The Neural Net

[Steezie]

Imagine in five years, a device is introduced.

This device is a small implant, the size and thickness of a dime, that is placed in human brain tissue and connected to the brain via several dozen small wires. It powers itself with bioelectric energy produced by a person's body. The implants are extremely affordable and safe, avalible for purchase by most everyone.

This implant acts as a modem for the human brain. It allows a person with an implant to up-link to other people with this implant. But the up-link doesn't just act like a mental chat-room. It allows people to share thoughts, memories, feelings, knowledge, emotions, experiences, sensations anything they want with a vast global network. Each implant acts as both transmitter and receiver, so there is no central hub.

The implant can be switched off if the bearer so desires, but when its switched on, it allows for the minds of everyone with the implant to be joined in a massive pool of consciousness and knowledge.

Doctors can now tune into thier patients and stop playing guessing games with symptoms, psychologists can tell exactly what thier patients mean, patients in deep comas can communicate with the outside world, people with speech disabilities of similar lack of ability to communicate can speak at ease with other people.

Not to mention what such a device would do for people's ability to relate and get along. War, racism, hatred, theft, dishonesty, lying none of it would be possible in a world where every person can understand what his fellow man thinks and feels. Science would make astronomical leaps forward, with every scientific mind on the planet working towards solving problems research that would usually take centuries could be accomplished in a few short years.

What do you think about such a device?

 

[SedjmNeter]

P.E.A.C.E and Blessings...

Sounds like a good idea, however U've only discussed the pros. What about the cons?

In the end though it's unneccessary. We've been given all the faculties needed to attain to such heights of humanity.

SHEM HETEP

 

[The Nihilist]

Will your culture adapt to service us?

 

[.Sabre.]

Shared consciousness? No thanks.

There ARE downsides to that. Such as: the possibility of thought police, and of course it might seem trivial, but the world could be taken over by some lunatic like Hitler very, very easily.

 

[selfinflikted]

Ya. I don't particularly care for it. One of the last private things we as people have left are our own thoughts. I don't want to share those.

 

[.Sabre.]

Ya. I don't particularly care for it. One of the last private things we as people have left are our own thoughts. I don't want to share those.

Exactly.

 

[sparklecat]

I'd be rather worried about people hacking into my brain.

 

[Steezie]

Such as: the possibility of thought police, and of course it might seem trivial, but the world could be taken over by some lunatic like Hitler very, very easily.

This would be very difficult as with such implants, his intentions would become known and people would refuse to follow him.

Ya. I don't particularly care for it. One of the last private things we as people have left are our own thoughts. I don't want to share those.

The device can be switched off at will.

Im also curious, why someone would refuse something could potentially end human suffering. Yes it would require a change in our social attitude about things like privacy, but in return it would essentially allow humanity to end its suffering and even possibly take the next step in thier evolution

I'd be rather worried about people hacking into my brain.

There is no digital interface to the implant so this would be quite impossible.

 

[AuraTwilight]

I think it would be the most wonderful invention in the world.

On a related note, I'm a Transhumanist.

 

[JadeTigress]

I think it would be the most wonderful invention in the world.

Ditto.

 

[selfinflikted]

I'd be rather worried about people hacking into my brain.

I'd be more worried that no one would want to hack into mine

 

[MoonlessNight]

Your description seems very Rodenberryesque to me. Which is to say, technology solves all of our problems once we reach an arbitrary point (at least until the Klingons show up so that the show can have some conflict).

So I'm guessing that your device will not have any negative consequences other than those absolutely inherent to the concept (namely lack of privacy), because that's the type of universe it exists in.

 

[Steezie]

So I'm guessing that your device will not have any negative consequences other than those absolutely inherent to the concept (namely lack of privacy), because that's the type of universe it exists in.

Again, the device can be switched off when the user wishes.

But, I have to ask, is privacy worth it if you could essentially end human strife?

 

[MoonlessNight]

But, I have to ask, is privacy worth it if you could essentially end human strife?

My point is that you might as well make this device explicitly end all human strife. As it is you describe an invention with a vast number of possible uses and then tack on "and it cures everything wrong with everything" at the end. If this was framed as a vague hypothetical question "would you give up privacy if it fixed everything else" or something like that it would at least be honest, but I think that you are confusing effects here.

That's what scares me the most about transhumanism to be honest. The blind faith that technology is a cure all, despite the fact that it always adds new strife in addition to what it cures. The thought is that we just haven't given ourselves enough to it.

 

[Steezie]

My point is that you might as well make this device explicitly end all human strife. As it is you describe an invention with a vast number of possible uses and then tack on "and it cures everything wrong with everything" at the end. If this was framed as a vague hypothetical question "would you give up privacy if it fixed everything else" or something like that it would at least be honest, but I think that you are confusing effects here.

