# Transhumanism.



## Elim Garak (Apr 22, 2012)

Let me refer you to wikipedia as to what it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism .
I believe Transhumanism should be accepted as a way of human advancement, to do away of the limitations of our bodies. No longer limited to our current state, Space travel will be no problem as well.

My personal vision is to completely shed our human body, uploading our being, our mind to a synthetic body that looks and acts like a human body minus the issues of pain, suffering and other limitations. Of course people always argue about over population, though food would no longer be an issue. The logical way of doing things would be either space colonization or limiting the life physical life time, once the marker in time is reached the brain would get uploaded from the body into a virtual reality. Being able to be visited and displayed(Holography, screens, interfaces for others).

I am a pretty much an extremist in this regard, and this would be far beyond my lifetime, but its starting with artificial replacements.


----------



## RedFoxTwo (Apr 22, 2012)

Why even bother making it look like a human when it can look like anything you want. 

Anyway: Who's to say the human body is anywhere near perfection? I expect you could make an organism much more suited to the advanced human way of living.


----------



## Halceon (Apr 22, 2012)

So I'm not the only transhumanist here then . My views on it are a bit less extreme, but I still love the idea.

On the side, have you heard of a web comic called Dresden Codak? It's a fairly intellectual, yet still funny comic about transhumanism.


----------



## Don (Apr 22, 2012)

RedFoxTwo said:


> I expect you could make an organism much more suited to the advanced human way of living.



An amorphous blob with a mouth and USB port? :V


----------



## Mxpklx (Apr 22, 2012)

This is a horrible idea. The human body is near the peak of it's evolution state. Our primary objective in evolution is to exist as a form of energy. 

Plus nobody knows what happens after you die anyway.


----------



## RedFoxTwo (Apr 22, 2012)

Don said:


> An amorphous blob with a mouth and USB port? :V


I don't see why not. How about a brain in a jar with a life support system and a few connecting cables to link us all?



Mxpklx said:


> This is a horrible idea. The human body is near the peak of it's evolution state. Our primary objective in evolution is to exist as a form of energy.


Just because we're well evolved for our (thoroughly obsolete) niche doesn't mean we have to go with that. In the past few thousand years humans have changed how they live so wildly that evolution can't act on us fast enough.

Anyway, our "primary objective" in evolution is to reproduce our genes as much as possible. Maybe you could clarify what you mean by "energy".


----------



## Halceon (Apr 22, 2012)

Mxpklx said:


> This is a horrible idea. The human body is near the peak of it's evolution state. Our primary objective in evolution is to exist as a form of energy.
> 
> Plus nobody knows what happens after you die anyway.



I beg to differ. If we were near our evolutionary peak, I don't think we'd be suffering from nearly as many chronic diseases and syndromes like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, cancer, etc.


----------



## Xenke (Apr 22, 2012)

In lieu of a real response, because I've grown wary of this thread simply from the sheer number of times we've had it on these forums:

GiTS, what is a human?, can the mind survive a longer life cycle?, etcetcbullshitphilosophyetc.



Mxpklx said:


> Plus nobody knows what happens after you die anyway.



You die.


----------



## Fay V (Apr 22, 2012)

I don't think we'll ever reach the point where we could fully download our existence, still I like transhumanism. That was by far the most fun conference I've ever been to, we even got to watch really terrible cartoons in the morning. 

Internet philosophy bullshit gets a bit dry though


----------



## Mxpklx (Apr 22, 2012)

Halceon said:


> I beg to differ. If we were near our evolutionary peak, I don't think we'd be suffering from nearly as many chronic diseases and syndromes like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, cancer, etc.



No, because we are not the only ones that evolve. Things co-evolve with us like diseases and parasites. We can never be disease free. An example of this is how recent studies show that cancer is now feeding off of the sugar we ingest. 



> You die.



We don't know that. I've had several experiences that contradict that theory. I even had one yesterday.



> Anyway, our 'primary objective' in evolution is to reproduce our genes as much as possible. Maybe you could clarify what you mean by 'energy'.



