I imagined the mind of an operator possessing of a battlesuit, and immediately jumping to another battlesuit once it was too damaged to operate. On a battlefield, the advantage of such an ability would be astronomical. It would change warfare as we know it. The professor's research would change how battlesuits are invented forever. Battlesuit Designers would now have to install a supercomputer in the battlesuit; have a way for the operator's mind to enter and exit the battlesuit; invent a way for the mind to jump from one battlesuit to another.
Before I could continue though, the problems I would face immediately came to mind. How near would the battlesuits have to be for the operator's mind to make the jump? Can they do such a jump on a chaotic battlefield where everyone was shooting at each other? Can you even safely install a supercomputer in a battlesuit that would come under enemy fire? What about electronic jammers?
As my mind buzzed with the questions, the question-and-answer section of the presentation began. It was intense. The audience was stunned but many of them respected professors and researchers, and they recovered quickly. This was their chance to get answers from the inventor, and they were not going to miss this opportunity. Luckily, Professor Wang came prepared. He tackled their questions head on, without worrying about the identity or status of the person asking the question.
The very first question he was asked was about the ethics of his research. Professor Wang immediately began talking about the sanctity of life and how persevering it, in all its forms, was the most ethical thing to do. He said that what he was trying to do was to give people a choice. A choice between dying and living forever. The person who asked the question sat down, and Professor Wang immediately went to the next question.
"Smart," Howard murmured. "A setup to get the hard question out of the way."
I smiled at that. Professor Wang's research do raise some ethical questions, and I suspect he knows it. It did look like he was expecting this question. That questioner might even be someone he planted in the audience. However, even with plants in the audience, the professor did not have an easy time of it. Someone once said that the academic world is a battlefield, and the various professors in the audience were trying their best to prove the saying correct.
Professor Wang had to explain the difficulties of his research, and even how much further he intended to push it. He especially played up the use of his research in the medical field. He explained that people in vegetative states or people with severe disabilities would use his robots to move around like normal people.
The ethics of his research came back into play when someone in the audience asked what Professor Wang would do if someone expand his research for the military. Professor Wang replied that he did not intend to go into the military application of his research, but he would be naive to think that the military would not be interested in his research. He concluded that he can't stop other researchers from using his research to help the arms industry but believed that his research would be better used for the good of humanity.
That question got me thinking. Although I do not work for the military, I was a battlesuit designer, and knew some things about what a soldier would face on the field of battle. I connected to the auditorium interface and saw a list of people awaiting their chance to ask the professor a question. Everyone in the audience had the right to ask a question and several people had already added their names to the list. Someone on Professor Wang's team of researchers would be in-charge of choosing a name from the list to ask a question. Luckily, it wasn't on a first-come-first-served basis. I added my name to the list.
The Q\u0026A section was to last an hour, and near the end, I got lucky. My name was picked. I was a little surprised by this. There was a hierarchy in representations of this level. Usually the respected professors would get to ask their questions first, then came the undergraduates. After that came the other people in the audience. I must be more famous than I thought.
As the auditorium drone flew towards me, I formatted my question. I spoke into the drone and my voice was amplified to the room.
"Professor Wang, my name is Tobias Wong. I am a battlesuit designer. Your representation state that your robots have a supercomputer inside it, and you can transfer a man's consciousness into it. When the robot is damaged, the consciousness can be electronically transferred out into another robot. Would such a transfer works when faced with devices like electronic jammers, EMP fields, or even electronic surge bombs? If not, wouldn't these devices be able to trap the consciousness of the person in the robot? Making it basically a prison?"
The audience went silent after listening to my questions. For the first time since the Q\u0026A began, Professor Wang paused. He wasn't expecting the questions, and while it was hard to be sure at this distance, I thought I saw a twinkle in his eyes. He seemed pleased. He began his answer.
"I never research how my robots would fare against such devices. this was not an area my research went into, but in theory, what the gentlemen said could happen. Personally, this is an area I would like to look into."
It was a strange answer for the professor to give. Usually, presenters would try to give an answer that hyped up their work, but the professor gave an answer that seem to agree that there was a vulnerability in his research. Of course, his answer could be true. An area where he could continue his research, but it was still a strange answer to give. I wondered what his goal was.
Another person in the audience was picked, and he immediately asked a follow-up question.
"Professor Wang, my name is Nick McAlister. I am an industrialist. If you can trap a consciousness, can't someone invent a whole prison system around your research?"