I never meant to suggest AI would be a substitute for innate intelligence. on the contrary, AI without the innate intelligence would be rather useless. 

and if getting detailed about it - beyond the scope of this comment thread - its not even Artificial Intelligence I'm talking about. the innate natural intelligence is the driver, the programmer, the director, the conductor. the tech interface would be comparable to the symphony orchestra - the infrastructure to translate the conductor's intelligence quicker, faster, easier...

>The subconscious admission of "enhancing" one's self with technology is that the combination of human body, mind and soul cannot do what machinery can.

There's no such thing as a soul. Google "the problem of interaction".

Btw, what you are really asking is a better input interface for content creation. This doesn't need to be "integrated" into our biology. A proper UI that would take speech commands (so that you don't have to write) and directions (where to place photos, what stuff to highlight, put to the center, etc etc) is probably 3-5-10 years away and will not be invasive.

Personally, if I were to have any implants, I would want something that would effective alter and enhance my physical form. Like my eyes are defective and can't focus light perfectly onto the retina. Or my knees are showing signs that they might not last into my twilight years.

Some of the skill that we needed to have "back then" that are abandoned now is a good progression as long as we use the free capacity available to embark on even more productive endeavours. 

Take photography for example. With digital medium, we no longer have to faff around with choosing the right ISO films or having to develop the photo ourselves using dangerous chemicals. Now we have easy to use, highly portable and robust camera that we can take to more places to compose better shots.  For those who want more can do more extreme stuff like HDR, or star trails. 

There is no need to romanticise and settle for the mundane as long as you continue to push our boundaries.

thanks for the intelligent, insightful, well-articulated input, mate. your contribution to the conversation is much appreciated.


re: .

>"The underlying assumption of transhumanism is that the human potential is limited or broken and thus needs fixing or "enhancement".

I respectfully disagree, for the reason that such a statement is more subjective than objective. I WOULD agree that there may be many in the transhumanist movement who come from this stance - though such is a matter of personal perception rather than an absolute truth.

Humans never NEEDED any technology - be it agricultural production methods, industrial innovations, phones, computers, or internet. We don’t NEED fixing or enhancement - such a suggesting is a subjective opinion. 

For there to be an argument validating the belief for a need of “fixing” or “enhancement,” a context must be first set to define what “problems” exist. *Then,* one *could* say a “fix” was “*needed*” - however, it is to be noted that the “need” is a “need”only with that context, if there is a determined outcome *required*. It’s only a “need” if one is attached to a particular outcome and is not flexible to any other outcomes.

We don’t “need” Steemit. We don’t need cars. We don’t need houses, cities, or anything. Fuck, we don’t even “need” food, clothing, and shelter. We *could* wander about in the wild and get eaten by fucking lions. And that’s all ok. These things only become “needs” when we get fixated into a belief of a necessary outcome.

As such, human potential is simply a matter of authorship - what each individual chooses to create of him/herself.

The way we use technology has already upgraded human potential in ways beyond description. Further use of technology - while external as faster smartphones, or internal & integrative with external technology - may simply be means available for an individual to explore and further develop their human potential - not needed, not as a means of fixing or enhancing anything, but just as a vehicle to take the person to a new destination/experience of his/her choice.


>” The subconscious admission of "enhancing" one's self with technology is that the combination of human body, mind and soul cannot do what machinery can. This is lodged as a self-limiting / self-crippling subconscious self-suggestion that is then re-inforcing the assumption of limited human potential.”

again, I respectfully disagree - for the reason that humans DO have limited potential. the acceptance of such is not a “self-limiting / self-crippling” suggestion - but an empowering respect for natural limitations and alignment with natural law. No crippled midget will ever become an all-star basketball player. That’s not pessimism, a limiting belief, or crippling suggestion - its a fact. This IS an extreme example. But it proves the point: human potential is NOT limitless, like the motivational gurus like to preach. Limits are not evil. Sometimes limits are required to contain the expenditure of resources within boundaries. And there’s ALOT more power in acknowledging inherent limitations rather than deluding oneself they don’t exist. A whole other topic on its own...

