Poll: Transhumanism: How Far Would You Take It?

[TheUsername0131]

Yeah, there's a bit of a problem with that idea. A backup copy of you is not actually you. It is a new person with the copied memories and personality of someone else.

Is there a meaningful distinction?

Let me put it another way; if you where disintegrated, only to then near-instantaneously be replaced with a matching reproduction. And no one was there to witness the event. Then wouldn?t this new instantiation of ?you? be functionally indistinguishable from the ?original.?

Would an acquaintance, friend, or family member be able to make a meaningful distinction?

Epistemologically, we are only what we remember of ourselves.

 

[ForumSafari]

I'd keep my brain except maybe gradual conversion, I'd want a continuity otherwise I'd be dead and another identical person would walk away.

Other than that, full Phyrexian. Everything could be replaced and I'd be happy. I wouldn't mind looking like I do now but that's optional too.

 

[LadyMint]

I'm gonna go with Option 2... People have been "enhancing" themselves in various ways since the dawn of man, so I don't see anything wrong with a little minor help here and there. Option 3 would maybe be on the cards if it was necessary. A friend of mine recently went to the hospital for critical injuries that resulted in an amputation, and I'm sure they wouldn't mind having something to replace what was lost.

Many times I've pondered what my decision might be if we got to the point where you could download your brain into a robot body and "live forever" from that. The jury's still out, to be honest. As much as I enjoy living and have no desire to die, I've come to terms with the fact that it is a natural process that will one day it will happen. Some things you just shouldn't mess with, and IMHO, the constant renewal of life is one of them.

 

[Heronblade]

Yeah, there's a bit of a problem with that idea. A backup copy of you is not actually you. It is a new person with the copied memories and personality of someone else.

Is there a meaningful distinction?

Let me put it another way; if you where disintegrated, only to then near-instantaneously be replaced with a matching reproduction. And no one was there to witness the event. Then wouldn?t this new instantiation of ?you? be functionally indistinguishable from the ?original.?

Would an acquaintance, friend, or family member be able to make a meaningful distinction?

Epistemologically, we are only what we remember of ourselves.

There's still the problem of continuity. The fact that someone perfectly like me is taking my place is of some comfort, but it doesn't change that I'm dead and gone.

If you want to argue that the copy is me, what happens if this same tech is used to make 500 copies at the same time? Would you have a communal hive mind, or 500 very confused individual people?

 

[Jamieson 90]

I'd engineer my brain to make me faster/more intelligent and to prevent it wearing out or getting Alzheimer's and such.

My eyesight has always been incredibly poor so I'd augment them to get perfect 20-20 vision.

I'd replace my heart, lungs and kidneys with cyber implants to help me live longer. I'd also engineer myself to have the 'Centurion' genes (Scientists have actually found that Centurions have certain genes that help them live longer). So with the exceptions of eyes I'd look pretty 'human'.

 

[Pseudoboss]

For myself? Or as a society? (Is this the same thing?)

Myself, I would love myself an option 4 body. My central nervous system is kinda important to me, particularly my brain. If there're augmentations that go in my brainstem to do things like increase reflexes or process certain information that my brin isn't normally equipped to handle, i'm down with that.

As for my preferred type of technology; I would prefer bioengineering and nanotechnology rather than robotics. There're some "characters" that i've developed that I wouldn't mind walking around as (aesthetic and performance augmentations, not personality changes), all of whom are more biological in appearance rather than mechanical.

 

[MSTJedi]

I'd say 2. Some nanomachines that would tone my body while I sleep. Maybe stimulate hair growth for that male pattern baldness going on up there. Ocular implants for my nearsightedness. Maybe a small neural enhancement for memory function since my recall is horrible. Nothing that would make me appear or act less human, though.

 

[Rblade]

I could see myself becoming a robot with a full human brain. I probably wouldn't do it out of chickenness but I don't have any real problem with having a "prostetic body"

 

[Moloch Sacrifice]

I'm saying this based on the fact that not everyone tends to act nobly, when confronted with the ability to seize power. The posters joking about getting complete Eldritch replacements and basically turning into a sentient supercomputer thingy are what would honestly bother me, if this were a real possibility.

Who says we're joking? I can't speak for the rest of us, but I have ambitions that as are simply unattainable by someone with human limitations. I personally have non investment in 'humanity' as a value, so I have no problems with losing it.

