Virtual Reality
How close are we too it where you can plug in and simply have a whole other imagined life and do whatever you want in?
People spend most of their lives infront of a computer now it seems like, I would rather be plugged in and it be in my brain and living in a dream then sitting infront of a computer screen.
Is this possible?
Supra, I did not have to do a lot of research, and I have few articles for you.
Digital Resurrection: The Facts
While none of this is directly tied to VR, if you do some deep research online, you will find such a cornucopia of information on the matter and what scientists are doing atm, that you will never come back here.
Ultimately, this is how The Matrix will go down.
Virtual Reality as powerful as that in the Matrix, accept with no agents or conspiracy.
THAT SITE IS HIGHLY SPECULATIVE AND THERE'S NO REASON TO ASSUME IT'S CLAIMS ARE ANYTHING MORE THAN SPECULATION.
Design your reality from the base up after replacing your entire body with mechanical cells. You become a cybernetic organism in totality, thousands of times better and with billions of more sensations, capabilities, the ability to make yourself into a chameleon. This is outside of VR, which gives your even more options than being a full blown cyborg that could be made to look and literally be exactly like Brad Pitt or Olivia Wilde.
ALL OF THIS IS SPECULATION.
Originally posted by Dolos
Human V. 2.0 and a Plausible Methodology for the Transference of Consciousness into Silicon Substrates.
In my experience these types of things are why scientists dislike engineers. I'm always surprised by attempts to peg specific dates. Apparently by the 2020s we'll know exactly what chemical and in what the ideal levels are for each individual person and have a near perfect delivery system for each. I mean sure its knowable and could be beneficial it that requires such an integration of information that the 2020s seems like a really close date.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
In my experience these types of things are why scientists dislike engineers. I'm always surprised by attempts to peg specific dates. Apparently by the 2020s we'll know exactly what chemical and in what the ideal levels are for each individual person and have a near perfect delivery system for each. I mean sure its knowable and could be beneficial it that requires such an integration of information that the 2020s seems like a really close date.
You can't hate them for being speculative. You can laugh them out of the scientific community for discarding scientific rigor and predicting dates as fact, but they aren't really doing that.
Originally posted by Dolos
You can't hate them for being speculative. You can laugh them out of the scientific community for discarding scientific rigor and predicting dates as fact, but they aren't really doing that.
Its more a matter of ways of approaching a problem. The engineers go "Lets solve this." while the scientists go "Lets understand this." (these are both effectively strawmen, just for purposes of illustration).
Engineers tend to write off all of the actual scientific work involved as simple and end up with very short time tables and make ridiculous claims as a result. They're also more likely to grab data from relevant disciplines without being aware of controversies around it (his claims about mortality in the past, for example) or with willingness to write off all limitations of existing technology as something that can be quickly solved.
Do you remember stents in the 1990s? Stents were going to solve everything in surgery. Surgeons starting using stents all over the place. It turned out to be a mistake. They rushed in without a complete understanding and used stents when doing so was actually harmful.
http://www.healthbeatblog.com/2010/12/stent-scandal-a-shocking-story-but-not-news/
No one involved in this was stupid and they surgeons and medical companies had valid scientific work to back what they said. The thing is it's never what you know that trips you up, it's what you don't know. Surgeons made a tiny leap in logic ("we can do X thus we can do Y, because they're very similar) and it cost people their lives.
This kind of thing, what the article calls "gizmo idolarty" is why people are so often cynical about singularity and transcendence claims.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Its more a matter of ways of approaching a problem. The engineers go "Lets solve this." while the scientists go "Lets understand this." (these are both effectively strawmen, just for purposes of illustration).Engineers tend to write off all of the actual scientific work involved as simple and end up with very short time tables and make ridiculous claims as a result. They're also more likely to grab data from relevant disciplines without being aware of controversies around it (his claims about mortality in the past, for example) or with willingness to write off all limitations of existing technology as something that can be quickly solved.
Do you remember stents in the 1990s? Stents were going to solve everything in surgery. Surgeons starting using stents all over the place. It turned out to be a mistake. They rushed in without a complete understanding and used stents when doing so was actually harmful.
http://www.healthbeatblog.com/2010/12/stent-scandal-a-shocking-story-but-not-news/
No one involved in this was stupid and they surgeons and medical companies had valid scientific work to back what they said. The thing is it's never what you know that trips you up, it's what you don't know. Surgeons made a tiny leap in logic ("we can do X thus we can do Y, because they're very similar) and it cost people their lives.
This kind of thing, what the article calls "gizmo idolarty" is why people are so often cynical about singularity and transcendence claims.
This is very very much an understandable point of view for me. Personally, I wouldn't make any leaps of faith, I wouldn't attempt a thing, even if tested and empirically deemed practical, until every possible outcome has been understood.
ESPECIALLY when tampering with human life on a scale of conscious transference, we have an eternity ahead of us, and rushing such things could end miserably for Mr. Kurzweil...and in my opinion, he has expressed hastiness, and mortal fears, even going as far as to say, "If I don't find a solution by then (getting really old), I'll have to figure something out quickly." in the Transcendent Man documentary. 😱 😱
Originally posted by Dolos
Supra, I did not have to do a lot of research, and I have few articles for you.Digital Resurrection: The Facts
While none of this is directly tied to VR, if you do some deep research online, you will find such a cornucopia of information on the matter and what scientists are doing atm, that you will never come back here.
Sweet man! Thank you!
Originally posted by Supra
Sweet man! Thank you!
There's so much information out there. Books, documentaries, find it all on the interconnecting global web. 🙂
Don't, however, be fooled by nonsense. Be scientifically literate like me before beginning your online pursuit of knowledge, some people will say it's possible to levitate if you think hard enough. Haha, not that you'd fall for info like that, but you'd be surprised how much is complete bs that even well-educated people would find realistic or plausible. Always double check something, in the main search options, see how much is credible. Wikipedia does have some false info out of the billions of articles it perpetually generates, however I would consider it a great source of accurate information regardless. You need to be wise to judge information, and more importantly, you need to be skeptical. Even engineers and scientists are wrong, as Symmetric Chaos has just pointed out.
Originally posted by Dolos
There's so much information out there. Books, documentaries, find it all on the interconnecting global web. 🙂Don't, however, be fooled by nonsense. Be scientifically literate like me before beginning your online pursuit of knowledge, some people will say it's possible to levitate if you think hard enough. Haha, not that you'd fall for info like that, but you'd be surprised how much is complete bs that even well-educated people would find realistic or plausible. Always double check something, in the main search options, see how much is credible. Wikipedia does have some false info out of the billions of articles it perpetually generates, however I would consider it a great source of accurate information regardless. You need to be wise to judge information, and more importantly, you need to be skeptical. Even engineers and scientists are wrong, as Symmetric Chaos has just pointed out.
Dude, you are the worlds smartest man! +1 rep🙂
Re: Re: Re: Virtual Reality
Originally posted by Dolos
Why don't you research before posting these things.
There's a difference in actually mapping a person's nerves and senses to a computer and blast their heads with ultrasonic sound to condition a certain mood. In fact it's not even a relevant comparison.
The closest thing we have to direct nerve interference are retinal implants. But even those 60 electrode chips are crude devices compared to what would be required to plug a person's senses into a virtual world.
Re: Virtual Reality
Originally posted by Supra
How close are we too it where you can plug in and simply have a whole other imagined life and do whatever you want in?People spend most of their lives infront of a computer now it seems like, I would rather be plugged in and it be in my brain and living in a dream then sitting infront of a computer screen.
Is this possible?
This is the closest I know of atm :0
http://www.oculusvr.com/