Transhuman General

ITT: We lay the theoretical groundwork for neural enhancements that would increase intelligence.

The eventual goal would be a collectively written general purpose research grant application. The research grant would be written with animal experimentation in mind, this means that the proposal will need to meet the stringent ethics guidelines of a university.

I am not a researcher, so I am not trying to crowdsource any personal project out to you guys. I'm just trying to start a fun project that may hopefully be incorporated into actual research if anyone wants to run with what is put together.

Other urls found in this thread:

rifters.com/real/articles/Pais-Vieira-et-al-Building-an-organic-computing-device.pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=APOAmxFEMkQ
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

i think that transhumanism is hocus pocus

>neural enhancements that would increase intelligence
Genetic engineering et al. and even then it's a crap shoot. The brain is too complicated to just stick a computer chip into.

I think that we should focus on mammilian brains.

Raven and octupi might be intelligent but I doubt that the research would be applicable to humans.

The brain would have to be large so that would mean either primates, pigs or cetaceans. I would focus on the primates. Pigs are not the best candidate and cetaceans (although very smart) would require far to many resources to care for.

>Genetic engineering

This would be the ideal, but the science just hasn't reached that point yet.

I was thinking more along the lines of surgical expansion of the brain case and neural grafting. Or mabye drugs that cause increased folding of brain ridges?

>The brain is too complicated to just stick a computer chip into.

I absolutly agree with you.

...

Genetic engineering more intelligence will pretty fast max out. With the main limiting factor the volume available for the neurons and connections.

With a brain chip on the other hand, you could have a arbitrary large space available to fill with artificial neurons.

For the proposal
1) first we need an interface which is small enough. I don't know if anything like that is on the horizon but we would need
In/Ouput digital-to-neural sensors

2) insert spaced sensors in rat brains. I don't know. Something in the order of 1000 in/out connections to a cortex area which can easily evaluated like orientation in a mace or something like that.
Run a unsupervised neural net on a computer, with the input from the neural interface an the output also the neural interface

Maybe give the rats some bdnf and look if they improve in specific tasks

/thread

OP here,

I have BSc (Hons) Psychology with a large number of biology credits. I've also collected and analysized a huge amount of fMRI data for motor function tasks.

I'm always been interested in cognitive science.

*I've always been

It's a lot simpler to enhance intelligence than it would at first seem. We don't have to reinvent the wheel. Simply linking brains together (with a sufficiently speedy connection) yields hiveminds or brainets. This has already been shown experimentally to be viable.

>doctors help people
why does this meme still exist

>I've also collected and analysized a huge amount of fMRI data for motor function tasks.
Collect any data on dead salmon?

then don't shitpost, smartass. your thread is retarded
>neural enhancements that would increase intelligence
holy fuck, popsci needs to get the fuck off

The brain is not complicated. is just that most humans have no time to understand it. Now humans and their environment are a couple of decades away from becoming battery for computers. And even avoiding that by overcoming the potential of machines we may possibly get enslaved by advanced civs detecting our energy (this is an hypothesis for now, but nonetheless, it won't be discarded.)

Like everything else it'll take bravedom to discover. Once humans unlock the secrets of [math]ki[/math] they will be much much sufficient for any machine. And this is just the beggining of the rabbit hole.

Do you have any suggestions for raising the intelligience of chimp or not?

I think these "transhumanists" have a biased and naive view on things namely the brain. From what I've read they are usually the type of people who believe highly in reason and rationality, and conclude that a better brain would be fully rational and so forth.

I also think that when they do not see logic behind stuff they might erroneously believe it has no purpose.

I think the brain is imperfect but I do not trust these so called trans-humanists with designing a better one. I imagine that the result would be a very machine-like, autistic Spock brain.

If you look at AI so far - and I do not claim to know about it much - it outperforms humans on certain things. But when it comes to other stuff, AI is retarded.

>calls me popsci

You little shit, I fucking hate you.

sorry
pop pseudoscience
you're right, psychology isn't science

Not interesting in speculating about A.I.

