Trey 2.0 - Warning: This is way out there!

So with the advent of the Internet, and our close conquering of the human genome, I postulate that we can create the 4th dimension, or at least, a 4th dimension. If I can download software today, and we are already experimenting with downloading 'hardware,' then the next logical step is downloading 'human-ware.' We have always heard the old adage that 'we can't be in two places at once,' well, with present and near future technologies, we will.

I am committed to my mothers birthday party, but my college friends are putting together an impromptu 10 year college reunion fishing trip. What to do? Well, just as our common computer can 'download' software, the future computer will have a drive that can synthesize a human body or our human body, regardless, a spare body. Once this body is synthesized, it needs an operating system, now I program the body with Trey 2.0. Trey 2.0 is a manifestation of my total human experience downloaded from my brain into a temporary hard drive, then further downloaded into the Trey 2.0 human body. Its complete with programs to run the senses and all internal functions that are spelled out in our DNA, and the data that encompasses the 'real' Trey, basically all the memory that Trey has from the experiences he has had thus far in life, both conscious and subconscious.

So now, I am represented in two places at one time. Once impossible, but now a plausible means to accomplish such an 'impossible' task. So great, now there are two Trey's, living two separate lives, so how does this solve my dilemma of trying to be at two places at one time? Well, the Internet serves as the collective conscious storage and delivery system. Here's how. We already update our knowledge in real-time when we are out and about in our daily lives. Our mobile phones check our email, send us alerts on news, and we talk with people updating us on our world around us. The same can be done for our Trey 2.0 experiment. When fabricating the Trey 2.0 infrastructure, an 'always-on' updater is implanted so that Trey 2.0 is constantly 'auto-saving' to the "Trey" collective conscious that is stored on the internet, or private network. With this network, both, the real Trey (Trey 1.0), and Trey 2.0 upload and download updates continually, which pass the experiences of the one to the other, and vice-versa. No matter which "Trey" others encounter, the Trey's appear the same, because the same experiences are part of Trey's human experience.

Weird, yes. Freaky, definitely. Possibility, why not? We already can clone full animals or pieces of animals. All the technologies are in place except copying the information, or experiences from the brain. What sounds like an unreasonable possibility today is tomorrow's reality. If you don't think so, have you looked around lately?

Over-protecting our kids (watch this TED presentation)

