Will you receive a neural implant?

[Eftsoon]

Please don't presume to tell me how to do marriage. Drawing a circle around my bed? Are you so hot that you are constantly turning down propositions? That's not an issue that's ever come up.

I also don't do paranoia. One deals with issues as they come up. It is unhealthy to be worried about things that have never happened.

Please reread my post. You're not responding to what I wrote at all. I'm not entirely sure how you're reading my original post, but my intention was to show that (presumably) you and your wife are monogamous. This is an example of what I mean by guarding your sexuality.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Please reread my post. You're not responding to what I wrote at all. I'm not entirely sure how you're reading my original post, but my intention was to show that (presumably) you and your wife are monogamous. This is an example of what I mean by guarding your sexuality.

But I don't "guard" anything. I just live.

 

[Eftsoon]

But I don't "guard" anything. I just live.

I believe that I'm not expressing myself clearly. I don't want to be explicit and this is the problem I think.
1) A father guards his young daughter's sexuality. He will do all he can to protect her from predatory men.

2) A husband will guard his marriage bed. He does not take others into that bed, and he does not allow his wife to do this either. In fact many will actively resist temptation.



These are two specific examples. I'm not saying that we are ina constant state of threat, worrying and fretting about the integrity of our sexuality. I am saying that the boundary lines we draw are there and they are some of the strongest and most primal ones that exist.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I believe that I'm not expressing myself clearly. I don't want to be explicit and this is the problem I think.
1) A father guards his young daughter's sexuality. He will do all he can to protect her from predatory men.

2) A husband will guard his marriage bed. He does not take others into that bed, and he does not allow his wife to do this either. In fact many will actively resist temptation.



These are two specific examples. I'm not saying that we are ina constant state of threat, worrying and fretting about the integrity of our sexuality. I am saying that the boundary lines we draw are there and they are some of the strongest and most primal ones that exist.

(Why aren't you guarding your son's sexuality?)

I'd argue that parents should raise healthy, aware, rational children. I don't guard anything. My responsibility is to teach them. That's it. Inasmuch as I can physically protect them (stop the toddler from running into the street) I will.

My children aren't assets. My wife isn't an asset. They are people. I don't guard them. I interact with them. And, now that my children are grown, I don't presume to give orders. Nor do I give advice unless it's asked for.

 

[Eftsoon]

(Why aren't you guarding your son's sexuality?)

I'd argue that parents should raise healthy, aware, rational children. I don't guard anything. My responsibility is to teach them. That's it. Inasmuch as I can physically protect them (stop the toddler from running into the street) I will.

My children aren't assets. My wife isn't an asset. They are people. I don't guard them. I interact with them. And, now that my children are grown, I don't presume to give orders. Nor do I give advice unless it's asked for.

This is becoming overly semantic now, and it's way off topic. I don't think that I have anything more to add really.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I believe that I'm not expressing myself clearly.

Either that or people simply don't agree with your propositions.

1) A father guards his young daughter's sexuality. He will do all he can to protect her from predatory men.

I think most people will do what they can to protect loved ones from predators of all kinds.

2) A husband will guard his marriage bed. He does not take others into that bed, and he does not allow his wife to do this either. In fact many will actively resist temptation.

Either you've led a very sheltered life, or you're expressing some personal ideal.

The idea that a husband 'does not allow his wife' to choose how she lives her life seems positively Victorian; anyone who marries without a basic awareness of their partner's preferences has married in haste, and anyone who does not understand that people's preferences can change is likely to be disappointed.

Perhaps it's just an unfortunate choice of words...?

 

[Eftsoon]

Either that or people simply don't agree with your propositions.

I think most people will do what they can to protect loved ones from predators of all kinds.

Either you've led a very sheltered life, or you're expressing some personal ideal.

The idea that a husband 'does not allow his wife' to choose how she lives her life seems positively Victorian; anyone who marries without a basic awareness of their partner's preferences has married in haste, and anyone who does not understand that people's preferences can change is likely to be disappointed.

Perhaps it's just an unfortunate choice of words...?

You're not grasping my point at all, and you're fixating on minutiae.