I'm interesting in pushing the boundries with the general intellegience we already have.

...

Hey! Welcome to Veeky Forums!

It seems you've made the classic mistake of trying to start a transhumanism thread on this board. Transhumanism is something that belongs on Veeky Forums. Considering that current scientific advances are nowhere near that possible for transhumanism, it would be silly to talk about it like a science. It should rather be talked about as an ideology or fantasy.

So please, redirect your discussions on transhumanism here: Thanks!

Well what I am saying is that the idea of pushing the boundaries of our intelligence is biased. Tell me what would increase intelligence?

Increased memory? Enlargements of certain areas? Which ones?

I imagine that the goal would be to increase IQ but I tend to think there's more to intelligence than IQ.

I think the coolest about our brain is that it uses some simple tricks.

Also what some consider flaws in the brain I consider to be quite smart given that we have limited energy available. Stereotyping is quite a flaw but it is also kind of smart.

Imagine that instead of generalizing you would consider all individual stuff as unique: it would require a lot of memory, no?

>the boundries with the general intellegience
yeah, sure

I would consider the enlargment of the prefrontal cortex a good start.

Literally give me one reason we don't already have state funded high IQ breeding programmes.

Just give a million dollars to people who have STEM PhD's and have a child with another STEM PhD.

From my limited understanding that doesn't sound so bad. But do we know it wouldn't have side effects?

Is enlargement actually an improvement? I have read several times that connectivity of neurons instead of the size of the brain is more important. But hey, am not a neuroscientist.

It would be interesting to know if the human brain could actually be more efficient and smaller.

Sandniggers won't bomb themselves.

>Is enlargement actually an improvement?
It seems so.

> I have read several times that connectivity of neurons instead of the size of the brain is more important
Yes, neural pruning is very important for normal funciton. Autism seems to be related to lack of normal neural pruning in childhood.

Bockaert, J. (n.d.). Faculty of 1000 evaluation for Loss of mTOR-Dependent Macroautophagy Causes Autistic-like Synaptic Pruning Deficits. F1000 - Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature. doi:10.3410/f.718544648.793499557

>more efficient and smaller
I wouldn't put money on smaller.

Well, again, I have limited understanding of the brain. But apparently birds have kind of small brains yet - at least some species - have good cognition.

Ravens and parrots have some decent cognition but nowhere near pigs, cetaceans and primates.

They would be easier to experiment on and care for, but I don't think the results would be very applicable to mammals. However, one often overlooked aspect of parrots when it comes to uplifting is that they are already capable of true speech.

There is a large problem with neural mass of birds simply not being allocated to higher cognitive functions, the nidopallium is where they do most of their abstract reasoning and it's very small.

Interesting. I do like this topic for discussing stuff you would otherwise not discuss. But now I am sort of out of ideas.

Ok I got something. Question:

What do we exactly need better brains for? I am starting to think we can outsource certain stuff to A.I. and what we really need is better systems or institutions (educational, juridical, governmental etc.)

I'm not sure what exactly transhumanist folks have in mind, but I think it would be quite useful to have a builtin calculator, database, or anything else that computers do better than humans. At least until someone hacks it.

I'm looking at how ridges are formed on the brain. We know that one big reason for increased intellegience in humans is the number of gyri and sulci.

Mabye polymicrogyria (excessive gyri formation) is worth investigating? It's thought to be genetic but it can be caused by some viruses (Cytomegalovirus).

Mabye cognitive enhancements based on pathologies is the key?

>What do we exactly need better brains for?
Intelligience is a evolutionary adaptation that is general, it's not as specialized as a horn or a claw.

Biological cognitive enhancment doesn't have quite the same existential threat level as a seed A.I., also we arn't anywhere near building a working general A.I.

Let me state it differently: what are the problems caused in today's world that are the direct result of a lack of intelligence instead of a systematic failure?

There's alot of factors at work but I'm pretty sure that no one can deny a smarter society is a better society.