Yes, but why do we reproduce as much as possible? Evolution is a competition to see who can evolve the fastest and to the highest point of existence. In theory, the highest point of existence is energy, or a collection of photons and electrons that make up a consciousness.


----------



## Leadbelly (Apr 22, 2012)

Halceon said:


> I beg to differ. If we were near our evolutionary peak, I don't think we'd be suffering from nearly as many chronic diseases and syndromes like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, cancer, etc.



The evolutionary process is not a mountain to climb. 'Perfection' is not the purpose of evolution.



Mxpklx said:


> We don't know that. I've had several experiences that contradict that theory. I even had one yesterday.



Unless you've literally died multiple times your experiences contradict nothing.




> Yes, but why do we reproduce as much as possible? *Evolution is a competition to see who can evolve the fastest and to the highest point of existence*. In theory, the highest point of existence is energy, or a collection of photons and electrons that make up a consciousness.



That right there is cringe-worthy. I could explain why you're wrong, but I don't want to wake you from your dreamworld where evolution is a race and death is only a minor inconvenience.


----------



## Xenke (Apr 22, 2012)

Mxpklx said:


> We don't know that. I've had several experiences that contradict that theory. I even had one yesterday.



Anecdotal evidence, the best kind. 

Pray tell, how is one not dead when they die.


----------



## Ikrit (Apr 22, 2012)

good idea

make a race of super humans to enslave us


----------



## RedFoxTwo (Apr 22, 2012)

Mxpklx said:


> Yes, but why do we reproduce as much as possible?


Simple answer: Because those organisms that are best at reproduction live while those that aren't die. 

I think you're giving this more of a telic spin than's actually the case. Evolution is not a force with a purpose; it's the logical result of reproduction, inheritance and variation.

Organisms are only good at reproduction because if they weren't they'd be dead.


----------



## ADF (Apr 22, 2012)

Evolution is simply adaptation to survive. The life form that lives long enough to breed gets to pass on its genes to the next generation, while the life form unsuitable to survive in that environment dies and their genes are eliminated from the pool. Which over many many generations, results in a species with beneficial traits for survival *in that particular environment*.

Where did all these "peak" and "highest point of existence" ideas come from?


----------



## Fay V (Apr 22, 2012)

I love it when people talk about the evolution of humans when they don't even understand the process of evolution. 

Here's a hint. Evolution doesn't give a fuck, and it certainly won't give you perfection. If that were true then you wouldn't have species like the kakapo, a flightless basically defenseless giant parrot. 
Take a bunch of traits, and the ones that don't directly get you killed will get passed on. That means that good and bad traits get passed, just the bad traits aren't detrimental in that area. 
The actual idea of turning into energy is so absurd that I'm fairly sure most of your science knowledge comes from scifi shows making fun of star trek episodes.


----------



## Leadbelly (Apr 22, 2012)

ADF said:


> Where did all these "peak" and "highest point of existence" ideas come from?



My bet is on lack of education on the subject in American schools.


----------



## Thatch (Apr 22, 2012)

Ikrit said:


> good idea
> 
> make a race of super humans to enslave us



Sorry, won't work.



Xenke said:


> Pray tell, how is one not dead when they die.



To be honest, he did say AFTER. So the correct thing would have been "decompose" :V


----------



## Kaizy (Apr 22, 2012)

Mxpklx said:


> Plus nobody knows what happens after you die anyway.


You ascend to Mars and become a god


----------



## softi (Apr 22, 2012)

Woo


----------



## Spatel (Apr 22, 2012)

Transhumanism is a good idea, though it's funny that people generally assume it means becoming some kind of robotic entity. Organic systems are much more efficient, and I suspect robotics will move in the opposite direction--looking more and more like life forms until they are.

