1. #1

    Bird-like Biohacker can sense which way North is

    https://www.inverse.com/article/2602...orth-direction
    Birds, innately, know which direction north is so they can fly during long migrations, but some biohackers are making it so that special sense is no longer just for the birds. The North Sense, an artificial sense organ that vibrates when the user is facing north, is only in use by two people right now, but when it starts shipping in a few months, it will transform the conversation around body modification.

    “Around us is an entire universe we don’t perceive,” Liviu Babitz, one of North Sense’s first users, said in a report published Friday. “As we walk down the street there’s radiation, X-rays, infrared and ultraviolet, as well as the electromagnetic field of the planet. So we want to create new senses to become aware of our environment.”

    Babitz is the co-founder of Cyborg Nest, the company behind North Sense that’s focused on extending human senses. With the sense no longer bound to birds, Babitz’s early experiences have surprised him. Sometimes, on the London Underground, he’ll be unaware the train is turning until the North Sense buzzes. Attached to his chest by two bars that sit under the skin, the gadget itself is waterproof and charged via mini-USB.
    Another of Cyborg Nest’s founders, Neil Harbisson, is a big name in biohacking. He claims to be the first person legally recognized as a cyborg by a government. Harbisson, who was born color blind, can sense colors through an antenna coming out of his head. A select group of friends can send colors to his antenna over the internet: his friend in Australia, for example, can send him the colors of a sunset while Harbisson’s in a totally different timezone.
    The team is hopeful that, unlike previous biohacking modifications that are largely pet projects designed for one person, the many users of North Sense will build up a picture of a general experience. Will one person’s experience of sensing north match with another person’s experience? How will they differ? It’s a big moment for the biohacking community, as it changes the way new sensors are discussed.

    Biohacking is a controversial area, and some of its proponents feel more can be done to protect people’s rights to experiment. Zoltan Istvan, the Transhumanist Party’s U.S. presidential candidate, wanted to introduce a new bill of rights to guarantee people can modify their bodies as much as they want. While North Sense only wants to tell people which way north is, it could help start a wider conversation about technology transforming senses.
    I thought this was interesting, we often look at technological modification as something existing within more retro forms of science fiction. Regardless if you agree or disagree with these peoples' decisions, the prospect of biohacking using cybernetic enhancements, more extreme forms of plastic surgery and genetic modification is becoming increasingly more feasible.

  2. #2
    Deleted
    And then someone hacks it and fuck people up.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Anni View Post
    And then someone hacks it and fuck people up.
    Watch Dogs 3: Biohackers?

  4. #4
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Atethecat View Post
    Watch Dogs 3: Biohackers?
    Thinking more like ghost in the shell.

  5. #5
    Don't really know what else to say besides "Cool." I don't have any skin in the game, so to speak, so I'll just watch from the sidelines as things unfold, but am anxious to see where this kind of technology leads in both technological advances and the discussion on body modification rights, laws, restrictions, etc...

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Katchii View Post
    Don't really know what else to say besides "Cool." I don't have any skin in the game, so to speak, so I'll just watch from the sidelines as things unfold, but am anxious to see where this kind of technology leads in both technological advances and the discussion on body modification rights, laws, restrictions, etc...
    I think if it ever goes mainstream it will be met with mixed receptions from the centrist majority, with a majority of mainstream Republicans being adamantly against it while the majority of mainstream Democrats being adamantly for it.

    You already have people like Alex Jones and the whole InfoWars gang trying to soil the image of transhumanists by trying to paint them as elitist authoritarians who want to set up some weird caste system with modified humans at the top or whatever.

    I find this ironic because most transhumanists (including Connal, Yvaelle & myself) tend to lean more towards libertarianism and advocate against the concept of isolating this tech to one particular group.

  7. #7
    Scarab Lord Mister Cheese's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    4,620
    Not really a transhumanist. So I'm not sticking tech inside myself.

  8. #8
    Old God Mistame's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Over Yonder
    Posts
    10,111
    Quote Originally Posted by Atethecat View Post
    I think if it ever goes mainstream it will be met with mixed receptions from the centrist majority, with a majority of mainstream Republicans being adamantly against it while the majority of mainstream Democrats being adamantly for it.
    While I don't disagree with the sentiment of this comment, I think you're confusing Republicans/Democrats with Conservatives/Liberals. They're not mutually inclusive.

    Quote Originally Posted by Atethecat View Post
    You already have people like Alex Jones and the whole InfoWars gang trying to soil the image of transhumanists by trying to paint them as elitist authoritarians who want to set up some weird caste system with modified humans at the top or whatever.
    The lunatic ramblings of some talking head aside, "soil the image" is a pretty silly thing to say. It's not like they actually have an image to be "soiled". This, at least to me, is the equivalent of saying, "X person is discriminating against furries."

  9. #9
    Old God Mistame's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Over Yonder
    Posts
    10,111
    Quote Originally Posted by Connal View Post
    Here is the central "identity"/theme of a transhumanist:
    While I appreciate the link, I had to stop once she started talking. Some voices just... erg. Anyhow, this really isn't something I'm a fan of. Seems like another way for people to be fake (Eg, I hate breast/butt implants). /shrug

  10. #10
    Old God Mistame's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Over Yonder
    Posts
    10,111
    Quote Originally Posted by Connal View Post
    Well, people are fake... what do you think "person" has its roots from?