Not a poor choice of words. Neither husband nor wife allows their partner to entertain others in their bed. If they did so, this would be an open relationship. If you prefer, we might say 'encourage', but this is appeasment. If a man finds his wife in bed with someone else, he (usually) does not say: 'no worries, that's cool'.

At any rate. The behaviour of the vast majority of human beings indicates that we believe sex/sexuality to be something of great power. We have enacted some of the strictest taboos and laws around it. Violations of these taboos lead to some of our strongest punishments.
The very existence of the phrase sexual predator indicates this. If you agree with those statements then we agree overall and there is no dispute.

It's sad and strange that this has become a semantic issue.

Can we now return to the OP?

 

[Eftsoon]

We haven't considered the issue of viruses and hacking. So far the thread has focused on states and corporations. What about criminals? We already have cases of smart homes being hacked. Goodness, America recently had a fuel pipeline hack and had to pay a ransom. Black hat hackers will presumably keep pace with cybersecurity, so we can presume that neural implants may have security holes. The consequences could be severe.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You're not grasping my point at all, and you're fixating on minutiae.

Then perhaps you could make your point without the distracting minutiae?

Neither husband nor wife allows their partner to entertain others in their bed. If they did so, this would be an open relationship. If you prefer, we might say 'encourage', but this is appeasment. If a man finds his wife in bed with someone else, he (usually) does not say: 'no worries, that's cool'.

OK - so you were talking of relationships that are not open. That's fine, but you made it sound like that's pretty much universal, when there are, and always have been, open relationships - of various kinds.

Not sure what you mean by 'appeasment' - whose aggressive demands are being satisfied?

Naturally, if one partner in what they understand to be a closed relationship discovers that the other partner is being unfaithful, they are likely to be upset and emotions can run high - particularly in honour cultures; perceived betrayal is deeply wounding.

The behaviour of the vast majority of human beings indicates that we believe sex/sexuality to be something of great power. We have enacted some of the strictest taboos and laws around it. Violations of these taboos lead to some of our strongest punishments.

Violating any taboo is likely to result in strong punishments, that's the nature of taboos. But I'd like to see cross-cultural evidence that breaking sexual taboos generally results in stronger punishments than breaking other taboos. Sexual taboos generally specify with whom (or what) it is not appropriate to have sex, and in what circumstances. This varies widely between cultures.

The very existence of the phrase sexual predator indicates this.

Meh; 'financial predator', 'online predator', 'social predator', etc., all indicate that predatory behaviour is not acceptable; they don't of themselves indicate strict taboos around topics of great power.

If you agree with those statements then we agree overall and there is no dispute.

I don't agree with these statements in general, though they may be true of particular cultures. I'm only disputing the apparently sweeping generalisation of some lifestyle preferences to everyone.

It's sad and strange that this has become a semantic issue.

This is a discussion forum; we discuss things and exchange views.

Can we now return to the OP?

Sure, go for it.

 

[angelsaroundme]

I've posted this before but I think it's relevant here.

Welcome To 2030: I Own Nothing, Have No Privacy And Life Has Never Been Better (forbes.com)

"Once in a while I get annoyed about the fact that I have no real privacy. Nowhere I can go and not be registered. I know that, somewhere, everything I do, think and dream of is recorded. I just hope that nobody will use it against me."

When she refers to her thoughts and dreams being recorded, that could be through a neural implant or a similar device. I would be hesitant to have spyware put in my body.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

These are set to become commercially available within the next 50 years. Essentially, your phone with all its capabilities (and many more) will be implanted in your skull. You will be able to call everything up with thought alone. VR will also be possible.

AR will be more or less constant (you will see notifications popping up in your field of vision superimposed over the real world)

There will also be read and write capability. People will read the data flow inside your skull and obviously with the right security clearance write to it.

Telepathy will be quite trivial. Memory will be limited only by storage capacity. Eventually these will become far more sophisticated. The VR will become more immersive. 'Superhuman' abilities will start to emerge such as enhanced senses, time lapse, microscopic vision etc. It will start to bed down into your consciousness more and more, affecting thought and perception in deeper ways until there is no division between the machine and the human.

