Recreate Yourself With Ray-Tech

[Fingolfin]

Personally, I believe the man is out of his depth-believing in mind uploading to a virtual existence. Nonetheless, altering my form to create an avatar body in a virtual world as real as this one does seem appealing. I could have wings, experience flight, superhuman senses and sensations, etc.

Edited December 24, 2012 by Fingolfin

[CraigD]

Welcome to hypography, Fingolfin! Cool member name – takes me back to my arguable misspent youth, when I knew and spent much of my time talking to folk who knew the Silmarillion in disturbing (to people who didn’t also) depth. :)

 

Please feel free to start a topic in the introductions forum to tell us something about yourself.

 

I recommend you search around hypograpy some for old threads on the subject of VR and/or uploaded life. The 2005 thread Upload your mind into a computer by 2050? is a pretty good one.

 

However, from what I get from your post, what you’re describing would take much less than the “artificial mind hosting” discussed in the above.

 

Nonetheless, altering my form to create an avatar body in a virtual world as real as this one does seem appealing. I could have wings, experience flight, superhuman senses and sensations, etc.

You don’t need a computer program equivalent to a human being to do this, just really good immersive interface devices. Though still the stuff of near-future SF, I think the idea of a “full-body audio-visual-haptic interface” that gets input from and provides feedback to nearly every part of a person’s body that real, external physical reality does (this appears in more SF stories than I can count – a recent one I enjoyed much is Ernest Cline’s debut novel Ready Player One) is pretty feasible within the next decade. No mind-modeling programs are needed, nor brain-reading/writing devices (a recent animated film example is the anime series Sword Art Online, which I enjoyed in spite of its overflowing abundance of BESMs, of which I’m not a fan), no “Ray [Kurzweil]-tech” (though if fairness to Kurzweil, to the best of my knowledge he’s only suggested how soon, not specifically how, such tech might work, and given a lot of thought, speech and writing on how to live a long time in your meat-based body) no invasive brain pricking and probing, just programs to simulate ones surroundings, programs not dramatically different than present day 1st person perspective video games.

 

The major challenge I see for immersive audio-visual-haptic interfaces comes down to single key sensory system that can’t be fully affected with some sort of high-tech body covering: the vestibular system. For example, the only way to “fool” your inner ear and related brain parts into thinking you’re standing on your head is to actually invert your body. The sense of accelerating, or of falling, the loss of the sense of the constant acceleration of gravity, is to move your body, or drop it.

 

My experience with motion rides makes me optimistic that it’s possible to fool the vestibular system into perceiving motion in a very large space within a much smaller, about room-sized one. One sensation, however, appears to me to be nearly impossible to simulate using only devices external to the body: that of weightlessness.

 

A full audio-video-haptic-vestibular interface would need to intrude somehow on at least the inner ear or the nerves connecting it to the brain. Perhaps it could be done with some sort of implant, with a form factor similar to the hearing-restoring cochlear implants, or a magnetic substance mixed with the inner ear fluids and manipulated with implanted or external magnetic devices. Until this is accomplished, however, weightlessness can only be fully experienced briefly in large rides, somewhat longer in special aircraft, and, of course, for long periods in spacecraft.

 

Given the like reluctance of people to submit to surgical implants, but that it’s not too difficult to simulate gravity and weight in its absence (ie: in a spacecraft), perhaps really good, immersive VR will remain elusive ‘til people routinely live in Space.

[Fingolfin]

Welcome to hypography, Fingolfin! Cool member name – takes me back to my arguable misspent youth, when I knew and spent much of my time talking to folk who knew the Silmarillion in disturbing (to people who didn’t also) depth. :)

 

Please feel free to start a topic in the introductions forum to tell us something about yourself.

 

I recommend you search around hypograpy some for old threads on the subject of VR and/or uploaded life. The 2005 thread Upload your mind into a computer by 2050? is a pretty good one.

 

However, from what I get from your post, what you’re describing would take much less than the “artificial mind hosting” discussed in the above.

 

 

You don’t need a computer program equivalent to a human being to do this, just really good immersive interface devices. Though still the stuff of near-future SF, I think the idea of a “full-body audio-visual-haptic interface” that gets input from and provides feedback to nearly every part of a person’s body that real, external physical reality does (this appears in more SF stories than I can count – a recent one I enjoyed much is Ernest Cline’s debut novel Ready Player One) is pretty feasible within the next decade. No mind-modeling programs are needed, nor brain-reading/writing devices (a recent animated film example is the anime series Sword Art Online, which I enjoyed in spite of its overflowing abundance of BESMs, of which I’m not a fan), no “Ray [Kurzweil]-tech” (though if fairness to Kurzweil, to the best of my knowledge he’s only suggested how soon, not specifically how, such tech might work, and given a lot of thought, speech and writing on how to live a long time in your meat-based body) no invasive brain pricking and probing, just programs to simulate ones surroundings, programs not dramatically different than present day 1st person perspective video games.

