Well then there goes the basis for IQ tests as well as all the scientists and psycholgist that supported it for the past 50 years.



What is sanity anyways, and who am I to judge.



I would settle for 99.9%



Paper batteries? That can be powered by any electrolyte fluid for days at a time?



That is quite untrue, I could think of thousands of things. Untill I have pudding powered pant phones progress shall not cease!!!

That overlooks that the human body lasts as long as it does by regenerating. Most hardware needs to be replaced in an 80 year plus time frame. I don't know if you can get prevent something from degrading. It could also be something like the contacts between the chip and the brain changing or degrading.

Who knows. But assuming that the implants can stay maintenance free for decades on end seems unlikely. I'm done debating that point.



If it grants you an "understanding" of higher mathematics it would have to be integral. If it were just a floating display in your field of vision of a little voice in your ear then it wouldn't grant you an understanding.


that said, the human brain demonstrates a flexibility with losing integral components. Knock out a person's speech centers and not only will it only screw up their speech but over time other parts of hte brain might restore most of the old functions... especially if the individual is fairly young.



Our computers get twice as fast at the same size every 18 months. So the amount of time you'll have to wait for that is calculable. Of course that only gives you the raw computing power. It could be that true AI requires entirely different system construction on the hardware level that can't be efficiently emulated in our existing calculating engines no matter how powerful they are...


Mmm... you win anyway you look at it. The only reason computers are better at some tasks is that they're faster at serial processing... have been built explicitly for number crunching. Where as you're superior at parallel processing have have evolved to run a sophisticated adaptive AI.


Regards, karmashock.

unless you have a closet degree in devine knowledge, you do not know that. by integral I mean nescessary to survival, i.e. the brain would shut down without it, not that peripheral means you put a textbook in your head that floats just out of vision.

let me point out that our brains are much closer to the data limit than any of our computers, and technology thats going to work with a decipherable output will not breach the brain's limit anytime soon.

precisely

you guys are mistaking two different definitions, integral with respect to understanding (oh, I know it vs. oh, I can look it up) and integral with respect to the necessity of the brain (needs it to continue opperating under most circumstances, vs. can survive most circumstances without) I assume unless you excise something else to be replaced with the chip, the chip will always be peripheral with respect to hte brain.

No, scientists (physicist) at the end of the 19. century really thought that they knew almost everything that there is to know. There were some small holes in their theories (the infamous aether, maxwell's equations) which shed some lights on further problems to come, but all in all they thought that their understanding was more or less complete.

Actually, I knew exactly what you meant. Its just that if the brain decides to become dependent on the chip, its possible it won't be able to re-route around the suddenly inactive chip to do the stuff it could do before it was chipped.

the whole "laws of physics" says there is.
those are kindof, you know, set in stone.

I thought we were ADDING functions, not replacing! why would you REPLACE any part of your brain, thats stupid.

actually, it gets me to the point of saying "you cannot say that, because thats absoluting the demise of speculation". either way your point still is on very very shaky ground, seeing as NOBODY knows enough about the structure of the human brain to say with any degree of confidence what you did.

ok, first off almost nothign in the upper regions of the brain is ABSOLUTELY nescessary, and also the chip would likely serve a MUCH lower function similar to the frontal cortex, which just about anyone can survive without. i.e. YA DONT NEED IT.

the only real issues that could arrive are twofold
1) the chip starts giving funky data output, therefore screwing with the way your brain functions
2) it physically messes with your brain, causes a brain bleed etc.

1 is sheerly unlikely, 2 is bad surgery. I dont see a chip hijacking the brain and causing epileptic siezures (something that has nothing to do with the computing thinking process, at least by what we know, why would your brain wire numbers to your motor systems???)

at the very worst what happens is somebody starts screwing up their math. if the chip malfunctions? well then the person wont be able to do math theory, boo hoo

anyway, if the engineers are truly idiots (and do not specify a lower limit to the problems the chip will do, 1+1, 2+2, 48x53) then there will be a problem (if the chip degrades) as people wont be able to do simple functions of addition, multiplication division etc. but seeing as all TECHNOLOGY is gone, thats not a huge problem.

again, you're assuming 1) that those maintenance facilities arent integrated into the chip, and 2) that the chips would even possible be exposed to said difficulties. too much speculation.

oh get off your high horse, its not "obvious" nor "beyond debate", if anything I doubt your speculations (which IS what they are) are on any sort of firm debateable ground.

its a theoretical physics thing, teh limit at which data can be processed, to be precise its the data that our universe computes.

