Technology on its own is neutral and can be used both in positive and negative ways. When discussing artificial reality, the positive sides are numerous, e.g. neurorehabilitation, enhanced learning through 3D enviroment artificaially created (already used for teaching anatomy in medical schools), augmented reality (such as PokemonGo that in a way leads to a more active lifestyle while being a 'video game'). The negative apects in terms of evolution could be that people will become dependent on these devices, i.e. they'll use their innate instincts less and maybe act 'unnaturally', e.g. will friendships and relationships be replaced with an artifical being or an artifical pet for instance? It could lead to a distancing from true human nature. But like I stated in the first sentence, it should be prudently used for the good aspects and try to escape the negative ones. Same as it was with any significant technological device introduced (TV, PC, smartphone - now it looks like we can't live without Wi-Fi anymore, whereas there are disorders such as anxiety and narcissism which flourish through the social media now available - for those who can not set the healthy boundary).

Hope to hear more opinions!

Regards,

K

I define artificial reality as being all environments and objects (not natural or biological) created by Human. Your point of view concerning the artificial reality, it is unfortunately the present.

For example, how do you think a bionic prosthesis can contribute to our change? The glasses for vision correction is an example of how an object has a medical device to a fashion accessory.

Neuroplasticity makes the brain very prone to adapting, so in due time humans can be accustomed to basically anything. It is also difficult for the brain to draw a line between 3Dreality and virtual one, e.g. producing addiction to MMORPG games where an artifical self/character becomes a proxy for real self. As for the prosthesis and other devices attached to the body, due to neuroplasticity the brain will be able to cope nicely and integrate it into its perception as a genuine extension instead of a limb. This highly dynamical nature of the brain is an evolutionary advantage as well as a potential origin for mismatch and that's when the psychologycal problems start. 

Yes, the human brain is a dynamic and adaptive organ, able to restructure based on new requirements.

We can manipulating this plasticity through the products developed? Is possible to identify the right stimulation to this acceptance?

It's for the developers to now 'play' with the desired effects they want to elicit in brain and its dynamics. Technologies that rely on neurofeedback highly depend on this phenomenon. I would say that it definetly is warranted in the porcess of creating a product/device in order to achieve the desired and best result in efficacy. Neuroscientific perspective in terms of functional systems involved or activated by the implementation of a device is in my opinion invaluable to the manufacturers/developers. It also shows that neuroscience and the funding it gets isn't in vain, it is highly commercial, but also useful for the end users. What magnificent devices will the future bring one has to imagine only and soon they'll be among us.

My work related to prosthetic of lower limbs, showed me that these issues are fundamental. Achieve a better quality of life for patients is not easy without an approach focused on the root of the problem.

The robotisation of humans start with a cure or enhancement intention but associated to a posthumanist ideology it could deprives from our sense of vulnérability which was the promise of every u

We may lose the notion of vulnerability? This feeling can be disassociated from the human being? Would be important to define the difference between cyborg and posthumanist ideology, for the construction of thought?

interesting debate the issue is between preserving our vulnerability or making of our vulnerability the condition of our true caapbilities technology being at the service of this question.

The human being is very vulnerable, so this path is inevitable? Are we looking for an extension of life?