Deep Blue may have beaten Kasparov, but not by much. Meanwhile, Kasparov's brain weighs just 1.5 kg, takes less power than the laptop you carry around to function, it can repair itself, clean itself, and perpetuate itself, and can understand a million things other than chess, and Deep Blue is a massive 500 kg box that's stuck to the wall that'll break in 5 years when the hard disks fail. Transhumanism will involve improving upon the existing organic systems we already have. At least until we come up with a better system of computation.

tl;dr

we'll all be real life furries in 20,000 years with genetic engineering end of thread


----------



## Kitutal (Apr 22, 2012)

I quite like the human body, though. (especially men aged 17-25 with a light golden tan, decently toned muscles and mid-length hair)
I also wonder how being an amorphous blob would affect such things as senses, and getting dust and dirt stuck in our goo.
If you want to go down this sort of route, can we make virtual reality helmets and stuff first? Or, what about genetic modifications and creating our own bodies and uploading our minds in and out of them, perhaps we could have two or three and change between them when we want. I quite like the idea of having a couple of different looking bodies depending on how I feel, and maybe a nice anthro-cat one just for fun, and one on another planet, or another country, imagine that, you could upload your mind in and out of different places just as easily as that, though I do wonder how much all these bodies will cost, and how they will be maintained in our absence...
Still, use your imaginations more, rather than just going with a mind connected to a computer.


----------



## Saiko (Apr 22, 2012)

Spatel said:


> Transhumanism is a good idea, though it's funny that people generally assume it means becoming some kind of robotic entity. Organic systems are much more efficient, and I suspect robotics will move in the opposite direction--looking more and more like life forms until they are.
> 
> Deep Blue may have beaten Kasparov, but not by much. Meanwhile, Kasparov's brain weighs just 1.5 kg, takes less power than the laptop you carry around to function, it can repair itself, clean itself, and perpetuate itself, and can understand a million things other than chess, and Deep Blue is a massive 500 kg box that's stuck to the wall that'll break in 5 years when the hard disks fail. Transhumanism will involve improving upon the existing organic systems we already have. At least until we come up with a better system of computation.
> 
> ...


This is essentially what I was thinking. I don't see any reason for why we wouldn't want to improve our being, but I highly doubt the best method would be mechanical bodies or enhancements. Although our bodies are not perfect in the sense that they wear out in about 70 years, they are simply following the laws of physics (namely entropy); and they do a damn good job at it. Virtually every problem we'd have with robotic and computer-based improvement is something our bodies have already solved. Except in extreme cases, our bodies repair themselves WITH themselves; and our brains are inconceivably powerful for their size - to the point that they can analyze and change themselves. Rather than try to repeat what's already been done, shouldn't we focus on directly improving our physique? Forgive me for drawing from sci-fi/video games, but wouldn't it be more effective and feasible to develop something similar to Halo's Spartan program?


----------



## Unsilenced (Apr 22, 2012)

To horribly mutate a quote that I can't remember properly and thus can't cite: Evolution is the survival of those things that survive better than those things that don't survive as well. 

To pretend it is somehow more meaningful or noble than that is silly. 



Mxpklx said:


> We don't know that. I've had several experiences that contradict that theory. I even had one yesterday.



Objection


----------



## Elim Garak (Apr 22, 2012)

Fay V said:


> The actual idea of turning into energy is so absurd that I'm fairly sure most of your science knowledge comes from scifi shows making fun of star trek episodes.


A la Star Trek transporters? Yeah that's silly.
However converting our mind to a sort of "data" to make it work to a synthetic replica of the human brain, perhaps it's possible.
We are already able to slightly "read" the mind, if we were to extend this to copying the neutronic connections that make up the brain and transfer to a "machine".
Of course, its only ideas, we are far from any kind of technology like this, but what you need to keep in mind is that what seems implausible today might be a simple task in the future. It's hard to predict how technology will go. I just have this vision that seems right for me as the next step in "evolution".


----------



## Thatch (Apr 22, 2012)

Caroline Dax said:


> We are already able to slightly "read" the mind, if we were to extend this to copying the neutronic connections that make up the brain and transfer to a "machine".



So make a fake brain, essentially, or a simulation of one. I have no idea how that's supposed to be connected to "turning into energy", though.


----------



## Unsilenced (Apr 22, 2012)

Simulating an organic brain through a computer would pretty much have to be slower than an actual brain. 

So basically what you're suggesting is that blue screens and lag are the next phase in human evolution.


----------



## Saiko (Apr 22, 2012)

Thatch said:


> So make a fake brain, essentially, or a simulation of one. I have no idea how that's supposed to be connected to "turning into energy", though.


