Is this possible in the future?

[flyingpig]

In the near future, say 50 years from now, is it possible to have prosthetic bodies that can replace limbs and organs? Is it possible that it is a key to immortality? I am very curious that if we replace all our our organs with machines (hence beomcing a cyborg), then can we become immortal?

 

[Drakkith]

How can anyone answer that? It is in the future!

I think the biggest question to answer is can you replace the brain with something else and still be "alive" or yourself or whatnot.

 

[flyingpig]

I don't want to wait until 2099...

 

[KingNothing]

Probably not - brain tissue does decay on its own. Generally speaking, as we extend human life expectancy, we uncover new problems. For example, Parkinsons didn't really even exist several hundreds of years ago when the life expectancy was around 40.

 

[Danger]

I think that 50 years is overkill. Over 30 years ago, I began designing prosthetics. That was before I specialized in prosthetic FX makeup. At the time, the state-of-the-art was the "British Hand" that was regulated by a couple of Schmidt triggers governed by force clamps and velocity clamps. Official state-of-the-art, that is.
Regardless, the things that are being done now, with modern electronics and computer technology, are incredible. I just saw on the news, last week, a paraplegic man walk due to computer-controlled spinal implants. A year ago, that would have been considered ridiculous fiction.
Dr. Hawking has communicated for over 3 decades longer than he was expected to live, because technology gave him a voice. (I don't know why he's still alive, but the computer is what allows him to communicate expediently.) I don't care whether it's mutation or technology that keeps him alive, or just pure stubbornness; a brain like that is part of a formidable arsenal. The other parts are that he can negotiate peace or design weapons that would make Caligula whimper.
Communication is what makes civilization possible. However that is accomplished, it is of extreme importance for the continuation of our species.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Here's a thread recently on the prospect of regenerative medicine for growing organs and the like

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=500261

Ask yourself, do we really have the technology to make machines as sophisticated as the biology we have? No pump, however good is better than a heart, no robot arm any better than muscle. This is because any machine we make is not only going to have to do the obvious job of the organ (e.g. beating/contracting) it's also going to have to respond to all the biochemistry going on in a body as well as repair itself, grow, adapt etc. Regenerating organs is a far better route to increased health and longevity.

P.S, Don't listen to Ray Kurzweil! The man is a crank. He takes one look at Moore's law, applies it to his very limited understanding of biology and then spouts prophesies of mind uploading and AI.

 

[Drakkith]

I think that 50 years is overkill. Over 30 years ago, I began designing prosthetics. That was before I specialized in prosthetic FX makeup. At the time, the state-of-the-art was the "British Hand" that was regulated by a couple of Schmidt triggers governed by force clamps and velocity clamps. Official state-of-the-art, that is.
Regardless, the things that are being done now, with modern electronics and computer technology, are incredible. I just saw on the news, last week, a paraplegic man walk due to computer-controlled spinal implants. A year ago, that would have been considered ridiculous fiction.
Dr. Hawking has communicated for over 3 decades longer than he was expected to live, because technology gave him a voice. (I don't know why he's still alive, but the computer is what allows him to communicate expediently.) I don't care whether it's mutation or technology that keeps him alive, or just pure stubbornness; a brain like that is part of a formidable arsenal. The other parts are that he can negotiate peace or design weapons that would make Caligula whimper.
Communication is what makes civilization possible. However that is accomplished, it is of extreme importance for the continuation of our species.

Interesting! I didn't know we had already developed such sophisticated implants! I always wondered though, how do they connect nerve cells to implants? If anyone has a link I'd appreciate it.

 

[flyingpig]

Good, I want to change my whole face while i am at it because i am beautily impaired.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Even the dung beetle's mother thinks it is beautiful!

 

[Drakkith]

Even the dung beetle's mother thinks it is beautiful!

ONLY the dung beetles mother thinks it is beautiful!

 

[sophiecentaur]

Har har

 

[my_wan]

The prosthetic organs under development are not so much machines as they are regrown organs from your own cells, which are then simply transplanted like any other donated organ. We have a long way to go before we can start redesigning organs. A study of prosthetic legs, as a result of a South African sprinter being banned from competition on the grounds that a prosthetic leg was an unfair advantage, showed that todays prosthetic legs supplied about 9% less force than a real leg on average.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/8...ic-legs-arent-better-than-the-real-thing-yet/
However, 9% is not a lot for technology to catch up on.

I would be happy with just some good external prosthetics for people who were not disabled. Since a foot injury a few years back I have been considering designing a prosthetic foot for people with feet. With my injury many people with missing feet have far more functional feet than I do. Before my accident I could walk a 45 degree slope as easily as I could walk across a parking lot, and nearer 75 degrees with other techniques. Today I have to walk sideways and near backwards just to negotiate a 15 degree slope.

