I ask it here, because I think it is a technical question.
The philosophical question would be, would this be good? But I don’t ask that, because that will not be of any interest to the people who will use it first, and shape it. There will always be a class struggle, but the question is, can technology take control over certain functions to make life more enjoyable than life in a healthy body?
I doubt it. Technology has a limit of penetrating into our lives. We always want to be free from it. Unless of course you call drugs technology. Which… it is. Ah. Perhaps then technology could be developed to bring controlled changes to the nervous system, which can be adjusted on a dial in your iphone.
It could be that the masses become entirely glued to such fancy technology, going into a hedonistic rage that explodes in all directions except functionality - but… this also already happened. The masses are glued to technology the talented shape the technological media, the ambitious use it to be an object to be glued to, and the glue itself is life. Who would stand above it? Or even just outside of it? Who will resist the temptation of being connected world-wide? Or better - to whom will this not be a temptation? Those people will breed to a different kind as those who live inside the web.
For these people the question would rather be how can technology be utterly minimized?
I’m behind the facts, shit. All this has already happened. What is next? Is there a further purpose to technology but to serve and to enslave? Yes, this already happened - it is a violent superculture which expands in memes and steel onto horizons where no war philosopher hath shewn. Damn. The world is deep, deeper than I’d thought.
But, is it being made deeper by technology? This is I am afraid a philosophical question. But I see that I have seen technology all wrong - as a brute from the wilderness who has never seen a bar of soap. Still, an Iphone dial to control mind alterations would not be so difficult using neurofeedback. But this, still would be external. Again I didn’t see what I saw. - Nature sure likes to hide tonight.
Suppose you could interface your brain to the external world. A small cellular phone chip would be implanted in your head and you could control it with your thoughts. The apps that work on your phone now would work directly in your head. You could turn your car on by thinking about it. Same with the lights in your house. Complex calculations done by using a calculator in your head. Need to know where you are and how to get somewhere … GPS app. Want to remember something exactly… then download it to the memory on the device or send it to an external hard disk. Suppose you could connect the nerves from your eyes to the device. You could take a picture and store it just by looking. Watch a movie by having it steamed to your optic nerve. Want to surf the net … pages can be displayed on your eye. You are totally connected.
Well, yes. And fuck that. Right? I mean is that how we want to live?
I know I don’t. I mean I already am living that life, that’s why I’m saying, is this now our God, our aim?
Yes, i guess so. And it’ll not be a matter of choice, really. I mean, you could choose not to use a cell phone, or the internet, but then those who do, will have an edge on you. As long as new technology is being invented and some people are willing to start using it, the rest is forced to follow.
And i also don’t think, some philosophy, ideology or morals can stop that evolution. They could slow it down a bit, but in the end morals follow the times.
As much as I would be in favor of this reality, I’m not sure human beings are presently able to handle it. A literal information overload. Do you think we can actually handle that much stimuli? Physically, psychologically, I think we need time and idleness to process even the current volume of stimuli we get from technological integration. The reality you are suggesting – just my 2 cents – would take a huge toll on us. I don’t think we are anywhere close to it. A distant future perhaps.
I don’t think that it is that far off. The pace of technological change is fast and getter faster. We should be thinking and discussing it now so that we are prepared to guide the change rather than reacting to change. It could be a practical application of philosophy which is more interesting than the endless discussions regarding the existence of God, for example.
Is controlling a device using a computer chip in the brain that much different than turning a switch with your hand? I don’t think so.
If information can go directly to your brain how do you keep false information out? How do you prevent others from controlling you with the technology?
As Fuse suggested, how do you prevent information overload? How much information can we handle? I certainly think that you should always a way to disconnect yourself from the network. I don’t know how much is enough and how much is enough. The internet, even now, seems to be like an addictive drug.
Will those who can afford the technology get an advantage? Will it make the rich richer?
Should parents have implants put into their children to make them perform better in school?
