Replicators and virtual reality technology, is it feasible?

[Shrykull]

With replicators, will they ever be possible? I know it's possible at least to condense two gamma ray photons into an electron-positron pair, but it immediately annihilates and turns back, but what about say a 1 kilogram item, complete with atoms, proton, neutrons and electrons?

I've seen some things that are "replicators" in a sense, ever seen those three dimensional "photocopiers" that can make replacement parts out of epoxy (a hard glue resin, polymer type stuff) layer by layer? Could this be combined with nanotech to make other things

And, virtual reality tech. I wonder if it would ever be possible for it to be indistiguishable from actual reality (ala- Matrix type style) that it could stimulate all 5 of your senses. It seems touch might be the hardest one. The part of your brain that registers it is the post-central gyrus, but it would have to be directly stimulated (like the occipital lobewould have to be for you to see something) but there are many types of physical sensation, it would have generate you feeling hot if you want a sauna simulation, or cool- for going for a swim, touch- getting a massage etc.

Even harder, perhaps impossible is if you could have another shape in the virtual world, the PCG has a map of every part of your body's skin, so if your shape were altered it would need a new map.

[Starglider]

With replicators, will they ever be possible? I know it's possible at least to condense two gamma ray photons into an electron-positron pair, but it immediately annihilates and turns back, but what about say a 1 kilogram item, complete with atoms, proton, neutrons and electrons?

Probably not and it's pointless anyway, general purpose nanoassemblers are much easier (though still a very hard engineering challenge) and can do the same thing without having to manipulate ridiculous amounts of energy, only a little slower. Aside from elemental transmutation that is, which Trek replicators don't seem to be able to do anyway.

I've seen some things that are "replicators" in a sense, ever seen those three dimensional "photocopiers" that can make replacement parts out of epoxy (a hard glue resin, polymer type stuff) layer by layer? Could this be combined with nanotech to make other things

Yes that tech will keep getting progressively better until it can make virtually anything, there may or may not be a few discontinuous capability jumps along the way (I'm guessing yes but it might stay incremental for reasons similar to why progress in microprocessors is incremental).

And, virtual reality tech. I wonder if it would ever be possible for it to be indistiguishable from actual reality (ala- Matrix type style) that it could stimulate all 5 of your senses. It seems touch might be the hardest one.

Given neural interfacing, which seems likely to be cracked eventually, yes, but you'll probably have to get a datajack. Holodecks without the tactile elements are very nearly possible now (fidelity isn't quite there yet), just horribly expensive (particularly if you refuse to wear LCD glasses).

Even harder, perhaps impossible is if you could have another shape in the virtual world, the PCG has a map of every part of your body's skin, so if your shape were altered it would need a new map.

Requires serious cognitive engineering if you want it to work instantly, reliably and without side effects.

[Ariphaos]

Three-dimensional printers will probably begin to drive a limited-scarcity economy, but they won't be able to make -everything-, and it's unlikely that they will be capable of performing their own nucleosynthesis at all. Quite a ways from a real replicator.

[Ford Prefect]

Given neural interfacing, which seems likely to be cracked eventually, yes, but you'll probably have to get a datajack.

Presumably you could do this with a wireless connection, as well as wired?

[GuppyShark]

Either way, you'd need a surgical hookup.

[Gil Hamilton]

Either way, you'd need a surgical hookup.

I don't know about that.

That depends on how good we get at inducing very precise current at a distance and detecting and interpreting it as well, which is certainly possible. With a sufficiently good understanding of the brain and high enough resolution, there is no reason I can see that we'd need to wire a person's skull physically for the internet. Frankly, I'd think that alot of people would much rather stick their head in a helmet full of magnets than have to have their brain surgically worm ridden with wires connected to a jack.

I understand, for instance, that they practically have a "Read Only" version of a neural interface that uses electrotrodes that can "read" a chimp's mind and operate a computer. The "Write" part is more difficult, but I don't see why you need to stick an actual wire in there to do it. I'd think that inducing current alone with providing visual/audio/olfactory/whatever cues and letting the brain "write" itself would be best. You wouldn't have a high "write speed" but that's not really possible with a human brain anyway.

[Starglider]

Presumably you could do this with a wireless connection, as well as wired?

Sure, though that will probably need some sort of glucose fuel cell to power it (and a very good firewall).

That depends on how good we get at inducing very precise current at a distance and detecting and interpreting it as well, which is certainly possible.

