PEW surveys for another 30 years. So at least that is a hypothesis.

sage once again for fucking religious debate on a 40k and DnD board. And don't you post that fucking "/tg/ debate club" image as a response.

>> No.17621233

Bring on the robot girls.

In fact, make me one.

>> No.17621258

Actually that claim is about the social conditions of academia not the beliefs of the members they could all be atheist or religious and still hold a "post atheist" view of academics and science.

So the applicable data would be how much the individuals see science as an issue separate from theism/atheism and whether they indoctrinate students to that view, a pro-atheistic, or a pro-theistic view.

>> No.17621276

>The survival of our species is dependent on our power and technology not our morals.
Yes, sure. Especially with all those nice nuclear devices. If you want to be cold and heartless and downright logical, you should launch all nukes you have now to destroy all possible opposition before it even arises. Fortunately humans are governed my emotion much more than by logic, or we'd be extinct by the time we figured how to make weapons.

>> No.17621281


For the simple reason that people's religious beliefs are not fixed, a conclusion that those who are now irreligious (the older scientists in the poll) were also equally irreligious 30 years ago would be meaningless unless proven. Similarly a conclusion based on the poll that current young generation of degree holders is more religious than the youth of 30 years ago is to be considered invalid unless evidence is presented.

It's also 66% according to the poll in the 18-34 bracket, not 68%. 42% gawd-believers, 24% higher power believers.

>> No.17621314


That issue is not included in the poll that some are flimsily trying to use as "evidence" about academia becoming more friendly to religion.

If anything, the poll does present really clear evidence only on that natural science degree holders are significantly less religious than the general population. But that's a foregone conclusion, isn't it.

>> No.17621412


Indeed, teh PEW survey seems to imply the American public, the normal people, the people that walk the street every day in other words, is more logical, downright heartless and cruel and awesome than those lefty-softy scientists.

>> No.17621482


That poll scares me.

And ruins my faith in this country, the tiny bit that was left.

WTB plane ticket somewhere else.

>> No.17621515

See, americans are not people, they're..americans.

>> No.17621770

That would only have been viable in the 50s when Russia had a grand total of 4 ICBMS and 12 bison bombers while the US had hundreds of bombers. SAC actually had a plan to smash troop formations in Eastern Europe with tactical nuke armed rockets while simultaneously waging strategic war with the Soviet Union. And destroying China one week afterward just to be safe.

Now because of some very clever decoys the Russians made it look like they had way more bombers than they actually did. And they made people think their missiles were on standby to launch when in reality they took 48s to prep for launch and the liquid fuel couldn't be stored in the missiles so they had to be prepped for every launch. They were able to give sufficient impressions for deterrent force. And this was before anybody had Boomers so there were no sub launches to worry about. Though the Soviets could have used their quite good diesel sub network to hit a few ports with tactical warheads.

But if for some reason the Berlin conflicts and incidents over the Polish rebellions had erupted into East-West War the Soviets would have been fucked, and nobody would have been more surprised by their victory than SAC.

But after 1960 MAD precludes any such action. I think you are confusing "efficient, logical, cold and cruel" with "stupid". An amoral bastard working for his own self interest does not usually commit mutual suicide.

>> No.17621791

Japan has shit tastes.

>> No.17622483


Everytime I hear "from a certain point of view" I hear Ben Kenobi desperately trying to justify to Luke why he bald-faced lied to him. Makes me laugh a little.

>> No.17622562

>doesn't even mention amount of people polled, regional information, etc.

The only vaguely scary thing here is how quickly knuckledragging sperglords will flip their shit over meaningless numbers in a jpeg.

>> No.17622568


That specific study had a 2001 sample size who were interviewed over a 2 week period. The amounts are +- 3.5% The group which funded the study was the "Pew Research Center".

"Results for the general public survey are based on telephone interviews conducted under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates International among a nationwide sample of 2,001 adults, 18 years of age or older, from April 28 to May 12, 2009 (1,500 respondents were interviewed on a landline telephone, and 501 were interviewed on a cell phone, including 198 who had no landline telephone). "

>> No.17622585


Also, the survey was conducted nationwide, with accounting being made for people who had both land and cell phones being more likely to be contacted.


>> No.17622590


It's the very same poll that >>17620817 brought up so supposedly defend some questionable claims, and he was gracious enough to post the link.

>> No.17622621

honestly i'm completely and utterly ok with cypernetic augmentations, and theres a few reasons for this.
first one is that it will help people in the overall.
second one is that they can actually be superior to organic limbs TBH, also its not so bad if you lose one so you can replace it, unlike if you lost an orgnic part, you cannot replace that with an organic part.
the last reason is that it looks cool.

