Antonio Robateau

Panama City, Panama

About Antonio

Bio

Fast learner. See deep patterns in information and change. Make far connections for deeper insight. Make bold statements. Reference faith in God and the Bible.

I'm passionate about

Christian Science - Understanding God's Creation

Comments & conversations

Noface
Antonio Robateau
Posted 5 months ago
David Eagleman: Can we create new senses for humans?
Adds a whole new meaning to the term, "There's an App for that". Essentially, instead of sensory overload you're saying this could be used to free the human mind from the present flood of mundane problem solving tasks - the "whos", "whats", "wheres", and "whens" - to be more mindful of higher, more meaningful decision-making - the "whys"... a meditation upgrade. :-) Some would argue that such an invention would lead us to wish it were never invented after such mindful consideration.
Noface
Antonio Robateau
Posted 5 months ago
David Eagleman: Can we create new senses for humans?
I agree that with change comes risk, and that the more profound the change the more profound the risk is. However, it is not only the degree of change that is a factor to risk but also the rate of (impementing) change that is just as important. We now live in the dream world of those long gone. Their dyer predictions did not come true because (the future is unpredictable apart from devine revelation) what they perceived then as profound change was perceived less and less profoundly by the following generations who accepted these dreams more and more as a. Part of their reality, until take many of these things for granted. Yes, who controls this rate of change is usually those seeking military or financial advantage for as long as is possible. Here's a moral dilemma for you. What if you, being of this advantaged present, were to be in the disadvantaged past of the pre-World War II era when Adolf was just a boy. Would you kill him before he grew to power to comit genocide against the Jews knowing what you know, or would you let him live, respecting his rights, waiting until he makes a mistake worthy of just punishment in justice (after the fact)? The dilemma is to prevent genocide at the expense of justice (out of the good intention of prevention). Your advantage is information. Fast forward back to today. Is it morally appropriate for the few to withhold profound information from the masses for the good intention of prevention and for the advantage of controlling the often immoral masses that it also yields? ;-)
Noface
Antonio Robateau
Posted 5 months ago
David Eagleman: Can we create new senses for humans?
I have always argued that there are more than 5 senses to the human body. You're walking, minding your own business and suddenly feel an uncomfortable sense of being watched, not only that you're being casually glanced at but of being intently observed, and not by just from anywhere but also closeby, and not just closeby but to your left, at about 7 o'clock direction BEHIND you, up at a 30 degree angle from you? You stop, turn around looking up, and exactly there at a spot that you weren't even aware was there, there leans a young child on his 3rd floor apartment balcony watching you intently. WHAT IS THAT???!!!
Noface
Antonio Robateau
Posted 5 months ago
David Eagleman: Can we create new senses for humans?
Both. The speaker could both feel the applause and feel the floor through the one sense of touch. Short of sensory overload, the 5 (or 6) senses can well be expanded (if not also cross combined) into many more unhuman senses. How would you like to be a living compass sensing the earth's magnetic field? Or "see" around corners using echolocation (ultrasound)? Think about it. When giving sight to the blind, who decides what they should now be able to see? The doctor/engineer? If everyone's experience of the world is unique, why copy confine someone else to yours? The blind... who doesn't know what "full sight" is defined as? Technology? It can already detect more frequencies than we can. In short, accessible Technology which keeps advancing sets the present limit of "sight" while the doctor, engineer and blind are only limited by their imagination. If you were the blind receiving the gift of sight for the first time turning a dial which lets you see more and more up to the limits of technology, where would you stop? Where should you stop? Who defines that person's "normal" - a jealous society? Just throwing it out there for discussion as augmented living slowly becomes as normal as fashion.
Noface
Antonio Robateau
Posted 5 months ago
David Eagleman: Can we create new senses for humans?
Translating the human brain into a universal computing device means we may well be able to apply valid computing theory back to it using standard computer principles of abstraction (reductionism) and layering (modeling) upon the human body (if not also the higher human experience). Human Brain = Computer Processor Sensory Organs = Peripheral Device A Change on Either = Upgrade Feeling = Multi-Core Processing Meaning = Computer Logic Socializing = Cloud Computing The amazing difference is that we don't seem to have to know the Operating System of the human body in order to "write new code for it". Now the scary/ethical part is this: should we use the human brain as a real computer's peripheral device in order for computers to do what humans can easily but software and hardware can't - extract relevant, prioritized meaning from data? Should living brains now be harvested? Can even the mentally retarded be put to work although unconsciously? I make this point because I feel that the highest outcome is not to make machines out of people ├▒or make people out of machines, but both - upgrade both through symbiotic unfication... computers tapping into feeling and people directly drawing from the cloud.
Noface
Antonio Robateau
Posted 9 months ago
Bruce Schneier: The security mirage
Absolute security would make for a dull world (zero responsibilities)... we just don't want it to be "that bad". And security creates crime too - a fun challenge for the despicable at heart. Offer something for free and nobody wants to steal it. But deny some people access and you just made enemies. :-/
Noface
Antonio Robateau
Posted 9 months ago
Bruce Schneier: The security mirage
Perhaps we are missing the deeper flaw. Yes, probability is only a historical summary and not necessarily a future or even present fact as variables change. (I'll avoid here the debate on the meaninglessness of statistical interpretation without knowing how the data was produced). Herein lies the Achilles Heel - scientific tests that produce these probabilities are and must be based on precise variables (apples to apples) and given these precise variables the same probability must result. But we don't know what these very important variables are most of the time. We just hear the resultant probability in some catch phrase and assume we are under the exact same set of controlled variables and that our orange is an apple situation. "There's a story behind a number." - Me
Noface
Antonio Robateau
Posted 10 months ago
Ruth Chang: How to make hard choices
I like your emphasis on judging "from the heart" which I interpreted as comparing against our core personal principles. That strategy makes us unpredictably human and superior to a robot who's only principle is cold logic. However, judging from the heart alone puts us into a second problem when the facts available to us at the time of making the decision would lead to a contrary decision that does not "feel right" and is nonintuitive. Perhaps it is best to separate all decisions into two distinct classes: all those that are largely irrelevant to our core principles where the reliance on logic (or a computer) yield efficiency versus all those that are largely significant in impact to our core principles and character where you rely on the heart. I would throw all those decisions which are in between these two into logic until they become clearly significant (during set times of daily quiet personal reflection). An extreme example might be the decision to take blood to potentially save your life. Rely quickly on logic for efficiency unless you are a Jehovah's Witness.
Noface
Antonio Robateau
Posted 11 months ago
Meera Vijayann: Find your voice against gender violence
Thanks for the feedback, Manisha! But I hope to clarify. Most abusers are older men. Most victims are younger women. Most people speaking publicly about this are women. We men are generally silent about it. A woman being vulnerable is not a perversion of her identity as "the weaker vessel"... a delicate flower. But a man abusing a woman is most definitely a perversion of his identity as "protector"... every woman's rescuer. So to leave women to lead the resolution of men's identity is fundamentally flawed or incomplete at best as men must first accept the accusation and criticism, otherwise women will just be fighting the wind. We men generally have an identity problem. Men in general don't even talk to each other (positively and constructively) about much of anything in which they are themselves vulnerable as we are taught to "show strength", never cry, always win, and basically be a savage. And in that vacuum, women are left to fend for themselves... my view.