Eye implants

[SigilFey]

I've been thinking about this; I know that piercings can have different rejection rates based on the material of the jewelery, specifically, the smoother the material on a microscopic level the less likely it is to be rejected. In your example, titanium is quite smooth, stainless steel is not, but plasma gold coated stuff is super smooth. I know this is down to the white blood cells trying to contain and remove the 'foreign object' and I'm guessing that this would affect the rejection rate of implants too. If the blood cells were repressed would this not improve the rejection rates?

It has more to do with the atomic / molecular structure of the metal. For example, our body is built to digest and process iron to create red blood cells. It's a nutrient, and therefore, like any nutrient, can cause toxicity if too much is ingested. Titanium is not used by the body in any way, doesn't interact with any enzymes, and doesn't trigger an immune response (unless the person has an allergy to it).

Gold, I think, is very safe, but due to its rarity and cost, it doesn't make a very appealing option. Plus, it's so soft it wouldn't be very structurally sound.

 

[Suhiira]

you need a variable refraction lens. such as one in the human eye that changes thickness. the real problem is integrating anything electronic in to flesh long term.

This plus the size of the lens significantly effects your vision at distence. This is why with telescopes (and rifle scopes) the bigger the better. If your character is fine with being nearsighted they certainly could use a smaller lens

 

[SigilFey]

This plus the size of the lens significantly effects your vision at distence. This is why with telescopes (and rifle scopes) the bigger the better. If your character is fine with being nearsighted they certainly could use a smaller lens

I wonder if it would be better for "cyber-optics" to work more like huge observatory telescopes. A telescopic lens focuses light on a mirror surface, and a microscopic lens zooms in on the desired part of the mirror to produce the final image.

A character could stand on the top of a skyscraper and read someone's com-link on the street below. I could sit across the room from a punk kid and be like, "Son...you got a dust mite on yo' nose."

 

[Suhiira]

I wonder if it would be better for "cyber-optics" to work more like huge observatory telescopes. A telescopic lens focuses light on a mirror surface, and a microscopic lens zooms in on the desired part of the mirror to produce the final image.

A character could stand on the top of a skyscraper and read someone's com-link on the street below. I could sit across the room from a punk kid and be like, "Son...you got a dust mite on yo' nose."

I take if you've never looked at satellite or spy plane imagery? When they publish stuff where you can read a license plate from orbit consider what they're not publishing/admitting to?

As a former intel weenie I can assure you most folks have no idea how much information can be gleaned from photo imagery.

 

[0248991]

The new meaning of "I'll keep my eye on you"

 

[kyodavid]

I wonder if it would be better for "cyber-optics" to work more like huge observatory telescopes. A telescopic lens focuses light on a mirror surface, and a microscopic lens zooms in on the desired part of the mirror to produce the final image.

A character could stand on the top of a skyscraper and read someone's com-link on the street below. I could sit across the room from a punk kid and be like, "Son...you got a dust mite on yo' nose."

In the video, they already show we can link in with the flathead robot's vision and see everything from the robot's view, I wonder if they thought about hacking into other people's vision and gathering information that way, or like sharing vision with our teammate, like sharing to hackers like Tbug, basically she see what we see and help us with the obstacle, and we pay them service fee afterward.

 

[BaalNergal]

The physical size of the lens shouldn't matter for its function. Meaning, I could have a telescopic lens that is, itself, so small it's microscopic. Plus, given as the technology already exists to create imaging devices that are far smaller than the human eye (like cell phone cameras), that would mean most of the actual eye prosthetic would be empty real estate. There could technically be a whole range of lenses or cameras in a single "eye" that switch in and out internally. Wouldn't be much need for processing equipment, as that would mostly be handled by the brain.

It would need some processing equipment for the options it can add that the brain simply doesn't have the capacity to process. For example, ultrasound.

Gold, I think, is very safe, but due to its rarity and cost, it doesn't make a very appealing option. Plus, it's so soft it wouldn't be very structurally sound.

Gold is actually quite toxic. It causes such lovely symptoms as bone marrow depression and intestinal bleeding. In fact, one of the early arsenic treatments was touted as a rousing success because it also worked on gold poisoning.

I think the only non-toxic metal as far as human is concerned is titanium.

This plus the size of the lens significantly effects your vision at distence. This is why with telescopes (and rifle scopes) the bigger the better. If your character is fine with being nearsighted they certainly could use a smaller lens

There are ways around this, using a singular focusing apparatus at the front and multiple lenses in the back to capture enough parts of the image a cohesive whole can be produced; this is basically how human vision actually works, so there's no reason why we can't have a cybernetic version act the same way.

 

[Dreadpoet]

I'm just not quite sure why you would replace your eyes when smartglasses would probably be more efficient...and less gruesome. I do not know about you guys, but when the ripper doc goes for V's eye--I wince. My own eyes hurt.

 

[BaalNergal]

Cybereyes are also a lot harder to counter than smartglasses. I can rip the glasses off your face; removing your eye is a wee bit more difficult.

 

[kyodavid]

I'm just not quite sure why you would replace your eyes when smartglasses would probably be more efficient...and less gruesome. I do not know about you guys, but when the ripper doc goes for V's eye--I wince. My own eyes hurt.

I am sure external device will be the main choice before changing your eyes into electronic device. However, after years of experiment showing no negative long term effect with implant eyes, I am sure people want to do that, since it look much more neat and can personalist to their liking, like making it look like the Sharingan eye from Naruto.
Also it have a stealthy value, where we can record and anlysis stuff with our implanted eyes without people noticing that we are using it.