>> No.17622647

We already have augmentations of many varieties. My only concerns when it comes to deep enhancements are:

1. How they are paid for
2. Who has ownership of them
3. How liberties and rights are affected

That's all.

>> No.17623320

Ecklund, Elaine Howard and Christopher Scheitle. "Religion among Academic Scientists: Distinctions, Disciplines, and Demographics," Social Problems, 54(2):289-307.

Another that found a similar distribution and trend. So the assertion that younger degree holders in the natural sciences today identify as more religious than older scientists has significant support.

Some one put foward a hypothesis that the would get less religious as they get older. But since people over the age of 20 rarely change their religiousity that might not be likely.

The converse hypothesis implied by others is that in the absence of any pro or anti-religious political indoctrination at the collegiate level the demographics of scientists will normalize roughly with that of the general population.

I think some of you >>17620205 seem really invested in the first hypothesis because of the implications for making the scientific method more "brutal and efficient". Essentially an argument that any removal of subjective bias is good.

While others have perhaps a bit of an emotional bias toward the concept of in creasing religiosity.

You'll just have to see how it plays out.

>> No.17623352 [DELETED] 

What I'd be more interest in knowing is how many of those religious young scientists are members of classical religions or if they are following trend trend of ever increasing diversification of religious practices.

>> No.17623363

What I'd be more interest in knowing is how many of those religious young scientists are members of classical religions or if they are following the trend of ever increasing diversification of religious practices.

>> No.17623459


>converse hypothesis implied by others is that in the absence of any pro or anti-religious political indoctrination at the collegiate level the demographics of scientists will normalize roughly with that of the general population.

That's quite the hypothesis to base on one poll, with no presented body of evidence that would suggest young science degree holders were less religious in the past than they are now. The blog presenting the poll results as culture change didn't really offer much to support the hypothesis either, but sensationalism is often likely to bring views.


I'd like to see if the tendency to be less religious is higher with higher degrees. That's also one of the possible explanations for older science degree holders' lesser religiosity, as doctorates are more common than in 18-34 year old bracket.

As for your question, the scientists are indeed less likely to be member of classical religious sects like protestant or catholic churches, especially in comparison to the american public.

>> No.17623568

According to the original link http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2009/08/culture_change_younger_scienti.php and the PEW survey they cite most "self-identify as Protestant (20%) or Catholic (10%)" out of the the total number of scientists. East coast protestant sects of the US are sorta deist as it is so unless you had some measure to decide that they were deists and broke with their favored sects beliefs I'd say probably not.

Besides in the US even stuff like Voodoon is practically Christian. No shit, Voodoo was always monotheist and when it came over here they started Jesus worship. So American Voodoo is technically a Christian sect in a sense. Around here being in an alternate religion or unaffiliated just means private worship for the most part.

>> No.17623608

Fuck I meant to say.
While others have perhaps a bit of an emotional bias toward the concept of decreasing religiosity.

Not "in creasing", shit.
Because really a few of you guys kinda spazzed out when anyone hypothesized increasing religiousity.

Why you would care, I don't know.

>> No.17623656


anime is not reality

>> No.17623687


>Because really a few of you guys kinda spazzed out when anyone hypothesized increasing religiousity.

Questioning a hypothesis based on limited evidence is not equivalent to "spazzing out".

>> No.17623721

'Augmetic' is a 40Kism. This thread is about Dark Heresy.

>> No.17623931

"Changes in causality" can be measured. To use your demon example, if demons turning pages manifested as gusts of wind, then the gusts of wind and surrounding air can theoretically be measured and used to work out if the wind occurred naturally. For the demon to have any agency it must have interacted with something at some point, which can be measured.

If anything interacts with anything real, it can theoretically be observed experimentally. Areas in which our current understanding of the universe does not apply can also be observed.

>And the seven day creation myth is specifically to establish a 7 day week, similar mythos exist in all religions that were influenced by Summerian theology and tradition.
I know my history of mythology, and, yes, the fact that mythology evolution can be traced is strong evidence against it being valid. However, that's by the by.

Firstly, you're quoting the wrong person.

Secondly, the particular relationship the soul has with a human isn't important here. The fact is that the soul is said to have some form of importance to humans. As such, people interesting in creating humans or human-like
creatures have a vested interest in the soul and the way the soul works. If the soul has absolutely no impact then it effectively doesn't exist.

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.