Do we really want to fuse our minds together?

#1

Post by ddandd » Wed, May 27, 2015, 11:12 AM UTC

Do we really want to fuse our minds together?
aeon.co

Re: Do we really want to fuse our minds together?

#2

Post by justin66 » Wed, May 27, 2015, 5:52 PM UTC

The world didn't really need yet another example to contribute to Betteridge's law of headlines.

Re: Do we really want to fuse our minds together?

#3

Post by [deleted] » Wed, May 27, 2015, 6:03 PM UTC

justin66 wrote: post #2

The world didn't really need yet another example to contribute to Betteridge's law of headlines.

[deleted]

Re: Do we really want to fuse our minds together?

#4

Post by cousin_it » Wed, May 27, 2015, 6:03 PM UTC

justin66 wrote: post #2

The world didn't really need yet another example to contribute to Betteridge's law of headlines.

For me personally, that might actually be a counterexample to Betteridge's law. I'd love to have a chance to fuse with other people, if only for a short time.

Re: Do we really want to fuse our minds together?

#5

Post by Qantourisc » Wed, May 27, 2015, 6:15 PM UTC

I really wonder how one could establish the required parallel connection. You need quite the wide connection interface ... (If I recall correctly brains work in a parallel fashion.)

Re: Do we really want to fuse our minds together?

#6

Post by Mithaldu » Wed, May 27, 2015, 6:17 PM UTC

cousin_it wrote: post #4

justin66 wrote: post #2

The world didn't really need yet another example to contribute to Betteridge's law of headlines.

For me personally, that might actually be a counterexample to Betteridge's law. I'd love to have a chance to fuse with other people, if only for a short time.

It's an example because the question asked is an obviously and inherently sarcastic one. Betteridge's law's default answer only applies to questions that at least appear to be earnest, and inverts on sarcasm.

Re: Do we really want to fuse our minds together?

#7

Post by Qantourisc » Wed, May 27, 2015, 6:18 PM UTC

Another use for this: fixing afflictions with brain connections issues in healthy people. HOWEVER this should be done as an infant. At later age this could cause a personality shift !

Re: Do we really want to fuse our minds together?

#8

Post by mhurron » Wed, May 27, 2015, 6:23 PM UTC

cousin_it wrote: post #4

justin66 wrote: post #2

The world didn't really need yet another example to contribute to Betteridge's law of headlines.

For me personally, that might actually be a counterexample to Betteridge's law. I'd love to have a chance to fuse with other people, if only for a short time.

I don't even do social media, I can't imagine having thoughts as they happen shared with others.

Re: Do we really want to fuse our minds together?

#9

Post by NathanKP » Wed, May 27, 2015, 6:24 PM UTC

cousin_it wrote: post #4

justin66 wrote: post #2

The world didn't really need yet another example to contribute to Betteridge's law of headlines.

For me personally, that might actually be a counterexample to Betteridge's law. I'd love to have a chance to fuse with other people, if only for a short time.

I think the entire point of the article is that it may not be temporary. If the connection between the two minds has enough bandwidth they will become one and at best only one of them will still exist. The consciousness of the other person will be for all intents and purposes gone.

Re: Do we really want to fuse our minds together?

#10

Post by teraflop » Wed, May 27, 2015, 6:25 PM UTC

Qantourisc wrote: post #7

Another use for this: fixing afflictions with brain connections issues in healthy people. HOWEVER this should be done as an infant. At later age this could cause a personality shift !

What's so inherently horrible about an adult experiencing a personality shift? What makes that worse than performing the same procedure on an infant, who's unable to comprehend or consent to the procedure?