When Will We Become Cyborgs?

The idea that a car can out speed a runner is a joke too eh? The idea that you can achieve better, faster, more varied, accurate and precise data I/O through a direct neural interface has already been demonstrated. The only real impediment to implementation is the transcutaneous infection and rejection problems. Personally, I wish they'd hurry it up so i could get ENHANCED.

ZenZ: you say "The idea that you can achieve better, faster, more varied, accurate and precise data I/O through a direct neural interface has already been demonstrated."

Please provide some links to support this assertion. Show us the peer-reviewed research, please, that you're referring to.

I have yet to come across any convincing data on 'enhancement'. The enhancement that has been reported was not measurably superior to that produced by caffeine, in the only positive findings I have seen published.

Needless to say, the risk profile on a cup of coffee is waaaay less worrisome than infection, rejection, device malfunction.... or the list of possible adverse effects that accompanies the present commercialized neural interface devices (VNS, DBS etc).

On the other hand, there's all kinds of "raving" about 'enhancement' - completely unsubstantiated - in the field of neuroethics of all places. Who will get the benefits bla bla. A complete fantasy that ignores, as well, the weapons potential of the gear and the risk of its criminal applications. Sorry, I'm biased towards the actual purpose of ethics (to consider risks and downsides) .... and highly skeptical of the gear.

you can not move a computer cursor through a cuppa Joe. Nor can you gain novel sensory awareness(ultrasound, AC fields, compass orientation, basically any digitizeable sensor). IDK why you bring up rejection etc when I already point out these are serious problems. I wish I had the links handy for you. Remember the roborat? Well they've controlled roborat through a human neural link. That my friend IS telepathic mind control. The blind see. The deaf hear. And the tech is ever improving. Never the less I expect that as with the cochlear implants the best results are seen with those who are implanted while still very young. Brains are all fairly plastic, but the young have the upper hand in that department for now. Who knows what the limits would be for a fully involved neural interface one was essentially born with. I should imagine that video output would not be out of the question. Imagine how well you could communicate that way. There's weapons potential in a damned rock for all that matters.

And I ought to point out we are ALREADY cyborg with pacemakers and cochlear implants and almost ready for commercial production robotic hands with tactile feedback. I can't imagine NOT wanting to develop this tech as far as possible.

all I asked for were your references.. I don't see any.

You do not need an implant to benefit from digital sensors. I am happy to see the ultrasound or AC fields on my screen, I don't want to feel them and that is all the extra "sense" you are going to get from it. You might as well make a vibrating thing and stick it in your pocket. Big deal.

As for the pseudo-telepathy what a load of BS. roborat indeed. If there was telepathy involved the driver would be feeling the misery of that creature under neuroelectric assault. When there's a machine to make people telepathic, there will also be one to make people saints. And I wish you all those machine interfaces if you need a prosthetic to understand the most basic ethical standpoints. Don't do to others!!! what you don't want done to yourself.

I am all for the good prosthetics, don't get me wrong. But your idea about the young is also a really bad one and physically not so feasible either, as implants don't "grow" along with a growing body. That is besides the ethical issues of inflicting neural interference on a newborn.

Read yourself some googles on VNS side effects. There are enough users out there trying to deal with the flakey results of therapeutic devices, to give you some idea of the risks involved. This technology is nowhere near being able to deliver "enhancements" with any kind of guarantee of a positive result and the risk profile is very unattractive. It's strictly for hopeless cases and lost causes.

I'm sticking with rocks.

You're right. I'm too lazy to relocate those links for you. True you don't need an implant to benefit from sensors but you do if you want cybernetic control over them, or control over other things in your environment. You say "all you do is feel them" Do you say the same about your visual input? True the roborat was a one way ticket. The operator was not given the opportunity to get neural feedback from the rat. Doesn't mean it couldn't be done. I agree with you 100%. Telepathy (true telepathy) between people would make saints of us all. When you truly feel how the person you hurt really feels it changes your perception of them. Sounds like a bad thing eh? Maybe we should just connect up criminals that way. They are the ones who already lack the "do unto others" Eh? It might be better than imprisonment. Which would be more unethical in your opinion?

