Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

[Ragitsu]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

Lumberjacks are now cyborgs. Badass.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

Another reason to prefer bio-boosting via gene therapy, pharmaceuticals etc.--no surgery needed. And upgrades are likely to be pretty straightforward.

[Ragitsu]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

The other issue is that of sex. How do those that want to go near-full cyborg still procreate? I imagine removing your ovaries/testicles totally eliminates the possibility of creating humans without outside assistance.

[Sociotard]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

The other issue is that of sex. How do those that want to go near-full cyborg still procreate? I imagine removing your ovaries/testicles totally eliminates the possibility of creating humans on your own.

They haven't pulled it off in humans, but if any of the remaining meat includes stem cells, it is possible to turn those into sex cells. Basically, you won't be able to do it naturally. It may still be possible though. Perhaps people will even upload their genetic code into a database, which can then produce sex cells even if all the meat is removed period.

[Ragitsu]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

And what about the minor-but-desired side effect of pleasure? Do you just crank up the Ecstasy-Bed to 11 instead?

[megaplayboy]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

Meh. Just go the bio-engineering route and design a better species of human. You can "upgrade" the existing group to the new standard, or at least something close to it. Any cyber-improvements can be external, rather than internal.

[Ragitsu]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

Typically, in science-fiction, bioengineering is easier to accept (especially visually) than cybernetics, and is also more expensive. Would this necessarily hold true in reality?

[Ragitsu]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

[Christopher]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

Why the "baseline" won't change: Sure' date=' in theory if everyone had brain implants that all did close to the same thing, that would change the baseline. That won't happen unless changing implants and gene splices or whatever becomes as easy as changing the oil filter in your car, because otherwise baseline won't change.[/quote']

In Ghost in the Shell, First Season everybody had "Cyberbrains". And I mean EVERYBODY. Only a few poor people could not afford it lived entirely in the meat...

Of course your average cyberbrain was also your cellphone and allowed direct neural links.

 

So' date=' upgrades-to-baseline can be internal, but upgrades-beyond-baseline should be external:[/b'] A deaf person might be able to get a Cochlear implant and acheive baseline. They will then be able to use the same cell phones as everybody else, and they'll upgrade cell phones along with everybody else. Assuming their implant took them all the way to baseline (not just almost-kinda-good-enough-for-government-work) they won't bother upgrading that. After all, surgery is hard.

When you can repair it, why not directly go to superhuman? The basic aproach behind the "6 Million Dolloar Man", "The Bionic Women" or Gordy La Froge from Star trek next generation.

Or how about making the replacement parts exchangeable like you switch your piercings or maybe the brake linings of yoru car?

 

 

Furthermore' date=' I'm also skeptical of the 'super-long-lasting computer' trope. My brain is 30 years old, and that isn't even especially old for a working brain. Our computers don't last anywhere near that long.[/quote']

The trick is, that our brain does not needs to evolve. As such itself or a Robobrain will not really become obsolete. If we ever get there we know what our brain does and how to mimik it.

 

 

The only way actual implants are going to be advantageous is if tech change slows way down. I doubt this. Even if we hit a bunch of walls and stop really advancing' date=' the tech itself will change for the same reason fashion does.[/quote']

I would not underestimate the usefullness of inconspicuous advantages. A "gun in the arm" can be very usefull. The same way for integrated communicator.

It's where it gives you abilities you could not have normally/that fast where Cybernetics shine.

 

Typically' date=' in science-fiction, bioengineering is easier to accept (especially visually) than cybernetics, and is also more expensive. Would this necessarily hold true in reality?[/quote']

I do see one mayor difference:

Gene changes take time. It takes time and long treatment to affect all cells. And it needs time until the body renewed itself with the new codes. And that asumes none of the mutation failsaves kick in (that is what keeps Joe Average from getting cancer after the frist dose of radiation/chemical poisioning in his life).

 

In Mass Effect (where every soldier get's some gene treatment) Sheppard get's to speak with the representative of a Gene-tech corporation about buisiness. "First the Disclaimer: No modification is guaranteed to 'take'. We can increase the odds, but every strand of dna is unique".

Later he shows some "uncertinity" about the effect, by giving percent margins for muscle increase.

 

On the other hand cyberntics have some more certinity in their effect and they work almost instantly. Not wait 2-7 years until your strenght treatment takes effect.