I would have to reluctantly agree, however there are atleast a handfull of inventions that have done naught but good since thier inception. Penicillin, seatbelts, bandages etc etc.

That's what scares me the most about transhumanism to be honest The blind faith that technology is a cure all, despite the fact that it always adds new strife in addition to what it cures. The thought is that we just haven't given ourselves enough to it.

That is partially true, we try to cling to the past so much we dont want to look at the future. We're affraid of what will happen if we swim out into the deep-end with no floaters of history on our arms. People want that soft yellow buffer there to kno that what they are doing atleast has some basis. People get scared with something TOTALLY new.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Penicillin

Some people are allergic. The overuse of it leading to resistant bacteria must also be considered.

seatbelts

Can be dangerous with improper use (such as wrong sitting position).

bandages

This is a bit more vague, but it applies to everything. Psychologically there is a theory that the more protection you get, the more risks that you take (at least in the general person). In the case of bandages it means that if someone can bandage a wound they are less likely to get it further treated, which may lead to complications if perhaps the incident was more serious than they thought.

That is partially true, we try to cling to the past so much we dont want to look at the future. We're affraid of what will happen if we swim out into the deep-end with no floaters of history on our arms. People want that soft yellow buffer there to kno that what they are doing atleast has some basis. People get scared with something TOTALLY new.

And how is this sort of attitude supposed to reassure anyone? The theory is to jump onto some new wave without even taking time to prepare a way to back out (as that keeps too much of our past, always the culprit for transhumanists, with us), nor do we have time to fully consider the risks, as to do it fully would slow down progress (always useful to use progress unmodified, as if it were an absolute direction) an unnacceptable degree.

But getting back to the topic, I really have to wonder why you think this "neural net" (by the way I wouldn't mind if you changed its name as I'm sure that you aware neural net means something else) is such a panacea.

For instance:

Doctors can now tune into thier patients and stop playing guessing games with symptoms,

What if the symptom isn't evident to the patient?

psychologists can tell exactly what thier patients mean,

Howso, when most people don't know what they really mean themselves?

patients in deep comas can communicate with the outside world,

I'm not a medical expert but I don't think comas work that way.

people with speech disabilities of similar lack of ability to communicate can speak at ease with other people.

Though you have to consider also that we would add a new disability: inability to properly use this implant. That is unless this is a magic device that everyone can use to its full extent, regardless of skill or biological complications.

War, racism, hatred, theft, dishonesty, lying none of it would be possible in a world where every person can understand what his fellow man thinks and feels

Ah but you forget the extreme suspicion and possibly hatred that anyone who chooses not to use this device would be viewed with, if this thread is any indication of who would be using the implant.

with every scientific mind on the planet working towards solving problems research that would usually take centuries could be accomplished in a few short years.

I don't see how the situation is dramatically different from people working in close communication with each other. What I mean is that in our partnerships/collaborations today the problem usually isn't that one person doesn't know the other's stance on soemthing but rather that the right data isn't coming in (in the applied sciences) or that no one has had the right insight (in the theoretical sciences). I don't see how this situation changes with closer communication.

 

[AuraTwilight]

MoonlessNight brings up some excellent points, which is why I believe most transhumanists believe this sort of Technological Singularity could only be managed by a benevolent, superintelligent being like an A.I. or something. But I don't think science and technology could ever permanently eliminate all suffering, and such. Atleast not for hundreds upon hundreds of years.

And then the Klingons show up.

 

[Steezie]

Some people are allergic. The overuse of it leading to resistant bacteria must also be considered.

Overuse, user error.

Can be dangerous with improper use (such as wrong sitting position).

Again, user error.

This is a bit more vague, but it applies to everything. Psychologically there is a theory that the more protection you get, the more risks that you take (at least in the general person). In the case of bandages it means that if someone can bandage a wound they are less likely to get it further treated, which may lead to complications if perhaps the incident was more serious than they thought.

If you have a protection against something, it is no longer a risk.

And how is this sort of attitude supposed to reassure anyone? The theory is to jump onto some new wave without even taking time to prepare a way to back out (as that keeps too much of our past, always the culprit for transhumanists, with us), nor do we have time to fully consider the risks, as to do it fully would slow down progress (always useful to use progress unmodified, as if it were an absolute direction) an unnacceptable degree.

Im not advocating reckless abandon, but we cling too heartily to our past. To the point where the future has to DRAG us into it kicking and screaming and that generally has bad consequences.