I'm more interested in the idea of different transhuman clades undergoing self-directed evolution in different direction. That way it's more likely that one group will be more successful if there was suddenly evolutionary pressure applied to humanity on a wide scale.

>Thinking transhumanism is about becoming a super alien being.

It can mean as little as implanting a chip in your arm to switch your house's lights from a distance, which has already been done.

Does anyone here have any deeper knowledge of neurology?

I'm aware of neural grafts concerning damaged nerves from injury but I can't find any info when it comes to grey matter. I'm not seeing any journal articles.

What I'm thinking of is something like this:

1) Take neuron stem cells from the dentate gyrus (one of few areas of adult neural stem cell production)
2) Culturing them into some sort of mass for grafting (no clue how that would work)
3) Somehow attaching this to the frontal cortex (no clue how that would work)
4) Then stimulating the mass to form synaptic connections (no clue how that would work)

No clue how long it would take for neural plasticity to make use of the extra neurons (or even if it could after a certain stage of development)

:^)

>ki
Now this is shitposting

You intend to do all that ITT? Why not just do that in a journal or something?

>psych fag
I once took a psychology class and it a lot like a popscience journal.

The idea was to get the creative juices flowing among a group of eccentrics with multiple backgrounds.

I was hoping that if this thread does well it could turn into a series of thread until a crude study outline is formed. After that anyone who wants to could alter it for a grant proposal for their own university.

Psychology varies alot between schools. Also a B.A. and a Bsc of psych are very different things.

Mine was more like a biology degree minus ecology and lots of statistics classes.

*BSc

I find psychology very interesting. I find it unfortenate that psychology has this tendency.
Things like the publish and perish studies, psychologytoday and even the psychology section in bookstores does this scientific field no good.

Though I find it unfair that psychology is dismissed wholly by some, at least psychology is testable. I feel philosophy, which I also find interesting, has a much bigger problem.

At least judging from my occasional visits to r/philosophy the ifield is one big echochamber.

Hi, I'm a 22 year old trans looking for a good time
I've been saving up money for my Man-to-Fully enhanced entity operation

>shutterstock shill doesn't know what a programmer is

Do you have the vibrating boipucci upgrades?

>Considering that current scientific advances are nowhere near that possible for transhumanism

>obedient little student listens to his STEM program professor
>professor is Boomer age, foggy as shit from decades of coke use, keeps thinking he's in the 70s, when the future was a "long way off", in the 21st Century, or something
>probably still types his papers on a typewriter
>student comes on the internet, parroting his foggy professor's distorted timescales
>mfw

This.
We're already able to send shapes using computers as an intermediary from reading brainwaves.
It comes down to a refinement of the technology.

What is intelligence?
I.Q. is a measure of logical reasoning, typically via pattern recognizing, correct?
What could be more intelligence raising than increasing the availability of data and the ability to successfully integrate said data into a meaningful pattern?

E.Q.?
MDMA.

>It's a lot simpler to enhance intelligence than it would at first seem

No, it isn't.

>Simply linking brains together (with a sufficiently speedy connection) yields hiveminds or brainets. This has already been shown experimentally to be viable.

We are nowhere near being able to do that and even if we could I doubt that many people would want to sign up to be part of a gestalt.

>We are nowhere near being able to do that
I'll just leave this here: rifters.com/real/articles/Pais-Vieira-et-al-Building-an-organic-computing-device.pdf

Why wouldn't that work anons?

Neurons are far more effecient. Instead of wastefully simulating neurons we should just use the real thing.

We also are not even close to having the necessary computing power to accuratly simulate a human cortex. Even if we did the software would be a larger problem than the hardware requirments.

Sure it might not scale the same way but I think a portable and unhackable supercomputer that runs off sugar is a fair tradeoff.

Also the existential risk of a biological superintelligience is far less than an organic one.

Nobody said something about simulating a whole cortex.

A deep neural network processing the input from a rats cortex area for orientation at a hierarchical lower level and feeding the output back into this cortex area at a higher level just improves encoding/decoding information

It would be like a additional layer of neurons in the cortical column

Maybe , if the deep neural net decodes some extremely useful information, this additional input from the neural net helps the hierarchical neurons at the too of the orientation center to make decisions

At the top, to make better decisions*

To expand on that.

