Originally posted by: QUOTH
Shurely if the bomb is at the bottom of the elevators anchor wire, the whole array will fly off into space? Still not good, but probably better than crashing to Earth. Ive got a model in my head. someone swinging a yoyo in a circle. The hand is the earth and the yoyo is the top of the elevator. if the string is cut the yoyo will fly off. If the sting is cut next to the yoyo, the yoyo will fly off and the string will still spin around, but not as well. I'm shure thats flawed.
As I understand it, space elevators work because of an interaction between Earth's magnetic field and an electric charge run along the cable.....or maybe I'm thinking of a way of changing the altitude of the orbital station.
Good old Wikipedia seems to confirm this. It looks like the orbital station would fly up into another orbit, with the cable flying all over the place. That's for a break near the ground. Follow that with, "If the break occurred at higher altitude, up to about 25,000 km, the lower portion of the elevator would descend to Earth and drape itself along the equator east of the anchor point, while the now unbalanced upper portion would rise to a higher orbit."
Either way, not good.
You've gotta be careful with reconstructed orgasms. If you can have one on demand, it's kind of self defeating. My main reasons for shared virtual reality is practically no limit to population. Robots take space. If perception is already synthesized [cameras instead of eyes, microphones instead of ears], why not go all the way.
People can already masturbate, and sex toys do exist to provide appropriate sensations. This orgasm ability would be a "legacy" feature, like ISA slots. If the sex drive in general were toned down, and if various negative hormonal influences were done away with (in theory, depression could be completely eliminated too), the need for orgasms could also go away as well.
Sorry, correct me but arn't you saying this whilst interacting in a box somewhere? The point would be everyone would be in 1 box. Want to talk to the worlds leader in X field? It'll take a few seconds to ask him and go visit his virtual house.
I am within a house, and interacting with a box. But I don't remain in this house indefinitely, and at the other end of the box is a group of people. If I leave this house, then I can affect the outside world directly. Socializing might be done in a virtual world, but genuinely performing work in the real world would require leaving the virtual behind, at least for some time each day.
I love the idea of changing behaviours which we elvolved with. Less agression, no want for things that don't matter, no lazyness and no sleep. This should fit nicely with my idea of speeding up the rate that we think so time feels like it passes more slowly. If we double the speed we think and react, Humanity automatically advances twice as fast. Obviously It won't make any differences to us personally as we won't feel the difference, but everything will seem to last longer [energy, robot bodies, the Earth, The Sun, the Universe, but thats pushing it].
I see it as the only way to improve our genetics. Nature can only get us so far. It really has no "objectives," at least in our sense of the word. Things that are able to survive simply do. Those which adapt better to their environments in one way or another will survive more easily. Those with a strong urge to reproduce are more likely to do so, even facing great dangers to do so.
One issue that Stephen Hawking brought up concerning human intelligence: the size of the birth canal. A baby's got this little body dangling from a damn big head.
Options that I see:
- Change the shape of the skull. Coneheads, anyone?
- Lay eggs.
IMO apart from our view of time, and an individuals life time [1 person being able to spend 1,000's of years rather than 60 working on a subject, and someone having to pick up where he left off] the single biggest positive will be removing language.
Language itself will never be eliminated, and here's where an important distinction must be made -
verbal language may go away. Or maybe not. Maybe it will be kept as a backup means of communication. Optical communication would in theory allow for much greater bandwidth. Sonic communication would ultimately be limited by the wavelength and speed of sound. Light has a lot more room to spare where those aspects are concerned.
OK, lets look at education through the ages shall we?
....
Now you're talking, "Tank, I need to know how to fly a helicopter, hurry."
Originally posted by: Muse
I saw a blurb on TV news a week or two ago about a new battery technology that's coming down the pipe (2 years? Lithium of some kind?) that will give you ~50 hours on your laptop. How's that?! I didn't catch the whole story but that got my attention.
Not too far out in terms of feasibility or fictional status is highly integrated, multifaceted, sophisticated, easy to use control systems, in particular for the home. I think there's a newsgroup dedicated to automation, perhaps home automation itself. I've seen or heard a few things about what's available now and obviously this is an area that's currently growing by leaps and bounds and will continue to do so.
Rubycon posted about it awhile ago. As I recall, it uses silicon nanofibers and lithium to achieve a much higher energy density. The number I heard was only 20 hours on a charge. Media hype at work?
Old Thread
Article
Originally posted by: NanoStuff
Originally posted by: Jeff7
The problem with the virtual world, the "voluntary Matrix," is that it would be just that - virtual. Why not network up, but make progress in the real world instead? Without various genetic and hormonal influences (in an android body, perhaps not the case with a cyborg), the idea of virtual this-and-that might become less attractive.
