This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Let's disambiguate reality from science fiction here. Neuralink's implant is indeed a cool breakthrough that, with much training, allows a person to control a cursor without the use of arms or legs. This is very cool for people who can't use arms or legs, or much of any other practical use for the electrical signals going down the spinal cord.
The Neuralink's Telepathy (TM) is completely one-way: the device is reading the electrical signals in your spinal cord, and trying to interpret them as simple cursor commands. It does not send you secret messages that your brain magically decodes. It does not read any part of your mind. It doesn't know which thoughts produced the particular configuration of electrical signals, and what if felt like to have those thoughts. It doesn't know or care whether, to generate the signal that it interprets as "left-click", you had to visualize yourself naked dancing on the piano, or imagine yourself shitting. You do whatever works.
For the able-bodied among us: we have far-superior telepathy (not TM) of amazingly fine-tuned control of arms and legs. We have the amazing telekinetic (not TM) ability of moving stuff with those arms and legs. How much of that control would you be willing to sacrifice, to devote some of the electrical signal going through your spinal cord to an external device? For what purpose?
And why would you have to sacrifice any of that? They're not cutting out chunks of your brain to make a neuralink fit, the skull, while compact and rather packed, can fit a neat little cap of microelectrodes without much issue. We've stuck far larger things in there, see how massive Utah Arrays are in comparison.
In an able-bodied person, a BCI would be a significant augment. You would be able to control pretty much any electronic device at the speed of thought, bandwidth allowing.*
You would, if feedback was implemented (and there is no reason to think that doesn't work, because we have that already), be able to receive nearly arbitrary input too. Do you want to perceive the magnetic field around you? No biggie. Do you want to smell wifi signals? Why not?
I can hardly stress how life-changing being able to interact with digital domains at the speed of pure thought would be. No more typing, to say the least.
And since electromagnetic radiation can jump distances significantly larger than the few microns separating neuronal junctions, you would be able to control and sense just about anything, just about anywhere that latency allows.
If you think the brain can't handle nearly arbitrary sensory modalities, you'd be wrong again. They taught blind people to see by putting sensors on their tongues. Neuroplasticity is a helluva drug, especially when the BCI works in a feedback loop.
*You're not restricted to just electronics. Throw in another BCI at the receiving end, and you can control biological entities. I could move your hand with as much ease as I move mine.
OK, let's focus on the use-of-tongue-for-sight. How many hours a day are you, personally, willing to spend in wearing a device that's exactly like BrainPort but geared for detecting ultra-violet light?
Basic humans don't see ultra-violet, but bees and birds do; flora and fauna have evolved to incorporate ultra-violet signals. Wouldn't you like to experience this aspect of the world directly? All you have to do is wear some specialized glasses with a specialized ultra-violet-light camera on the bridge of the nose, connected to a hand-held base unit with CPU and some zoom controls, which in turn is connected to a lozenge stuck to your tongue. You train yourself for a while, figuring out what those funny electrical-shock feelings on your tongue correspond to. I guess you'd need to use some kind of visualization on the monitor, with artificial coloring to highlight the ultra-violet. And after a while--yay!--you can "sense" ultra-violet!
Or, you know, you could just look at those visualizations with artificial coloring, like the rest of us basic humans, and skip the wearing of glasses connected to a hand-held unit connected to the lozenge on your tongue.
BrainPort is a big deal for blind people, because so much of our human infrastructure depends on sight. Similarly, a bee might be utterly lost without that ultraviolet sense, but just how crucial is it for me to see it, and if I have any technology able to sense it, wouldn't I just use that instead of wiring myself up to some gear and retraining my brain?
What about a BrainPort device that's geared towards infra-red? Wouldn't that be cool, see the world like Predator? Or, again... why not just put on some infra-red goggles?
Why in heaven's name would I want to sense WiFi? Isn't in enough that my WiFi-enabled devices do that?
You mistake my presentation of examples of the brain being highly plastic in regards to new sensory modalities as a claim that future advances will be nearly as crude.