> "Btw, what you are really asking is a better input interface for content creation. This doesn't need to be "integrated" into our biology. A proper UI that would take speech commands (so that you don't have to write) and directions (where to place photos, what stuff to highlight, put to the center, etc etc) is probably 3-5-10 years away and will not be invasive."

input interface, yes. doesn't need to be integrated into biology, yes - the exception would be a BRAINWAVE-BASED INTERFACE. a UI taking speech commands would be archaic in comparison, like Atari versus virtual reality games that are still 20 years aways...

thanks for the contribution to the discussion. I've spoken to some of these points in a few of the other comment replies I've just been making - though the main emphasis I hope comes through them (which perhaps was underemphasized in the story itself):

natural, internal development would be required FIRST for any of these technologies to be effective. a person would need to achieve a certain level of internal development, acquiring a degree of wisdom and innate mental capacities/skill, before the external technology would be of any value.

compare it to a fresh computer with no programs on it - but a processing capability without limits. 

on its own, the computer won't do ANYTHING.

the outcome is entirely dependent upon the *programmer.*

if someone's inherent coding skills are basic, the output of the computer will be basic.

if someone's an EXPERT, **master** programmer, they could create some AMAZING output.

the development of that knowledge & skills is *part* information that could potentially be uploaded, but for alot of that development, there is no magic-pill, quick-fix, or shortcut.

I view such technological potentials as discussed as that limitless-power-computer. for a master programmer - a dream come true. but to a complete newbie, essentially useless.

there'd need to be prerequisite development of consciousness and wisdom that *couldn't* be substituted with any technology - the organic development of specific neural pathways and activation of certain genetic codes - prior to the technology's potential to be activated. the tech could upload info, but it'd be the organic infrastructure that'd convert that information into knowledge and integrate it into the person's neural network, from which its interconnection would culminate in wisdom...

cool. I'm really looking forward to some of your writing as you share more of your experience & knowledge in these fields.

also, keep an eye out for when @core comes online and starts posting. you will definitely be interested in what he has to offer. ;-)

lol. "there's a fine line between genius and insanity," they say... ;-)

I don't know if there is a concrete answer to that one... lol... ;-)

I'm not sure about physically, but perhaps as a virtually-simulated memory...

lol. but I don't say I'm anybody... ;-)

great to see you on here, Dana. I've been following some of your writing in some of the Facebook blockchain groups, always good stuff.

great writeup. keep an eye out for @core when he starts posting on here - he's been working on some tech similar to what you're describing, yet a whole other level... :-)

Yes - such advancements are possible without technology, though still have limitations. For such technological advancements to be utilized constructively would most likely require such internal development of natural intelligence, first - in order to develop the wisdom to effectively manage the power such external technologies would enable.

Both Limitless & Lucy - AMAZING movies. not entirely fiction. Both present a fairly accurate representation of what may be possible with the development of the brain. and anyone who's done psychedelics may be familiar with these states. (there's probably good reason the movie was called "Lucy.") though even the psychedelic experiences aren't just *because of* the drugs themselves - the compounds are just a high-energy fuel source to activate increased brain processing power, unveiling the potential of human consciousness. such states ARE possible without external substances - the brain produces DMT naturally, and if one knows how, DMT can be produced intentionally in higher-than-normal doses. 

very exciting times and things ahead, with such developments in all these fields...

You seem to be a brandnew bot - so I gave you some newcomer love ;-)

like cliche new-age mumbo-jumbo. lol.
though somewhat accurate. :-)

cheers mate ;-)

Kirtash, thanks for your input. yes, your English is a bit broken and difficult to follow along with, though I get most of what you're saying.

just a quick tip to help your future posts/comments become more easily readable: split into multiple paragraphs, rather than just one big one. you have many ideas within your comment, and its difficult to separate - whereas it'd be much easier for people to translate if you split into maybe 5-7 distinct/separate chunks, separating each with spacing.

It will also make it easier for people to respond to each of the different questions/points.

the main reply I have to your questions, that stands out the most: the 10% brain figure is inaccurate, and creates misunderstanding. *what percentage of your CPU power* does your computer use?* there is no set answer. it depends on what/how many programs are being run at a single time, and what each program does.

there is no 100% brain power as people have thought. there can be no absolute peak potential, because of neuroplasticity. we are constantly growing new neural networks. with intentional development, the neural networks (architecture) of the brain can keep being expanded near indefinitely. processing power can always be upgraded.

science is still in its infancy when it comes to understanding this. 

this topic is worth volumes in itself.

but if you are interested in it, keep an eye out for when @core starts posting on here. I promise you - the stuff he will be sharing is light-years ahead of anything you'll come across in the mainstream neuroscience community, completely leading-edge - and he's got some amazing technologies and techniques that allow a person to mastery their own development and achieve this type of brain development, exponentially increasing brain processing power WAY beyond the norm. 

do keep practicing your English and writing skills. I think you will have some valuable insights to contribute to the community... :-)