 

[AlexiaRevan]

dont we have that already though ? its called...a phone..or Ipod..or whatever . Its record...

it may not be stuck to your face..but close enough . it has GPS...it record stuff you can watch again , it can point you to the nearest store...it has your friend and family stuck in there ! HALP THEM! GET THEM OUT! LOL

It even make you have accident while driving...lol...

well kidding aside...

those implants we saw (from the pic posted on previous pages) are kinda gross . Make you feel like the awesome eye implant , that doesnt take half your face..is just a dream..or just for those who are rich .

kinda sad when you think about it....

 

[Nikola_Nesic]

Cybereyes are also a lot harder to counter

Well if you have technology to use cybereyes for spying and recording, people by that time would find out many ways to counter your cybereyes, high end technology will always be first use and tested by military and government..

 

[BaalNergal]

Well if you have technology to use cybereyes for spying and recording, people by that time would find out many ways to counter your cybereyes, high end technology will always be first use and tested by military and government..

Ways, yes. As easily as snatching them off your face, no.

 

[Nikola_Nesic]

As easily as snatching them off your face

If you are not totally surprised how easy would be for someone to snatch your goggles???? and let's assume he know your goggles or other head gear can record stuff or have some spy device in them.

I am almost 90% sure that if some random guy try to run and grab goggles or any piece of gear from cop, soldier or agent he will end up face down on the ground with broken arm or any other injurie.

 

[BaalNergal]

If you are not totally surprised how easy would be for someone to snatch your goggles???? and let's assume he know your goggles or other head gear can record stuff or have some spy device in them.

I am almost 90% sure that if some random guy try to run and grab goggles or any piece of gear from cop, soldier or agent he will end up face down on the ground with broken arm or any other injurie.

This is the full quote of where I said that bit about cybereyes being harder to counter than smartglasses:

Cybereyes are also a lot harder to counter than smartglasses. I can rip the glasses off your face; removing your eye is a wee bit more difficult.

As in, cybereyes have a slight advantage in that removing them from someone requires gouging that person's eyes out, forcing the other person to use less-obvious methods of countering the advantage.

 

[SigilFey]

It would need some processing equipment for the options it can add that the brain simply doesn't have the capacity to process. For example, ultrasound.

Sure, and that's what could go into the actual eyeball. Basically, the lenses themselves could be very tiny. It wouldn't need to function like the cones on the back of our eyes. So, the machinery would simply need a way of sending electro-chemical impulses to the brain in a way it could understand.

As in, would I be able to see into the infrared spectrum? No. But I could have data from the infrared spectrum translated into something my brain could "see". It would be based on our existing visual spectrum, though, just like modern renderings of x-rays, radio waves, ultrviolet waves, etc.

Gold is actually quite toxic. It causes such lovely symptoms as bone marrow depression and intestinal bleeding. In fact, one of the early arsenic treatments was touted as a rousing success because it also worked on gold poisoning.

I think the only non-toxic metal as far as human is concerned is titanium.

Certain types of gold are alloyed with metals that are toxic, but gold itself is completely inert. It will pass through the human body as if it's chemicially not even there. That's why only certain types of gold were used in things like dentistry -- they needed to be alloyed only with specific metals to be both non-toxic and strong enough to function like a tooth.

Titanium is just a better, all-round choice. It's cheaper, stronger, lighter, harder, and far less conductive. (Plus, it doesn't set off metal detectors anywhere near as often. )

 

[BaalNergal]

Sure, and that's what could go into the actual eyeball. Basically, the lenses themselves could be very tiny. It wouldn't need to function like the cones on the back of our eyes. So, the machinery would simply need a way of sending electro-chemical impulses to the brain in a way it could understand.

As in, would I be able to see into the infrared spectrum? No. But I could have data from the infrared spectrum translated into something my brain could "see". It would be based on our existing visual spectrum, though, just like modern renderings of x-rays, radio waves, ultrviolet waves, etc.

I could see that working if the eye only had one vision type, but with multiple you may need to use the traditional eyeball set-up to have enough lenses to cover everything. Then, switching modes would just switch which set of lenses are sending data.

Certain types of gold are alloyed with metals that are toxic, but gold itself is completely inert. It will pass through the human body as if it's chemicially not even there. That's why only certain types of gold were used in things like dentistry -- they needed to be alloyed only with specific metals to be both non-toxic and strong enough to function like a tooth.

Titanium is just a better, all-round choice. It's cheaper, stronger, lighter, harder, and far less conductive. (Plus, it doesn't set off metal detectors anywhere near as often. )

Actually, gold itself is toxic to humans. Gold is one of the metals under the general heading of "heavy metal poisoning." It's just that you need to induce a gold ion in order to cause a toxic reaction, which is incredibly difficult (but not impossible!) to do with the human body; it's mostly chemically inert in its pure metallic form with the standard chemicals in the human body, but there are a couple that with just the right nudge can produce a reaction.

You need to feed a person very specific foods along with the gold in order to poison them with it if you're just feeding them pure gold; the more common gold-copper alloys are much easier to get a toxic reaction with, due to the wider range of materials that can create a reaction. But the most fun is gold and nickel, as then you can get two different toxic reactions at once and confuse medical professionals who try to help!

Titanium is better because, to be blunt, getting a reaction out of it would have already killed the person you were trying to poison anyway

 

[Mr.Twilight.]

I am sure external device will be the main choice before changing your eyes into electronic device. However, after years of experiment showing no negative long term effect with implant eyes, I am sure people want to do that, since it look much more neat and can personalist to their liking, like making it look like the Sharingan eye from Naruto.
Also it have a stealthy value, where we can record and anlysis stuff with our implanted eyes without people noticing that we are using it.

I think it will be nice to add the Naruto series special eyes (Sharingan(and Mangekyō customizes),Rinnegan,Byakugan,Rinne-Sharingan ) as a DLC.

 

[Riven-Twain]

Old thread. Locked.