The limitations you bring up mark an important distinction between this type of prostheses (”simple prostheses”) and cerebral prostheses. We cannot (yet) replace parts of the cortex or create neurons (on the scale necessary to represent neural activity) and we cannot (although there has been some promising research on the formation and movement of neurons from stem cells in adults) force neural growth. I agree with you that although this is a large step forward, it is not the “cyborg” revolution, but it is definitely moving us closer. Perhaps a better example might be the recent approval of the FDA to install 50-70 bionic eyes that send signals to the optic nerve. Although this still uses neurons, it’s much closer to the type of interface you are hoping for. It will probably
easier to apply the types of bioenhancements that the others write about with this sort of technology: I think it will be much easier to manipulate optic information/optic flow (i.e. a zooming feature) than to have some sort of super strength (which will more likely be dependant on preexisting muscle, weight of the arm and complexity of the interface).

Andy:

I appreciate the concern that I’m sure many people have, but I disagree with you that it’s a matter of not “thinking it through.” This is the natural progression of technology; the best we can do is to control its production, use and distribution. There will undoubtedly be many accidents: some parent holding a kid and accidentally squeezing too tight or something of the sort, but I hope that the companies producing these technologies will think of some type of limitation or check system. Incidentally, South Korea is drafting a code of robot ethics that will hopefully address some of your concerns.

Sam:

Interesting point about affording the technology. Perhaps what we will see is a new type of social differentiation: biomodified vs. normals. Many of the poor will probably fall into the latter category (along with a group of “tradionalists” who oppose the onset of radical technologies or the “unnaturalness” (perhaps certain religious groups will go along the same lines as well)). We already have a certain (commonly accepted) amount division centered around prenatal testing: the better-off are already living in a pseudo-Gattaca-world: artificial insemination and the termination pregnancies that promise genetic defects. And now that the location for eye color was determined (several months ago; turned out not be a single or specific gene, but a collection of SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms), I believe), it is only a matter of time until the better-off are selecting the sex and other physical features of our children to be. I’m not sure if this necessitates a healthier wealthy class, but that is not a possibility to be discounted: the rich may have the money (and soon the technology) to replace a sufficient number of parts and failing organs to lead healthier and longer lives. (That is probably a disputed point: health is also correlated with education and other socioeconomic factors.)

Thanks science! No ill-willed person EVER could do anything EVIL with this! Way to think it through.

Your conscious choice is part of your biological limitations, it comes from DNA and evolution by natural selection. What your asking is to take the product (consciousness) of the process (evolution/DNA) to create a whole new process (posthumanity). How can you expect the product of this new process to be the same? How do you know that there is even a place for consciousness (atleast the kind we’re familiar with) in the future of posthumanity? Perhaps it is not the fear of humanity or being human, but it is the fear of the loss of our familiar consciousness that will be able to be changed unhindered into the future.

1) It seems like they’re saying that it was crucial that they used nerves that used to go to amputated limb. If you need to do this, that implies that the mapping of function to nerves is hard to change, at least in adults, and that doesn’t bode well for the idea of controlling radically unnatural prosthetics, or extra limbs, like the cyborgs of science fiction. (on the other hand, other prosthetic-type things seem to imply that this mapping is not so hard to change; for instance, the tongue prosthetic for vision)

2) They used muscles to house and amplify the nerve signals that they wanted to read out, and they are proposing using the skin where the nerves are re-attached to provide sensation. The high-tech “posthuman” way would be to just interface with the nerves directly.

So from the perspective of directly interfacing with our nervous systems in order to escape our bodies, this approach is not a clean design; it’s a hack. Not that I’m complaining; it’s a great solution to the problem at hand, that is, restoring lost function to injured patients; and it’s possible that for the next couple of decades at least, this sort of thing will be the best solution (perhaps nerves are happier interfacing with muscle and skin than with electronics).