Transhumanism and you

[Reeve]

Here's a thought - Instead of transferring your mind directly to a computer: You simply replace parts of your brain and body overtime , piece by piece (one neuron at a time for example), until eventually there's no organic parts left; you're an android. I think that could be possible.

 

[Bluestorm83]

Is this possible? Eventually, sure. Is this "The future?" Nah. It's a dead end. Would this really be people being robots or machines? Nope, just copies of data.

What everyone likes to forget is that YOU are not just your brain or your thoughts. You are your experiences, and your experiences are spurred by your body. You're your stomach. Losing the need and ability to eat diminishes what you are. Same for your ears, your eyes, your genitals, etc. etc.

I AM NOT SAYING THAT ANYONE SUFFERING FROM DAMAGE DUE TO AN ACCIDENT OR A BIRTH DEFECT IS LESS THAN HUMAN OR LESS VALID OR VALUABLE AS ANY FULL-BODIED HUMAN BEING

But I AM saying that whenever anyone loses a bit of who they are, that's sad, because they should be 100% of what they may have been. So even if you could pull a Ghost in the Shell and download your ghost into a cyberbrain in a prosthetic body... you've lost something precious that made you YOU.

Lots of recent developments in religion espouse some sort of FloatyGhost Afterlife, where we just kinda exist as spirits in clouds and lah de dah balls of light and energy. That's all new. Every single afterlife picture, whether you're a Christian like I am or a Native American or an Ancient Egyptian (I thought you guys were all mummies by now,) or a Hindu, anything in the origin of any religion has SOME form of physical life after this one. You might be reincarnated as another person or an animal, you might go to the Happy Hunting Ground or you could awaken with all your possessions when Osiris commands it in the underworld, or you might take part in The Resurrection and sit at table with Christ and Abraham and Moses. If there's any true origin to anything that anyone believes, then from the beginning of it we were promised awesome new bodies that don't suck and break and die.

So to me at least, existing as data in the future's equivalent of the internet sounds REALLY shitty. I'd much rather remain Meat Man where I can eat and sleep and laugh and work, and be Human. It's what I AM.

 

[rednose1]

I'm fine with it in all it's forms. People just draw a line whenever they are personally creeped out.
We've got to the point where we exchange diseased organs for new ones from strangers, put artificial hearts/pacemakers in people, live in mild climates everywhere thanks to AC, and work non-stop thanks to the light bulb.

Hell, we've eradicated disease (smallpox exists only in labs now). Using the argument "it goes against god/nature" is just a way for people to shift the creeped out feeling they get onto a more authoritative figure instead of defending it themselves.

 

[Da Orky Man]

And as to how your body replaces itself every few years. New cells etc. There is never a point where your consciousness is transferred. You lose and replace cells, but nothing is transferred.

I know you could get into a very philosophical debate about what actually makes us who we are. Are we just the sum of our parts or is there something unique that makes us, us.

But let's be blunt. You can't take what you are and put it in a new shell. You can copy it as precisely as you want. But it isn't the original.

Suppose instead of being downloaded to some solid state drive, your brain was replaced, cell-by-cell and neuron by neuron, with identical nano-science-thingies. Would we then have dodged the 'death-of-self' conundrum? And if so, it really was 'dodging'. Is the 'self' something you can seamlessly maintain via a technicality?

And really the important part for actually continuing to live is whether that same you is still sensing the world around them. It's no comfort to me if my senses end and a new body that is exactly like me continues to sense.

I feel like you ought to ask your duplicate what he thinks, because he might disagree with you.

Technically speaking, the booth operator should keep the person in Booth A there telling them that there was an error in the booth and that he didn't jump at all. They should delete the one in Booth B for being a replica, and send the person in Booth A back through. Not only would it solve the issue, but also keep any discrepancies from happening without causing alarm. This way the system would never seem broken, and no one would worry about it. You'd use it thinking it was fool proof.

Better not tell the dude in Booth B, 'cuz he'd be pissed.

I think if done slowly enough nano tech could replace the brain without causing death of self, but i prefer an alternative in which the nanotech acts in parallel to the flesh and blood brain and preferably the entire body maintaining and repairing it as well as acting as storage and alternative communication increasing reaction time.

I'm pretty much with this guy. Its quite possibly within our grasp to augment the human body to the point that its essentially immortal, excluding massive physical trauma. Since its still wholly you, just with a few upgrades, we can avoid the is-a-copy-you problem.

 

[Da Orky Man]

It's a terrible idea. People are supposed to die. That's not a side effect of being human: it's a feature.



Think how whiny and stupid people are already... now imagine them being immortal and never having had to work for ANYTHING.


I don't know how it can be stopped, but it's a terrible idea.

I'm going to avoid giving what I think about the whole Transhuman/immortality thing, but why is it a terrible idea? Why is it so different to agriculture, industry, digitalisation? Sure, being able ot live essentailly forever sounds pretty outlandis and may invoke a strong distaste in many people, so has many things, much of which are now accepted as the norm.

