The year 3000

[hoots7]

Revive; like in bring back to life.

Peregrine likes to talk about Evolution and since his thread is not popular anymore he brings it up on other threads.

I will try to make this the last time I talk about it on this thread.

If anyone wants to contact me about it please feel free to do so, I’ll be more than happy to discuss it with you.

-H

I supposed that you would have noticed that the 'Evolution' thread was created 2 days after the post you quoted. Apparently, this was not the case.

I linked to Peregrine's thread which is dated Jun 12 2007.

[Sativarg]

If my Agenda theory is wrong, perhaps Human kind will take the path of "assisted evolution". In the short term that could lead to great strides is medicine, athletics and warfare. In the long term, however, such a path could mean great suffering, inhumanity and disparity as one group evolves beyond another. If modern Archeology and Anthropology are correct then such changes are not new. But things could be very different this time. The rate at witch such evolutionary change overtakes us if assisted by science could be unprecedented.

 

Much depends on the decisions we make along the way. Consider just one aspect of assisted evolution; Human Machine Interface.

 

 

Feasibility of co-training a computer and child to interface prebirth. I am not saying this should be done but it could be done. If it is done, those who do it may have an edge on those who do not. Is this a possible path of evolution for Humankind? Might it be inevitable given our growing dependence on the Microprocessor?

 

 

1. The computer must have the ability to learn language

1. The system should use AI

2. The OS should not interfere with the learned language in any way

3. No preconceptions should exist in the programing.

2. The child must have the ability to sense either light, sound or magnetic "field" signals.

1. Genetic manipulation

* Many species have sensory organs that detect magnetic changes

* It should not be hard to develop an interface from modified stem cells taken in vitro

2. Use of existing senses

* The human body can detect sound and perhaps light in vitro.

* Magnetic stimuli may be affective. Sensitivity inherently present in the human fetus may exist but never develops without use.

3. Device implantation

* In my opinion a cheep and inherently flawed solution

* Introducing a foreign body is introducing complications best avoided.

3. The computer must be able to detect brain activity. Or the child must be able to emit light, sound or magnetic fields.

1. Genetic manipulation

* Many species have organs that produce electromagnetic changes

* It should not be hard to develop an interface from modified stem cells taken in vitro

2. Detection of existing emissions

* Magnetic emissions may be affective and inherently present in the human fetus but never develops without use.

3. Device implantation

* In my opinion a cheep and inherently flawed solution

* introducing a foreign body is introducing complications best avoided.

4. The language should be allowed to grow without major restriction.

1. In order to be most correct and affective the language must be allowed to grow in both child and computer unhindered by preconceived notions.

* All languages are best learned in youth

* Any preconceptions will hinder innovation between the co learners

2. Further refinement of the process must be contingent on results gained in an unadulterated control example.

* After the first co-paired beings are born and the human learns to interface with peers, more will be known about the learning process and changes, if warranted, may be made

 

This out line is my humble attempt to organize my ideas concerning an efficient direct link between the machine and the human brain. Several paths could be taken to achieve the interface. I choose to look towards a more "natural" alternative. Even if it is harder to achieve I believe the long term benefits of the less complicated path are worth the effort.

[ninja_lord666]

I supposed that you would have noticed that the 'Evolution' thread was created 2 days after the post you quoted. Apparently, this was not the case.

I linked to Peregrine's thread which is dated Jun 12 2007.

QUOTE(Peregrine @ Jun 10 2007, 01:58 AM)

Hmm...

[gnimblegnome]

...

Feasibility of co-training a computer and child to interface prebirth. I am not saying this should be done but it could be done. If it is done, those who do it may have an edge on those who do not. Is this a possible path of evolution for Humankind? Might it be inevitable given our growing dependence on the Microprocessor?

...

 

(A very interesting point. However, the leaning of language is a portal, a bit too abstract for computers. Even the most high-powered super-computers choke on human language.)

 

This is a long, expensive, and dangerous path. An easier and less lucrative medium for our evolutionary advancement: Biotechnology, more specifically, Gene-manipulation. Long strides have been made in this relatively new field of science. Now having said that, what 'advancements' do humans need? The best option for Gene-manipulation, I would say, is advanced sensory, elimination of disease (inborn, and external), and mental enhancement if possible.

 

What do you think?

[ninja_lord666]

The best option for Gene-manipulation, I would say, is advanced sensory, elimination of disease (inborn, and external), and mental enhancement if possible.

 

What do you think?

Senses may be possible to enhance, and inborn disease immunity is definitely possible (with more technology, of course), but external disease immunity is impossible.