Image recognition with deep neural nets is extremely advanced
>"By 2015, researchers reported
> that current software exceeds
> human ability at the narrow
> ILSVCR tasks."

And they do that without supervised learning.

So if one would use such a deep neural net for image recognition, with the input being the output of first layer of the visual cortex. So the first neural procession in the cortex of the visual information from the eyes.

This input would be learned unsupervised and the neural net would learn to encode that information. The output should be feed back to the visual cortex at the layer hierarchical above the first.

What would happen?
Well for image recognition in the cortex of a rat there are 4 neural layers needed. The first layer does something like edge detection, the second may detect bigger features and the third following that general process recognizes even bigger more defined features. The last layer than recognizes categories like "cat", "seed" and "water".

But if you would use a brainchip as proposed, the second layer would not have the input of edge features but that of categories like "cat", "seed" and "water" because that was the output from the deep neural net.
Therefore the second would use information analogue of the normal 4th layer.

The mouse could recognize much more abstract information than before

It's not a bad idea in theory but I would assume it would be easier to neurally enhance an already unified mind.

To benefit from a gestalt hive mind you would have to find a way to distribute cognition in a scalable way otherwise you are basically throttling each mind with unessesary mental tasks.

What do you mean by
>already unified mind
?

Single brain. Like the one you and I use.

That just sounds like they were able to get rats to communicate on higher level than they previously communicated at, of course that would yield better result in group-oriented tasks like weather forecasting, where if you have one unit several miles away who is able to instantaneously communicate what they see then you have more information to work off of, that's how our Internet works today, linking our brains together wouldn't allow us to do anything we can't already do with the Internet.

Also

Why is it always intelligence? Why is it that every time something useful or beneficial pops up that can improve several other fields, the only thing the transhumanists care about is intelligence? Not creating entirely new forms of flora and fauna, engineering entire ecosystems from the ground up that are designed to be beneficial to humans while at the same time completely self-sustaining, but human intelligence, as if there was any need to increase it further, if you even could.

Starting my PhD in neuron computer interfacing mid august

meme-magic alone will not get you anywhere. If you want to get anywhere you need to get out there and do it yourself.

As for enhancing intelligence, that's ridiculously far away right now, focus on the groundwork.

What about producing a kind of brain-computer interface to increase intelligent. More into the spectrum of Cybernetics.

>focus on the groundwork

That's what this thread is all about.

That's awesome! I'm actually very interested in this subject however I don't know if I will be able to go into this when I get to grad school. I'm majoring in Biochemistry and Neuroscience, with a minor in mathematics. I have no experience with computer science whatsoever though. Do you think it's possible?

Could anyone explain to me the hate against transhumanism on this board/in this thread? From what I've heard it's just the idea of enhancing the body/mind above "natural" levels?

>Why is it always intelligence?

Intelligence is a general evolutionary adaption that is much less specialized than a claw or a beak.

>explain to me the hate against transhumanism on this board/in this thread?

Alot of transhumanist are overly optimistic with tech development timelines.

Also alot of them believe they can digitize their consciousness and not kill themselves in the process.

Alright, so it's basically just tards poisoning the well? Using technology/medical advancements to make our bodies stronger and longer lasting is pretty awesome.

> I'm just trying to start a fun project that may hopefully be incorporated into actual research if anyone wants to run with what is put together.

Talking about it will get you nowhere in this day and age. People far smarter than you have been talking about this since the 40s, and fortunately for you they have written up all of their thoughts which are easily accessible online if you know what you are looking for. There is nothing left to discuss, the only thing left is to figure out which method is the right method and prove it. You won't do that by sitting around on an Iranian photoshopping imageboard playing imagination with your buddies.