As for seizing power, who is to say that once one reaches this level, lording it over the meatbags remains a meaningful goal? It would be like declaring yourself king of a preschool class; sure, you can do it, and none of them would have the power to stop you. However, other than sheer megalomania, there's nothing for you to get out of it; you have to handle all their petty disputes ("Sally pulled my hair!"/"Bobby won't accept my market orientated economy as superior to his collectivist economy!"), and there are things much bigger in the universe for one to spend time on, which you simply would not be able to explain to your underlings, as they lack the mental capacity to stop shoving crayons in their nose.

 

[Wuvlycuddles]

Denton style nano-augmentation for sures, want to push the augmentation as far as possible while still looking/feeling human. The cake and eat it approach to trans-humanism.

 

[Heronblade]

I don't imagine myself willingly getting augmentations, but if I did I don't think I'd be any less human for it so long as my mind remained untouched.

To quote The Major from Hellsing (one of the few times a complete monster has a point)

*after being called a monster* "Wrong. I'm human. There's but one thing which makes us human. One's own will... Don't associate me with a pitiful monster like Alucard who uses blood as a currency of the soul, and has to keep taking in other people to go on living. Don't lump me together with one as feeble as him. So long as I have my own will, should I be reduced to nothing more than a brain floating in a glass jar full of culture fluid, or even memory circuits in a huge supercomputer... I'll STILL be human. Humans are beings of soul, of mind, of will.

Even if he smiles in the guise of a young girl, or if he kneels, full of sentiment, in the guise of a veteran warrior, HE'S STILL A MONSTER. Therefor I do hate him, from the bottom of my heart. I do not approve of Alucard the vampire!"

Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree with his assertion that he is not a monster. But that has much more to do with his actions making Stalin look like a misunderstood playground bully than his cybernetics.

 

[Daverson]

Option 6. Having the means to become a greater being at your disposal and not taking would make you no better than the people who refuse get vaccines because "they don't believe in them".

Though.... I'm pretty sure one of the central tenets of transhumanism is that we can't become posthuman. We're inherently human, the best we can ever hope for is human+.

Though, I'm sure some people would argue that at point you aren't you anymore... (we call them "fucking luddites")

 

[Char-Nobyl]

snip

Realistically, I'd probably just go with #2. It's not so much a matter of lopping off and replacing stuff as it is making what I've already got work much, much better. It'd be overall improvement with no foreseeable downsides to it.

Anyhoo, on 2-5, I guess it sorta depends on how much of the surrounding world is being affected by these choices. If it's just me being being given this choice by some R.O.B, then I go with #2. No sense upgrading myself with stuff that modern technology can't do jack about if something breaks (which limits anything from #3 onward), and that's to say nothing of the target I'll be painting on myself by looking like my autopsy could revolutionize technology across all fronts (#4 and #5).

6 is difficult to imagine. I'd need it explained to me in detail before I opt for it. Who I am now is irrelevant though, I'd be transcending the meat sack, and perhaps meatspace itself. But I would need to know precisely what it entailed first.

Ha! Mate, he described it with the word 'Lovecraftian.' You're not getting more details than that. Having absolutely no idea what you're getting into is basically the secondary job description of every Lovecraft protagonist ever.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

Yeah, there's a bit of a problem with that idea. A backup copy of you is not actually you. It is a new person with the copied memories and personality of someone else.

Is there a meaningful distinction?

Let me put it another way; if you where disintegrated, only to then near-instantaneously be replaced with a matching reproduction. And no one was there to witness the event. Then wouldn?t this new instantiation of ?you? be functionally indistinguishable from the ?original.?

Would an acquaintance, friend, or family member be able to make a meaningful distinction?

Epistemologically, we are only what we remember of ourselves.

Yeah...but that's a problem. You're dead. What remains is someone who looks exactly like you, has all your memories, and is convinced that he is you. But he's not.

Before I go any further, answer me this: what if your hypothetical disintegration didn't happen but, by some fluke, the instantaneous reproduction still happened and there's now a perfect duplicate of you right beside you?

 

[Starik20X6]

I'm gonna say Option 2 at the moment, but I can only assume as I get older and my natural systems start failing, and my fear of death instinct starts to kick in more, I'll move up the ladder...