If we could upload the mind (namely consciousness)to a machine, then we could theoretically do the same from one machine to another. In essence we could teleport which, by the standard definition, would otherwise require converting the body into energy.


----------



## Thatch (Apr 22, 2012)

Saiko said:


> If we could upload the mind (namely consciousness)to a machine, then we could theoretically do the same from one machine to another. In essence we could teleport which, by the standard definition, would otherwise require converting the body into energy.



So far humanity's only conclusion about consciousness that isn't some kind of esotheric belief is that it's an illusion concieved by the superposition of various complex mechanisms in our brain. So quite likely, our brain IS our consciousness. As such, you cannot transfer it, because it's not a hardware/software relationship. You could at most copy it.


----------



## CaptainCool (Apr 22, 2012)

Mxpklx said:


> This is a horrible idea. The human body is near the peak of it's evolution state. *Our primary objective in evolution is to exist as a form of energy.*
> 
> Plus nobody knows what happens after you die anyway.



for the bolded part:
i want to see evidence for that. because otherwise im calling bullshitÂ².

as for the dying part:
you die. you are gone. end of story. there is no evidence AT ALL that shows that there is any kind of afterlife.
youve had experiences that show you otherwise? i have my own theories for that: misinterpreted halucinations, you lie or you are nuts. its as simple as that.

about transhumanism: im all for it. it would open so many possibilities for us!


----------



## Seian Verian (Apr 22, 2012)

Aah, transhumanism. I'm VERY strongly for it, really. Even before I even understood the concept at all, I was fascinated by it on some level. It mostly just manifested as a vague interest in shapeshifting early on, but really... I love the idea of becoming more than human, and overcoming human limits. It's truly an amazing idea.


----------



## gokorahn (Apr 22, 2012)

CaptainCool said:


> for the bolded part:
> i want to see evidence for that. because otherwise im calling *bullshitÂ²*.


What is the square root of bullshit?


Anyways, I would kinda for humanity to work towards this. Maybe not making us undying, but expanding the life span a few hundred years, eliminate the need for food/water, and stuff like that. I always wanted to be a cyborg


----------



## CaptainCool (Apr 22, 2012)

gokorahn said:


> What is the square root of bullshit?
> 
> 
> Anyways, I would kinda for humanity to work towards this. Maybe not making us undying, but expanding the life span a few hundred years, eliminate the need for food/water, and stuff like that. I always wanted to be a cyborg



i dunno, you tell me!^^ i suck at maths 

personally i dont want to live forever, too. thats also part why i dont really want an afterlife in the first place. in my opinion, when you live forever all the awesome parts of your life become so insignificant and unimportant... that would be terrible!
i would be fine if they were just able to make us more efficient at everything that we do. i still want to eat though, i like food


----------



## Elim Garak (Apr 22, 2012)

Unsilenced said:


> Simulating an organic brain through a computer would pretty much have to be slower than an actual brain.
> 
> So basically what you're suggesting is that blue screens and lag are the next phase in human evolution.


Well, emulation is slower then running the original in most cases, however if you would create a machine not to emulate but an synthetic brain that would be able to process at the same or higher rate then a human brain then yes.
It's not a matter of emulation, its a matter of copying it and improving it like say, if a previous generation console that has a follow up that runs on the same architecture(ARM/x86) but more improved and fast(an example, no where near the complexity of a human brain), it would be able to handle more intense games but still be compatible with the old software without any modifications need to be done to it(PRoviding you have raw access to the Architecture/Proc and not having going through an OS).


----------



## CaptainCool (Apr 22, 2012)

Caroline Dax said:


> Well, emulation is slower then running the original in most cases, however if you would create a machine not to emulate but an synthetic brain that would be able to process at the same or higher rate then a human brain then yes.
> It's not a matter of emulation, its a matter of copying it and improving it like say, if a previous generation console that has a follow up that runs on the same architecture(ARM/x86) but more improved and fast(an example, no where near the complexity of a human brain), it would be able to handle more intense games but still be compatible with the old software without any modifications need to be done to it(PRoviding you have raw access to the Architecture/Proc and not having going through an OS).



from that point of view that might just make sense. data's positronic brain would be a good example for that.