Detection is theoretically but it's very difficult to pull out individual neural impulses from extra-cranial sensors, particularly given that you have to recalibrate every time a head is put into the sensor array (even given a physical profile of each brain it has to work on, which will be tough to build). Inducing, no, not that I'm aware of. Neurons do not conduct by electron flow the way a wire does, they propagate information via a depolarisation wave travelling along membrane. The ions only move from one side of the membrane to another, they don't move along the axons. The risks of inducing current in the wrong places by software or hardware failure/misalignment would be high. Worst of all, AFAIK there's no plausible non-surgical mechanism to suppress existing sensory input and interrupt motor output.

I understand, for instance, that they practically have a "Read Only" version of a neural interface that uses electrotrodes that can "read" a chimp's mind and operate a computer.

This technology isn't comparable. It measures relatively gross variations in brain activity, and relies on the user learning to control their own brain activity in a way compatible with the interface. Eventually the mind will map desired outcomes onto activity in a way that makes the interface intuitive. However this has no relation to accessing and overriding existing sensory and motor channels, which requires very fine control of 'hardwired' circuits, not gross measurement of relatively pliable brain areas.

[Gil Hamilton]

Detection is theoretically but it's very difficult to pull out individual neural impulses from extra-cranial sensors, particularly given that you have to recalibrate every time a head is put into the sensor array (even given a physical profile of each brain it has to work on, which will be tough to build). Inducing, no, not that I'm aware of. Neurons do not conduct by electron flow the way a wire does, they propagate information via a depolarisation wave travelling along membrane. The ions only move from one side of the membrane to another, they don't move along the axons. The risks of inducing current in the wrong places by software or hardware failure/misalignment would be high. Worst of all, AFAIK there's no plausible non-surgical mechanism to suppress existing sensory input and interrupt motor output.

That seems like a resolution problem to me. You can still induce a charge to cause the ion transport to trigger in specific neurons. After all, that's how one sparks the next one in the chain, by inducing the necessary voltage on it to allow that potassium to move.

Besides, you call the risks of hardware or software failure too high, but how is that going to be different if you are physically sticking wires and crap into peoples skulls? Or are you thinking that neurosurgery and refacing of the human brain somewhat safery.

And I didn't know we were trying to suppress existing sensory input or motor output, I thought we were trying to make a interface with a computer. Presumably, existing sensory input would be used, since we are already superbly able to utilize it. Why try to induce a picture in front of someone

This technology isn't comparable. It measures relatively gross variations in brain activity, and relies on the user learning to control their own brain activity in a way compatible with the interface. Eventually the mind will map desired outcomes onto activity in a way that makes the interface intuitive. However this has no relation to accessing and overriding existing sensory and motor channels, which requires very fine control of 'hardwired' circuits, not gross measurement of relatively pliable brain areas.

Again, they sounds like a resolution problem.

And why do we want to override existing sensory and motor channels at all?

[Starglider]

That seems like a resolution problem to me. You can still induce a charge to cause the ion transport to trigger in specific neurons.

Yes, technically it's a resolution problem. No, I do not think we will be able to induce depolarisation events with sub-micrometer positional accuracy millions of times a second at a range of several centimetres without affecting any other neurons around the target.

Besides, you call the risks of hardware or software failure too high, but how is that going to be different if you are physically sticking wires and crap into peoples skulls?

Physical links cannot directly affect neurons they are not connected to, and physical interlocks to prevent actual tissue damage are trivial. The kind of technology you are proposing could easily drift off target or suffer software bugs and trigger random neurons, causing epilepsy, hallucinations, delusions etc. There is also the fact that the ability to image the whole brain is a serious security risk (hack the device and you can download a brain state an extract personal secrets at your leisure, given enough computing power).

Or are you thinking that neurosurgery and refacing of the human brain somewhat safery.

Potentially, hell yes, using microrobots to emplace the electrodes in the nerve bundles leading to the brain.

And I didn't know we were trying to suppress existing sensory input or motor output, I thought we were trying to make a interface with a computer.

No, you brought that up with your chimp example, read the OP next time.

I wonder if it would ever be possible for it to be indistiguishable from actual reality (ala- Matrix type style) that it could stimulate all 5 of your senses.

Presumably, existing sensory input would be used, since we are already superbly able to utilize it. Why try to induce a picture in front of someone

This technology isn't comparable. It measures relatively gross variations in brain activity,

Again, they sounds like a resolution problem.

Aside from the 'resolution problem' being a big deal, you're missing the point. The technology you reference measures gross activity with no attempt to work out exactly which neurons represent what, and leverages the brain's ability to learn how to manipulate its own activity. This will not work for VR. An actual relevant technology would be 'cybernetic eyes' that use implanted electrode arrays and a camera to give blind people some level of sight; the process has been successfully reversed on a cat, allowing researchers to see roughly what it is seeing.