In knowing why it is few people can handle steep slops without falling I think I could design feet that did it all automatically without requiring any effective ankle motion. Simply springs would not work as effectively because at some angle they put disproportionate weight on the top side. Just as people tend to do when they get scared and dig their heals in, which releases the weight distribution across the foot surface resulting in a loss of effective frictional surface.

I would pay very good money for a good prosthetic foot over foot right now, and even more for a well designed exoskeleton for tree, hill, and rock climbing. What I have in mind would not even require power assist of any kind and would provide a huge amount of protection in the event of a fall. With some hydrofoils and ski attachments you could even ski over water with human power and down slopes horizontally on built in skis. Hooks that would allow you to hang from tree limbs and ledges without any exertion and gaffs that allow climbing trees and obstacles at will. Standard tree gaffs are woefully inefficient, limited in functionality, and downright dangerous with limited points of failure. A good design would allow you to completely relax within the exoskeleton at essentially any point without concern for falling.

I do not begrudge the attention prosthetic developers give to the disabled, they need it far worse, but there is so much that can be done with recreational prosthetics that seems to be ignored.

 

[hisham.i]

Hello, i think that nothing can replace natural limbs, and i would like to share this video of my final year project, we designed a prototype of artificial limb, it still a prototype and cannot replace i think 2% of the natural arm, it takes more than 4 months to develop it in the faculty of engineering of the lebanese university.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOfSVVdxV60&feature=feedlik

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Hello, i think that nothing can replace natural limbs, and i would like to share this video of my final year project, we designed a prototype of artificial limb, it still a prototype and cannot replace i think 2% of the natural arm, it takes more than 4 months to develop it in the faculty of engineering of the lebanese university.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOfSVVdxV60&feature=feedlik

Nice stuff hisham.i this thread popping up again reminded me of an http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13273348" a few months ago. The technology really is coming on amazingly. I'm looking forward to the day that sophisticated prosthetics that can restore function to patients are available, though regenerative medicines offer a better alternative the science and technology is nowhere near the level to start tackling the problem.

 

[hisham.i]

From the project that i did, the system is composed mainly of 3 parts:
1- Acquire the signal
2- Filter and amplify the signal
3- Signal classification

In my case i classified 4 gestures of hand movements, but there was no control for the speed, the angle and even the torque. Each one of these variables needs a detailed study to know which characteristic of the signal is related to the concerned variable.
On the other hand i don't know if there is new results about restoring sensation, i think this will be more complicated than restoring the motor action of the hand.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

From the project that i did, the system is composed mainly of 3 parts:
1- Acquire the signal
2- Filter and amplify the signal
3- Signal classification

In my case i classified 4 gestures of hand movements, but there was no control for the speed, the angle and even the torque. Each one of these variables needs a detailed study to know which characteristic of the signal is related to the concerned variable.
On the other hand i don't know if there is new results about restoring sensation, i think this will be more complicated than restoring the motor action of the hand.

I'm interested, how did you acquire the signal from an amputee's body?

 

[hisham.i]

The control scheme that i used is based on signals acquired from residual muscles, electrodes are placed on the skin above the muscle in order to acquire the signal.
I attached an image of the electrode connection.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

The control scheme that i used is based on signals acquired from residual muscles, electrodes are placed on the skin above the muscle in order to acquire the signal.
I attached an image of the electrode connection.

Interesting stuff! Do you have any plans to take this to a more complex level? I.e. a hand that replicates the function of a biological hand in terms of freedom of movement, digits etc.

 

[Hells]

The control scheme that i used is based on signals acquired from residual muscles, electrodes are placed on the skin above the muscle in order to acquire the signal.
I attached an image of the electrode connection.

What kind of movement can you identify?

 

[hisham.i]

No plans yet:D
this is the link hells you can see the video
i classified
grip close and grip open
wrist flexsion and wrist extension

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOfSVVdxV60&feature=feedlik

 

[SW VandeCarr]

P.S, Don't listen to Ray Kurzweil! The man is a crank. He takes one look at Moore's law, applies it to his very limited understanding of biology and then spouts prophesies of mind uploading and AI.

Here's a critique of "Kurzweilian" prophecy by a leading neuroscientist (on Kurzweil's own blog). The point is that Kurzweil's time lines are, to say the least, very controversial and do reveal a lack of understanding of neuroscience. Kurzweil makes no secret of his hunger for advanced biotechnology. He wants to live forever with a supercharged brain.

Having said that, if we ignore his time lines, to argue against his basic thesis is to argue that there are prescribed limits to technological advances and that certain things can never be done. Provided these things are in principle possible and do not invoke magic or mysticism, there is no scientific basis for challenging his notion of a "singularity". We are living in a "post singularity" age now relative to what Isaac Newton could have predicted in his most speculative moments.

http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-singularity-is-far-a-neuroscientists-view?utm_source=KurzweilAI+Weekly+Newsletter&utm_campaign=bd5d49951e-UA-946742-1&utm_medium=email

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Having said that, if we ignore his time lines, to argue against his basic thesis is to argue that there are prescribed limits to technological advances and that certain things can never be done. Provided these things are in principle possible and do not invoke magic or mysticism, there is no scientific basis for challenging his notion of a "singularity". We are living in a "post singularity" age now relative to what Isaac Newton could have predicted in his most speculative moments.