>I am not a researcher
If this is what OP says then this is pointless. Have you ever written a research article? Do you know anything about cognitive science other than that the brain is a thing? Logic? Neuroprocessing? How about neuroscience in general? This is yet another thread made by a guy who has no clue about anything but was too much of a pussy to make this thread on or , just like all the other IQ and transhumanist popsci garbage threads.

Because these people have no idea what they are talking about. And there is already a field aimed at using technology and medical advancements with the goal of making your body stronger and longer lasting. It's called Medicine, and it isn't aimed at those who dropped out of biology to focus on psychology.

>there is already a field aimed at using technology and medical advancements with the goal of making your body stronger and longer lasting. It's called Medicine,

Sure, but transhumanism isn't supposed to be a scientific field, it's just a community/ideal that supports the aspects of different fields that pertain to the goal of becoming better humans through science. I don't really see the problem with that.

>Have you ever written a research article?

I had to complete two projects that were research grant applications for credit. They were never going to be reviewed by the ethics board though.

>Do you know anything about cognitive science other than that the brain is a thing?

Yes, I do.

I don't know, but if you focus on MEAs you're on the right track

Do you mean Multi-electrode Array? Thanks for responding by the way!

correct, one of these badboys

What do you mean transhuminism doesn't exist yet. My uncle had her transmutation 3 years ago or something like that.

Awesome I'll be looking into these. Seem more physics than Chemistry though. Don't get me wrong, I love physics, but I love chemistry more. Do you think this kind of research will be chemical based at all?

MEAs are a viable way of running trials on drugs i guess. I don't enjoy chemisttry very much though so i dunno

Lol. Okay, what are some methods and mechanisms we have that could aid in transhumanism?

The brain, as it currently stands, is far too complex to reduce down to parts, to the point that we could control aspects of memory, problem solving, and especially CREATIVITY, which is the fundamental aspect of intelligence when it comes to tackling and solving new problems

You guys realize that we still can't definitively isolate the cause of depression? Or schizophrenia? We still don't know how information is even stored in the brain!

Transhumanism is a fantasy

...

I think the point of transhumanism doesn't lie in altering or "improving" the brain. That would be like trying to reinvent the wheel, then jumping straight into concepts like teleportation and hard light.

I think the real early goal of transhumanism lies in preserving the brain. Keeping the human brain at its peak level of complexity and functional speed for longer. What I perceive as the first hurdle in this goal is the body.

Instead of going right into trying to improve human brains, we should work with what we are more familiar with: the mechanics of the body. Artificial bones, muscles, and ligaments could go a long way. Even if they aren't particularly stronger than human limbs, artificial limbs could be more easily repaired, replaced, and customized for different tasks. Internal bodily organs could benefit a lot from being replaced with artificial ones. Hearts and lungs that could never develop cancer, be easily replaced if they begin to break down, and keep our bodies functioning at ideal performance levels well into old age.

Then, long after the entire body can be replaced with superior, artificial parts, can we start to focus on developing a housing and control suite for the brain that manages to keep it preserved, without breaking down, for longer. Perhaps storing it in some kind of chemical that is better at preserving organic tissue and increasing conductivity of neurons than regular cranial fluid. However, this would only prolong the deterioration of the brain. Preventing or treating it would be another matter.

In that case, I imagine we would need vastly superior knowledge of the functions and makeup of the brain's different "organs". With that achieved, I imagine it would be a process of replacing the brain, one "organ" at a time, with artificial brain "organs". This circumvents the question of "if you upload your consciousness to a computer, is that consciousness you yourself, or just a copy of you while you still exist outside the computer?"

This. You're on the right track. We honestly know so little about the human body as it stands. We don't fully understand the mechanism for muscle growth and contraction or even how action potentials REALLY work. We have a basic understanding of how these things *probably* work, but for the most part, many of the finer details of our genes, our organs, our nervous system, are complete mysteries. What you read in a textbook is not the definitive answer, it's "what we know so far" about the human body.

Brain alteration is so far away, we can't even concieve it. We need "groundwork" but that groundwork isn't talking about methods to make us smarter, it's having a complete and comprehensive understanding of our own bodies first, which we DONT have. But most importantly, the relationships between our parts.