Disease 'immunity' doesn't actually exist. All diseases affect us. It's not like the bacteria instantly die upon contact with one's body; the immune system fights it off. The reason people who've had chicken pox once in their life never get it again is because of antibodies. When the white blood cells encounter the chicken pox virus for the first time, they have no idea what it is, or what it's purpose is. When they find out the virus hurts the body, they combat it. After analyzing the virus, the B-cells then create anti-bodies to help identify and destroy the virus. After that, any time the chicken pox virus reappears in the body, it's just a simple matter of spreading those antibodies before anything happens.

Now then, unless you plan to modify the genes so that B-cells have antibodies for all known, unknown, and future adaptations of diseases at birth, then disease 'immunity' will never happen.

[gnimblegnome]

A good point I didn't think about that, but another good direction:

Genetically altering the things around us to our favor.

 

Say there is an epidemic loose, we could make a 'counter-epidemic', a virus

maybe, that specifically targets the bacteria that causes the illness, then

reproduces and dies.

 

a stretch, but we could perhaps, make a gene that can be "programmed" to kill

certain bacteria in this manner. just a theory don't read to much into it.

[Sativarg]

gnimblegnome The language would be co-created and thus much more palatability for the lowly machine. In any case the "computer" is evolving as we speak towards a point where even speech and listening will be an interface. But speech is slow and inefficiently compared to the direct interface Via a new co-evolved language that is free from the limitations of preconceptions.

 

 

ninja_lord666Point taken but why not consider these:

RE: disease elimination/reduction

B lymphocytes are the cells of the immune system that make antibodies to invading pathogens like viruses. They form memory cells that remember the same pathogen for faster antibody production in future infections.

Proposed Enhancements:

1. Externalized receptors that intercept pathogens and create memory cells before the infection.
   • Organs or specialized skin cells that act like B lymphocytes and store up information on environmental pathogens externally
     

[*]A Universal immune communication system to share pathogenic data between individuals and even populations

• An organ or system of organs that can communicate information between individuals
  
• An interface to silicone (computer) components to facilitate global immune distributions
  

[*]Acceptance of the beneficial flora that have already evolved synergistically with humans and are being destroyed rather than embraced.

• beneficial Bacteria have lived on our skin and evolved just like the Bifidobacterium bifidum and Lactobacillus acidophilus in our intestine.
  
• Living external and internal beneficial flora adapt to pathogenic populations, unlike antibiontics that only serve strengthen pathogens
  
• Bacteriophages could be enhanced and encouraged to live in and on us to further protect us from harm.
  

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/2154/dalek011ht3.gif LOL

[ninja_lord666]

A good point I didn't think about that, but another good direction:

Genetically altering the things around us to our favor.

 

Say there is an epidemic loose, we could make a 'counter-epidemic', a virus

maybe, that specifically targets the bacteria that causes the illness, then

reproduces and dies.

 

a stretch, but we could perhaps, make a gene that can be "programmed" to kill

certain bacteria in this manner. just a theory don't read to much into it.

Yeah, I don't think many people would be too keen on releasing killer viruses into their bodies. Also, viruses mutate as well. When all the harmful bacteria are gone, then they'll evolve to begin attacking our cells. Then we're f***ed.

I understand the altering other animals bit, but just not killing ourselves. In fact, farmers do it already; they have selective breeding of plants and animals to get the most productive ones. Artificially changing the plants and animals, though, can increase it.

[Abramul]

A good point I didn't think about that, but another good direction:

Genetically altering the things around us to our favor.

 

Say there is an epidemic loose, we could make a 'counter-epidemic', a virus

maybe, that specifically targets the bacteria that causes the illness, then

reproduces and dies.

 

a stretch, but we could perhaps, make a gene that can be "programmed" to kill

certain bacteria in this manner. just a theory don't read to much into it.

Yeah, I don't think many people would be too keen on releasing killer viruses into their bodies. Also, viruses mutate as well. When all the harmful bacteria are gone, then they'll evolve to begin attacking our cells. Then we're f***ed.

I understand the altering other animals bit, but just not killing ourselves. In fact, farmers do it already; they have selective breeding of plants and animals to get the most productive ones. Artificially changing the plants and animals, though, can increase it.

Such a virus already exists, and has been used for ~80 years. Further, it's far more precise than antibiotics.

 

As for the idea that it could mutate and attack human cells, one could just as soon expect cattle to adopt an exclusively carnivorous diet.

[hoots7]

I supposed that you would have noticed that the 'Evolution' thread was created 2 days after the post you quoted. Apparently, this was not the case.

I linked to Peregrine's thread which is dated Jun 12 2007.

QUOTE(Peregrine @ Jun 10 2007, 01:58 AM)

Hmm...

Stampede, Abramul, Ninja_Lord and most of all Peregrine I’m sorry for my mix up.

I thought this thread was newer than it is, I’ve edited my post, please except my apologies.