Would you "digitize" your body?

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Sun Mar 25, 2007 3:05 pm

[quote="HTRN";p="727687"][quote="The Cid";p="727569"]I'd put my brain in a robot's body.

But only if I could have x-ray vision and the strength of five gorillas.[/quote]

I have just three little words: Mecha Freakin' Godzilla.

If you're gonna go, GO BIG.

HTRN[/quote]

What everyone's referencing.

kaiju01 · Post by **kaiju01** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 2:29 am

Think bigger, HTRN.

Bandersnatch · Post by **Bandersnatch** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 11:24 pm

Sure.

If it's not absolutely perfected yet, I'd wait until I'm about 40 or so, but sure.

Still a decent bit of fluid intelligence and my body would just then start to go down the, er, well, you know.

If I were, say, 70 and senile, I'd do it anyway because a senile robot/program would be really amusing.

Now, theoretically, all of the "pleasures of flesh" could be programmed. Heck, cut someone's head open and zap the right part of the parietal lobe and they'll be feeling it even when it's not there. They hooked a mouse up so that a lever would send... pleasure signals to its brain, and another lever would give it food. Poor mouse starved to death (I WISH I could find a source for this story. A high school psych teacher told it to the class, so I can't prove it). So, if that were your only problem, so much for that, ne?

The other main concern is identity. Some parts of your identity are determined by how you look, others simply by how your brain is wired. Attitudes would probably be the same regardless. If studies done so far are right, gender would also be the same as the body was (With the exception of trans folks and the genderqueer. The latter would be the opposite and genderqueer is a really broad umbrella term; It'd be case-by-case and no one knows for sure what the result would be in any of those cases). Interestingly enough I don't think race would be an issue anymore since that's pretty much all physical in nature.

... In other words, it'd be like a slightly less anonymous internet. Wow. Sign me up!

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 11:59 pm

With, perhaps, the ability to bundle up exactly what you think or feel about something and send packets of emotion and intent with things, instead of just words.

Holy crap. It'd be an evolution in communication of staggering proportion. Heh. Maybe you could even load programs into brains, like in The Matrix.

And imagine what gaming would be like!

Post by **Blaze** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:05 am

Now, theoretically, all of the "pleasures of flesh" could be programmed. Heck, cut someone's head open and zap the right part of the parietal lobe and they'll be feeling it even when it's not there. They hooked a mouse up so that a lever would send... pleasure signals to its brain, and another lever would give it food. Poor mouse starved to death (I WISH I could find a source for this story. A high school psych teacher told it to the class, so I can't prove it). So, if that were your only problem, so much for that, ne?

You can cause the feeling, yes, but you can't simulate the circumstances. A mouse doesn't know the difference, but we do.

hypnochan · Post by **hypnochan** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:06 am

Oh, response overload. Too many thoughts at once.

I hate it when that happens, though suddenly I want to play D&D...

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:09 am

[quote="Blaze";p="728135"]

Now, theoretically, all of the "pleasures of flesh" could be programmed. Heck, cut someone's head open and zap the right part of the parietal lobe and they'll be feeling it even when it's not there. They hooked a mouse up so that a lever would send... pleasure signals to its brain, and another lever would give it food. Poor mouse starved to death (I WISH I could find a source for this story. A high school psych teacher told it to the class, so I can't prove it). So, if that were your only problem, so much for that, ne?

You can cause the feeling, yes, but you can't simulate the circumstances. A mouse doesn't know the difference, but we do.[/quote]

How do you know you can't replicate the circumstance, simulate them such that your brain can't tell the difference?

Bandersnatch · Post by **Bandersnatch** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:12 am

[quote="Blaze";p="728135"]

Now, theoretically, all of the "pleasures of flesh" could be programmed. Heck, cut someone's head open and zap the right part of the parietal lobe and they'll be feeling it even when it's not there. They hooked a mouse up so that a lever would send... pleasure signals to its brain, and another lever would give it food. Poor mouse starved to death (I WISH I could find a source for this story. A high school psych teacher told it to the class, so I can't prove it). So, if that were your only problem, so much for that, ne?

You can cause the feeling, yes, but you can't simulate the circumstances. A mouse doesn't know the difference, but we do.[/quote]
Um. No we don't. You can fool your own senses, for one thing (Studies about what our body does when it's hungry have shown several things our body does to realize when it's hungry or full, and several of them can be tricked). Also, regardless of how the sensory input is made, the brain processes it the same way. This was shown with dream studies, with the occipital lobe and temporal lobe being just as active during REM as while being awake, and also in that the same neurons are firing when thinking about an experience and actually experiencing it.

Overall, the brain can be pretty silly.

Post by **Blaze** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:13 am

I didn't say you couldn't. I said you can't just by zapping the pleasure center.

Also, thusfar they haven't even been able to come CLOSE to manipulating human conciousness via artificial means. I suspect it will be a GOOD long time. There are WAY too many sensory inputs to fool, and we don't even have a basic understanding of how conciousness works yet.

Bandersnatch:

If you're concious, at current you're going to know whether you're having sex or your brain is being zapped to produce the same feeling. You have to fool ALL the senses, as well as overcome the concious barriers people have, the things that make them say, "I see it, but I know it can't be real."

bagheadinc · Post by **bagheadinc** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:22 am

[quote="Blaze";p="728145"]Also, thusfar they haven't even been able to come CLOSE to manipulating human conciousness via artificial means.[/quote]I beg to differ!

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:52 am

[quote="Bandersnatch";p="728111"]ne?[/quote]
WHY do you keep typing that?? The E key is nowhere near the O key, so the only reasonable conclusion is that you're doing it on purpose, but wtf for?

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:56 am

Because it's a legitimate phrase that conveys what she wants to say.

Also, thusfar they haven't even been able to come CLOSE to manipulating human conciousness via artificial means. I suspect it will be a GOOD long time. There are WAY too many sensory inputs to fool, and we don't even have a basic understanding of how conciousness works yet.

Yes, but if we had digitalization, I would imagine that we would be a lot farther in that that technology than we are now, too ... it's pretty much a given.

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:03 am

[quote="StruckingFuggle";p="728153"]Because it's a legitimate phrase that conveys what she wants to say.[/quote]
Because you don't actually elaborate, I don't think I'm really going too far out on a limb here to say you're a bufoon.

http://www.answers.com/ne

Neon? Give me a fucking break already.

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:09 am

Instead of a "fucking break", I'll explain a phrase tha apparently you've never heard before (o.o): ne.

hypnochan · Post by **hypnochan** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:13 am

Hooray for Otakuness.

Real Life Forums

Would you "digitize" your body?

Would you "digitize" your body?

Who is online