I would slightly disagree with this, the notion of the technological singularity makes the implicit statement that the future is unknowable due to the creation of superhuman intelligences. Whilst this is analogous to the past I don't think this is the way that people like Kurzweil usually use the term. In the Kurzweilian (and others) use of the term it means the creation of above human intelligences that then go on to create above-above human intelligences that then go on to create above-above-above human intelligences etc etc leaving the rest of life as far away from the top of the food chain as plankton.

The singularity ala http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernor_Vinge" relies on the creation of these superintelligences through either strong AI or upload and emulation of the human mind, I would contend that whilst these may be physically possible this is a world away for suggesting that it can happen.

For example if we take mind uploading; Kurzweils arguments are based on the idea that the human mind can be simulated without simulating a human brain and then on top of that can be safely modified to boost intelligence both quantitatively and qualitatively. I would suggest that this is currently not supported by contemporary science, the idea of simulating a human mind without simulating a human body plus environment presupposes a solution to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness" and further presupposes that this solution allows for modification.

So taking mind uploading as not being a viable thing to propose (whilst it is supported by evidence that human minds can be created it is not supported that they can be decoupled from the human brain and modified) we would have to create superintelligences from scratch. The biggest problem I see to this is ethics. Creating an AI fit for a job is like selectively breeding an autistic slave, any human equivalent AI (whatever that means) is going to need the same rights as human beings. This issue is compounded further when you examine some of the methods proposed for this superintelligence generation; e.g. genetic algorithms being akin to genocide/crimes against humanity. The ethical arguments against the generation of AI for labour are huge. Often a counter argument is that AI can be made to be as capable as a human but without emotions, ego and consciousness. This is another claim that I would say is not supported by evidence (it again runs into fundamental unknowns about philosophy of mind, mainly are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie" possible).

So whilst the idea of a singularity doesn't break any current scientific consensus the same way perpetual motion, cold fusion and homeopathy do it still relies on a number of assumptions on subjects for which the answers are currently unknown;

If we can build strong AI
If we can upload the human mind
If we can modify human-level intelligence to something better
etc etc

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I would slightly disagree with this, ...

...So whilst the idea of a singularity doesn't break any current scientific consensus the same way perpetual motion, cold fusion and homeopathy do it still relies on a number of assumptions on subjects for which the answers are currently unknown;

If we can build strong AI
If we can upload the human mind
If we can modify human-level intelligence to something better
etc etc

I read his book when it first came out (The Singularity is Near). That doesn't mean I'm a "convert". I think his time lines are absurd. But his basic thesis is rooted in the idea that the "hard problem of consciousness" must in principle be solvable in terms of physical processes which can be quantified and reduced to code. As code, it can be considered information which can be inputted, stored, and retrieved from a "suitable" medium. This is certainly consistent with what scientists profess to believe and probably should believe about nature in general. Of course, as you say, it may well not be problem that can solved in the foreseeable future. Maybe by 2300, 2500, 3000 or 10000 CE. Who knows? These are incredibly short time spans in terms of the history of life on Earth and not all that long in terms of the existence of modern humans.

 

[Evo]

I'm sorry, but discussion of Ray Kurzweil goes against our policy of quoting or linking to crackpot sources.

You might want to read this.

Kurzweil hasn't demonstrated that there is exponential growth at play here. I've read his absurd book, and his "data" is phony and fudged to fit his conclusion. He cheerfully makes stuff up or drops data that goes against his desires to invent these ridiculous charts.

I'm not claiming he underestimates the complexity of the brain, I'm saying he doesn't understand biology, period. Handwaving is not enough — if he's going to make fairly specific claims of "immortality in 35 years", there had better be some understanding of the path that will be taken.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/02/singularitarianism.php

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Sorry Evo I just want to quickly get this out then I'll shut up

the "hard problem of consciousness" must in principle be solvable in terms of physical processes which can be quantified and reduced to code. As code, it can be considered information which can be inputted, stored, and retrieved from a "suitable" medium.

I agree but there's a second and third premise after this necessary for Kurzweils singularity. Firstly he proposes that we can simulate a human, we both agree that that is technically fine. But after that he proposes that the simulation is of a human mind without a human body, this I contend since the human mind is an emergent property of the human brain which requires a body which requires an environment. Thirdly his whole idea relies on the fact that this decoupled mind can be modified to be >human intelligence and that it will then go on to modify itself to >>human intelligence etc.

So whilst I agree that it is technically possible to envision scanning and simulating a human plus environment I disagree that it is currently supported that we can modify this process to the extend required for Kurzweils singularity.