TED Community » Danger Lampost

Comments

• TEDCred score: +14.50 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• +1

  A reply on Talk: Sergey Brin: Why Google Glass?

  10 hours ago: I came away with the opposite impression - I found he exactly addressed the title of Why Google Glass. Why? To provide a significantly more seamless and integrated experience so that maybe we won't be staring down at our devices all the time, swiping our screens, disconnecting from those around us. I found his opening bit where he was staring down at his device very effective.
  
  I in fact found an almost complete lack of discussion regarding what Glass is. No mention of hardware, software, platform, features, etc.
• +2

  A comment on Talk: Sergey Brin: Why Google Glass?

  10 hours ago: About 4-5 years ago, I spent a year without a mobile device. It was an eye opening experience for me, and I think Sergey makes a very good point with his opening remarks, looking down at his mobile device reading spam. Public places like trains, restaurants, parks, and streets are lonelier than they used to be, because so many people are staring down at their devices, nervously swiping at their devices, often with ear buds shutting out all sounds. Glass tries to solve both the audio and visual problems walling us off from the real world and the real people around us.
  
  I applaud Sergey's efforts to recover our lost personal interactions and more smoothly and seamlessly integrate our online world with our every day lives. As with any paradigm shift, we have to remember this is version 1, and that if this takes off, then over the years it will get smaller, even more out of the way. Imagine this 10 or 20 years from now? Remember what mobile phones were like 20 years ago - even 10 years ago?

• A reply on Conversation: What does your utopian future look like?

  14 hours ago: Hi Thor,
  
  Cyber-world is a good word for it, but we are not limited to living a virtual reality. We are exploring our galactic neighborhood and what we have discovered so far is more interesting than the cyber-worlds we create. There is so much out there to explore, experience, and learn that I can't imagine being bored any time soon. But then again time is infinite, so we have a few choices should someone choose de-animation, or death.
  
  Although your consciousness is backed up, we do not need to restore that backup should all the living, functioning copies of yourself cease (die). We also have a way of hitting the pause button on your consciousness, which effectively gives you death.
  
  There is another option too which some find compelling. They choose incarnation in a human body and when that body eventually dies, we recover your consciousness and we ask you if you would like to return to the cloud and global consciousness, or if you choose, we can pull the plug at that point.
  
  So you've got the plug in your own hands and can pull it whenever you like.
• +1

  A reply on Conversation: What does your utopian future look like?

  21 hours ago: Here in 2150 we have found that maintaining the illusion of a separate self is necessary for evolving consciousness. The global mind also has its own illusion of a separate self, as being separate from the rest of the universe. The whole universe is conscious, every rock and tree and moon, even empty space.
  
  When we disconnect from the global consciousness to go exploring, the sense of self is invaluable. Also, we have found that each consciousness will evolve differently and that diversity gives the whole global consciousness strength.

• A comment on Conversation: The removal of all patents

  22 hours ago: I am concerned about the possibility of the U.S. Supreme Court allowing patents to be granted for human genes (and other genes). A decision is expected this June. Actress Angelina Jolie's recently announced double mastectomy (in the absence of any cancer) has brought increased focus to this issue because of her fame. From what I understand, the company named Myriad Genetics claims a patent on the gene responsible for her increased risk of cancer, and as a result, this would effectively deny testing for this gene to poorer people.
  
  I would certainly need to research this whole case to understand it, but on the surface of it, the concept of patenting a human gene seems wrong to me.
• +1

  A reply on Conversation: Integrating music into our everyday lives.

  2 days ago: Hi Greg,
  
  You might find the Sanskrit language interesting, as the Sanskrit alphabet was designed in such a way as to give your tongue an exercise. As you say the alphabet, your attention moves from the front of your mouth to the back. The sounds of the language were designed intentionally for effect, so Sanskrit poetry, when pronounced has an effect unlike any other language I've encountered. This is because the sound of words, and how your mouth and tongue move to communicate, affects the way you feel and the way others perceive your thoughts. Somewhat reminiscent of Dune, if you've seen that.

• A comment on Conversation: Integrating music into our everyday lives.

  2 days ago: Hi Lizanne,
  
  I really enjoyed watching your Youtube video. Well edited!
  
  Though my singing would likely cause dogs to start howling and people to cover their ears, I make music and music has been a central part of my life ever since I can remember. I've never had a lesson but I have played the piano since I could walk. See https://soundcloud.com/eniveld/one-string-piano-1 for a typical example of my playing. Sadly, a piano does not fit into my backpack, so it is not a very practical way for me to express myself. Very unlike singing, which is portable.
  
  I do think everyone needs to express themselves through some sort of music, in whatever way they can. I've been a part of drumming circles. Have you tried that?
  
  D

• A reply on Conversation: What does your utopian future look like?

  2 days ago: If you are young enough, it's quite possible you could be there to see it all, if you opt for the immortality part. Many people don't want that for themselves. Ray Kurzweil, the guy who popularized the term 'The Singularity', thinks he may be young enough at age 65.
• +3

  A comment on Conversation: What does your utopian future look like?

  3 days ago: I just traveled back in time from 2150 to reply to your message, because I thought it was a great question. The singularity as you now refer to it really will happen for you. The global intelligence emerged out of our interconnected minds, aided with advanced computing devices and material science in its infancy in your time. Shortly after the global intelligence emerged, we discovered the cure to all diseases and aging, all the energy we could need, and we discovered how to move our consciousness into the cloud. At that point humanity divided into two. Half opted for immortality in the cloud - we call ourselves Immortals now, and the other half opted to live and die of natural causes - they call themselves Naturals.
  
  We've just figured out how to incarnate as developing humans fetuses - the ideal time is right around week 6 or 7. Once incarnated, we are born, live a whole life, and then recover the consciousness upon death. Some of us are choosing to reincarnate in human form now and live among the Naturals. Our rule though is that when incarnated, you lose all memory of your immortal soul, and no immortal can communicate with you.
  
  We've become a level 1 civilization and are starting to explore the nearby galaxy, as we can travel at high rates of acceleration now in cyber bodies which let's us travel using relativistic time dilation. I won't ruin the surprise for you about what we've discovered out there so far.
  
  We've reached the point where we have enough ways of backing up consciousness, that you don't need to worry about losing it. You've always got a good backup.
  
  Our social structure in the cloud is so different from Naturals' social structures that it's hard to describe concisely, but you might think of it as a world wide civilization in realtime touch with everyone else at the same time, and a culture of living in harmony and love. And such adventures!
• +1

  A reply on Conversation: The removal of all patents

  3 days ago: Frank - I guess I have two motives here. First I am fascinated by the tension between the public good on the one side, and greedy personal/corporate profit on the other side. If someone invents something that does tremendous good such as curing a major disease, it does not seem moral to me to restrict the treatment by setting a price that is too high for poor people to afford, thereby causing needless human suffering in order to maximize corporate profits. But it also doesn't seem right to me to steal the invention outright and not give the inventor anything for their tremendous investment, as then you could well discourage a search for the cure in the first place. I think there should be a reasonable compromise, but perhaps that compromise was struck too much in favor of big pharma.
  
  My second motive, is that pat of my job involves IP issues and I just wanted to know for my own sake whether the price restrictions you mentioned were part of IP law or some other type of law.