----------



## RedFoxTwo (Apr 22, 2012)

Caroline Dax said:


> Well, emulation is slower then running the original in most cases, however if you would create a machine not to emulate but an synthetic brain that would be able to process at the same or higher rate then a human brain then yes.


If you consider that a charge moves along a neuron by the mexican-wave of calcium ion channels opening, it seems like a really slow way of doing it. There's bound to be a way faster method of transferring a charge than chemicals moving along a cell. It's my guess that we could massively speed up the processing power of a brain by replacing neurons with something that works in a similar way but uses fibre-optics or electrical wiring, etc.


----------



## Saiko (Apr 22, 2012)

RedFoxTwo said:


> If you consider that a charge moves along a neuron by the mexican-wave of calcium ion channels opening, it seems like a really slow way of doing it. There's bound to be a way faster method of transferring a charge than chemicals moving along a cell. It's my guess that we could massively speed up the processing power of a brain by replacing neurons with something that works in a similar way but uses fibre-optics or electrical wiring, etc.


I think fiber-optics would indeed speed up the processing power/speed of a brain, but wouldn't it undo compactness?


----------



## Attaman (Apr 22, 2012)

I still believe that many Furries are transhumanists who simply found the Furry fandom before learning about things like "mind uploads" and the like. Notice how many Furries love to rave for pages about how awesome a Furry's body is, how in the future they'll be able to get a procedure to turn into their "true self" / turn people into furries, etcetera? And how such raves aren't too different from "And then then then... I'll, like, be a mind in a computer, and can, like, live forever!" or "And then I'll have, like, titanium bones and super-dense muscles!"?

There is nothing, inherently, wrong with the idea of transhumanism. At its most basic level, it's simply improving upon the human body beyond its "natural" (eg: What can be expected to typically develop / improve over a period of time) limitations. In theory it could vastly improve the quality of human life, reduce ecological footprint, and so-on. Nothing wrong with this. However, it could also go very, _very_ poorly if done wrong. There's a reason dicking about with the human body and its genetics is often seen as a dangerous process. Those mind uploads? Yeah, eventually you're going to have to involve a human brain, and can you begin to imagine where that could go wrong? Or where adding a foreign organ / chemical to the human body to improve performance?

EDIT: Also, as mentioned, even a successful mind-upload does not upload _you_. You essentially just have a copy of yourself. Your consciousness would not be exchanged in the procedure.


----------



## RedFoxTwo (Apr 22, 2012)

Saiko said:


> I think fiber-optics would indeed speed up the processing power/speed of a brain, but wouldn't it undo compactness?


I don't think size would be as big an issue compared to processing power. I think a bigger issue would be cooling and energy.

It reminds me of another Alistair Reynolds book where one character has had a massive overhaul of their brain for added processing power. They then had to have huge fins on their head to act as heat sinks.


----------



## Elim Garak (Apr 22, 2012)

Attaman said:


> I still believe that many Furries are transhumanists who simply found the Furry fandom before learning about things like "mind uploads" and the like. Notice how many Furries love to rave for pages about how awesome a Furry's body is, how in the future they'll be able to get a procedure to turn into their "true self" / turn people into furries, etcetera? And how such raves aren't too different from "And then then then... I'll, like, be a mind in a computer, and can, like, live forever!" or "And then I'll have, like, titanium bones and super-dense muscles!"?
> 
> There is nothing, inherently, wrong with the idea of transhumanism. At its most basic level, it's simply improving upon the human body beyond its "natural" (eg: What can be expected to typically develop / improve over a period of time) limitations. In theory it could vastly improve the quality of human life, reduce ecological footprint, and so-on. Nothing wrong with this. However, it could also go very, _very_ poorly if done wrong. There's a reason dicking about with the human body and its genetics is often seen as a dangerous process. Those mind uploads? Yeah, eventually you're going to have to involve a human brain, and can you begin to imagine where that could go wrong? Or where adding a foreign organ / chemical to the human body to improve performance?
> 
> EDIT: Also, as mentioned, even a successful mind-upload does not upload _you_. You essentially just have a copy of yourself. Your consciousness would not be exchanged in the procedure.


