Let us talk of transhumanism and the singularity

[Danny]

Well in an effort to get more discussion going on here ive found a topic i am sure is bound to descend in one angry poster and 3 others arguing with him getting nowhere, transhumanism!

What is it? well the most common incarnation is something like humanity reaching a technological point where they can transfer there minds and consciousness' to machines- most commonly described as just machine bodies and do away with the need for biological evolution.
Why? to live forever, without disease, without famine. Its an interesting cultural concept, what if we couldnt die and all lived forever- would we still wage war?, would our petty grievances seem that more easy to let go of in a debate because its so much more fleeting with such an extended lifespan? Without a need to consume as much as we currently do would farming die out and the entertainment industry explode?
-and how human would these neo humans be? terminator style replicas of the humans that came before? or would each culture slowly make alterations based on fashion and beliefs to make humanities already impressive and varied dimorphism go to wild extremes? maybe one country has people now in bodies like mechanical spiders? another just very very tall and slender humanoids?
What about places where the idea was not just frowned upon but campaigned against? to keep humanity as it is going because if we all switched over to machine bodies we would never reproduce as we do now, if at all, and effectively humanity would reach a sort of end point. Neo luddites if you will who would probably treat a robot man like a black man in the deepsouth 200 years ago to use a not too dissimilar image.

What do you think about it? lets get some debate going.

Personalyl its a fascinating idea, and lets face it nobody wants to die- because then we gotta concede on missing out on everything that happens when we're dead as the world goes on, but i dont like the idea of my flabby, organic husk as being discardable- even though all the machinery we have built involving robots and even such basics as plumbing or computer networks follow the designs that have been evolved naturally in our biological environment by nature and trial and error and sure replace pistons with muscle, metal frames with bone and wires with nerves and we are basically a machine already. But giving up my shit seems.... like closing a door i dont need to regardless of whatever weaknesses it may have y'know?
Plus i kinda want to have kids when im older too, thats not exactly something a robodanny could do.
That said the idea is an intriguing one. I have no doubt theres many that would jump at the chance and im sure it would solve some of humanities problems like hunger, unemployment and possibly stuff like space exploration but on the whole i imagine things like prejudice, xenophobia and the gap between science and religion would- if at least not get worse would probably not get any better either.

But what do you think about the notion? of technology reaching a point where 'human' doesnt have just the one basic meaning anymore?

Flame on guys, im interested to see where you take this.

[krakenslayer]

This is an interesting topic.

I've always thought of the idea of transferring my consciousness, electronically or by teleportation, as something I would never do, even if I got the chance. And it's not superstitious or simply a "fear of the new" issue. Here's my reasoning:

If you "transfer" you consciousness then you - at least, the you that is you now - will still die. The machine, presumably, would make an electronic copy of all the data and neural connections in your brain resulting in a being that is mentally identical to the original, but with its own separate subjective consciousness. If we assume for a moment that consciousness is the result of uber-complex neurological processes (although even those who assume the presence of a soul will argue that this cannot be carried around on a USB stick), then this concept does not really involve transferring those ongoing processes (which would mean transplanting the actual brain), but merely making an electronic copy of the "machinery of consciousness" and starting an identical, but totally new and discrete process. The new consciousness would THINK it was you, because it would possess all your memories and traits, but the current subjective existence that you are presently experiencing would have been snuffed out, and the "machine you" would have its own separate subjective existence.

It's sort of like the idea of teleportation - take apart all the molecules at one end and put them together using identical molecules at the other side - the original you dies the moment your atoms are torn apart, and a new man is built and walks away at your destination.

[Kaos]

There is one approach that I've seen discussed that describes how kraken's reservations about transferring consciousness to a machine could be allayed. Instead of an instant transfer of consciousness it could be a gradual process. That your brain could be first augmented with a machine brain which would begin the process of shared consciousness (as well as making you quite a bit smarter). As you become acclimated and regularly use the augmentation, little by little the machine brain takes over more functions until the point where it is doing all the work and the biological brain is merely a redundancy. Then separation could occur without the loss of consciousness and the break from the biological brain would be seamless (without any loss of "I-ness").

[JDFP]

Hell no. Call it "Anti-Robot Technology Discrimination" on my part or whatever you'd like, but I'd never even be tempted to even think about it. People don't need robots/nanotechnology/etc. to live eternally -- they just need to have children and teach them. Or, become a writer and write. Both ways work perfectly well and always have. Whitman will live hundreds of more years. To paraphrase from Whitman: "As long as you hold me in your hands, I live." Call it vanity, but it's one of the reasons I enjoy writing so much -- it means I will live onward long after I'm physically gone. And if my spirit is still around, that's all that matters really.

I don't have anything against most technology. I just don't see a point to a great deal of it. Some technology can make life easier. Easier isn't necessarily better though. It's just different. The Amish/Mennonites don't have a 'standard of living' less than other Americans because they shun we "Englishmen" and our devilish ways, they just have a different standard of living -- and if they are happy, they are most certainly welcome to it. I actually find a tremendous amount of respect in the way they live in getting back to a more naturalistic state of being. If it works for you and you're not infringing on others, go for it.

I don't know that I'm necessary a Luddite, I guess I'm just becoming old fashioned. And that's okay. This devilish "Englishman" enjoys his internet and his Netflix. At the same time, a phone is the thing I use to hit seven digits to talk to someone -- .TXT'ing is just annoying to me and the idea of an internet on a phone, pish. I have my own GPS system -- it's called a map or asking for directions (not that I ever really go anywhere outside places I know that much really, never really care for traveling much). It's always worked well for me. A book isn't an electronic device -- it's something you pick up made out of paper and glue. It works fine for me. Smart phones and iPODS and iPADS and Kindles and etc. -- if they work for you, use them, I just find them unnecessary.