You will still need repuperation time and training with your new part, however.

[McCoy]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

Surgical difficulty + Moores Law = No internal upgrades above baseline: Most people have to get surgery at least once anyway' date=' for wisdom teeth. It wouldn't seem too far fetched to say people would get upgrades if they could be guaranteed for a long time. That said, nobody would want their implants to last forever, because that would stop you from upgrading. Imagine they'd figured out a way to do direct brain-machine hookups 25 years ago. People ran out and got them. Now people laugh at those early adopters with their phone jacks, because everyone else has cell phone service.[/quote']

And if nanobots reach the point where cyberware can be grown in place, and upgraded as needed, non-invasively?

[McCoy]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

The other issue is that of sex. How do those that want to go near-full cyborg still procreate? I imagine removing your ovaries/testicles totally eliminates the possibility of creating humans without outside assistance.

Not all of us want to procreate.

[Ragitsu]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

Not all of us want to procreate.

 

That's obvious. Plus, not all of us CAN procreate.

 

Still, the majority do.

 

---

 

There's also the issue of plain sensation: yeah, you can get two cyber-arms, but if their ability to sense things is fairly basic, then you may go mad being unable to feel anything. Inversely, unless artificial skin becomes just like the real thing, a lover's caress could end up being much stiffer.

[Christopher]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

There's also the issue of plain sensation: yeah' date=' you can get two cyber-arms, but if their ability to sense things is fairly basic, then you may go mad being unable to feel anything.[/quote']

The hero system lists some penalties for totally lacking Touch Sense, 6E2 9 I think.

 

Inversely' date=' unless artificial skin becomes just like the real thing, a lover's caress could end up being much stiffer.[/quote']

Thats only a matter of material design. Cyberskin is not that different from clothing.

[Gnaskar]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

Belief in the undead does make someone a fanatic.

 

But talking snakes' date=' people floating, alchemy, and people coming back from the dead [i']don't[/i]?

 

Ok, I have no clue how I managed to make that typo. The paragraph was supposed to read:

 

Belief in the undead doesn't make someone a fanatic. Murdering someone for being what they are does. Whether that “what” is a religious affiliation, sexual orientation, political view, or undeathness is immaterial.

 

AIUI that's not the case. There are at least medical therapies being tested' date=' researched and in development--and some hold at least the potential for a cure or at least mitigation. [/quote']

 

Meanwhile, building digital (silicon) neurons is a university course. I’d say the score is 0.3=0.3 at this point. The city I live in has at least three teams working to bridge the gap between computers and brains.

 

And what about the minor-but-desired side effect of pleasure? Do you just crank up the Ecstasy-Bed to 11 instead?

 

Something like that actually. We’ve already figured out how to activate that part of a rat brain with a chip; it isn’t too far of a stretch that this kind of input could be linked to sensors in the relevant regions. As for the other participant’s pleasure, suffice to say the technology exists. It may benefit from some refining, but it exists.

 

Inversely' date=' unless artificial skin becomes just like the real thing, a lover's caress could end up being much stiffer.[/quote']

 

The Japanese have done some amazing work on that field (or so I’ve heard…).

 

There's also the issue of plain sensation: yeah' date=' you can get two cyber-arms, but if their ability to sense things is fairly basic, then you may go mad being unable to feel anything.[/quote']

 

Meh. I’ve never had a sense of smell, and have a significantly reduced sense of touch. It’s not as bad as you’d think.

[McCoy]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

That's obvious. Plus, not all of us CAN procreate.

 

Still, the majority do.

The majority do procreate. Do they really want to?

 

Ever seen My Sister's Keeper? Great movie, if you get it on DVD be sure to watch the deleted scenes. But the relevance to this subject is a monologue in the voiceover near the beginning about planning a family, and that in the narrator's opinion for the most part only those who are having trouble having children actually plan for them.

 

Or a sitcom, I want to say Still Standing, the youngest child exits, the husband turns to the wife and says something like "Why did we have her anyway?"

 

"You stopped by the store on the way home from work and didn't have the money for both beer AND condoms."

 

"Oh yeah, and without the beer I wasn't going to need the condoms anyway."

 

Yes, entertainment, fictionalized accounts, but art does reflect life.