But getting back to the topic, I really have to wonder why you think this "neural net" (by the way I wouldn't mind if you changed its name as I'm sure that you aware neural net means something else) is such a panacea.

The title was just a throw-away, something I could use that would get the point across. It would allow people all across the globe to connect to each other at the fundamental level. What causes strafe and fighting is people not understanding each other. They dont understand each other's point of view or thier motivations so tension mounts and conflict ensues.

What if the symptom isn't evident to the patient?

I never said the implant would help cure ALL diseases, but a large number of diseases would be held back by the inception of such a device.

Howso, when most people don't know what they really mean themselves?

Thats actually not true, most people's problem comes from not being able to articulate what they mean. Also a psychologist would be able, with the implant, to sift through the patient's feelings and thoughts. So even if the patient doesnt know what he means, the psychologist will.

I'm not a medical expert but I don't think comas work that way.

Some do. PVS (persistant vegetative state) wouldnt be able to be helped as the part of the brain responsible for communication is dead. However a coma patient is able to communicate, but his body will not allow him to do so. This implant would allow communication and possibly to bring them out of the coma.

Though you have to consider also that we would add a new disability: inability to properly use this implant. That is unless this is a magic device that everyone can use to its full extent, regardless of skill or biological complications.

Since the implant works off of the brain's own communication center, the only way the device would be un-usable is if the center is damaged or the brain itself is mal-formed.

Ah but you forget the extreme suspicion and possibly hatred that anyone who chooses not to use this device would be viewed with, if this thread is any indication of who would be using the implant.

True. However keep in mind you have the mind of millions of people thinking about it. With that many people and that much understanding, I think we could overcome that kind of fear and suspicion.

I don't see how the situation is dramatically different from people working in close communication with each other. What I mean is that in our partnerships/collaborations today the problem usually isn't that one person doesn't know the other's stance on soemthing but rather that the right data isn't coming in (in the applied sciences) or that no one has had the right insight (in the theoretical sciences). I don't see how this situation changes with closer communication.

Communication doesnt link individual minds together to share understanding and experience. They have to verbally communicate it, which is slow and requires a fair bit of articulation. With an implant, you could share the sum total of your knowleage and experience on a subject in a matter of seconds.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Overuse, user error.

Part of my point is that you can't just blame these things on user error. They are effects, they happen, and so they are consequences of technology. It is vitally central to the whole debate because transhumanists do like to ignore possible problems caused by misuse, as if we will pass some point where misuse will be impossible.

Since the implant works off of the brain's own communication center, the only way the device would be un-usable is if the center is damaged or the brain itself is mal-formed.

So this type of implant will be impervious to the rejection, connection complications, and otehr biological quirks which plague other types of implants? Interesting.

True. However keep in mind you have the mind of millions of people thinking about it. With that many people and that much understanding, I think we could overcome that kind of fear and suspicion.

Who's to say that the fear won't just be magnified at that level? After all the only understanding we are having is between people who have already accepted this implant and want to use it, how could multiplying the number involved possibly lead to an understanding of those who reject it?

Communication doesnt link individual minds together to share understanding and experience. They have to verbally communicate it, which is slow and requires a fair bit of articulation. With an implant, you could share the sum total of your knowleage and experience on a subject in a matter of seconds.

I do have to say that the main feature of this technology is to perform in whatever way is most convenient for your theory.

 

[Steezie]

Part of my point is that you can't just blame these things on user error. They are effects, they happen, and so they are consequences of technology. It is vitally central to the whole debate because transhumanists do like to ignore possible problems caused by misuse, as if we will pass some point where misuse will be impossible.

Misuse is a possibility with ALL things, not necessarily just technology. Whats needed is proper education about new technology to minimize misuse.

So this type of implant will be impervious to the rejection, connection complications, and otehr biological quirks which plague other types of implants? Interesting.

I couldnt guarantee that there wouldnt be problems. But we also dont have any real experience with implants that effect the brain to that level.

Also the technology to ensure our bodies dont reject implants is coming about http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/75943.php

On a side note, cochlear implants (which directly effect the brain) have a low rate of rejection.

Who's to say that the fear won't just be magnified at that level? After all the only understanding we are having is between people who have already accepted this implant and want to use it, how could multiplying the number involved possibly lead to an understanding of those who reject it?

As the number of people connected increases, thier ability to understand each other becomes magnified and thier understanding of others also increases. You start stacking insight. Maybe a bunch of people will be scared, but there will be people who aren't and that understanding will build and over-ride the fear.

I do have to say that the main feature of this technology is to perform in whatever way is most convenient for your theory.

The implant would be the culmination of years of research and wouldn't be released until such concerns would be addressed.