As far as transferring your consciousness over to a robotic body -- well, I'll have to (to the chagrin of a few Atheists here) become theological minded and ask: "What about the soul?". Can a soul be transferred with your consicousness? Is it inherently part of your consciousness or apart from it? This old fashioned religious nut (i.e., me) worries about the condition of his soul from time to time (even slips into third person thinking about it) and wouldn't want to part from it.

No, I guess I'll just remain old fashioned and will physically die old fashioned one day too, but that's fine with me. My spirit will live onward. Though dead physically, my words will live onward in my writing. And, if I ever have children, I'll live onward through them. That's good enough for me.

j.p.

[Danny]

As far as transferring your consciousness over to a robotic body -- well, I'll have to (to the chagrin of a few Atheists here) become theological minded and ask: "What about the soul?". Can a soul be transferred with your consicousness? Is it inherently part of your consciousness or apart from it? This old fashioned religious nut (i.e., me) worries about the condition of his soul from time to time (even slips into third person thinking about it) and wouldn't want to part from it.

are they separate things? does the fact that we function between cell division and death and decay mean theres an automatic soul? what if a person is born -for lack of a better term, a vegetable? cant laugh, cant cry, is never truly conscious and making independent thought at all? or is a soul something earned and forged through experience? if its the latter then it is the conciseness- the self under a different name. the mind would be in a different container but would be no different than it was beforehand- still laughs at the same things, watches the same crap on the tv, enjoys the same music ect, ect.
if its the former then is it left behind? if it is then what happens when the human body dies and the consciousness is lost as the brain ceases to function? is the soul some thetan style parasite? lingering on the body? because if you think your consciousness is in heaven or hell arent they again two words for the same thing? or is the soul a combination of consciousness and personal and social karma?

-also for the record it pleases me to no end that thetan is recognised as a fake word by the american spellcheck on my computer.

[kortick]

Hmm....how odd that this topic seems to be so much in discussion right now.
I am not sure if you follow ZJ on You Tube. And yes, ZJ is a man who dresses
as a woman and a complete athiest. But ZJ is very intelligent and the topics he
discusses usually bring very lively debate in the comment section, from the
educated to the people who just yell 'FAG'.
Right now singularity is the topic of the last 3 videos, I will post the
first and if u wish to see more visit his homepage and view 2 more current
ones.
I have 'spoken' with ZJ many times, and find him to be opinionated, but
not closed minded. You can decide for yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/user/ZJemptv#p/u/2/ea5J1Dw8648

[JDFP]

are they separate things? does the fact that we function between cell division and death and decay mean theres an automatic soul? what if a person is born -for lack of a better term, a vegetable? cant laugh, cant cry, is never truly conscious and making independent thought at all? or is a soul something earned and forged through experience? if its the latter then it is the conciseness- the self under a different name. the mind would be in a different container but would be no different than it was beforehand- still laughs at the same things, watches the same crap on the tv, enjoys the same music ect, ect.
if its the former then is it left behind? if it is then what happens when the human body dies and the consciousness is lost as the brain ceases to function? is the soul some thetan style parasite? lingering on the body? because if you think your consciousness is in heaven or hell arent they again two words for the same thing? or is the soul a combination of consciousness and personal and social karma?

-also for the record it pleases me to no end that thetan is recognised as a fake word by the american spellcheck on my computer.

No doubt, many Atheists probably fear death a great deal. They see it as the end of everything and their bodies/minds will just turn to dust (someone queue some Kansas!). I can't prove the spirit/soul -- it's just a personal belief that I have. But, I believe we carry onward in some fashion after death. I'm not afraid of dying. Well, let me clarify: I'm not looking forward to dying or dealing with the whole dying bit itself -- but I'm not afraid to know I'll eventually be dead. I just consider it as passing from one realm (this one) to whatever lays beyond this realm of existence. And it's a very natural thing. What concerns me is messing with the natural order of things -- should the natural order be messed with? Sure -- it's just using the "nature" of things for creating something different -- but how well has this worked with say the ability to split an atom for nuclear weapons? What cans of worms would this open? Would someone really want to try and live forever? Outside of the theological/moral quandaries posed by this -- what would be the sociological/political/economic results of such a thing? And how would it impact those of us who wish to live a 'normal' life and pass when it is our time to go?

Would parents have the right to decide for their children if they are under 18 and tragically are between life/death if their child should be placed into a robotic system to continue living as opposed to passing? Don't get me wrong -- it's always tragic for a young person to meet death from a terrible disease (i.e. cancer) or a terrible car crash or things of this nature. Would it be preferable for someone to continue living when they don't have to die? I can see where people are coming from with this argument -- and I can't judge their perspective of still wanting to have their child with them. At the same time, is it right to go against the natural order of life and death and basically ignore it? I think there are some major issues/concerns with this. I don't have any children -- so I can only speak for myself. While I can see the appeal of living onward, I also have to question as to when I truly stop being "me" -- my elan vital for lack of a better word -- to become something "Other" entirely. What degree of robotics as opposed to flesh and bone would it take to no longer be human to be something else instead? Where is the line drawn between man/machine when it comes to Constitutional law?

This is certainly not just a black and white issue of "right" or "wrong" -- though my choice is to live and die as my body does, it's just not that simple of "Do you want to live longer or not?" because it's not only impacting yourself but all your loved ones and the world as well.

j.p.

[blind2d]

JD brings up some great issues here.
Sadly, I cannot do them justice.
So, I'll leave it be.
Lastly, just the complications involved are staggering with this whole topic, so maybe that's a good reason to leave it be.
I like my body, and death is okay by me (don't take that the wrong way).

[Mike70]

"our job is finished. convey records to New Earth."

9SRkjOL3tNM