• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Will you get involved with Teledildonics?

Being someone passionately involved with both computers and wimminz.... There is no way to fuse the two together in any meaningful way. Computers are digital. Women are analog. Sex is a VERY analog experience. The only way D/A conversions work is when they deal with senses that are easily fooled. Vision and hearing are very easily fooled senses. The tactile aspect of sex deals with the most sensitive receptors on our bodies, which would require INSANE amounts of bandwidth to carry the resolution neccessary to fool them into thinking this were the real thing.

Sex researchers may find this concept intriguing - but engineers and CS people will shoot it down every time, for a very long time, because it will be a very long time before that kind of bandwidth can be devoted to such recreational pursuits... But then, there's the possibility of just "sex with the computer" instead of "sex over a distance". We DO have enough short-range bandwidth available to do that... But then, we get into the next problem:

Designing the hardware. In other to be convincing, you're looking at essentially building a robot that mimics every function of the human body - and is completely indistinguishable from a human - you'd have to be able to feel it breathe, taste it's sweat, etc.- and responds to all forms of sensory input. The sheer processing power required to process the sensory input on the levels of D/A resolution discussed above is UNFATHOMABLE, even in this era of cheap 64bit multicore powerhouses, nevermind controlling the response mechanisms.... And then there's the materials problem. There is NO convincing synthetic replica of ANY section of human flesh.

Until they can achieve THAT, I don't see this stuff ever becoming more than a toy for the pervs, producding stuff along the lines of the old F-U-F-Me joke.
 
Originally posted by: EyeMWing
Being someone passionately involved with both computers and wimminz.... There is no way to fuse the two together in any meaningful way. Computers are digital. Women are analog. Sex is a VERY analog experience. The only way D/A conversions work is when they deal with senses that are easily fooled. Vision and hearing are very easily fooled senses. The tactile aspect of sex deals with the most sensitive receptors on our bodies, which would require INSANE amounts of bandwidth to carry the resolution neccessary to fool them into thinking this were the real thing.

Sex researchers may find this concept intriguing - but engineers and CS people will shoot it down every time, for a very long time, because it will be a very long time before that kind of bandwidth can be devoted to such recreational pursuits... But then, there's the possibility of just "sex with the computer" instead of "sex over a distance". We DO have enough short-range bandwidth available to do that... But then, we get into the next problem:

Designing the hardware. In other to be convincing, you're looking at essentially building a robot that mimics every function of the human body - and is completely indistinguishable from a human - you'd have to be able to feel it breathe, taste it's sweat, etc.- and responds to all forms of sensory input. The sheer processing power required to process the sensory input on the levels of D/A resolution discussed above is UNFATHOMABLE, even in this era of cheap 64bit multicore powerhouses, nevermind controlling the response mechanisms.... And then there's the materials problem. There is NO convincing synthetic replica of ANY section of human flesh.

Until they can achieve THAT, I don't see this stuff ever becoming more than a toy for the pervs, producding stuff along the lines of the old F-U-F-Me joke.
Click to expand...

the only part of that "post" that even made a tad bit of sense was the last few sentences. what the hell are you talking about that sex is an analog experience?

Text

not a single one of those makes sense.

secondly, prove to me your claim of UNFATHOMABLE processing power. it would NOT be hard to simulate breathing, sweating, moaning, or even constriction of the vaginal muslces. the only hard part would be fluent movement...and none of this is outside of the realm of an array of small, single task processors.

what are you talking about with this D/A conversion stuff? that doesnt even make sense in this context.
 
Originally posted by: MrDudeMan
Originally posted by: EyeMWing
Being someone passionately involved with both computers and wimminz.... There is no way to fuse the two together in any meaningful way. Computers are digital. Women are analog. Sex is a VERY analog experience. The only way D/A conversions work is when they deal with senses that are easily fooled. Vision and hearing are very easily fooled senses. The tactile aspect of sex deals with the most sensitive receptors on our bodies, which would require INSANE amounts of bandwidth to carry the resolution neccessary to fool them into thinking this were the real thing.

Sex researchers may find this concept intriguing - but engineers and CS people will shoot it down every time, for a very long time, because it will be a very long time before that kind of bandwidth can be devoted to such recreational pursuits... But then, there's the possibility of just "sex with the computer" instead of "sex over a distance". We DO have enough short-range bandwidth available to do that... But then, we get into the next problem:

Designing the hardware. In other to be convincing, you're looking at essentially building a robot that mimics every function of the human body - and is completely indistinguishable from a human - you'd have to be able to feel it breathe, taste it's sweat, etc.- and responds to all forms of sensory input. The sheer processing power required to process the sensory input on the levels of D/A resolution discussed above is UNFATHOMABLE, even in this era of cheap 64bit multicore powerhouses, nevermind controlling the response mechanisms.... And then there's the materials problem. There is NO convincing synthetic replica of ANY section of human flesh.

Until they can achieve THAT, I don't see this stuff ever becoming more than a toy for the pervs, producding stuff along the lines of the old F-U-F-Me joke.
Click to expand...

the only part of that "post" that even made a tad bit of sense was the last few sentences. what the hell are you talking about that sex is an analog experience?

Text

not a single one of those makes sense.

secondly, prove to me your claim of UNFATHOMABLE processing power. it would NOT be hard to simulate breathing, sweating, moaning, or even constriction of the vaginal muslces. the only hard part would be fluent movement...and none of this is outside of the realm of an array of small, single task processors.

what are you talking about with this D/A conversion stuff? that doesnt even make sense in this context.
Click to expand...

Regarding D/A, I was primarily referring to the reception of physical input, which, with the subtleties involved, has to be done to a ridiculous resolution - and by a ridiculous number of sensors. We're talking about an act where the most subtle touch, the most subtle difference in pressure, the slightest acceleration, the tiniest temperature difference produces it's own unique response. And then you need all this sensory gear distributed all over the "body". Remember Lever 2000's "Ten thousand parts"? You need a lot more than that. Due to the resolution and sheer number of sensors, you need a hell of a lot of processing power, nevermind deciding what the hell you're going to do with that data, which borders on AI if you're going for ultimate realism.

Of course, your understanding of this whole concept hinges upon your knowing what the hell analog means (essentially, analog refers to any data on a continuous, infinite-resolution scale, a la the human senses) - and how digital signalling is used to REPRESENT analog data, and the idea that the more closely you want to represent the analog data, the more bandwidth you require. The best way to learn about this kind of stuff would be to go read up on the public telephone system or other digital audio - and that things like MP3s and the phone system and movies work because vision and hearing are two very easily "fooled" senses - because they perform internal blending and extrapolation of the missing data. Touch, however, which is the primary sense involved in sex, does not have this weakness - and the tiniest subtleties of touch are indeed perceptible.

For an example, lets perform an example. Take your hand and run your fingertips over your arm as you would your partner's if you were getting ready to go at it. just barely touching. Very perceptible. In fact, I'd venture to say you can actually feel it more in your arm than in your finger. Very erotic. Now, do the same thing, but push just a little bit harder. Not nearly as good, eh?

And to further put a nail in the coffin, there's more that the processors would have to do than just deal with all this high bandwidth, high-quantity input and control a big, fat array of motors and ******. There's more to sex than the physical aspect - it's more than unf and unf back. There are decisions to be made - changes to be made. Creativity. Experience. It's as much a mental thing between the partners as it is a physical. For the sake of not totally torpedoing the concept, I'll assume that you can have good sex without reciprical emotion.

 
You know, I can't believe I actually wrote two mammoth posts about this topic. And for some reason, I don't think they'll be the only two I write on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top