Science typically works in reductionism and pattern recognition, but I think this will require a holistic view. To give a man an artificial arm or organ will be about considering the relationship between his nervous system, his muscles, his bones, his tissues and cells. The reason we don't have fully functional prosthetics yet is because these relationships are very hard to understand with the tools at our desks.

cont...

By replacing your brain's organs, one at a time, then it is, in fact, YOUR brain, YOUR consciousness that is preserved. Part-by-part the brain is replaced with artificial parts that function in the exact same way, but don't break down over time the same way, and can be repaired/replaced more easily. Once all the parts are replaced, then the whole thing is artificial. Then it's done. Your consciousness, memories, preferences, perceptions, who you are as a person is preserved due to artificial parts that are modeled after your exact brain's makeup, and are made of such material that your new brain can still chemically/electrically alter it in the usual fashion to create more memories and neural connections. THEN, we can start to question if humans are still human at that point, or if we have become something more.

But there are just too many hurdles I guess. Money is a big one. These artificial replacements would be costly, especially if they are to be "superior" to our natural organs/limbs. Steel and ceramic and plastic in those quantities would cost you up to several thousand dollars a limb. But hey, new car or robot arm? Not an easy choice.

Then there's ethics committees. The idea of gradually replacing the brain's parts to completely replace it with artificial ones is some soft-as-fuck theory, due to no ethics committee ever EVER approving of human brain experimentation. Even just doing experiments like that with primates would be extremely costly and extremely difficult to get past them. And let's not forget everyone who throws up their arms about researchers "playing god", despite "playing god" being what humans have been doing since the classical periods of history.

cont...

And then there's control. When your whole body and BRAIN is electronic/synthetic, you really think the government isn't going to want to get their fingers in that pie? Beam advertisements directly into your eyes so you have to stop walking or risk walking into something? Make you hungry once you start walking past the grocery store / nearest restaurant? Simply cut your body's power if you don't pay your regular "body energy" fee? Force you to vote for them? I mean yeah, we could potentially breathe underwater, never need to sleep or defecate, and put ourselves in hibernation for years at a time, but you know as well as I do that the government would place strict controls on those features, if not reserving them strictly for themselves, their friends, and the world's elite.

Hell, the upper echelons of human society would probably just completely restrict access to artificial replacements to themselves, to ensure that they remain in positions of power for generations and generations to come, while everyone else lives and dies as usual.

So while transhumanism is fun to think about, and a eutopic concept to imagine, there are just too many shitty things about human society to ever let it become a reality. I remember reading something about how the word "Eutopia" itself refers to an existence so perfect that it literally cannot ever be real.

You're missing something here:

When people suffer a brain injury, some
Type of stroke or what have you, they experience permanent and fundamental changes in their personality.

Are they still "them"? Is their consciousness still the same? Are we nothing more than the parts that make up our brain? Or are we more?

This is where it becomes hard. What if by swapping out a part of your brain changes how you experience consciousness in some small, indescribable way? How can we say it was successful?

This is more philosophical though, which is really all transhumanism is about - philosophical debate

Because it's only the US where they're not really about helping people. Everywhere else they are, faggot.

Yes, I'm fucking mad. I'm an MD.

Of course, that would all be answered through the theoretical experimentation phase, in which researchers would attempt to model exact synthetic replicas of an "organ" of an individual's brain, then try replacing the biological "organ" with the artificial one, then determining how well the brain accepted and utilized it, and how to improve these synthetic organs to "mesh" better with the brain. In the instances of the artificial organ being accepted, the following tests would then determine just how much of the subject's original memories/opinions/thought processes were retained. Obviously if a subject's entire personality is altered, (aside from how it would be subtly altered simply by "knowing" your brain is mostly/entirely artificial) then it would not have been a successful transplant.

This would incorporate much trial-and-error, which would result in the loss of many research subject's lives. This is why even if we used primate test subjects, it would no doubt never make it past ethics committees, simply on the promise of doing it "for the long-term greater good of the human race."