Is this something that Christians should adopt or not?

PS Elon Musk has already invented one called Neuralink


This is absolutely a theological question. This will make us reassess our humanity. We'll be interfacing with machines directly. Once we have them embedded in our skull, there is no escaping. You won't be turning them off. You'll be dependent on it to function. It will be tied up with memory and thinking and emotion to the extent that it'll only be off while you sleep.
Crucially, we'll be giving ultimate power to corporations and governments who will not use it responsibly. The changes that technology has already induced will be mulitplied a thousandfold.

I probably won't be around in 50 years so I'm not going to worry about it. The way things are going you probably won't have a choice about it because totalitarianism is on the rise.

 

[Occams Barber]

I probably won't be around in 50 years so I'm not going to worry about it. The way things are going you probably won't have a choice about it because totalitarianism is on the rise.

Will we finally get the Hoverboard?

OB

 

[Mark Quayle]

These are set to become commercially available within the next 50 years. Essentially, your phone with all its capabilities (and many more) will be implanted in your skull. You will be able to call everything up with thought alone. VR will also be possible.

AR will be more or less constant (you will see notifications popping up in your field of vision superimposed over the real world)

There will also be read and write capability. People will read the data flow inside your skull and obviously with the right security clearance write to it.

Telepathy will be quite trivial. Memory will be limited only by storage capacity. Eventually these will become far more sophisticated. The VR will become more immersive. 'Superhuman' abilities will start to emerge such as enhanced senses, time lapse, microscopic vision etc. It will start to bed down into your consciousness more and more, affecting thought and perception in deeper ways until there is no division between the machine and the human.

Is this something that Christians should adopt or not?

PS Elon Musk has already invented one called Neuralink


This is absolutely a theological question. This will make us reassess our humanity. We'll be interfacing with machines directly. Once we have them embedded in our skull, there is no escaping. You won't be turning them off. You'll be dependent on it to function. It will be tied up with memory and thinking and emotion to the extent that it'll only be off while you sleep.
Crucially, we'll be giving ultimate power to corporations and governments who will not use it responsibly. The changes that technology has already induced will be mulitplied a thousandfold.

I probably won't be around in 50 years so I'm not going to worry about it. The way things are going you probably won't have a choice about it because totalitarianism is on the rise.

My hearing aids bluetooth to my smartphone. When someone calls, I get the call in my ears, and forget that I'm not using the phone the way I used to do. When I don't have my hearing aids in, it takes me a bit to figure out what's wrong with my phone, sometimes. I can see that kind of thing being a problem with a chip in my head, but I don't foresee the loss of identity some people expect.

What bothers me most about such a thing is not the viruses or attacks, but the loss of privacy and the loss of freedom. While promising increased benefit of access to information and communication, the Government is encroaching already, and it has become plain that already the legal safeguards against intrusive investigation and observation don't stop some agencies from doing pretty much whatever they please. It is the government I don't trust —not individual hackers. Tyranny is already at work in this two-tiered justice system.

 

[Strathos]

Will we finally get the Hoverboard?

OB

Funny thing, they actually do exist, but they're ridiculously slow, hard to balance on, and only work on top of specially constructed magnetic tracks.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

My hearing aids bluetooth to my smartphone. When someone calls, I get the call in my ears, and forget that I'm not using the phone the way I used to do. When I don't have my hearing aids in, it takes me a bit to figure out what's wrong with my phone, sometimes. I can see that kind of thing being a problem with a chip in my head, but I don't foresee the loss of identity some people expect.

What bothers me most about such a thing is not the viruses or attacks, but the loss of privacy and the loss of freedom. While promising increased benefit of access to information and communication, the Government is encroaching already, and it has become plain that already the legal safeguards against intrusive investigation and observation don't stop some agencies from doing pretty much whatever they please. It is the government I don't trust —not individual hackers. Tyranny is already at work in this two-tiered justice system.