 

The major challenge I see for immersive audio-visual-haptic interfaces comes down to single key sensory system that can’t be fully affected with some sort of high-tech body covering: the vestibular system. For example, the only way to “fool” your inner ear and related brain parts into thinking you’re standing on your head is to actually invert your body. The sense of accelerating, or of falling, the loss of the sense of the constant acceleration of gravity, is to move your body, or drop it.

 

My experience with motion rides makes me optimistic that it’s possible to fool the vestibular system into perceiving motion in a very large space within a much smaller, about room-sized one. One sensation, however, appears to me to be nearly impossible to simulate using only devices external to the body: that of weightlessness.

 

A full audio-video-haptic-vestibular interface would need to intrude somehow on at least the inner ear or the nerves connecting it to the brain. Perhaps it could be done with some sort of implant, with a form factor similar to the hearing-restoring cochlear implants, or a magnetic substance mixed with the inner ear fluids and manipulated with implanted or external magnetic devices. Until this is accomplished, however, weightlessness can only be fully experienced briefly in large rides, somewhat longer in special aircraft, and, of course, for long periods in spacecraft.

 

Given the like reluctance of people to submit to surgical implants, but that it’s not too difficult to simulate gravity and weight in its absence (ie: in a spacecraft), perhaps really good, immersive VR will remain elusive ‘til people routinely live in Space.

 

 

I'd be more worried about AI creating psychotic experiences in him: murder, rape, torture, self-mutilation. What's to stop some nut from doing that on his own personal private immersion system? Surely indulging psychosis would desensitize and make his acts in reality even more horrible? Or would it take away that person's urge to express his sadism in reality? I believe it could do both, depending on the person, as humans are an unpredictable breed.

 

In another case these kinds of normally traumatic experiences could be created and used to prepare soldiers and or emergency responders and route out those whom do not have the stomach for it. Imagine virtual surgery that cannot be replicated otherwise. Pilot training. Nothing can prepare one like the actual thing, we learn best from first hand experience.

 

On another topic altogether we could design our educators and make education work optimally for us. We could even learn or master years worth of skill and scientific literacy in minutes using super-sensual experiences to flood out the limitless depths of the inner human psyche, squeezing an Einstein out of an 85 IQ.

Edited December 25, 2012 by Fingolfin

[CraigD]

I'd be more worried about AI creating psychotic experiences in him [a VR user?] ...

I think it’s important to avoid conflating Artificial Intelligence with Virtual Reality. AI doesn’t require VR, or make VR more or less feasible. VR doesn’t require AI, or make it more or less feasible.

 

Immersive VR (the kind I’m describing in my previous post) exists now and has existed for over a decade, but, in a way similar to how the Turing test has been “partially passed”, is not good enough that its users are not aware that it’s artificial. Human-intelligence equivalent AI (for which an unrestricted Turing test can be considered a pass/fail test) doesn’t yet exist, and is thought by some experts to be impossible (an opinion with which I disagree).

 

I'd be more worried about AI creating psychotic experiences in him: murder, rape, torture, self-mutilation. What's to stop some nut from doing that on his own personal private immersion system? Surely indulging psychosis would desensitize and make his acts in reality even more horrible? Or would it take away that person's urge to express his sadism in reality? I believe it could do both, depending on the person, as humans are an unpredictable breed.

Psychosis is a psychological term meaning, roughly “abnormally disconnected from reality”, and characterized by hallucinations (seeing and hearing non-real sights and sounds) and delusions (believing obviously incorrect things, such as that you are the married to Jodi Foster, or that you are Jodi Foster). A person asleep and dreaming sees and hears non-real things, but is not considered psychotic, because dreaming when asleep is not abnormal. A person playing an immersive video game – all of which are to some degree VR – perceives artificially generated images and sounds as sort-of real, but is not considered psychotic, because the images and sounds are real, though artificial, and again, because it is normal to experience them this way. A person reading fiction imagines non-real things, in a sense temporarily considering them to be real, but is not considered psychotic, because immediately upon stopping reading, they stop. (I remember Ursula K Le Guin remarking on this ca. 1973 in this short introduction essay – not scientifically, but memorably)

 

Some people believe that present day immersive video games cause psychosis in susceptible people. It’s well established that both computerized video games and non-computerized mock exercises, such as in military training, allow people to be desensitized in a way that allows them to, for example, perform real combat more effectively.