 

(OK, not all children are as unplanned as my Number Three Son. I had guardianship of the child who became Number Two Son, was at the family of origin to pick up his stuff, his younger brother helped me load the car, got in the back seat, locked the door and announced he was coming with me. I asked the bioparents if it was OK with them, thinking he'd be back in a few days after he saw his brother was settled in. A year later when I adopted Number Two Son, Number Three Son petitioned the courts to stay with his brother. Bioparents didn't object. Only surprise adoption I've ever heard of.)

 

 

There's also the issue of plain sensation: yeah' date=' you can get two cyber-arms, but if their ability to sense things is fairly basic, then you may go mad being unable to feel anything. Inversely, unless artificial skin becomes just like the real thing, a lover's caress could end up being much stiffer.[/quote']

Lots of people get by with reduced sensation. My dad had a stroke, his left arm and left side of his face were numb for 22 years. Full function in the arm, but he had to watch anytime he was using it because he had no feedback from touch.

 

But cochlear implants are improving IAW Moore's Law, what makes you think other cyber-senses wouldn't?

[Ragitsu]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

Something like that actually. We’ve already figured out how to activate that part of a rat brain with a chip; it isn’t too far of a stretch that this kind of input could be linked to sensors in the relevant regions. As for the other participant’s pleasure' date=' suffice to say the technology exists. It may benefit from some refining, but it exists.[/quote']

 

And thus, a new addiction was born...

 

Or potentially hundreds of people burning their pleasure center out.

 

Regardless of whether an ecstasy bed is feasible, I have a feeling humans will still want to get their "high" naturally, if only for genuine intimacy and bonding.

 

The majority do procreate. Do they really want to?

 

There's birth control, but at some point a not-insignificant-amount of people eventually desire having a child. If you're now the Steel Crotch, you're pretty much out of luck. Plus, there's still the pleasure issue.

 

Lots of people get by with reduced sensation. My dad had a stroke, his left arm and left side of his face were numb for 22 years. Full function in the arm, but he had to watch anytime he was using it because he had no feedback from touch.

 

But cochlear implants are improving IAW Moore's Law, what makes you think other cyber-senses wouldn't?

 

He still had his right arm/right side of his face though? Yeah, my example more concerns a total loss of sensation with both arms and even possibly legs. I imagine an exactly replica of how the human sense of touch works will still be a ways off, even though you could build specialized doohickeys that give higher/more specific measurements in certain areas (such as temperature or PSI).

[Gnaskar]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

And thus' date=' a new addiction was born...[/quote']

 

As seen in the Ringworld Series, yes.

 

Regardless of whether an ecstasy bed is feasible' date=' I have a feeling humans will still want to get their "high" naturally, if only for genuine intimacy and bonding.[/quote']

 

Define "naturally". I'm proposing using the available (future) technology to activate the "high" at the appropriate times, not providing the cyborg with a switch. If the system is set up to be identical to the baseline human, why would it not feel natural to the party's involved? In short, why is sex with a sentient android any different from with a human (apart from the carbon/silicon material difference)?

 

I imagine an exactly replica of how the human sense of touch works will still be a ways off' date=' even though you could build specialized doohickeys that give higher/more specific measurements in certain areas (such as temperature or PSI).[/quote']

 

Human receptors (for all senses) consists of Baroreceptors, Chemoreceptors, Hydroreceptors, Mechanoreceptors, Nociceptors, Photoreceptors, Proprioceptors, and Thermoreceptors.

 

Proprioceptors (they tell you how much effort your using, which position your body is in,etc) and Nociceptors (pain) are entirely internal, and can be changed out with software.

 

Baroreceptors (Pressure, generally blood pressure), Mechanoreceptors (mechanical pressure), Chemoreceptors (chemical markers), Hydroreceptors (humidity), Photoreceptors (light), and Thermoreceptors (temperature) already exists as microscale constructs. Reducing them down to cell sized constructs is likely to happen naturally in the near future anyway, even without dedicated research.

 

So, yes, we can make specialized instruments more precise than any carbon based ones, in roughly the same size scale for all sensory receptors we can't simulate with the others. The most important one for touch simply consists of a conductive stick attached to a spring in a tube. As the stick is forced further down the tube, it completes electric circuits, which sends out the relevant signals.

