Transhumanism and you

[Korolev]

1. I believe that if it is possible, we'll do it. Humanity is like that. Even if you ban it in one country, it'll be done in another. If it offers an advantage, it will be done by someone looking to have that advantage.

2. I don't believe it will ever give us "Immortality". At best, it will extend our lifespan by quite a bit.

3. 2040's a bit optimistic. I fully expect that by 2040 we'll have good artificial limbs, but immortality and super-powers? I doubt it. That seems more likely in 2080 or 2100. Assuming, of course, we haven't destroyed ourselves as a species by that point.

 

[Dr. Cakey]

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.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

Well since I believe in souls, I think it's all simply rather silly and a moot point at that.

 

[ultrachicken]

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.

But otherwise, I'm already pro-transhumanism, as I imagine most people are, regardless of whether or not they know it.

 

[iblis666]

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.

 

[TehCookie]

The philosophical argument here is what defines a human? How many body parts can you hack off before your definition changes? Is a feotus a human? or a brain dead man? Or a deformed baby? If humanity is defined by resembling a human Then humanity is simply the "ability" to be a human.

Lets take that another step. If deficiency doesn't make me less human then what about add ons? If i start off with a human core and upload into a cybernetic conciousness or change my base genetics to an ethereal form do I lose my humanity status? why? It reminds me of the Theseus paradox

I do not think arrogance is humanities problem. It's loneliness and boredom. The morbid idea that we might be alone in this vast and cold, indifferent universe. That our time will come and go and no one (if aliens exist) will even know we were here. The old gods we created (whom are simply personifications of mans fears and aspirations) are dead (I apologize if you're religious, I speak existentially); the next thing its to take our fates into our own hands and control our mortality and maybe even create life of our own.

Isn't there a taxonomy definition to what is human along with all other animals? If you cut off an arm, you have a human arm and a human missing an arm. Being brain dead or unborn does not affect your species. If you change your base genetics into something else that could affect your species. I know one of the requirements for being the same species is to be able to produce fertile offspring, so if you can't do that in a computer or ethereal form you are no long a homo sapien.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well the reality of the situation is we have been doing it for years already and it's not actually as outlandish as you think.
Same old story as with "future tech that didn't happen", but actually there are plenty of flying cars, jetpacks, robots, bionic implants, self driving cars, quantum computers, laser guns, rail guns, nanobots, ... the only difference is these things are beholden to the real world while we expect fairy dust magic.

And in case it still doesn't sink in modern medicine is our augmentation program, be it just chemical, surgical, organ aids, hearing aids, visual aids, motor aids / robotic prosthetics, bone enhancers, genetic regrowth, and plenty more are part of regular medical procedure(as long as someone pays enough) but we don't bat an eyelid at that.
Then people imagine shoving a gun or sword into their forearm will the weapons that much cooler, it's the same damn thing you just have a horrifically high chance of self poisoning and one hell of hard time explaining yourself at the airport.

 

[Thaluikhain]

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.

 

[Dimitriov]

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.

 

[Madman123456]

I think this Discussion is rather moot. When we come across things we may want to discuss most of the circumstances would be rather different.
At the moment, we prolong live, replace body parts and can nudge the body's own healing in the right direction.
Will it ever come to the feared two class system with people who can afford to augment themselves and "Normals"? We don't know that and personally i doubt it. We have many Jobs today that don't require you to be stronger and faster, you need patience and intelligence. Actually, i worked very few jobs that really required me to be strong.

Being more intelligent, maybe creative in finding solutions to problems is more important and indeed was more important in the quarry i worked in; i'm rather strong but if i can find something to use as a lever, something else to us as a fulcrum i can move this super heavy boulder around better then all the strength augmented people ever depicted in SciFi.

When we get around to cheaply and accurately play around with our brains to make them faster and more creative there will be another "Problem", unemployment.

Since the industrial revolution we made more and more machines to do more work with fewer people.
Today, we have politicians trying to placate big companies to create jobs. Has been that way since i dunno, 50 years?
Well, if we get more efficient in producing more goods and services with even less people and maybe eventually get tired of chasing after cheap consumer electronics, clothes and other stuff because they break down or aren't up to date anymore we will have the problem that we may have enough jobs for about half the able population.


There have been some people thinking what to do when that happens; some think the state should pay out something like the unemployement benefits to everyone. Very little bureaucracy no one having to determine if you get less or more, pretty much everyone gets the same pile of cash.
If you want to sit around at home all day you could do that; if you want to do something and earn some additional money, you can do that as well.
Maybe Jobs might have to get shorter hours and we will have to restructure the whole social insurance structure so that you're insured no matter where you are when you fall and break your leg or something.

All in all, pretty huge changes would have to be ahead of us with big risks for our economy.

If we manage that, this trans-humanism discussion might go into another direction entirely.
Maybe we would create a new "lower class" of un-augmentet people who can't find jobs because the augments get them all and maybe that wont be much of a problem because everyone gets enough money from the state to support themselves.

Maybe the un-augmentet can't afford the newest smartphone or occular implant social media connectivity thingy or whatever the latest craze will be but they'll be fine.


Also, i very much doubt that *all* the jobs will be held by augmented people. I don't need implants to watch a monitor and call the police when i see someone breaking in somewhere, i don't think i need one to flip burgers or do any other of the "low paying" jobs which would then provide me with a little boost to the money i'd get from the state.


When we get somewhere where just about everyone has some new stuff in their bodies we may as well be in a scifi future we can not possibly grasp as of now.

 

[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.