 

[TWRule]

It was in no way intended to help my presumed agenda, an argument would imply we were having a dispute. There is no dispute between us. That remark was intended to be humorous, by pointing out the fine print. All occupations have their hazards.

I took you to be arguing (or at least taking a stance which implied justifiability through argument) that the potential of this sort of tech was highly useful and desirable, beyond even its possible medical uses; if I misinterpreted then I apologize.

Your questions would require me to disclose my medical history. Something often regarded as private. However you've already answered one of your own questions. You asked, "provided they weren't placed in such a situation." My decision is based on that criteria you've decided on exempting from your question. If others should make that choice out of vanity, or on a whim, then that is their choice.

Should you still be involved, it would be prudent for us to continue this discussion in private messages. This thread is meant for merriment, not for melancholy.

I meant to ask about general reasons, not personal ones - if you'd said that you wanted it mostly for medical reasons before, that would have more than satisfied any personal aspect to my question. As you said, the spirit of this thread is not really aligned with the sort of use you have been talking about - though there is a separate discussion to be had about that elsewhere - instead the prevailing attitude here seems to be that otherwise healthy people would freely choose to undertake any of the above options, and I was curious what motivated that (probably nothing serious at all). I don't think it being someone's choice makes it immune to criticism. But, I suppose you're right that my sort of prodding doesn't belong in a thread where most are in a whimsical mood.

 

[TheUsername0131]

Yeah, there's a bit of a problem with that idea. A backup copy of you is not actually you. It is a new person with the copied memories and personality of someone else.

Is there a meaningful distinction?

Let me put it another way; if you where disintegrated, only to then near-instantaneously be replaced with a matching reproduction. And no one was there to witness the event. Then wouldn?t this new instantiation of ?you? be functionally indistinguishable from the ?original.?

Would an acquaintance, friend, or family member be able to make a meaningful distinction?

Epistemologically, we are only what we remember of ourselves.

Yeah...but that's a problem. You're dead. What remains is someone who looks exactly like you, has all your memories, and is convinced that he is you. But he's not.

Before I go any further, answer me this: what if your hypothetical disintegration didn't happen but, by some fluke, the instantaneous reproduction still happened and there's now a perfect duplicate of you right beside you?

I'd call it a collaborator. If it continued, It would be called a Zerg Rush.

Fortunate is the one who escapes the workshops of the Clock Makers without realizing that he is but a clockwork copy of whoever he remembers being. Only to become shocked upon discovering an encampment of other (arguably) equally confused self?s.

"498, 499, 500!"


Confusion leads to anger, anger leads to discussion, discussion leads planning, planning leads to a siege against the biomechanical horror that dragged you away to some 'workshop' where it churns out naive 'escapees.'

Even creepier if the 'first escapee' survives by finding the broken down remains of prior escapees at all the traps and other hazardous obstacles.

*Bonus points if one obstacle requires them to construct makeshift equipment from his/her/its 'predecessors.'

**BONUS POINTS! If they discover this has been going on for more than a few weeks when they stumble upon a landfill of thousands!

It doesn't matter what happens to the candle if its used to light another, if not many more. So long as my will endures, my ambitions persist as a high fidelity reproduction, I'd consider that mission bloody acomplished.

Insofar as each substrate is comparable to or more advanced than the provided variant of human cognitive architecture, then I'll be happy with the results. It's only if each subsequent one was in some way diminished, diluted, damaged in ways counter-productive to my goal, then I would have much to fear.

As for persistence of memory, I'd consider any breaks in ontological inertia as though they were merely road bumps. That's how I deal with that existential horror. Faced with the alternative, it suddenly feels less of a horror and more a minor inconvience.

Well, /someone/ died.

I'm sure the traditional definition of dying doesn't entail leaving behind a working duplicate/functioning copy/qualified replacement.

If you're point is "well, no one noticed, so never happened" ... there's a few trees in the forest who might want to have a chat with you.

XD I'm going to have to rememebr that one. That was comedic. You Sir, have stamped a smile on my face.

Poor choice of words on my part. My point was that there is no meaningful distinction. Of course in my case, this perspective is a consequence of my occupation. "...if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" -Maslow's hammer.