    I do not take much stock in "natural" or "real" when it comes to humans... because we have been changing everything about ourselves as soon as we started putting on cloths.
    Now you're just playing semantics. You know what I meant. Leave the philosophy (ie, pretentious opinion) to the philosophers.

  11. #11
    Old God Mistame's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Over Yonder
    Posts
    10,111
    Quote Originally Posted by Connal View Post
    Well, it was meant to be that "fake books" is kind of irrelevant if you actually enjoy looking at bigger boobs.
    Not really, that's like saying, "If you like steak, it doesn't matter what the 'meat' is made of."

    Quote Originally Posted by Connal View Post
    I know they do not feel real... but what if you could have technology (genetic modification) that grew breasts "naturally"...
    This just comes down to how you define "naturally". I go with the original definition of, "Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind".

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Mistame View Post
    Not really, that's like saying, "If you like steak, it doesn't matter what the 'meat' is made of."



    This just comes down to how you define "naturally". I go with the original definition of, "Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind".
    Is there a logical reason to completely write-off and disregard something that is for all intents and purposes exactly the same as something else, just because it's not natural?

    For example, if someone proposed with an absolutely flawless and beautiful diamond ring would it be any more or less valuable (not the price tag)/effective/useful as an engagement ring if it were a synthetic diamond vs a natural one? If so, why?

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Cheese View Post
    Not really a transhumanist. So I'm not sticking tech inside myself.

    Ever use a Toothbrush,see the dentist etc. Then you have been Transhuman low tech as it is a toothbrush,pick,needle and even a fork is tech. But i know you mean cybertech wise i was just being a smartass
    WORLD POPULATION
    U.S pop 318.2 million,Mexico pop 122.3 million ,Russia 143.5 million S.K 50.22 million China 1.357 billion ,United Kingdom 64.1 million, Europe "as a whole" 742.5 million, Canada 35.16 million, South America 387.5 million,Africa 1.111 billion , Middle east 205 Million , Asia "not counting china" 3.009 B ,Greenland 56k,, Iceland 323k, S/N pole 1k-5k/2k

  14. #14
    Old God Mistame's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Over Yonder
    Posts
    10,111
    Quote Originally Posted by Connal View Post
    Well, the computer you are on now, is not caused by nature... nor your car, internet, medication, etc, etc...where is your line of where "caused by humankind" is too much for you?

    Not that I actually care to change your mind on the topic, you obviously have a preference. I just find it interesting.
    I don't have a problem with things that are not "natural". I just have a preference for the literal definition. So if we're discussing something in the context of whether or not it's natural, it's important to understand what definition we're using.

    Quote Originally Posted by Katchii View Post
    Is there a logical reason to completely write-off and disregard something that is for all intents and purposes exactly the same as something else, just because it's not natural?

    For example, if someone proposed with an absolutely flawless and beautiful diamond ring would it be any more or less valuable (not the price tag)/effective/useful as an engagement ring if it were a synthetic diamond vs a natural one? If so, why?
    I typically don't concern myself with inanimate objects in that regard but I'm sure some people would have a preference for a naturally occurring diamond over man-made diamonds. Now if we were to modify the analogy to say, a steak cut from a cow vs one made "synthetically" in a petri dish (speaking loosely here), well, I wouldn't even consider eating the latter. It may not be "logical" or even rational, but authenticity is an inherent factor in value, as can be seen in virtually every market.
    Last edited by Mistame; 2017-01-06 at 09:53 PM.

  15. #15
    Scarab Lord Mister Cheese's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    4,620
    Quote Originally Posted by Raptor With a Saber View Post
    Ever use a Toothbrush,see the dentist etc. Then you have been Transhuman low tech as it is a toothbrush,pick,needle and even a fork is tech. But i know you mean cybertech wise i was just being a smartass


    Despite how badass this looks I would never do this to myself unless I somehow lost all of my limbs from some freak accident. Someone can still hack the signal that tells these limbs what to do from your brain.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Mistame View Post
    I don't have a problem with things that are not "natural". I just have a preference for the literal definition. So if we're discussing something in the context of whether or not it's natural, it's important to understand what definition we're using.



    I typically don't concern myself with inanimate objects in that regard but I'm sure some people would have a preference for a naturally occurring diamond over man-made diamonds. Now if we were to modify the analogy to say, a steak cut from a cow vs one made "synthetically" in a petri dish (speaking loosely here), well, I wouldn't even consider eating the latter. It may not be "logical" or even rational, but authenticity is an inherent factor in value, as can be seen in virtually every market.
    But if the petri dish steak were proven to be literally identical in every way including cost, what logicial reason is there to not even consider it? When you're just talking about eating/ consuming/using/ etc... what value does "inherent value" have when it does exactly the same thing with the exact same level or effectiveness and taste and whatnot?

    What would happen if petri dish steak were a thing, and prepared and served to you as if it were a regular naturally cut piece of meat and you enjoyed it in exactly the same manner, would knowing after the fact that it was synthetic alter your previous experience?

    Forget "value" and cost and whatever...if the natural vs synthetic are functionally equivalent for something, why should the synthetic version be disregarded as a viable option?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •