Phil Cook wrote:

> a lower error rate on cell duplication

Resistance to ionizing radiation would be nice, too.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> - MTBF: approx 50 years.
> - Operating conditions:

>   0% to 100% humidity
>   0.8 to 2.6 atmospheres of external pressure
>   10% to 100% gasseous O2 environment
> - Can endure [without damage] impacts that would dent plate steel.
> - Can survive accelerations in excess of 4G.
> - Can survive impact shocks in excess of 4,000G.


> - 0-maintenance on all components. (!)
> - Most non-fatal injuries automatically repaired while unit remains 
> operational. (!!!)
> - Multiple redundant subsystems:
>   Dual waste filtration systems.
>   Dual gas exchange systems.
>   Dual acoustic sensors. [Also provide enhanced data when combined.]
>   Dual optical sensors. [Also provide enhanced data when combined.]
> - Many systems feature extreme fault-tolerance:
>   Can survive with less than 50% of normal blood volume.
>   Can survive with less than 50% of the liver intact.
>   Can survive with less than 25% of the bone marrow intact.
>   etc.
> - Resistant to a wide variety of inactive and active threats. [Violent 
> shock, extreme temparatures, corrosive chemicals, toxins, microrganisms, 
> virii, etc.]
> - Central nervous system with cognative abilities unrivalled by any 
> organism on Earth, as far as we know.
> - Ability to procreate. (!!!!!)

All very nice features indeed, but I would like an upgrade to my visual 
system. Being able to adjust FOV optically, and quadra or possibly 
pentachromatic (or more) visual sense expanding into the ultraviolet and 
  infrared portions of the EM spectrum. Thought it would be nice to have 
sensitivities in IR, R, Y, G, B, V, UVA, UVB (octachromatic) or have the 
color sensors in our eyes work like our ears (many, many different 
frequencies are detected individually in small increments) Though that 
would be impractical. The upshot is we'd be less susceptible to metamerism.

Post a reply to this message

>> Adjusting sensitivity of the optical sensors (the sensors itself, not 
>> just the iris). 
> 
> Isn't that what dark adaptation is? Essentially your brain increases the 
> amount of gain when there are low levels of light.

The human eye features two systems for adapting to light levels. One is 
the iris, which can adjust the amount of light that enters the eye. But 
in really low-light conditions, a second set of light receptors in the 
retina which respond to much lower light levels. (And don't distinguish 
colour. That's why in the dark, everything seens monochrome.)

>> Manual focus possibility (both full and basic settings) for the
>> optical sensors. 
> 
> You can't do this? I've always been able to adjust the focal point of my 
> eyes on command.

Likewise. I can also adjust the convergence...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> 
> The human eye features two systems for adapting to light levels. One is 
> the iris, which can adjust the amount of light that enters the eye. But 
> in really low-light conditions, a second set of light receptors in the 
> retina which respond to much lower light levels. (And don't distinguish 
> colour. That's why in the dark, everything seens monochrome.)
> 

Yes. But, interestingly because of the chemistry of the eyes, it takes 
quite a while before night vision is effective.

> 
> Likewise. I can also adjust the convergence...
> 

So can I. As a teenager I got swept up in the whole stereogram thing. I 
used to look at pages and pages of them, and eventually went to try my 
own. Then I went for a vision test to renew my drivers license. I 
couldn't seem to match the center set of numbers normally, it actually 
took me a couple tries before I could get it right.

Post a reply to this message

>> The human eye features two systems for adapting to light levels. One 
>> is the iris, which can adjust the amount of light that enters the eye. 
>> But in really low-light conditions, a second set of light receptors in 
>> the retina which respond to much lower light levels. (And don't 
>> distinguish colour. That's why in the dark, everything seens monochrome.)
> 
> Yes. But, interestingly because of the chemistry of the eyes, it takes 
> quite a while before night vision is effective.

More precisely, because the photosensitive chemicals used for low-light 
vision get utterly saturated under normal lighting conditions, and once 
they are depleted, it takes a while to manufacture more. (Under 
low-light conditions, it gets depleted so slowly that the speed of 
manufacture isn't an issue.)