The number of people with adequate vision who would be happy holding a lollipop in their mouth for the purposes of redundant visual input is rather minimal.
But what if you could have minimal LIDAR embedded on you? They're small enough to throw into an iPhone. Then, with your eyes closed, you have a sensory perception of everything within your proximity. Behind, above, below. It doesn't matter. That is a strict improvement over normal vision.
Or the ability to hear infrasound and ultrasound. You might hear machinery failing or an impending earthquake before your mundane senses catch up.
Thermal senses? You'll know if your coffee is hot, whether food is done, whether that saucepan is safe to take off the stove. Whether an industrial accident is safe for humans to approach, or if a firefighter can take the risk of opening a door while in the confines of a flame-retardant suit.
I might be able to tell a patient was coming down with a fever just by glancing at them.
To avoid the inconvenience of standard infra-red goggles or night vision devices. When you put them on, you're sacrificing standard vision in the process. Of course, for a soldier or hunter at night, their normal vision was already inadequate.
At any rate, there are oodles of useful information in the environment that humans don't have access to, but we can observe animals benefiting from. Magnetoception, or an internal sense for GPS, and you'll never get lost again.
Its obvious that humans can already do most of these things through utility devices. A BCI makes that connection more seamless, with lower latency, with reduced cognitive overhead from translation into the sensory modalities we are used to handling.
Eventually, our environment will shift to accommodate this, as the modern world has rapidly pivoted to taking things like automobiles, smartphones and omnipresent internet for granted. Someone in 1890 was not suffering because he didn't have the non-existent internet. You would, without it.
Eventually, cybernetics will be additive and not subtractive or substitutes. Right now, a cybernetic eye is only useful to someone who has visual issues (NVGs are examples of visual augments, though a purist would say they need to be directly hooked up to your brain, or else a car is a prosthetic leg).
If an augment seems useless or not worth the hassle, don't use it! You might not need magnetoception, but a hiker in an area with spotty signal or GPS jamming might. You might not need in-built LIDAR, but a soldier afraid of FPV drones or someone working in close proximity to industrial machinery might benefit.
BCIs just hold the promise to liberate us from interfacing with our tech through sight, sound, touch and so on.
All your examples present the idea of various sensory technology whose use is so seamless it feels both natural and unobtrusive. I agree on this: if one needs (or wants) to use sensor technology, seamless is better than clunky; and if one needs (or wants) to have continual or immediate access to the sensor technology, then it's hard to imagine something more seamless than an a permanent augmentation that your brain fully adapts to.
Our disagreement rests on all those ifs. I have far more senses than I have attention, and my attention is very limited and therefore precious. I spend more time trying to minimize sensory input than augment it. I'm not just talking about earplugs and blindfolds for when I try to rest. Like, filtering out background noise when I talk to someone. Ignoring visual distractions when I read.
Do I really want to add ultrasound sense? Why, what am I going to do with that information? And do I need that info with continual or immediate access, all the time, to justify an implant?
By the way, you can totally do that with current technology: take a hearing aid, set it to receive ultrasound. You'd still need to use some of your actual senses for receiving the input, like taking those ultrasound waves and translating them down to normal hearing range. That will unfortunately interfere with you hearing the usual sounds, and if you don't want that, you can use some of your less-used senses. Like, have it be a vibrating butt-plug or something. I'm sure one can train the brain to distinguish different vibration pitches after a while.
Funny you should say that, as I was just studying for a psychiatry exam, and finished reading a few chapters on human memory and attention.
The 'frame buffer' for raw sensory input is OOMs larger than what's brought to your conscious attention. If you're sitting on a chair, mechanoreceptors are constantly sending signals upstream, but only salient information, presumably the text you're reading right now, is magnified and focused.
I strongly expect that additional senses will, while distracting initially, fade into the background until salient, no more of a nuisance than your proprioception of your legs interferes with your ability to read.
That is the key difference between a mature BCI and most other prosthetics. If you use neural connections, you avoid the issue of having to compress or wrest control of existing sensory bandwidth. You shouldn't settle for ultrasound pitched down to be audible, you should be able to hear both. I strongly expect that in actual usage, bandwidth won't be an issue, or have negligible impacts.