I hate furries like that.I personally just want suffering to dissappear, increase our capabilities to help society, extending the lifetime of a person can be good for certain things. Of course there's risks, new medical procedures and drugs go through exstensive testing, some people die because of testing medication that could save their live going wrong while many others get cured.
Also yes, you have to terminate the old mind, though its best to make sure its unaware like being under anesthetics during The upload.


----------



## Thatch (Apr 22, 2012)

RedFoxTwo said:


> If you consider that a charge moves along a neuron by the mexican-wave of calcium ion channels opening, it seems like a really slow way of doing it. There's bound to be a way faster method of transferring a charge than chemicals moving along a cell. It's my guess that we could massively speed up the processing power of a brain by replacing neurons with something that works in a similar way but uses fibre-optics or electrical wiring, etc.



I'm not sure if you see what's horribly wrong with saying "similar to neurons but fibre optics". Those are two totally incomparable things.


----------



## iconmaster (Apr 22, 2012)

I totally for the idea of transhumanism. I hav always believed that, with time, we could find ways, both genetic and robotic, to improve ourselves and possibly 'outdo evolution', if you will. I always hate that we haven't really looked into the tech as much as we can because of the moral implications of failure.

Really, people, failure is going to have to happen to get to the nice things. When Chernobyl melted down, did we stop making nuclear power plants forever? No? Then why does this seem to be so different?


----------



## Elim Garak (Apr 22, 2012)

iconmaster said:


> I totally for the idea of transhumanism. I hav always believed that, with time, we could find ways, both genetic and robotic, to improve ourselves and possibly 'outdo evolution', if you will. I always hate that we haven't really looked into the tech as much as we can because of the moral implications of failure.
> 
> Really, people, failure is going to have to happen to get to the nice things. When Chernobyl melted down, did we stop making nuclear power plants forever? No? Then why does this seem to be so different?



Chernobyl is a terrible example. Poor engineering and incompetence.


----------



## RedFoxTwo (Apr 22, 2012)

Thatch said:


> I'm not sure if you see what's horribly wrong with saying "similar to neurons but fibre optics". Those are two totally incomparable things.


I just was trying to think of faster methods of transmission down axons. I don't think you could overhaul the principle of a neuron.


----------



## Calemeyr (Apr 22, 2012)

I'm a transhumanist because all those people who want to make super-AIs scare me. No singularity for you, Microsoft.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Apr 22, 2012)

Thatch said:


> I'm not sure if you see what's horribly wrong with saying "similar to neurons but fibre optics". Those are two totally incomparable things.


It may be not so far-fetched to assume that sometime down the road brain augmentations speeding up mental processes will be available and that they use opto-electronic systems. Synthetic biology is all about devising new biological components which architecture or even materials don't exist this way in nature. Hey, we already cooked up a fully artificial molecule that exhibits the same qualities as DNA, so who's to say we can't make high-speed synapse analogues?

Transhumanism looks very much like it will actually be implemented in our lifetimes. Digging through today's research I'm continuously astounded how concrete various plans are. Look at BrainGate, the visions of Masamune Shirow might become reality after all.


----------



## Dreaming (Apr 22, 2012)

it seems like a very extreme viewpoint. Not necessarily unachievable, but very extreme. I've seen it discussed before and it still sounds as crazy. 



> ...once the marker in time is reached the brain would get uploaded from the body into a virtual reality.


What do we do with the body afterwards? :V


----------



## RedFoxTwo (Apr 22, 2012)

Dreaming said:


> What do we do with the body afterwards? :V


Whatever you damn well please.


----------



## Demensa (Apr 22, 2012)

When I read this thread I instantly thought of Ray Kurzweil's "The Singularity is Near".  In the book, the endpoint for humans is given as having every bit of matter in the entire universe transformed into an efficient supercomputer to support transhuman minds.  I wonder how long it will take before we begin to see synthesized brains?


----------



## Furryjones (Apr 22, 2012)

Well I'm all for eliminating the limitations of the human body, but how much trial and error would this process have to go through to become a reality?