And why do we want to override existing sensory and motor channels at all?

Read the fucking OP.

[Shrykull]

With a sufficiently good understanding of the brain and high enough resolution, there is no reason I can see that we'd need to wire a person's skull physically for the internet.

I wouldn't want to wire my skull for the internet. I'd want it to be a completely cut off, isolated system. Having someone hack into my computer is bad enough, never mind into my brain!

Though it would be convenient to log in at home, still not worth the risk.

I wondered also, if Neo and Trinity had sex in the matrix would Neo cum in his pants in the real world? As would someone who did in a VR world, or other concerns such as some old timer doing it and having a heart attack.

Frankly, I'd think that alot of people would much rather stick their head in a helmet full of magnets than have to have their brain surgically worm ridden with wires connected to a jack.

Yes, I definitely would prefer no incisions/cybernetic implants required.

[Gil Hamilton]

Yes, technically it's a resolution problem. No, I do not think we will be able to induce depolarisation events with sub-micrometer positional accuracy millions of times a second at a range of several centimetres without affecting any other neurons around the target.

What? Millions of times a second over an entire cortex? Cause a neuron itself doesn't fire that fast. Neurons tend to fire from between 100ms to 500ms in duration. That's why they talk about sub-populations of neurons.

We can already stimulate sections of the brain with electrotrodes, even very specific ones. What I'm suggesting is a really good refinement thereof.

Physical links cannot directly affect neurons they are not connected to, and physical interlocks to prevent actual tissue damage are trivial. The kind of technology you are proposing could easily drift off target or suffer software bugs and trigger random neurons, causing epilepsy, hallucinations, delusions etc. There is also the fact that the ability to image the whole brain is a serious security risk (hack the device and you can download a brain state an extract personal secrets at your leisure, given enough computing power).

And physically wiring their brain in a Matrix style fashion, which is literally wiring their brain so that you can download their brain state doesn't cause those very same risks and worse ones? Using scanning, imaging, and induction theoretically involves no neurosurgery or hardware at all being stuck in a person. Your method not only could suffer from software bugs which could cause all of that, but cares all the associated risks of massive neurosurgery. And in my case, you can deliberately engineer it so that the system can't generate dangerous amounts of current to blast the brain on malfunction and have deadman's switch systems, or at the very least, the person isn't physically attached to the system so they have be extracted by pulling them out.

That's much harder to do if a person is physically wired to the system, huh? Hell, if you are honestly advocating Matrix style technology, then the liabilities of the remote control system are periodcally and hideously lethal to the user. Of course, no one would design a system that retarded.

Potentially, hell yes, using microrobots to emplace the electrodes in the nerve bundles leading to the brain.

Whoa whoa whoa. You chided and dismissed inducing current in specific sup-populations and populations of neurons for specific effects as unrealistic, even though it's a really refined version of existing technology... and then you come back with fucking nanites doing neurosurgery? Are you serious?

No, you brought that up with your chimp example, read the OP next time.

I wonder if it would ever be possible for it to be indistiguishable from actual reality (ala- Matrix type style) that it could stimulate all 5 of your senses.

And yet reading and writing of brain states, is exactly what they do in the Matrix. Controlling a computer system remotely by reading brainstates was the entire point. Chimps controlling computer systems by reading brainstates is the starting technology.

Aside from the 'resolution problem' being a big deal, you're missing the point. The technology you reference measures gross activity with no attempt to work out exactly which neurons represent what, and leverages the brain's ability to learn how to manipulate its own activity. This will not work for VR. An actual relevant technology would be 'cybernetic eyes' that use implanted electrode arrays and a camera to give blind people some level of sight; the process has been successfully reversed on a cat, allowing researchers to see roughly what it is seeing.

And you don't think that a brain will have to manipulate its own activity regardless of the way you use the interface? Besides, how do you think they figured out what the various regions of the brain even did without measuring gross activity? That's the departure point of the technology. With better resolution and better mapping, measuring gross activity and analyzing it, along with specific stimulation, is how they are mapping the brain's functions.

Read the fucking OP.

I did read it and no one with a brain would ever want a Matrix style system. I thought part of this discussion was neural interfaces to control computers as well as interactive total immersion systems.

Why not utilize those channels instead? We've got millions of years of evolution developing those channels and they are superbly good already and all the interfacing to use those channels is already there, without any invasive procedures. So why not use them in your computer interface and utilize them in controlling the remote system? What they had the the Matrix was hideously poorly engineered and designed. Why exactly are we trying to emulate it?