 

Rape, murder, torture, and self-mutilation all occur as themes in present day video games, and despite the taboo nature of some of them, are considered protected speech in the US. (see, for example wikipedia article Rapelay, or for a broader description, video game controversies)

 

So I think the real question you’re asking here, Fingolfin, is if improving the quality of VR will dramatically worsen its negative effects.

 

While I can find no clear consensus that present day VR has either a positive or negative net effect on individuals or society, I believe all agree that, in at least rare cases, VR can “trigger” terrible behavior. So, could much improved VR trigger such behavior more often in susceptible people, or in people who are not susceptible to such triggers in present-day VR?

 

As with its present day effects, I don’t think there’s a clear consensus answer to this question. My guess is “no”. To the contrary, I can imagine that improved VR might reduce the negative impact of VR. As an advanced future VR system is potentially more realistic present day ones, users might be expected to behave more realistically. As VR approaches being indistinguishable from actual reality, we might expect our behavior in it to approach our usual behavior.

 

What's to stop some nut from doing that on his own personal private immersion system?

As a matter of political liberty, I don't think there should be anything to stop anyone from doing whatever they want, provided it doesn't directly or indirectly hurt or disadvantage others. Indulging unspeakable perversions on a private VR computer system is, by self-definition, private, requiring only the hardware, software and content development work, and electricity needed for its operation. So provided our hypothetical VR deviant doesn't keep some hapless development team chained in a actual reality dungeon, rather than trusting in good faith and non-disclosure agreement to keep his private passions private, I see no crime here.

 

In another case these kinds of normally traumatic experiences could be created and used to prepare soldiers and or emergency responders and route out those whom do not have the stomach for it. Imagine virtual surgery that cannot be replicated otherwise. Pilot training. Nothing can prepare one like the actual thing, we learn best from first hand experience.

I agree.

 

Flight simulators are among the oldest VR systems, predating the use of electronic computers (eg: the 1930-50s Link Trainer)

 

I’m a medical IT pro, so spend more time than most around surgeons. I can’t imagine one who wouldn’t appreciate the ability to practice a difficult surgery in a very realistic simulator, possibly many times, before actually performing it. It would also be a good tool for weeding out surgeons who are simply, dangerously bad at it, as currently, since one can (and bad surgeons are known to) argue that every surgery is unique and not suitable for comparison to another. A simulator could remove these variables, and allow an accurate, objective ranking of surgeons’ skills.

 

On another topic altogether we could design our educators and make education work optimally for us. We could even learn or master years worth of skill and scientific literacy in minutes using super-sensual experiences to flood out the limitless depths of the inner human psyche, squeezing an Einstein out of an 85 IQ.

One of my first programming jobs, 1979-82, was writing educational software. At the time, I and a lot of people imagined something like this.

 

30 years later, experience suggests it’s much less likely than we’d dreamed, possibly impossible. Though VR promises to train pilots, surgeons, and other specialists much better than was possible in the past, I’ve not seen any sort of computer-based education that was much better than the book, paper and pencil systems that have existed for centuries. I’ve seen troubling indications that automation is actually bad for education, on average and for elite students.

 

Though somewhat dated, I find many of the arguments Clifford Stoll laid out in his 1995 book Silicon Snake Oil still relevant, and worth the trouble of tracking down a copy of this book.

 

I believe these and other negatives aspects of computer-based instruction aren’t systemic to the medium, but due to computerization’s “awkward adolescence”, which I think parallels that of older, now “grown up” technologies. Early automobiles, for example, were demonstrably inferior to the horses they eventually displaced.

 

I mentioned Ready Player One in my previous post as depicting audio-video-haptic technology realistically and in near-future feasible form. This novel also contains an inspiringly optimistic story of VR-based education. Here’s a quote:

From that moment on, I was more or less raised by the OASIS’s interactive educational programs, which any kind could access for free. I spent a big chunk of my childhood hanging out in a virtual-reality simulation of Sesame Street, singling songs with friendly Muppets and playing interactive games that taught me how to walk, talk, add, subtract, read, write, and share. Once I’d mastered those skills, it didn’t take me a long time to discover that the OASIS was also the world’s biggest public library, where even a penniless kid like me had access to every book every written, every song ever recorded, and every movie, television show, videogame, and piece of artwork every created. The collected knowledge, art, and amusements of all human civilization were there, waiting for me.

Note that this vision isn’t qualitatively different than that of scholarship of the past 30 or more years. Learning still requires discipline and hard work. It doesn’t use “super-sensual experiences to flood out the limitless depths of the inner human psyche.” It doesn’t “squeeze an Einstein out of an 85 IQ”. It reduces barriers for people already sufficiently motivated to overcome barriers eventually. It doesn’t make un-driven people into great achievers. It lets driven people go further.

 

It goes without saying, I guess, that I share this vision.