Yeah, it could possibly be improved. But given that homo sapiens is not 
a nocturnal species, the fact that we can see in the dark at all is 
fairly impressive. *Realy* nocturnal animals like cats have a wide range 
of special adaptations for low-light conditions...

>> Likewise. I can also adjust the convergence...
> 
> So can I. As a teenager I got swept up in the whole stereogram thing.

I only caught on once I finally figured out how they're actually 
supposed to work. The whole "look into it, not at it" thing didn't make 
any sense to me. When I finally realised they meant your eyes are 
supposed to hyperconverge, it suddenly made much more sense.

And now I draw my own using Notepad...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Fri, 02 May 2008 13:31:54 +0100, Mike Raiford  
<mra### [at] hotmailcom> did spake, saying:

> Eero Ahonen wrote:
>> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
>  > Manual focus possibility (both full and basic settings) for the
>> optical sensors.
>
> You can't do this? I've always been able to adjust the focal point of my  
> eyes on command.

But can you do it independently for each eye?

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Fri, 02 May 2008 14:04:21 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake, saying:

>>> Adjusting sensitivity of the optical sensors (the sensors itself, not  
>>> just the iris).
>>  Isn't that what dark adaptation is? Essentially your brain increases  
>> the amount of gain when there are low levels of light.

Try the link below to demonstrate how the brain also adjusts contrast.

http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/lum_contrast-adapt/index.html

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Fri, 02 May 2008 14:41:52 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake, saying:

<snip>
>>  Yes. But, interestingly because of the chemistry of the eyes, it takes  
>> quite a while before night vision is effective.
>
> More precisely, because the photosensitive chemicals used for low-light  
> vision get utterly saturated under normal lighting conditions, and once  
> they are depleted, it takes a while to manufacture more. (Under  
> low-light conditions, it gets depleted so slowly that the speed of  
> manufacture isn't an issue.)

This is also the reason night-vision or night-lighting is traditonally  
red. The rods don't respond to that frequency as sharply and thus aren't  
saturated allowing you to switch from a red-illuminated scene to a  
non-illuminated scene without losing your night vision or waiting for it  
to return.

> Yeah, it could possibly be improved. But given that homo sapiens is not  
> a nocturnal species, the fact that we can see in the dark at all is  
> fairly impressive.

Not really, some degree of night vision is optimal for any species that  
operates in varied lighting conditions; we've just never needed to  
specialise.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> 
> And now I draw my own using Notepad...
> 


I used to draw on paper stereo pairs of images.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
>>> - 0-maintenance on all components. (!)
>> Just a couple of words: hairdressers, toothpaste, the gym.
> 
> Non-essential cosmetics. ;-)
gym <-> cosmetics ?
> 
> [And toothpaste is unecessary if you eat the diet the human body was 
> actually designed for.]
> 
>>> - Most non-fatal injuries automatically repaired while unit remains 
>>> operational. (!!!)
>> The two major mission critical systems (the heart and brain) can not 
>> repair damage.
> 
> I was under the impression that your heart *can* recover from damage. 
No, if you loose a heart muscle cell e.g. because of an infarct it is 
lost and won't be replaced by another muscle cell but by fibrous tissue 
or fat. Though some reports exist that might indicate that sometimes 
cells are replaced, but never enough to make the piece of tissue 
contract again.
> Similarly, you can't regrow brain cells, but the brain has an impressive 
> capacity to reassign functions and regain normal functioning after 
> fairly serious injury.
That is why I said repair and not recover
> 
>>> - Central nervous system with cognitive abilities unrivaled by any 
>>> organism on Earth, as far as we know.
>> You forget the mice.
> 
> Is this a Douglas Adams reference?
might be, might be.
> 
> 
>> But the question was not what I want but if there is improvement 
>> planned but not realized. Just to decide whether we are in alpha or in 
>> early beta.
> 
> Heh. Well, that would depend on who the "designer" is, no? ;-) Let's not 
> even get into that one...
Or if there is one to begin with. And indeed let's no get into that one 
again.

Post a reply to this message