Yeah, if you have a cell phone your privacy is pretty much nil already. I get an email from time to time showing all the places I've been. If I talk about some topic near my computer or phone, I suddenly get ads related to the topic I was discussing. But, as long as it is voluntary, I don't have a problem with it. I do think it will be mandatory but not because the government forces you to get one. It will just be so inconvenient not to have one because so many things will require it. Just like it's going to become impossible to live without getting a covid vaccine. Honestly, I'm 90 percent certain I'll be living in a tent as far from others as I can get soon, I'm so disgusted with my fellow human beings.

I'm glad you don't trust the government. It is corrupt from top to bottom, every agency.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I've watched enough dystopian science fiction to know that putting strange things in people's brains is probably not a good idea.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Mark Quayle]

I've watched enough dystopian science fiction to know that putting strange things in people's brains is probably not a good idea.

-CryptoLutheran

Happens on here all the time!

 

[timewerx]

These are set to become commercially available within the next 50 years. Essentially, your phone with all its capabilities (and many more) will be implanted in your skull. You will be able to call everything up with thought alone. VR will also be possible.

AR will be more or less constant (you will see notifications popping up in your field of vision superimposed over the real world)

There will also be read and write capability. People will read the data flow inside your skull and obviously with the right security clearance write to it.

Telepathy will be quite trivial. Memory will be limited only by storage capacity. Eventually these will become far more sophisticated. The VR will become more immersive. 'Superhuman' abilities will start to emerge such as enhanced senses, time lapse, microscopic vision etc. It will start to bed down into your consciousness more and more, affecting thought and perception in deeper ways until there is no division between the machine and the human.

Is this something that Christians should adopt or not?

PS Elon Musk has already invented one called Neuralink


This is absolutely a theological question. This will make us reassess our humanity. We'll be interfacing with machines directly. Once we have them embedded in our skull, there is no escaping. You won't be turning them off. You'll be dependent on it to function. It will be tied up with memory and thinking and emotion to the extent that it'll only be off while you sleep.
Crucially, we'll be giving ultimate power to corporations and governments who will not use it responsibly. The changes that technology has already induced will be mulitplied a thousandfold.

It sounds like a great idea at first but how will the thing handle EMP (Electromagnetic pulse) or microwave energy??

Having conductors or semiconductors inside you can act as induction coil and a powerful EMP/microwave beam can overheat it, emit electrical discharges or even cause it explode. Inside the brain, it can cause permanent brain damage or even death.

Someone with EMP/microwave gun can stealthily kill people with brain implants without getting detected / caught. Or even cause illnesses / headaches if used at lower power setting.

It's probably okay if the implant is far away from the brain and heart and from any vital organ. But on the brain or heart, NO. It's like giving someone the persmission to strap a loaded gun to your head and they have the trigger, not you!

 

[SapphirePrincess]

No. It is an abomination.

 

[Tom 1]

These are set to become commercially available within the next 50 years. Essentially, your phone with all its capabilities (and many more) will be implanted in your skull. You will be able to call everything up with thought alone. VR will also be possible.

AR will be more or less constant (you will see notifications popping up in your field of vision superimposed over the real world)

There will also be read and write capability. People will read the data flow inside your skull and obviously with the right security clearance write to it.

Telepathy will be quite trivial. Memory will be limited only by storage capacity. Eventually these will become far more sophisticated. The VR will become more immersive. 'Superhuman' abilities will start to emerge such as enhanced senses, time lapse, microscopic vision etc. It will start to bed down into your consciousness more and more, affecting thought and perception in deeper ways until there is no division between the machine and the human.

Is this something that Christians should adopt or not?

PS Elon Musk has already invented one called Neuralink


This is absolutely a theological question. This will make us reassess our humanity. We'll be interfacing with machines directly. Once we have them embedded in our skull, there is no escaping. You won't be turning them off. You'll be dependent on it to function. It will be tied up with memory and thinking and emotion to the extent that it'll only be off while you sleep.
Crucially, we'll be giving ultimate power to corporations and governments who will not use it responsibly. The changes that technology has already induced will be mulitplied a thousandfold.

Paid upgrades, security weaknesses, payment contracts - not so bad when it's just a phone. Not so sure about something a person may become dependent on.