And of course, if you don't see the utility in something, don't install it into your body. I have nothing against people who are happy with their existing bodies and minds, I just desire otherwise for myself.
Ultimately, it's good to have early-adopters like yourself around. You are the willing guinea-pigs for the rest of us. So I will gladly root for your success from the sidelines of techno-cyborg progress. If it gets me a spider-chair instead of a wheel-chair by the time I need one, I'll be happy.
Years back, I had corrective laser eye surgery. It was great to not muck about with glasses (old clunky technology) or soft contact lenses (newer, more streamline technology). But I also found all this sharp focus quite distracting, especially during that first month when my long-distance vision was better than normal. Like, when driving, my attention would get drawn and fixed to those five-paragraph-essay parking rule signs ("parking permitted during A, B, C, except at X, Y, Z"). I had to re-train my brain to de-prioritize written signs. And yes, as you point out, eventually those signs indeed stopped drawing my attention, fading into the background.
But as a counter-example, my husband gets ear-worms. He goes into a store, and comes out with some inane pop song playing in a loop in his head for the next three days. Attention isn't as aligned to our needs as we'd like it to be.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There's definitely a good porno plot in there somewhere about a world-class chess player who climaxes when hearing dog whistles.
You and I have different definitions of good porno if your idea of quality is a nude Bobby Fischer ejaculating every time someone says "those people". Compelling, sure - good though?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You highlight it neatly here: such upgrades only really seem worth it if you're working an information-intensive job, the kind where you'd ordinarily be using some sort of sensor device or array. And modding yourself for something as ephemeral as a job feels excessive/vaguely droneish.
It's a given that we live in environments that are amenable to the barely upgraded baseline human form, since we adapted them to match our needs.
Speaking broadly, humans already go through intensive cognitive and behavioral modification for the purposes of a job. That's called school, college and uni! In physical terms, most jobs require us to either personally move a ton or two of steel and plastic, or ride as passengers in one. You might need glasses to correct vision, or more rarely cosmetic procedures if the job implicitly demands it.
I doubt humans will be forced to make ourselves into cyborgs for the purposes of labor, but only because even with these augmentations we would not be cost competitive with AI systems running industrial robots. I've elaborated further downthread on why I think hoping for humans to keep up with the machines is a forlorn hope. Imagine being asked to improve a monkey to the point it can be an accountant. By the time you're done, it's not really a monkey anymore, and in all likelihood the additional hardware you need to make a normal monkey fit for the job would be capable of doing it by themselves.
That being said, I am a transhumanist, and I will eagerly embrace cybernetics where the benefits outweigh the risk, or simply for the sake of improving my body. Getting legs that let me run faster than Usain Bolt won't make me dispense with a car, but I think they'd be handy. A good BCI would make most portable electronics like phones or laptops redundant, assuming you were happy using it as a wireless link to some kind of computational hardware. I imagine that if you want your compute close at hand, you'd carry around something the size of a USB powerbank in your pocket, and potentially even just to keep your internal hardware charged up.
Somewhat unrelatedly, have you seen Wildbow's Seek? As a transhumanist the themes and setting might be up your valley. One of the protagonists is a cyborg heavily adapted for tight spaces and low-gravity maintenance work.
I've only read (most of) Worm.
But funny you should mention that, because I write a novel where cyborgs are a mainstay (the protagonist is humanoid, but only because he hasn't been pushed further) , and the upcoming chapter has one who is basically a pair of frontal lobes in a crab-shaped shell.
You'll see clear Worm inspiration in my work, though I aim for much more of what I perceive as 'realism' in terms of societal and governmental reaction than Worm does with its desire to have the protagonists punch people on the streets. (I'm aware of in-universe justifications, I find them lacking)
Wildbow doesn't get nearly as wild as I do.
I mean, it's kind of an outdated opinion if you're only basing it on Worm. 12 years and 5 web serials went by since then.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link