1) understandable by some means, either by a "conciousness" or by a computer.
2) the data processing capacity of the brain, its "gHz" if you will (although its in all likelyhood variable by region)

hence none of them are integral, it would be as simple as tearing out the chip and *gasp* no super-number crunching for you.

I dont need to advance the arguement, you've just met my burden of proof for me, thank you.

What are you talking about? Let me be clear: if you remove (and, presumably, add) something from the brain, the brain will (eventually) adapt, depending on what you add. Which means that until we have experiential data on how the brain reacts to adding extra "circuitry" to it, we have no meter stick to say how it will react to its eventual removal -- or its addition in and of itself. Which means that we can't say that the brain will, or won't, leave that addition alone without routing (or trying to route) other functions through it.

On top of that, the brain is lazy. You add a chip to do math, and the part of it responsible for doing math will stop working.

cite the part where I said "dont replace simple math functions"

you wouldnt REMOVE anything! you would not REPLACE anything! as that would, in fact, damage the brain. I would think you knew enough street-neurology to know that.
also I can say with fair confidence that the brain will not route important functions through such an unimportant part of the brain as NUMBER RECOGNITION.

I only use this arguement when we aren't talking theoretics and speculation. I'm allowed my high horse outside those grounds.

your right, the brain doesnt reroute, it reprograms. people who lose sight end up getting touch sensation replacing their visual cortex (if they use braile extensively, although sound might also be there) although I've never heard of it actually taking one function and sticking it onto the next. again, if you're stupid enough to have basic functions be replace then the replaced brain tissue will die, but thats just supid.

Not really, the point hurts your argument as much as mine. So it's a wash.


It's obvious we're speculating anyway. I don't think anyone is claiming to know these things with scientific certainty... and the degree of speculation that is tolerable on a gaming forum's off topic section is almost infinite.


So as I said, that doesn't get you anywhere.

As to other statement you made on the point of such devices causing problems if there's no chance of getting them professionally serviced in the future. I've made my point to the extent that it can't really be contradicted credibly... and as I've said... I'm done with it.


A quantum computer would greatly exceed our own brain's computing power. In addition, you have to remember that even though our brains are very dense, they are much slower then even the first computers. Yes our brains are capable of computing much more information over time. However each calculation takes longer then a single calculation in the old computers. What the brain does to surpass our current computers is compute so many calculations at once that it appears "fast"... Our brains take the same amount of time to recognize a face as they do to add two numbers together. A computer however accomplishes simple tasks faster then the brain can physically operate.

The distinction is between parallel and serial processing. The human brain is iniefficent at serial processing and currently our computers can't compete with the human brain in parallel processing.


Consider this though... it took evolution BILLIONS of years to develop the Human brain and we've only been playing with computers for about 100 years. We're catching up extremely quickly here.


Why would it be hard to get understandable output out of a computer? We've known how to do that since computers were just theoretical... ie we knew how to do this before we even built one.


I've seen the term "calculations per second" used most commonly. It's also the preferred method for comparing super computers to each other.



Yeah, but I'll probably die if I'm blind and no one helps me.

Your definition needs work.

==============================================

Not so much right as in more capable of dealing with the collapse of the civilization around them. They grow a lot of their own food, make a lot of their own tools, etc.


A person that has artifacts integrated into their biology might not be able to survive without something as basic as replacement batteries.


Take a guy with a pacemaker or an artificial heart... he NEEDS his doctors and/or some means of keeping his artificial bits working. If the world goes to hell though people that are fully organic would probably be better adapted for survival.


There might be some interesting consequences for that. People are not stupid when it comes to survival. We're very good at it. So for example, a society who's individuals cannot survive without civilization might be less prone to barbarism. Maybe society will be more stable because people know they can't just hide in a bunker somewhere and then live off the land. I honestly don't know. I just found the concept interesting.

Ok I dont want to get into the whole debate.

Yet I want to point a few things out.

1.Human brains DONT just work on electrical impulses, messages even in the brain are also transmitted chemicaly as a backup.

2.Research especily for energy devices is moving into the biological area, because living orginisims are EXTREMLY good at power generation. The south Americans rainforrests if there excess energy could be taped produce enough power for all the worlds cities.

