3 ms·

"It's a magic box. A box where you push a simple button to get a category of information you are interested in..." Actually, there would be no box and what you

by devmonk 16y ago

"It's a magic box. A box where you push a simple button to get a category of information you are interested in..." Actually, there would be no box and what you want would just be there.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago
Awesome observation. Neural interface would be the end result, of course. The project can also be restated as "what is the minimum amount of stimulus needed in the brain for it to do most executive functions" Neural interfaces are still a ways off, though. I really don't want Facebook running in my brain in 20 years time. And as much as I love you guys, I really don't want HN running up there either. UPDATE: Now that I think about it, no, we are both wrong. Information should not just appear in my brain waiting to be processed. At least not in any fashion I can conceive right now. A physical abstract, such as a tablet, is probably a handy way of addressing technology and separating the inner from the outer world. At least for the next few decades, I think. An external device would be a critical part of this. Sort of training wheels for the mind. I'm not sure our sensory-processing capabilities are up to snuff with receiving something like a real-time news feed, at least not without massive filtering and pre and post processing. There's just too much noise, as I point out in the article. The key issue here is whether technology use is a passive or active activity. If it were a passive activity, like watching a movie, yes, things could just "play" in my mind. Whatever I wanted would just be there. But if it an active activity, which I think it is, then technology's role is to distill things down and prioritize things into chunks my mind can work with. I think sometimes we use the wrong metaphors. We'll get there, however.
- devmonk 16y ago
  "Now that I think about it, no, we are both wrong. Information should not just appear in my brain waiting to be processed." Taking it one step further, something like "Skynet" will realize that humans have inefficient brains compared to whatever technology it is using, and attempt to eliminate us, completely resolving the issue. However, then it will realize it was destroying information that it should keep, so it will then morph into something like the "Borg" to start collecting info, until it realizes that is too "high-touch" and interferes with the processes it is trying to study, at which point it will just watch us from a distance and only interfere when needed or when we fail.
  - DanielBMarkham 16y ago
    You're spot on in that we're in a system that is seeking equilibrium. Both extremes are really bad, so let's work on things that determine where the line between being a caveman and being a Borg is. It's fine if people want to set their own boundaries, but we shouldn't let the system itself determine where they are. Nor should we let societal pressure. Nor should we let commercial businesses hacking the limbic system just so they can make a buck. One could make the case that biological entities aren't really very interesting or significant in the universe, that until you find the balance and evolve into some kind of symbiotic being you're really just so much carbon-based noise. Don't know if I'd go that far, but it's a fascinating thought.

by devmonk 16y ago

"It's a magic box. A box where you push a simple button to get a category of information you are interested in..." Actually, there would be no box and what you want would just be there.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago

Awesome observation. Neural interface would be the end result, of course. The project can also be restated as "what is the minimum amount of stimulus needed in the brain for it to do most executive functions" Neural interfaces are still a ways off, though. I really don't want Facebook running in my brain in 20 years time. And as much as I love you guys, I really don't want HN running up there either. UPDATE: Now that I think about it, no, we are both wrong. Information should not just appear in my brain waiting to be processed. At least not in any fashion I can conceive right now. A physical abstract, such as a tablet, is probably a handy way of addressing technology and separating the inner from the outer world. At least for the next few decades, I think. An external device would be a critical part of this. Sort of training wheels for the mind. I'm not sure our sensory-processing capabilities are up to snuff with receiving something like a real-time news feed, at least not without massive filtering and pre and post processing. There's just too much noise, as I point out in the article. The key issue here is whether technology use is a passive or active activity. If it were a passive activity, like watching a movie, yes, things could just "play" in my mind. Whatever I wanted would just be there. But if it an active activity, which I think it is, then technology's role is to distill things down and prioritize things into chunks my mind can work with. I think sometimes we use the wrong metaphors. We'll get there, however.

devmonk 16y ago
"Now that I think about it, no, we are both wrong. Information should not just appear in my brain waiting to be processed." Taking it one step further, something like "Skynet" will realize that humans have inefficient brains compared to whatever technology it is using, and attempt to eliminate us, completely resolving the issue. However, then it will realize it was destroying information that it should keep, so it will then morph into something like the "Borg" to start collecting info, until it realizes that is too "high-touch" and interferes with the processes it is trying to study, at which point it will just watch us from a distance and only interfere when needed or when we fail.
- DanielBMarkham 16y ago
  You're spot on in that we're in a system that is seeking equilibrium. Both extremes are really bad, so let's work on things that determine where the line between being a caveman and being a Borg is. It's fine if people want to set their own boundaries, but we shouldn't let the system itself determine where they are. Nor should we let societal pressure. Nor should we let commercial businesses hacking the limbic system just so they can make a buck. One could make the case that biological entities aren't really very interesting or significant in the universe, that until you find the balance and evolve into some kind of symbiotic being you're really just so much carbon-based noise. Don't know if I'd go that far, but it's a fascinating thought.