sophiecentaur said:It's no wonder kids aren't so amazed about 'space exploits' when they take for granted the existence of Warp Drive and inter stellar travel; they've seen it all in films and it's far easier to accept than hard, nitty-gritty Science.
danR said:I take the 'Matrix' model of the future very seriously, in this respect:
If the seat of one's consciousness can be transferred from brain to cpu/memory seamlessly (this is crucial), people will take that option if/when it becomes available.
There are 2 ways to do this: internal replacement (Kurzweil) and external transfer. The former will be rather expensive and probably a long way off.
It's established by anthropologists that the seat of consciousness (whereabouts you actually sense your conscious, self-recognizing self is, is not fixed between the ears, or behind the eyes. Some have it the chest, as I recall, but that's unusual.
Transfer to servers will almost certainly involve some kind of s-f head gizmo that can
1. control a computer directly from the brain, and
2. bring sensory feedback from the machine directly to the relevant cortices (auditory, visual, etc.)
This established, the seat of consciousness will be free to move seamlessly to and from the meat between the ears and the cpu/memory. It will be necessary first to establish machine sensory inputs (via video, microphone, olfactory, tactile sensors), and outputs (manipulators) available to this seat of consciousness, otherwise it will refuse to move (we like to have familiar surroundings). If the sensory/motor factors are superior to those of the human body, it will move readily.
This accomplished, the attraction of having the potential for an unlimited lifetime will be certainly irresistible. Once transferred, civilization will probably eventually settle for an entirely internalized reality: a virtual Matrix-like existence. What's the point of an external reality if an internal one will provide a much richer and flexible experience (and see following paragraph)? This is, in fact what we do when we read a good novel, then switch to T.V., and then surf the internet.
The downside is that this option will probably be made available only to a select few million, chosen, elite. For security the integrity (permanence) of the thing will be much better, if we leave Earth altogether for a safe, but boring environment, such as deep below the crust of a geologically inactive outer planet(oid), such as Pluto.
The downside of this (potential) personal near-immortality is that people will stop doing science. They won't care about the properties of real matter, space and time, except for a few thousand personalities that will monitor the solar system for existential threats, and make decisions about repair and renovation, relocation and the like.
Then again, most people don't care about science/reality anyway. As stated above, a lot of time is spent in a fantasy world.
sophiecentaur said:I think this is a bit over simplistic but you have some points which I could go along with. I don't subscribe to a "seat of consciousness", as such but I would say that in a social organism, a big chunk of the consciousness is already, effectively, external to us. This is not only true in our inter personal affairs but in the way we use machines (in particular, computers) as a significant part of our though processes. The existence of some of our ideas in the form of writing and computer programs is more than just data transfer: it is a group consciousness (PF, for instance). Once we can stop being obsessed with 'self' - as if that is the ultimate - and get on with our part in the human race, we can forget about misguided and selfish ideas of immortality of the self and realize that we can be immortal by thinking to the future of our offspring.
It is unthinkable that trillions of humans could aim at being immortal. Talk of immortality, however it may be achieved, is, necessarily based on a very exclusive idea of our own personal importance. Who would be judged to be worthy of being at the front of the queue? You, me, Rupert Murdoch?
This could be going along the lines of the 'starships' debate.
Nano-Passion said:What does the future of virtual reality look like? There are a lot of hype out there for its future. What do you guys think?
ryan_m_b said:I'm not so sure about virtual reality for a while (the technology is clearly improving but it will be a while yet). However augmented reality is going to be huge in the near future. I've been following some of the development over recent years and just a couple of weeks ago saw some software that blew my mind. A company called string have got an AR demo app that allows you to see examples of all sorts of cool images. The best in my opinion is a hole that appears when you point the iphone/ipad at the marker through which a dragon flies out. The most stunning thing is as you move the device around the image in the background changes through the hole. A more practical example is a shoe that you can customise colours, patterns etc.
The software is getting better and better. What it really needs to break through the gimmick/novelty barrier and into everyday life is for it to be integrated into stylish and practical eye wear. It's all very well holding up your phone to see augmented reality overlays but it's not entirely practical, if people just wore specs which had discrete cameras on the outside and transparent screens for glass the market for AR is huge. Want to know where to go? Tap a destination into your phone and your glasses will throw up an arrow, coloured line or anything you want to follow. Look at a restaurant, reviews pop up over the top. Forget someones name, a summary of their facebook profile hovers next to them.
The opportunities are enormous (not to mention the effect it could have on the gaming market). It just needs a bit of development of the software and a big development in the hardware.
danR said:I take the 'Matrix' model of the future very seriously, in this respect:
If the seat of one's consciousness can be transferred from brain to cpu/memory seamlessly (this is crucial), people will take that option if/when it becomes available.
There are 2 ways to do this: internal replacement (Kurzweil) and external transfer. The former will be rather expensive and probably a long way off.
It's established by anthropologists that the seat of consciousness (whereabouts you actually sense your conscious, self-recognizing self is, is not fixed between the ears, or behind the eyes. Some have it the chest, as I recall, but that's unusual.