I often think of myself as Tom Hanks in the 80's classic, Big; personifying the overgrown child masquerading around in an adults body. The irony is that for the better part of my adolescence, I actually was a boy masquerading around in an adults body. I was tasked with all the expectations of an older child, but my maturity screamed "G.I. Joe, Transformers, Hide-N-Seek" or any other mindless activity that I could conjure up. I remember my parents reminding me "not to be in a hurry to grow up," and I find myself still taking heed of their advice. I subscribe to the RSS feed on the TED.com site, and subsequently find myself visiting their site to watch presentations on various subjects. Tonight, there was a presentation that caught my eye named "Gever Tulley: 5 dangerous things you should let your kids do." I couldn't wait to see what dangerous things I could now let my children do! My generation, and I suspect every generation before mine, grew up without the economic sector of 'Child Safety." I suspect that this sector has saved countless lives since its inception, but as in every scenario, what did we sacrifice to accomplish a "child proof'" society? We all have the instinct to protect our young, but even birds nuzzle their chics out the nest to learn to fly. Have we gone to far with "Child Safety," to the point that our young don't realize that their wings are for flying? I don't know about ya'll, but my parents can attest that I was one hard-headed little kid. You could warn me about hazards, complete with pamphlet and video, but I wouldn't learn my lesson until I experienced it myself, and usually made a butt of myself in the process. I did, and still do, like to find and experience things first hand. Second and third hand testimony is often riddled with inaccuracies and/or biases; I'd rather find out myself. Only in adulthood has testimony from trusted sources trumped my hard-headedness. The reason Mr. Gever Tulley's presentation struck a cord with me is because I very much agree with the reasoning behind his epiphany. I look and see parents 'outraged' at whoever or whatever because proper precautions were not taken, then lawsuits follow, lives ruined, and most tragically, nothing of value was learned through the ordeal. I walked in front of a car on Lee Road when I was 7; I was struck, injured, hospitalized, and it caused a great deal of heart-ache for all involved. No lawsuits were filed. Child services didn't investigate and take me away from my parents. The press didn't publicly humiliate my family lineage by showing countless acts of neglect; and we all came out better because of the lessons we learned. View Larger Map That is a severe example, but its still an example from my childhood that I learned from? I reflect on that accident often, as I am sure my parents and the gentleman that hit me does. I often share with the kids that I coach that we can learn more from a loss than we can from a win. Why? Because we made more mistakes in a loss. When I got hit, there was a comedy of errors that took place, not just one. All that were involved learned volumes. Obviously, we all would choose less tragic, or at least, potentially less tragic, situations to allow mistakes to be made. My point being, I would rather not protect my child in a less than perfect scenario in say, my back yard, than have them first exposed to a similar situation when I am not there to help remedy the situation . . . if it does result in an accident. If I allow my kids to 'unbridle' in a semi-controlled environment, then I feel that the risks are somewhat 'controlled,' plus they get to experiment, learn, succeed, and fail with the safety net of me or my wife. One weekend this past summer, I watched my two year old son, Lawson, climb up a five foot above ground swimming pool ladder from inside the glass doors leading to my backyard. The pool was emptied, and the ladder was in a patch of grass by itself. My first instinct was to rush outside to get him off, but then I decided to let him 'do.' I stayed inside on purpose so he would experiment under the premise that no one was watching or there to help. He actually ventured up the ladder with precaution, and well calculated movements. I was impressed when he went all the way up, then returned to the ground.

I started out, then realized that he was sizing up the ladder again to test his new found 'expertise' in ladder climbing. The second and third go were more courageous and he was more apt to make brazen moves. At the very top, he stood up, holding on to the side rails. At this point I decided that the risks were getting too much, I stepped outside calmly, and told him 'rules' for that portion of the ladder, he must 'sit' when on the very top. We reviewed the rules to make sure he understood, but then I let him continue.

I didn't stand over him, I sat and engaged the dogs while I watched out the corner of my eyes. He would check to see if I was watching when he wanted to experiment, and I would act unaware to encourage him to experiment more. At one point while sitting atop the ladder, he began to rock from side to side. I allowed it knowing that 'Humpty Dumpty' was about to have a great fall. I restrained myself, and as his eyes enlarged to the size of saucers on one of his'rockings,' he decided that he was making a bad decision, and just in time.

I would have let him take the spill that day, but he was able to learn without a spill. From that point forward, I saw him take a more conservative approach when climbing that ladder. He understood there were limits, and if he pushed them, there would be consequences. My father-in-law, who I admire tremendously, came over later in the summer and witnessed my son's adventurous nature. His instincts immediately went into action, but I asked him to wait, and explained briefly of my son's experimenting. He graciously appeased me, against every bone in his body, but we both were able to watch as my son meticulously and cautiously made his way up the ladder. I can't help but think that my 'paw-in-law' was surprised at my son's ability to climb the ladder safely, just as I was. It was clear that Lawson was confident in his ability to climb the ladder by this time, and it was clear that he was being careful on purpose. He learned. Through letting him experiment, and defining problematic areas through his efforts, and setting 'rules' for the problematic portion of the ladder, a safer and more efficient ability to climb ladders was learned. My comparison is if I simply told him NOT to climb the ladder at all because it was dangerous.

We all played before the world was "Child Proofed," and I am merely acknowledging that in spite of all the dangers, we some how made it to today. I am choosing to allow my kids to experiment and possibly make 'calculated' mistakes while under my supervision so that they hopefully will make less mistakes when I am not there to supervise.