This has been true, but it is very much in dispute whether technology will continue to advance at a rate of accelerating returns.
Guide what change? You have to have a certain idea of change in mind before you do any guiding. I don’t exactly agree that the future you have in mind is near. And even if it is coming, perhaps we don’t like this idea of change – are we not free to change course?
Since we are hazarding guesses – I will bet that you are wrong. Processing power is limited. For biological material, such as the brain, the consequences of exceeding those limits can be fatal. We are far from ready to fully integrate such computing technology into the brain. What is more plausible, and perhaps this is what you had in mind, is that we might begin to interact with computers electronically and not merely mechanically. However we will still be interacting with external computers which isn’t the same as integrating the computer into the body/brain (true hybridization).
I expect technological change to keep increasing as developing countries improve their educational systems and make more information accessible on the internet.
It’s easier to change course if you can do it quickly and you are aware of the issues. Politicians are notoriously behind when dealing with technology. An example of that is the scramble to rework the copyright laws to deal with copying of music and books. We should be thinking about privacy issues, who owns data, what happens when companies change hands or go out of business.
Processing power is increasing and computer size is decreasing. An implanted computer would not need to be very powerful since if would be mostly requesting data from external servers. The trend now is to transfer applications and data to ‘the cloud’. The local computer uses a browser get data and send data to these external servers which do the intensive processing.
I read an article today that scientists have succeeded in electro-stimulus of the brain that enhances problem solving. Without the boring details, they are suggesting a “hat” that will allow us to control brain patterns. Supposedly an enhancement, one has to wonder. The brain on electro-steroids? And they didn’t mention the potential of an implant with an on-off switch, but it doesn’t take much imagination to see the possibilities.
The rate of technological change overall and the rate of technological change in developing countries are two different topics. I thought we were talking about the rate of technological change in general. It is not at all clear that technology in general will continue to accelerate in its rate of advancement.
I tend to view the merging of technology and our own (and probably other species’) biology as the next major step in evolution. Just like prokaryotes and bacterium (perhaps) merged to form eukaryotes, if we were to embrace “the singularity”, it would be just the next step in the natural order of things. From that point of view, an evolutionary one, I don’t think it is good or bad either way. It just is what it is, and it will either work out or natural selection will take its tole.
But from the perspective that I’m sure you’re coming from (or is close to it), good being survival and bad being extinction, I don’t think that using technology to enhance our biology is bad, but I’m not sure we as people can handle the ramifications. There are situations that we can know will arise (as much as we can know about the future, at least) based on our own history. I think we need to devise an ethical GPS to help us navigate the terrain.
What if all organisms are simply the result of a cross between evolution and technology? Advanced species creating carbon nanites (which is living tissue) and allowing the chaos of natural probability (which is evolution) to work in sync? We are quickly moving our technological interests into softer components like carbon and silicone. It seems there are some things you just can’t achieve with hard classic alloys. Would we come full circle and realize we are just reinventing human beings?
But we wouldn’t be inventing human beings, because by the nature of it’s existence anything created by us is not a human being. At least not from an evolutionary point of view.
As technology merges with biology, is it possible that our ultimate technological inventions will become excessively human-like? To the point of almost being indistinguishable? And then to further that technology would it not simply mimic our own evolution?
For a more practical approach . . .
It seems that we’re finding materials are much more effective using carbon. Such as carbon nanotubes, crystal metamaterials produced by condensing carbon. Perhaps all our technology will be better carbon-based, like all organisms. And then we would turn to nanites. They seem to be a lot more versatile than simple heavy steel parts. And perhaps the most effective nanites would turn out to be just like cells. Hence cellular carbon-based life. Like all organisms. And one of the most effective “animatronics” for these new machines would stand erect and lift things with many of its parts most effective when the mathematical ratios of its construction fit perfectly the phi ratio. Hence: Humanlike.
Humans can’t do what cell phones and cars and airplanes do . . . but maybe we were evolving features of this kind anyway? And were invented to do so.