Transfer to servers will almost certainly involve some kind of s-f head gizmo that can
1. control a computer directly from the brain, and
2. bring sensory feedback from the machine directly to the relevant cortices (auditory, visual, etc.)
This established, the seat of consciousness will be free to move seamlessly to and from the meat between the ears and the cpu/memory. It will be necessary first to establish machine sensory inputs (via video, microphone, olfactory, tactile sensors), and outputs (manipulators) available to this seat of consciousness, otherwise it will refuse to move (we like to have familiar surroundings). If the sensory/motor factors are superior to those of the human body, it will move readily.
This accomplished, the attraction of having the potential for an unlimited lifetime will be certainly irresistible. Once transferred, civilization will probably eventually settle for an entirely internalized reality: a virtual Matrix-like existence. What's the point of an external reality if an internal one will provide a much richer and flexible experience (and see following paragraph)? This is, in fact what we do when we read a good novel, then switch to T.V., and then surf the internet.
The downside is that this option will probably be made available only to a select few million, chosen, elite. For security the integrity (permanence) of the thing will be much better, if we leave Earth altogether for a safe, but boring environment, such as deep below the crust of a geologically inactive outer planet(oid), such as Pluto.
The downside of this (potential) personal near-immortality is that people will stop doing science. They won't care about the properties of real matter, space and time, except for a few thousand personalities that will monitor the solar system for existential threats, and make decisions about repair and renovation, relocation and the like.
Then again, most people don't care about science/reality anyway. As stated above, a lot of time is spent in a fantasy world.
SteveL27 said:In the future, people from all over the world will be able to discuss physics with each other without even having to be in the same physical place! They'll interact in "online discussion forums" and will feel that they know each other, even though they've never met. Individuals will be known by their "handles," which are nothing more than electronic labels that interact with each other in cyberspace.
Oh if only there were some way to do that now ...
SteveL27 said:In the future, people from all over the world will be able to discuss physics with each other without even having to be in the same physical place! They'll interact in "online discussion forums" and will feel that they know each other, even though they've never met. Individuals will be known by their "handles," which are nothing more than electronic labels that interact with each other in cyberspace.
Oh if only there were some way to do that now ...
Nano-Passion said:The problem I see about that is the headaches that a computer screen can induce. I wonder if there is a way around that because it would be needed if your going to have a screen on your glasses.
sophiecentaur said:I thought that the present view of consciousness was that it resides nowhere in particular but is the very top layer of a load of hardware, sensory input, memory and brain processing. Merely 'downloading' some static data onto a computer, of whatever sort, wouldn't constitute a duplicate of one's self. it could, possibly generate something with sentience and memory - even its own consciousness butt how would that be 'you'? You would need to reconstruct the whole of your body (maybe an emulation) and the totality of its environment plus download all the stuff that the 'enthusiasts' seem to think would be enough.
Then, of course, the question arises about multiple copies. Just how would all the clones deal with that? Imho, it's a nonsense, once you think it through completely, - a bit like Cryogenics.
sophiecentaur said:I agree totally. In fact anyone who thinks along the lines of 'downloading' just hasn't thought, read or heard much about the serious question of consciousness.
My view is that there is a fundamental limit to just how much a system (i.e. humans) can examine and characterise itself, in particular, its own consciousness. It's a bit like having to draw a map of a scene that must contain an image the map itself - and that image must contain an image ... and so on.
Who analyses the analyst?
@ryan Are you seriously question the depth of thought of some of our contributors? Shame.
ryan_m_b said:I agree in part, It wouldn't be possible for me to examine my own consciousness however we can compartmentalise. If a good understanding of how consciousness arises was developed then the understanding could be shared out amongst specialist who each know a small part.
Constantinos said:That's almost exactly what I would answer! Another thought is that, although one cannot examine his own consciousness, that doesn't preclude him from the examining the alleged consciousness of other people and extrapolate that if theirs works in a certain way, then his also most probably works the same. Or he could let other people examine his/her consciousness and then show him/her, much like the way a neurosurgeon can perform a surgery upon anyone but not himself.
sophiecentaur said:The nearest you could get to a reproduction of the body and consciousness would be with a clone.Then you'd need to bring up the 'baby' in an identical environment to the original, with the same social interactions from beginning to end. This would be difficult, either with reality or in a software simulation. But, even then, the doppleganger wouldn't be YOU. The nearest that you could describe it would be a twin that had been raised in the same environment as you.
Other people might not be able to tell the difference but what good would it do you?
I really think the VR proponents imagine, somehow, 'waking up' inside a computer VR system but how would the experience work? When and how could 'YOU' jump across?
sophiecentaur said:When I use the term "you" I mean the "you" who is sitting, reading this. What could be going on in a replica of you would mean nothing to you. How could it? What would be the sensation? Would you suddenly be looking out of a pair of eyes, situated somewhere else? What could make that happen? The thought processes that are going on in your 'present' body are there by virtue of the sum total of all the chemistry in that body, all the unconscious processes, all the 'inputs' and the memories. The consciousness would only be aware of a small fraction of all this. Would your consciousness suddenly 'jump' into the other creature's frame?