If it was gradual enough, say, a parasite slowly burrowed into your brain, very slowly, whilst secreting suitable compounds so that it would remain beneath your notice, and that as it consumed brain tissue, its exceptionally niche physiology permitted it to instinctively imitate the brain tissue it was consuming, as it was consuming it, and this was occurring very, very slowly. Would you at any stage notice?

[Barring of course some nausea, perhaps subtle changes in mood and appetite.]

I'm gonna say Option 2 at the moment, but I can only assume as I get older and my natural systems start failing, and my fear of death instinct starts to kick in more, I'll move up the ladder...

Desperation is a great motivator. It drives people to see what was at first the most repugnant, repulsive, most abhorred act as something, more appealing. Never mind how much it opposes one's most deeply held drives and impulses.

 

[TheUsername0131]

It was in no way intended to help my presumed agenda, an argument would imply we were having a dispute. There is no dispute between us. That remark was intended to be humorous, by pointing out the fine print. All occupations have their hazards.

I took you to be arguing (or at least taking a stance which implied justifiability through argument) that the potential of this sort of tech was highly useful and desirable, beyond even its possible medical uses; if I misinterpreted then I apologize.

Your questions would require me to disclose my medical history. Something often regarded as private. However you've already answered one of your own questions. You asked, "provided they weren't placed in such a situation." My decision is based on that criteria you've decided on exempting from your question. If others should make that choice out of vanity, or on a whim, then that is their choice.

Should you still be involved, it would be prudent for us to continue this discussion in private messages. This thread is meant for merriment, not for melancholy.

I meant to ask about general reasons, not personal ones - if you'd said that you wanted it mostly for medical reasons before, that would have more than satisfied any personal aspect to my question. As you said, the spirit of this thread is not really aligned with the sort of use you have been talking about - though there is a separate discussion to be had about that elsewhere - instead the prevailing attitude here seems to be that otherwise healthy people would freely choose to undertake any of the above options, and I was curious what motivated that (probably nothing serious at all). I don't think it being someone's choice makes it immune to criticism. But, I suppose you're right that my sort of prodding doesn't belong in a thread where most are in a whimsical mood.

No, it?s my fault. I encourage you to continue to question the ethics, implications and long-term effects of speculative developments.

I?m not trying to go along the ?but think of the children,? line of thought, but playing devil?s advocate in this case is far more constructive then merely glossing over the details.

I am certainly concerned that adolescences, pre-teen, teens, young adults and other dissatisfied youths will try to get health insurance with the intent of engineering an ?accident.? With the goal of getting bio-mechanical and/or cybernetic grafts, implants, augmentation, etc.?

I know how that will end up.
?The injury is too clean a cut to have been an accident. No new limbs for you!?

 

[Char-Nobyl]

I'd call it a collaborator. If it continued, It would be called a Zerg Rush.

Not my point. You get a bit closer to it after the bizarre quote, though.

It doesn't matter what happens to the candle if its used to light another, if not many more. So long as my will endures, my ambitions persist as a high fidelity reproduction, I'd consider that mission bloody acomplished.

Insofar as each substrate is comparable to or more advanced than the provided variant of human cognitive architecture, then I'll be happy with the results. It's only if each subsequent one was in some way diminished, diluted, damaged in ways counter-productive to my goal, then I would have much to fear.

...right, but here's the thing: you're dead. You won't be "happy with the results." You're dead, at least in the initial scenario you proposed.

That leads me to the followup question: if you fail to vanish when your clone is created, then is he 'you' only by your death and disappearance?

 

[TheUsername0131]

Not my point. You get a bit closer to it after the bizarre quote, though.

Bizarre? Well I was aiming for David Lynch type horror. If it's not unsettling, then it isn't being done right. But you gave me points for effort, so I'm getting some satisfaction out of this thread.

...right, but here's the thing: you're dead. You won't be "happy with the results." You're dead, at least in the initial scenario you proposed.

That leads me to the followup question: if you fail to vanish when your clone is created, then is he 'you' only by your death and disappearance?

I would be able to play chess by myself more effectively. Also I'll require purchasing an additional toothbrush, bus ticket, and I'll be occupying two bus seats, to the annoyance of other commuters. My food intake would be doubled. Also I'll be developing asynchronous developmental disorders relating to hyper-lateralization of brain function. I shall call it Doppelgänger Dissociation.

You'd think the hairdressing costs would double but no. I'll be able to cut my own hair now.