[Sociotard]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

And if nanobots reach the point where cyberware can be grown in place' date=' and upgraded as needed, non-invasively?[/quote'] That would completely invalidate my argument, yes. I was basing it entirely on the fact that surgery has been practiced in one way or another since the stone age, and it still isn't all that easy. If getting a cyberware implant is as easy as a dental filling, people will get implants all the time, and 'baseline' will vary with income disparity.

[Ragitsu]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

That would completely invalidate my argument' date=' yes. I was basing it entirely on the fact that surgery has been practiced in one way or another since the stone age, and it still isn't all that easy. If getting a cyberware implant is as easy as a dental filling, people will get implants all the time, and 'baseline' will vary with income disparity.[/quote']

 

A human with these "upgrades" will need to visit a physician, mechanic, and computer programmer on a somewhat regular basis?

[McCoy]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

That would completely invalidate my argument' date=' yes. I was basing it entirely on the fact that surgery has been practiced in one way or another since the stone age, and it still isn't all that easy. If getting a cyberware implant is as easy as a dental filling, people will get implants all the time, and 'baseline' will vary with income disparity.[/quote']

Surgeries vary widely. If getting a direct neural interface involves opening the skull, fewer people will have them than if they can be installed between the skull and the scalp. One is major surgery, the other an office procedure under a local anesthetic.

[McCoy]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

A human with these "upgrades" will need to visit a physician' date=' mechanic, [i']and[/i] computer programmer on a somewhat regular basis?

Or have diagnostics running in the background.

[Christopher]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

And if nanobots reach the point where cyberware can be grown in place' date=' and upgraded as needed, non-invasively?[/quote']

 

That would completely invalidate my argument' date=' yes.[/quote']

Not nessesarily. Nanobots could be both have their own risks (like coing rogue and frying your brain or nanobot pullution) and will be most likely require more resources: You need the designs, the same raw material, a nanobot-programmer, the nanobots to do the work and the time to let them to their work (wich may require a "EM-free invironment very similar to our sterile operating room).

When we have Nanobots on that level it might be easier to install it the old way and use them only to augment recuperation.

 

A human with these "upgrades" will need to visit a physician' date=' mechanic, [i']and[/i] computer programmer on a somewhat regular basis?

The chaos theory works against not doing it. It's like going to the dentist: You might fear it, not see the need or even think "it works right now, no need for visits" but that will bite you in the butt when it finally breaks down. "If you had come a year ago, I could have fixed it in two hours. Now we turn of all you cybernetics or you die within 3 months"

[The Weapon]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

Anything that can be hacked is not to be connected to my consciousness. I know cyberphones seem cool, but I'm prepared to push a few buttons if it means nobody can rearrange my neural net to make me vote Republican. Or Democrat.

[Ragitsu]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

The chaos theory works against not doing it. It's like going to the dentist: You might fear it' date=' not see the need or even think "it works right now, no need for visits" but that will bite you in the butt when it finally breaks down. "If you had come a year ago, I could have fixed it in two hours. Now we turn of all you cybernetics or you die within 3 months"[/quote']

 

Oh, absolutely.

 

I'm not disputing the necessity of such visits. As of a matter of fact, I agree that they would be vital. However...where you had just one set of potential problems to deal with (the ordinary human body), you now have three. Yes, this is despite the fact that there is less human body and some machine: the kind of problems you could face just tripled.

 

And as we've learned from RPGs, "critical failures" tend to nail PCs in the end, even when "critical success" is also more likely.

 

There's also the time factor, especially when it deals to how frequently you must visit the mechanic and computer programmer. It is possible these upgrades are very self-correcting, but that is a bit optimistic for beginning cybernetics, hopeful for mid-stage cybernetics, and at least plausible for late-era cybernetics. Nanobots? Hm...that's another set of dice added into the mix.

 

I imagine the wealthy would not be as challenged by the demands of these added trips, but, then again, this creates a significant stratification issue between the wealthy and everyone else.

[Ragitsu]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

Anything that can be hacked is not to be connected to my consciousness. I know cyberphones seem cool' date=' but I'm prepared to push a few buttons if it means nobody can rearrange my neural net to make me vote Republican. Or Democrat.[/quote']

 

Forget even hacking for a moment, and consider the more likely scenario of subliminal messaging becoming a whole lot more effective.