By "practical purposes", you presumably mean from an outsider's view; I could go along with that. What I question is how the 'you' in the original body would relate to what is going on inside the other guy, who has been given all of your memories. What sort of transference of awareness could take place. I can agree that a duplicate (to some degree) might be created but it would be someone else and not you.
sophiecentaur said:Interesting idea. So there would be two of 'you', each one believing he was the original?
Nano-Passion said:The problem is how are we going to transfer the mind to a computer? I mean our brain is immensely complex and still relatively unknown to us. The question of consciousness is one of the biggest questions of our time.
While its very exciting keep in note: we still have no idea how to tap in dreams or memories. We can read the brain activity as electrical signals but have no interpretation of what they mean. Neither do I believe that we can using that approach.
Even though I am a big optimist, the problem of transferring the brain into a computer may very well be impossible.
sophiecentaur said:When I use the term "you" I mean the "you" who is sitting, reading this. What could be going on in a replica of you would mean nothing to you. How could it? What would be the sensation? Would you suddenly be looking out of a pair of eyes, situated somewhere else? What could make that happen? The thought processes that are going on in your 'present' body are there by virtue of the sum total of all the chemistry in that body, all the unconscious processes, all the 'inputs' and the memories. The consciousness would only be aware of a small fraction of all this. Would your consciousness suddenly 'jump' into the other creature's frame?
By "practical purposes", you presumably mean from an outsider's view; I could go along with that. What I question is how the 'you' in the original body would relate to what is going on inside the other guy, who has been given all of your memories. What sort of transference of awareness could take place. I can agree that a duplicate (to some degree) might be created but it would be someone else and not you.
BobG said:Just because we can't currently interpret what those electrical signals mean doesn't mean we can't eventually. Our current state just means it won't happen very soon. However, assuming we could someday be able to observe those signals and know what they mean, etc, it doesn't mean we could simulate those signals.
You can run into problems where simulating something actually winds up being more expensive than just building a new original, even when you're talking about inanimate objects such as a computer.
For example, you don't want to buy an extra satellite so you can train the satellite operators, so you write computer programs that will simulate the parts of the spacecraft that the operator interacts with, including the computers in the spacecraft . Creating a computer program that will make your computer act exactly like another computer can be surprisingly hard. The simulator computer has to be better and faster than the computer it's simulating. At least in our case, a computer that would have been capable of simulating the spacecraft computers would have been more expensive than just buying an extra of each of the more sophisticated computers in the spacecraft and using them in the simulator. In other words, the simulator could only simulate some of the mechanical pieces and the simplest computers in the spacecraft (which made for an expensive, but very good satellite simulator).
So, yeah, considering both parts, it's definitely not something that's going to happen soon, and the questions about what that would actually mean raises some valid questions about whether it's even something worthwhile. From a practical standpoint, it's cheaper to replace you with a new person than to create a simulation of you. And will you personally benefit from having your consciousness transferred elsewhere?
ryan_m_b said:And that's assuming that simulating these signals without simulating the brain (and body and environment) will actually lead to a simulation of you.
sophiecentaur said:Yes. The whole notion is a gross simplification of the whole situation. No one has been prepared to discuss the matter of continuity and the experience of this suggested transition process.
Far too glib I think.
Virtual reality (VR) is a computer-generated simulation of a three-dimensional environment that can be interacted with in a seemingly real or physical way by a person using special electronic equipment, such as a headset with a screen or gloves with sensors. This technology works by creating a completely immersive experience for the user by tricking their brain into thinking they are actually present in the virtual environment.
Virtual reality has come a long way since its inception in the 1950s. In the past few decades, advancements in computer technology, graphics, and motion tracking have greatly improved the quality and realism of VR experiences. Additionally, the development of more affordable and accessible VR devices has made this technology more mainstream and widely available.
Virtual reality is currently being used in a variety of industries, including gaming, entertainment, education, healthcare, and even military training. It is also being used for therapeutic purposes, such as exposure therapy for anxiety disorders. Additionally, VR is being explored for its potential in social interactions and remote work.
One of the main challenges facing virtual reality is the issue of motion sickness, which can occur when the user's physical movements do not match up with what they are experiencing in the virtual environment. Another challenge is the cost of VR equipment and the need for more powerful hardware to run high-quality VR experiences. Additionally, there are concerns about the potential negative effects of prolonged exposure to virtual reality on the human brain.
The future of virtual reality is exciting and full of potential. As technology continues to advance, we can expect more realistic and immersive VR experiences, with improved graphics, motion tracking, and haptic feedback. There may also be advancements in brain-computer interfaces, allowing for more seamless interactions with virtual environments. Additionally, as VR becomes more mainstream, we can expect to see it being used in more industries and for a wider range of purposes.