Playing around with rough numbers–the fovea covers around 1 percent of the retina but utilizes around 50 percent of the optical nerve and visual cortex. If you could give the whole visual field fovea resolution, you would need the optic nerve and visual cortex to be on the order of 50 times bigger. Move the fovea from 1 percent to just 3 percent and you are doubling the size of the optic nerve and visual cortex.
Once again, this is at least the third time I’ve had to say this: devices that directly stimulate the optic nerve and/or the visual cortex already exist in crude form.
I don’t doubt for a moment the challenges that needed to be overcome to get as far as we have, and how much further that there is to go.
But all I am saying is that I expect that such devices will become greatly more sophisticated eventually.
In this forum, we inevitably have to use some engineering terms to describe these processes in brevity. Otherwise most of this thread would just be spent just explaining neuroscience terms that are not familiar to a general audience.
But no implication of a Computational theory of mind, or of the nervous system mapping to “devices” was intended. I myself often tell people not to take the computer analogy too far, including many times on the Dope.
You do not understand what the optic nerve or visual cortex are. By giving the user “more vivid” vision to make up for the “limitations and weaknesses” of the eye would require a radical and fundamental redesign of the entire biological visual system, not just a fancier computer chip stuck on the front. Even if you could retrofit a CCD into a 1980s VHS camcorder, that wouldn’t suddenly allow the camcorder to record in 60fps 4k HDR.
I live in a world where I speak out loud my desire for Worcestershire sauce, and within 24 hours a box shows up at my front door containing the same. I know how this came to be. The me from 20 years ago could probably figure out how this came to be, but would be quite impressed. The me from 40 years ago, being quite precocious, could probably follow an explanation of how it came to be. My mid 19th century great great grandfather could not. It would be quite inconceivable.
The point being that assuming that we can accurately ( or even vaguely) predict technological advances 200 years out is in fact worthy of scoff. The notion that advances will slow or stop because of limits in a technology is silly. While this happens to be true at times, it happens because the current point is adequate to all currently conceived of uses - scissors do a great job, significant improvement seems largely unnecessary. But if further improvements have value, they will be found. This progress will not be linear and therefore difficult to predict. If ic doesn’t do it, something else will. Just because it isn’t conceived of yet, doesn’t mean it won’t.
And I find it unlikely that a more direct connection between our brains and peripheral devices won’t be developed in the next century.
This is again treating technological advances like a religious faith. Just because you would like something to happen does not mean that it necessarily will. I’d like to say that I want wooshtersheer sauce and have it instantly appear for free out of my replicator, but I’m not holding my breath.
But the premise of this thread isn’t “more direct connection”, the premise is will VR (through mind uploading or through a device connected in some way to your meat suit) become so much more compelling than RR that it will “replace humanity.”
Firstly, I’d be happy to put my knowledge of the visual system up against yours.
What I was referring to for more vivid vision, was, for example, that artificially-generated images will not have had to pass through a layer of cells. That’s not the same thing as “upgrading” any part of the visual system itself.
And secondly, this is all rather besides the point. I have suggested that at some point in the future eventually we will be able to create vivid artificial realities. The response of “That’s really hard to do!” (paraphrasing) is pointless here. I never said it would be easy (in fact I have said the opposite several times now).
But it isn’t like religious faith. Being of the opinion that new solutions and progress will be found where such progress has value, is based on the observation that, so far, that is exactly what has happened - which isn’t exactly faith like.
It is however in direct negation to the doctrine of Darren Garrison, which seems to posit that whatever Darren cannot conceive of, shall not come to pass. The idea that we could remotely accurately predict either the amount or exact nature of progress over a century or more is ridiculous.
As to taking the discussion off topic: the answer was given (and i’m grossly paraphrasing here) that the answer is “no” because the virtual reality wouldn’t be complete enough, due to the need for complete bodysuits, smelly vision and whatever. My point is that likely other paths will be found.
But to answer the OP: Probably not. If everyone is immersed, who keeps it going? If incredibly advanced machines, why? If they are so advanced as to keep an entire world running just to provide VR escape, they probably would be advanced enough to require motivation.
The notion of humans enslaved to VR is an old SF trope, obviously heavily influenced by opium den imagery. Even at the height of opium use, there were a good few ppl not involved. Even if VR were to become incredibly immersive, I believe many would choose to not partake continuously.
Yes, like the fusion-operated antigravity flying cars in every garage.
The motivation of the ‘machines’ could be a simple ‘paperclip maximiser’ command. Given sufficiently advanced AI, you could command them to ‘maximise human happiness’ and they would proceed to submerge all humans inside a virtual paradise, possibly with the human bodies in a medical support system and all physical sensations simulated via neural interface.
Yes, I know we can’t do any of this nowadays, but I’d guess that this sort of technology is only a couple of centuries away. This ‘virtual paradise’ scenario is one that we should avoid at all costs, so I’d be very happy if it turned out not to be possible.
A much simpler, more achievable, and nastier version of the ‘virtual paradise’ scenario is the ‘happy dreamer’ scenario; rather than making the machines create a virtual paradise for the dreamer to live in, why not let the dreamer do it naturally? We all dream, every night, even if we don’t remember it. Just pump the dreamers full of chemicals that induce happy dreams, and let them do all the legwork of making up imaginary worlds.
Yes, it is a new religion–someday, [del]the gods[/del] superhuman AI will swoop down and take us all to [del]Heaven[/del] the mind upload where we will live in paradise forever.
You must be tired after building so many straw men. A thread full of them!
I’ve heard that a game called SAO is coming out in the early 2020s is that true? (Or at least a SAO type game).
I’ve heard that players in SAO can use a system called Nerve Gear but I think that it is a little too optimistic for that to be developed by 2022
Oh, so you are saying that “if people want it, it can be made” has limits, and there are some things that people want that can’t be made? Imagine that!
There appears to be a game coming based on the light novel series, if that is what you mean. No mention of games based on the language, the civilization, the flute, the moon, the rugby player, or the train station. But I have my fingers crossed for the trilobite.
NerveGear. Are you paid vital marketing?
That is not what I’m saying. Feel free to read the thread for what I am actually saying.
Actually it’s not religion (or magic, as you were saying upthread) but the very opposite.
Given that the brain is a complex machine, not a soul, then it must be possible to manually induce subjective states.
And what do you know, it is. We can already manually induce sensations through various methods. Currently such sensations are rudimentary but they are already at the level of being useful aids in some cases (however NB the main use currently for such technology is still for treating neurological pathologies).
So I don’t really understand the objection. That between current means of inducing sensations and more sophisticated devices, there be dragons?
If you’re saying it’s really really hard to make such devices…Well yes, yes it is.