 

[Bealzibob]

But it is the same, presuming the technology is sufficient, it physically will be the exact same person. If the program that simulates your brain is made correctly it will be the exact same person as you. Not a clone, not a copy, you. The same person whose body died. Like I said, as long as you bridge the gap, so that your memory/thoughts maintain the narrative you will be the same person.

Er, how is it not a copy? If I make an exact duplicate of you, you are still you, there's just another copy of you running around.

Likewise, if I said I was going to smack you or your copy in the face, which would you rather it be? One i going to hurt you, the other is going to hurt your copy.

They are both me though, so I would answer the other me and so would he. How would you know which me is "me" anyway. We are both thinking, acting and reacting the same way. The point is when discussing "people" we are talking about a personality that is assumed unique, if there is a exact copy then there is two of you. When I die this copy of the consciousness dies sure but "I" don't. The entity that is Bealzibob continues.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

I like the idea and I want for it to happen, even in the smaller stages of augmentation of memory/motor skills, etc. I also do think it's inevitable. But I differentiate that from a Matrix-like scenario, where we ditch the real world for a virtual one. I don't know to what extent this is going to progress, whether we end up with individual robotic bodies or stored on a server and downloaded as needed, or even whether individualism is worthwhile when all resources could be pooled together and needs and wants eliminated. And in tandem with humanity augmenting itself we'll have actual robots and AI evolving to become more human-like. Eventually there may not even be much difference, as human bodies are discarded for completely artificial ones or eschewed entirely for a life in virtual reality in between 'downloads'.

It's a great concept and there are many aspects, and although I don't think we'll be immortal by 2040, I think we'll have physical robotic augmentations to memory, utility and bodily functions a lot sooner than that.

SNIP

But it is the same, presuming the technology is sufficient, it physically will be the exact same person. If the program that simulates your brain is made correctly it will be the exact same person as you. Not a clone, not a copy, you. The same person whose body died. Like I said, as long as you bridge the gap, so that your memory/thoughts maintain the narrative you will be the same person.

Of course it's not.

No matter how good a copy is, it's still a copy.

You can't transfer your consciousness, all you could do is replicate it.

I disagree. Do you realise that every particle that makes up your body right now is different from the particles it was a few years ago. Maybe even a few months ago. And yet you are still...you. If the entire composition of your body can be changed over time and yet you still survive then why should it be any different when it's digital or silicon?

The key thing is the structure. When all the particles are replaced in your body the thing that is preserved is structurally & functionally the same as before. A digital version of your mind just has to be structurally and functionally identical and so long as that criteria is met: It's you.

Ship of Theseus. If a ship has all its original parts incrementally replaced, to the point where no original parts remain, is it the same ship?

The way I see it, while the physical manifestation is different, the idea of the object is the same. If a digital copy were made of my consciousness, with the theoretical same thinking and learning abilities, same memories and whatnot, I would say it is a different instance of the same object (my consciousness). And I don't think there's any human essence or other mystical substance that cannot be carried across when technology is advanced enough.

 

[Flatfrog]

Well, that's the same argument as the idea that time doesn't exist, all there is is a 4-dimensional space time which just happens to have a causal relationship in one direction. It always struck me as a fairly empty argument. Our memory of a continuous conscious experience *is* a continuous conscious experience, so if something has exactly my experiences and my brain structure, then it's me. And if a teleporter malfunction makes two of me, then no big deal - they'll both be equally me for a microsecond, then they'll become distinct beings with separate experiences.

They aren't equally you, if they were you they would stay you. It isn't you personally. It is a copy of you. You are more than just the particular state of your molecules, you are that particular instance of that particular state of your molecules. There's still that distinction between them.

But how is that different from the you of two seconds ago? The only thing that makes a continuity of you-ness is memory: you remember being in your own body a few seconds ago so you feel like the same person. If you and I were to swap brains, it's the brains that would remain the same people, not the bodies.

 

[Angie7F]

But i dont want to live longer than I absolutely have to...
I dont think I would choose to, even if I were given the option.

 

[Reeve]

But i dont want to live longer than I absolutely have to...
I dont think I would choose to, even if I were given the option.

Can I ask why? It occurs to me that only people who have to die eventually would want to say they'd choose to die anyway, then it makes it seem like you're not powerless to do anything about it.

 

[Reeve]

Well, that's the same argument as the idea that time doesn't exist, all there is is a 4-dimensional space time which just happens to have a causal relationship in one direction. It always struck me as a fairly empty argument. Our memory of a continuous conscious experience *is* a continuous conscious experience, so if something has exactly my experiences and my brain structure, then it's me. And if a teleporter malfunction makes two of me, then no big deal - they'll both be equally me for a microsecond, then they'll become distinct beings with separate experiences.

They aren't equally you, if they were you they would stay you. It isn't you personally. It is a copy of you. You are more than just the particular state of your molecules, you are that particular instance of that particular state of your molecules. There's still that distinction between them.