Why would that be a problem? For all we know we are 'virtual' at the moment, it's not exactly life-limiting. When we're able to separate the mind from the biology (and it's really not as hard as it might first appear), which is inevitable as I see it, why bother with the 'real' world? The 'real' world is harsh and unpleasant and prone to failure. If we can make our own world and live within it, we can do a whole lot better for ourselves.
Just so long as we keep the distinction between "real" and "virtual" clear. If our future selves spend all of their time in the virtual world, the real one will eventually disintegrate from exposure to time and the elements. At the very least, it must be maintained, and possibly upgraded to increase capacity, or to deal with external problems, such as the ever-present (at least today) possibilities of a severe solar eruption directed right at us, or an asteroid. Imagine a big solar flare squishing Earth's magnetic field when all of humanity is integrated into their virtual world, on a power grid that acts as a giant inductive coil. Big power surge = not good.
Originally posted by: Muse
IMO this is very much in the realm of science fiction and I have major, major doubts that a mind/body separation will ever occur, ever in the future of the human race. You guys don't have enough respect for the sophistication of the human brain. Maybe read Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything. You may have doubts concerning whether or not you are virtual, however I realize that without my body I do not think. It will always be that way with humans.
That's why I mention quantum and optical computing. Each neuron can accomplish a great deal in a small volume. Quantum computers, as I understand it, allow individual particles to take on multiple roles at once.
Sometimes technology falls behind what we expect, other times it leaps far ahead.
Without a container of some sort, we do not think. The mind resides in the brain, which is part of the body. The brain is comprised of neurons which store the requisite data. If a suitable replacement could be constructed artificially, that mind could theoretically reside there as well.
But I agree, this will be many hundreds of years in the future. First we would pass the milestone of sentient machines, long before being able to make something with the storage capacity and speed of a human brain.
Think though of what an artificial mind could do. It wouldn't need to take breaks, it wouldn't get bored, it wouldn't even have emotions, and would not be bothered by thoughts of sex, or the influences of hormones. Gift it with creativity (another major AI leap), and it could think of ways of improving itself. Those who think that these robots will automatically take over the planet, you're assigning human tendencies to these machines. They will not have our instincts to abuse power once given it. All of our dominant behavior is evolved - dominant animals were more likely to survive in the face of competition. The need to dominate is in our genes. Robots or androids would not have this, unless specifically programmed with it. These robots could wind up being as benign as C-3PO, though hopefully less annoying.
"Oh dear, might I favor master with a tender kiss on the forehead? Oh dear...
crinkle...oh dear.......
crunch"
Originally posted by: everman
IMO this is very much in the realm of science fiction and I have major, major doubts that a mind/body separation will ever occur, ever in the future of the human race. You guys don't have enough respect for the sophistication of the human brain. Maybe read Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything. You may have doubts concerning whether or not you are virtual, however I realize that without my body I do not think. It will always be that way with humans.
I think it's a fascinating idea, and I believe the human mind can be separated from the biological body at least to some extent. Lets pose a hypothetical question:
1. How much of your body do you really need? Arguably you don't need anything from the neck down, that's for sure (probably less) So now we've done away with most of your body already. How much of the body can we do away with and still be human?
2. But the real question is: Can we "upload" our brains into a man-made computer system? Arguably yes, the brain itself is a computer.
Ah, but is it still human when fully separated from all biological systems? What would it be called, a human consciousness?
Or a more likely scenario: We "upgrade" our bodies with manufactured bodies. Our brains are augmented with technology. Eventually the processing power of the new technology accounts for 99%+ of your cognitive abilities, while still retaining your organic brain matter. Technically you are 99% manufactured, are you still human?[/quote]In time, another question will arise: Does it really
matter if we're still "human?" Maybe we could simply be called, "Sentient Ex-Primate Terrans" - sentient life forms that came from this planet. SEPT.
Lucky 7.
So maybe we wouldn't be "human" anymore. That life form would be the next step, the next version of sentient life on this planet. It's no more the death of us than when each generation of humanity dies, leaving their offspring in their place. Instead of simple biological reproduction producing the next generation, technology would be producing the next iteration. Our enduring legacy would be in the exceptional progress made in creating them, in overcoming eons of a harsh planet, amidst a sea of hostile life forms, dealing with error-ridden DNA. Despite all that, we'd still manage to "give birth" to a new form of life, an improvement over the past. What greater monument to our existence could you ask for?
Facebook
Twitter