3.Machines are crude representations of organics, sure you can make a machine arm and its stronger then a biological human arm. Yet it lacks the tactile ablity, it lacks the self repair ablity, and it lacks adaptation ablity(to gain weight speed strength harder/softer surface.

4.Current developments can be transfered over into organics, Human DNA research is reaching the final stages where we will actually understand how to do it properly, even if we still dont know what everything does do. (Its a code like a computer code were reverse engineering it)

5.Take for example nano carbon rings, 1cm of this stuff has the same tensile and kenetic resistance of 10m of Rolled hargmgeous armor.
By simply redesigning human cells to produce and line the cell walls with it we can increase our physical toughness to a degree where physical hits which currently kill a human will not harm us.(however the rnd and dna is still suspectible to shock damage even if the cell doesnt break.. so it wouldnt be as great as otherwise could be)

As an example a if you fell onto a sharpend steel rod, it wouldnt penetrate your skin very far as your weight doesnt execeede the limits of the cell membranes so it can only part the cells which then exert increased frictional pressure.

Then we have our bones, which we can design a titanium based calcium composite structure which leaves us with far stronger bones, still not magnetic(titanium isnt)

We are reaching a stage where the future WONT need us.
Homo Sapien Sapiens are going to be made extinct.

However Humanity WONT die unless we wipe ourselves out.
Anyone who thinks machines can become in there current form superior to humans REALLY needs to look up RND and DNA repair.

A human body at all times is
Thinking
Repairing
Refineing raw materials
Recycling
Producing
Defending
Reverse engineering hostile invaders
Producing new defences designed to destroy these invaders

meanwhile your RND and DNA can suffer millions of corruptions from damage per day per cell and yet almost all are repaired.

When its not repaired the cell normaly self terminates

If the cell doesnt self terminate other cells normaly remove it.

Now lets take cancer as a "failure rate" in human organics.

1 out of 50 billion cells might fail and be undetected by all the checks and safeguards.
(thats actually FAR HIGHER) then the reality.

meanwhile things like memory and CPUS have a failure rate at production of around 30% and 10% failure rate of checked products sent to the consumer.

Also top of the line computer equipment cannot function in space at all its destroyed because its far to delicate to radation, yet the human brain can quite happily keep functioning even when atoms traveling at the speed of light are punching holes through it.

lastly as a intresting point, it looks like human males actually have the ablity to modifiy the dna of sperm to add disease resistance his own dna lacks.
As its not very well documented yet it MAY even be that the ablity to modifiy other aspects such as physical traits like size muscle mass aswell exist.

No, an electrical impulse is sent and a chemical emited at the same time, if for any reason the electrical impulse doesnt set another nuron off the chemical does, yet if its just fired by electrical pulse the chmeical is ignored.

They were trying to figure out how memory was being stored/remembered when nurons were not fireing electrical pulses due to damage yet surrounding nurons were responding as if it had.

Its already possible to build robots that pass as human for a short peroid of time.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4714135.stm


Secondly, a Japanese robot is capable of taking orders from 3 people at the same time and matching the words being said with the faces of each as they talk and remembering it to give them the right order.
Humans cant do that.
Exceded human ablity today.

Thirdly
A robot currently for sale in japan is capable of remembering 10 diffrent human faces and helping look after a sick human.

It may surprise you but the USA isnt the world runner in tech and research, infact even in weapons research Russia is still ahead. In robotics research Japan and South Korea are ahead.

As far as weapons

Russia has had emp weapons including a grenade sized version capable of frying all the electronics in a tank for over 20 years, 20 years later the USA is only starting to develop non nuclear EMP devices which are effective and they have yet to have any handheld versions the size of a grenade or close to it.

You know the Robotic motion sentry Guna in Aliens?
Russia had them before aliens was ever made.

In laser weapon research, China is ahead.

Only subject im aware the USA is ahead in,is exoskeleton self powered armored suits.

Also what you read and what is really going on or known or invented is almost never the same.

Example?
Question-Can humans generate anti grav plating inside a spaceship, can they create gravity negating devices?

Answer you came up with -No
Real answer
Yes by using a technique found in 1953 humans could do all these things, yet the only country to even explore the posiblities were russia who tried to turn it into weapons.
Further more physics has been held back and even up to 3 years ago it was believed gravity couldnt shield gravity that it only propagated.