But how is that different from the you of two seconds ago? The only thing that makes a continuity of you-ness is memory: you remember being in your own body a few seconds ago so you feel like the same person. If you and I were to swap brains, it's the brains that would remain the same people, not the bodies.

I doubt brains can even be swapped like that. The nervous system extends throughout your entire body. The brain is just where the nerves etc. are most concentrated.

 

[Anti Nudist Cupcake]

What is Transhumanism There are a lot of things about this movement but basically its another quest for Immortality a persons consciousness downloaded into a robot and later he would download into a giant server think of a movie like the Matrix or TRON a virtual world that is limited to only your imagination but with no body to go back to.

Some people oppose the Idea some embrace it some say it?s unnatural and it?s against God?s will some say it?s the next logical step in evolution some say that it does not matter whether it?s right or wrong it?s going to happen either way and it?s important for us to become a superior race before the robots do like the movie terminator.

Some people have predicted that this Transhumanism process can happen as soon as the year 2040.

I?ve been doing lots of research on this topic and I am trying to write a page on this that approaches this from a neutral perspective so if you could give your perspective on this that would be great.

What you are referring to is called the Singularity. Transhumanism consists of various methods to improve the human body beyond natural abilities.

It doesn't even have to involve robotics of any kind. It could just be genetic.

Honestly though, I would rather have the Singularity happen rather than a transhuman explosion of development. While I would like the idea of having several organs replaced by synthetic parts, lungs for example, I would absolutely love the ability to upload a consciousness to a computer, even the web. To back up essentially yourself. Upgrade your thought process, other mad sciency buzzwords.

Of course there will be people that are pro and anti whatever, but if the ability to replace an organ that has cancer, or is in the process of shutting down completely with a synthetic version that could run at a higher efficiency rate than organic organs, then why wouldn't we as humans try to increase the life expectancy and the overall quality of life for people?


Or, maybe I will just leave a youtube video in this post as I usually do.


Come now, do you really think I am that predictable?


...... yes, yes I am.

I don't get why anyone would ever be against transhumanism, then again I don't get why people are against abortion or gay-marriage.

Like how Adam Jensen is all "I never asked for this..." in Deus Ex Human Revolution in regards to his augmentations. I mean come on? I'd go all (in Yahtzee's words) "WOOOT LOOK AT ME I AM A MONSTER TRUCK THAT WALKS LIKE A MAN!!!!".

 

[Arina Love]

i support Transhumanism, our body just can't keep up with technology as well as we need less fragile bodies for space exploration and colonization.

 

[ninjaRiv]

If it's anything like this, I'd go for it. The idea of being a dust cloud sounds fun.

 

[Dr. Crawver]

Snip

Having Adam Jensen as an avatar seems appropriate for the topic.

Personally I'm kinda for it, but definitely won't be the first to jump into it. I'd rather see how it works for others first before considering it myself.

Also, the fear of immortality is there. What's the point of existence when you have a mind-numbing eternity ahead of you. Who's to say you won't be driven to madness through eventual boredom, and don't even have the option to take yourself out?

That being said though, I am still for it, but it does have some questions to answer first.

 

[Alcamonic]

Downloading a digitized version of your brain into a droid would still not be the original you, so to speak. Still probably act, feel and have same memories as you, but the original you of flesh and blood would still be around, unless disposed of in the process.
The movie The Prestige (2006)

Spoiler

The twist at the end when Robert realise that the original him was killed off long time ago, and that what he thought was "luck" that he survived every night on stage was infact only what the new copy thought was luck.

show a situation similar to this theory. Also a damn fine movie.

Putting your brain into a casing and then implement it into cyberbodies ala Ghost In The Shell style, now that is infinitely better for you as a person and much more likely to happen.

 

[Smeatza]

It's the only feasible way of creating a god.
"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."

 

[Scars Unseen]

Frankly, I don't understand why making a computer copy of someone's brain is considered "uploading" them, or somehow transcending mortality. A copy of someone that lives longer than the original does not provide the original immortality.

Perhaps not, but even so, would it not -selfishly speaking- be a superior form of immortality to having children?

 

[KOMega]

Downloading a digitized version of your brain into a droid would still not be the original you, so to speak. Still probably act, feel and have same memories as you, but the original you of flesh and blood would still be around, unless disposed of in the process.

I wouldn't mind if I was simply copied, as long as my copy acts and makes decisions the same way as me I'm okay with that.

Putting your brain into a casing and then implement it into cyberbodies ala Ghost In The Shell style, now that is infinitely better for you as a person and much more likely to happen.

I do like this idea a lot more.


I think immortality through technology is still a long ways to go.
The latest thing I've heard about someone using technology (in both a form of hardware and software) to augment themselves is this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Harbisson

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

I don't see a good end to this. The two sides of the debate will only become more and more highly charged, and eventual conflict is sadly inevitable. I reckon the pro-transhumanist lobby (they'll need a snappy name, probably CORE) will easily become the more powerful of the two, whilst the separatist movement (lets call them ARM) will strongly resist what they'll probably see as digital slavery.

But we'll all get mechs, so that's cool.