[ExI] Sick of Cyberspace?

[Samantha Atkins]

On Dec 18, 2009, at 3:46 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 12:19:37PM +0100, Stefano Vaj wrote:
> 
>> I come myself from "wet transhumanism" (bio/cogno), and while I got in
> 
> I figured out in vivo patching wasn't going to be feasible within
> natural lifetimes when I was around 17. From what has gone so far 
> (almost 30 years) it looks like I was correct. Another 30-40
> years and I'll be distinctly past caring. Very little left to
> patch, if any.

Please show your argument.  I don't care much when you decided that this was so.   I rather expect to spend time in a dewar before the "natural" decay of aging is licked  but I doubt I will do so before there is significant enhancement to the biological. 


> 
>> touch with the movement exactly out of curiosity to learn more about
>> the "hard", "cyber/cyborg" side of things, I am persuased the next era
> 
> Cyborg belongs into in vivo patching cathegory. Doesn't work either,
> at least if implants in life extension and capabilities amplification
> are concerned. Wearable stuff is fine. Implanted stuff is no good. 

Why do you say this?  We are making more types of implants every so often now.  Many are crude but the work in signaling and reading individual neurons gives me some hope.  Also I believe I read of work growing nerve/chip connects some time back.  So I don't see the basis for categorically denying there is any possible good that can come of this area of R&D.  

> 
> You'll notice we're not even in decent wearable cathegory. I would
> have bet good money a decade ago we would have normal people using HMDs
> and HUDs out in the streets by now. 

HMDs and HUDs are still pricey.  I have some hope for the contact lens HUD however.  Also notice what people are doing.  They are carrying a more powerful computer than they could buy not long ago in the palm of their hand.  Whether the tech is inside your body or not does not make you significantly less symbiotic with technology.  

> 
>> is still about chemistry, and, that when it will stops being there
>> will be little difference between the two.
> 
> When we're talking about convergence, it's mostly convergence towards
> the nanoscale. The dry/stiff versus solvated/floppy isn't going to
> converge at all. There doesn't seem a lot of need for volatiles, apart
> from cooling and power supply maybe.

I am not at all sure we will ever solve many aspects of intelligences without rather sloppy/floppy circuit equivalents.  


> 
>> In other words, if we are becoming machines, machines are becoming
>> "chemical" and "organic" at an even faster pace (carbon rather than
>> steel and silicon, biochips, nano...).
> 
> Organic is one thing, biology another. It's a safe bet there will
> be zero proteins, DNA, lipid bilayers or water in the result after 
> convergence.

Is it really?  I am not so sure.  

- samantha