So you wouldn't provide a deaf child a cochlear implant. It's unethical. Again you refuse to acknowledge that I agree the tech is still not ready for prime time. Unlike you I'm confident those problems will be overcome. As for growing with the body nanowire coils can accommodate enormous change in size.

I took your advice and Googled VNS. I'm surprised you think the voltage levels employed in VNS therapy are anything like signal I/O levels. It's basically EST internalized. I wouldn't encourage such extreme methods as they ARE way above what the body's natural voltages tolerate.

Addendum:

Then too there's the ethics of NOT implanting cybernetics in the newborn. Denying them the benefits might be considered criminal. Time will tell.

When I say you will only feel them, that is an opinion based on my understanding of how neural devices work, namely by electrical impulses. I am questioning the technical ability of the technology to translate these impulses into a useful "sense" other than a touch-like tapping sensation (or maybe thermal, or pain - who wants that). There's no question the gear can produce physical sensations, or illusions for that matter, by impulse to specific nerves or parts of the brain. Whether that's desirable or useful is a personal choice.

I am not convinced that visual input is transferable from a device to the brain, so as to restore sight to the blind. The same technical issue applies to having an internet interface as an "enhancement". The electrical input, as far as I have read about the present gear, will produce some flashes or other phenomena that might or might not be useful to the blind person, but certainly do not in any way approximate "streaming video" from the camera. There might be a possibility of a 'workaround' using stimulus to trigger a visual memory - if the person was formerly sighted - but this has not been researched afaik. And again, it's not a "true" sight restoration. It sure won't get you internet. But maybe I am too pessimistic.

Telepathy for convicts who harmed others: sure that'd be nice in a sci fi world. I am one of those people who thinks the punishment should fit the crime.

Okay we agree the tech is not ready for prime time. My skepticism is about the way it is being promoted. I feel it is made to sound very appealing on the basis of completely speculative notions, while the risks and obstacles are downplayed.

The research is driven by industry, not altruism. The therapeutic device industry is a "growth sector", big pharma players also have proprietary research and/or partners in this sector. But the development of this technology has one huge stumbling block: the risk profile is too serious for research in healthy human volunteers. FDA approval is conditional and on compassionate grounds, to allow devices to be tested and used by persons with medical conditions that are otherwise untreatable.

None of the more fantastic applications or 'enhancements' bandied about in the media can be tested on animals. An animal can't tell you if an auditory or visual prosthetic works, or whether they got internet. They need human test subjects, if they ever hope to make money from their investment, and their ability to move forward is strictly limited by that factor alone.

Then see what they are doing with animals. Roborat, the cyborg beetles can't tell you what they experience or suffer in the process. There's a lot of coercive potential in this gear, and a predatory need for human subjects, who will be exposed to mortal risks because that's how it is. A risky business.

So to answer when will we become cyborgs? I would have to say not for a long time, unless there are slaves (or gulls) available to the industry to test the gear.

The choclear implants obviously work better than taps buzzes and pain. People actually hear words. I think you aren't looking at the positive results hard enough.

I never meant to imply that therapeutic devices have no potential to help those who are impaired.

I simply don't believe there is any potential for a genuine 'enhancement' to a healthy person, and I think the risks are often downplayed in the media while the potential (which is imaginary at this point) is pumped up, as a way of enticing people with the 'cyborg' fantasy... maybe in hopes of recruiting healthy volunteers for a very risky business. Beware the snake oil, and if you ever do such a thing, make sure your 'consent' is really completely informed. This is not the tatoo you want to wake up with after drinking too much at the party...

Ok, I think we're on the same page then. The research will continue at a slow pace using only the most handicapped individuals because it really is risky in the form it is now. It seems our definition of enhanced was at variance because I felt those cochlear implants WERE enhancement.

Nice talking with you. It's been very interesting.

All the best, friend.

When the 6-million-dollar man becomes the 6-thousand-dollar man (or whatever the average Joe and his insurance can/will afford....