Forums of the Megaverse®

Noon wrote:Those discussions always seem to fail to include that you cease growing new brain cells at about age 20.

There's at least some evidence to the contrary on this. London cab drivers have brain growth in relation to their job and how long they've been on the job.

/Sub

Does anyone else think that this thread should probably belong on the Sound Off forum, rather than Rifts?

Comrade Corsarius wrote:Does anyone else think that this thread should probably belong on the Sound Off forum, rather than Rifts?

I don't go in sound off or the political forums. Its my little gift to the people that can hardly tolerate me as it is.

Noon wrote:Those discussions always seem to fail to include that you cease growing new brain cells at about age 20. Thus you should be dead at 27, no? Anyway, it varies in what organs are affected - it's a not completely true fact.

I believe some parts of the brain still produce new brain cells throughout your entire life.

Eclipse wrote:

Noon wrote:Those discussions always seem to fail to include that you cease growing new brain cells at about age 20. Thus you should be dead at 27, no? Anyway, it varies in what organs are affected - it's a not completely true fact.

I believe some parts of the brain still produce new brain cells throughout your entire life.

Either that or London's cab drivers are all mutants.

/Sub

The timing is eery that a webcomic I enjoy just happened to address an issue of copying a mind into a machine with its latest update, where researchers had happily succeeded at copying a mind so set about working out how to communicate with it: then they heard the screams. Because the mind was conscious and self-aware and locked in a digital void berift of EVERYTHING a mind requires; no sense of sound, taste, touch, heat, pressure, heart beating, nothing. So the mind(s) had gone insane due to the complete sensory deprivation. There's a lot to consider in how you keep a mind, original or copy, sane as the inclusion of machines strips away the very things the brain was evolved to interface with.

Noon wrote:And as much you've no problem with me firing one of these of the same category devices at your heart, without getting into any further specifics of the device with you. After all, they're all in the same category, so it doesn't really matter, right?

Until it actually comes down to clearly harming you, you'll keep putting glasses and brain implants in the same category. Not because it makes practical sense to do so, but because you found a definition that supports the direction you desire to drift toward.

What're you on about now? Potato guns and Barrett .50 BMG rifles are exactly the same kind of device - explosively-driven projectile launchers. You're basically claiming a 1cm granite stone and a 3m granite stone are completely different classes of objects, simply because one of them will kill you if it gets dropped on you and the other won't.

Anyway, I'm using the colloquial cybernetic definition of "technology applied to the human body in order to correct or enhance its function". You're using a more science-fiction-specific colloquial definition of "bionic arms and brain implants". Both of us are wrong when it comes to the actual meaning of the word.

My wife is a cyborg. She has implants in both her ears and implantable contact lenses in each eye.

Her eyesight is now slightly better than mine when I wear my glasses. Her hearing is improved from what it was, but is not as sensitive as mine is.

--flatilne

flatline wrote:My wife is a cyborg. She has implants in both her ears and implantable contact lenses in each eye.

Her eyesight is now slightly better than mine when I wear my glasses. Her hearing is improved from what it was, but is not as sensitive as mine is.

--flatilne

The one thing corrective implants need is a sound chip that makes the noise from the Six Million Dollar Man/Bionic Woman when they're active. Then perfection is achieved.

Also, that's awesome, I hope the tech keeps working well for her!

Qev wrote:

Noon wrote:And as much you've no problem with me firing one of these of the same category devices at your heart, without getting into any further specifics of the device with you. After all, they're all in the same category, so it doesn't really matter, right?

Until it actually comes down to clearly harming you, you'll keep putting glasses and brain implants in the same category. Not because it makes practical sense to do so, but because you found a definition that supports the direction you desire to drift toward.

What're you on about now? Potato guns and Barrett .50 BMG rifles are exactly the same kind of device - explosively-driven projectile launchers. You're basically claiming a 1cm granite stone and a 3m granite stone are completely different classes of objects, simply because one of them will kill you if it gets dropped on you and the other won't.

I'm sure many will have faith in your sound judgement, given that if they ask you what will drop in the hallway they are about to enter, you'd reply "Oh, just some granite stone". Whether that's a single piece of gravel, or a human crushing half ton block of stone.

Ask around instead of just trying to attribute this to me. You might find alot of people do distinguish between a potato gun and a 50 cal. Or between a piece of gravel and a 3m square granite block. Even the law does, when it comes to applying them to people. How nonsensical we all are! Either a whole world of nonsensical people except for you, or...

People distinguish between the granite blocks. But the dangerous thing is right now, people might very well not distinguish between wearing glasses and brain implants, particularly when people play burred distinction games, when the difference might be just as dangerous as between the blocks.

And if there is a danger there, people who blur the line between glasses and brain implant will be at a moral level atleast partially responsible for the outcome of that bluring. For the way it affects people who might have a very different reaction if people they trust hadn't blured the subject for them.

Anyway, I'm using the colloquial cybernetic definition of "technology applied to the human body in order to correct or enhance its function". You're using a more science-fiction-specific colloquial definition of "bionic arms and brain implants". Both of us are wrong when it comes to the actual meaning of the word.

Anyone who refers to there being an 'actual' meaning engages in superstition.

Noon wrote:

Anyway, I'm using the colloquial cybernetic definition of "technology applied to the human body in order to correct or enhance its function". You're using a more science-fiction-specific colloquial definition of "bionic arms and brain implants". Both of us are wrong when it comes to the actual meaning of the word.

Anyone who refers to there being an 'actual' meaning engages in superstition.

This made me smile. Are you a Lewis Carol fan?

I couldn't help but think of Alice's meeting with Humpty Dumpty.

--flatline