I mean, it's important to think about though. Look at where we are right now. Even the most successful first-world countries can barely keep their own bloating populations fed and healthy, let alone trying to help the countries that are literally eating the same mud they make their houses from. There's simply not enough food to feed everyone, let alone all the new people being born every half-second. Not enough space to continue housing every new child and family that pops up by the minute, while still supporting all the older generations that are living and sticking around longer and longer thanks to advances in medicine and nutrition.

We're growing too fast for Earth to keep up, and unless we can find a new planet or alter this one to support us, we need to alter ourselves in order to curb population growth, lest we run out of resources.

Trip is only for usage in this thread.
I will lay out something that has going through my mind for the past year.
As you all know some electricians use magnets inbreed in their finger to detect live wires,there is also few biohackers that experimented with this by implanting neodymium magnets in the tip of all 10 fingers covered just by hot glue and so far there are no negative consequences.
They describe the feeling as a sixth scene,being able to detect areas and electromagnetic fields that add another dimension to an urban environment.
These magnets dont do anything but move just a little bit by the electromagnetic stimulus which is enough to trigger pressure nerves on the fingers and with that create sensation that brain later interprets as something new.
Implanting is easy,you get RFID kit and neodymium balls covered with hot glue,apply local anesthetic and thats pretty much it.
Accommodation to the feeling takes a month or so.

now what if we did this from a young age and apply it to the big joints of the locomotor system.
I should love to see how the brain will adapt to additional stimulus.
Is there data of something like this being done?
Anyway there was an amazing talk at CCC last year so if anyone wants to watch it or discuss the topic let me know i will post more

Implanting magnets and RFIDs seems really pointless to me.

Also if you get magnets implated, you can never go near an MRI scanner.

>Implanting magnets and RFIDs seems really pointless to me.
i have to disagree.
There is potential for interfacing at least with basic everyday stuff.
Also in case you miss understood my post you need the wide needle from the RFID kit so you can implant the magnet.
Nothing else.

Here is the video if you are interested she explains better than i can

>youtube.com/watch?v=APOAmxFEMkQ

>I think that transhumanism is about improving the brain
>It actually show that I don't know what transhumanism is

>There is potential for interfacing at least with basic everyday stuff.
I can do that with my fingers and my phone.

I have quite some experience with this sort of thing, so here are a few pointers:

Keep things realistic. If you're going to propose something like the 'neural enhancement of intelligence', you'd be better off sticking to something concrete, something that's easily quantifiable and measurable experimentally, and something that's relatively well understood. 'Intelligence' is a terribly ambiguous concept. No respectable funding agency will take the application into consideration, and even if they do grant reviewers will pick up on it immediately. Better pick something like 'spatial navigation ability', because its neural machinery is properly charted, and it correlates with more abstract concepts like reasoning ability and memory. It'll make writing the application easier too as experiments will naturally follow from the theoretical basis (e.g., we want to enhance navigation ability by tuning hippocampal place cells with optogenetic stimulation, and a secondary question is then whether this translates to improved spatial memory).

Have a grant in mind before you even start thinking about what to write. Different funding agencies vary in tremendously in the scope of the projects they fund, and what research they consider to be important. The European Research Council tends to fund good science, but the projects are quite elaborate and you will not qualify unless you are advanced in your career. Other organizations, like the Templeton foundation, basically throw money at anything they think sounds cool.

Before you start writing, read relevant papers until you're sick of reading and then read some more. One of the worst things you can do in an application is misinterpret existing literature, or overlook important papers. Knowing the literature will also help you structure the story, and give a good presentation if it's required to get the grant.

edgy

Lol, grow up manchild. I am chiding you for your own benefit btw.

A calculator chip placed into the brain and attached with neurons used for memory. Over a period of time, the subject will train their mind to use certain memories to trigger this device and certain neural inputs as numbers, effectively allowing them to calculate numbers on the fly.

Enjoy some tier 0 sci-fi

>refuting with 'grow up'
lol, what a cuck