----------



## Gryphoneer (Apr 23, 2012)

Furryjones said:


> Well I'm all for eliminating the limitations of the human body, but how much trial and error would this process have to go through to become a reality?


It took millions of years till nature had figured out how to do our bodies. True, in relation to design guided by an intelligent actor evolution is ridiculously dumb and slow, but we still have to re-enact every single step before we know how to build an adequate equivalent.

Those Uploadians/Singulatarians act more like a religion, anyway. "One sacred day our sou- err, minds will be uploaded to (digital) heaven!" Even though it looks more likely that the human mind can be emulated by computers, it doesn't seem to occur to them it might not be desirable. Our mind is an extension of our body, we co-evolved. Blind meddling could've unintended consequences. Imagine, brain uploading gets invented, but to reduce costs you don't run on your own supercomputer and get grid-computed instead. So, you're a set of files, heavily distributed and probably running slower than real-time. You think this amorphous state will let you retain much of your initial personality? Just a question of time before alien thought patterns emerge and you've changed beyond recognition.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Apr 23, 2012)

I like its application in science fiction (Ghost in the Shell, Halo, etc), but have my own issues with the ideology behind 'real' transhumanism.
As for the post that mentioned Kasparov vs. Deep Blue, the latter won because it had no distractions from the task at hand.


----------



## Attaman (Apr 23, 2012)

One thing to keep in mind is that, very technically, tool use is transhumanism. You don't, necessarily, need to believe in remaking / rewriting the human body to believe in transhumanism. For example, one could debate to no end how an augmented arm is _totally_ the same / different from simply acquiring equipment that allows the same functionality as the augmented arm.


----------



## Bipolar Bear (Apr 23, 2012)

Caroline Dax said:


> My personal vision is to completely shed our human body, uploading our being, our mind to a synthetic body that looks and acts like a human body minus the issues of pain, suffering and other limitations. Of course people always argue about over population, though food would no longer be an issue.



This really does sound like that movie Surrogates.


----------



## Telnac (Apr 24, 2012)

Telnac's bio is pretty much a transhumanist's wet dream: born as a human & lived to 118 thanks to implants that extended his life.  In his final days, neural implants mapped his memories and effectively created a back-up copy of his mind that was housed off-site.  After his death, the latest backup was activated in a simulated world where he could work with a custom android manufacturer to design a new body to house his mind.  Thus, Telnac was "born" in an act of technological reincarnation, complete with the memories of a 118 year old dead man.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 24, 2012)

Caroline Dax said:


> Let me refer you to wikipedia as to what it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism .
> I believe Transhumanism should be accepted as a way of human advancement, to do away of the limitations of our bodies. No longer limited to our current state, Space travel will be no problem as well.
> 
> My personal vision is to completely shed our human body, uploading our being, our mind to a synthetic body that looks and acts like a human body minus the issues of pain, suffering and other limitations. Of course people always argue about over population, though food would no longer be an issue. The logical way of doing things would be either space colonization or limiting the life physical life time, once the marker in time is reached the brain would get uploaded from the body into a virtual reality. Being able to be visited and displayed(Holography, screens, interfaces for others).
> ...



Adolf Hitler springs to mind.

You want perfection, but sorry to bust ya bubble, perfection doesn't exist and never will.


----------



## Elim Garak (Apr 24, 2012)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Adolf Hitler springs to mind.
> 
> You want perfection, but sorry to bust ya bubble, perfection doesn't exist and never will.


Perfection is never there, but we can strive to it, continued developtment and understanding, that's what science is, some areas on a continues quest for knowledge, some areas on a continued quest to use that knowledge and advance our society(Or, sadly, like the nuclear bomb(USA) destroy the world).
Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law


----------



## Attaman (Apr 24, 2012)

Wee bit of a problem with your "synthetic alternative" Caroline Dax. Three, actually.

1) Not everyone is going to want to be modified. I can't blame them, and even if you do blame them you have to realize that by mandating any sort of body modifications you're essentially telling them that they do not own their own body. This is one of the most basic human rights violations, telling someone "Yeah, you can't do what you want with your own body. We can."

2) You have just created a stagnant population. If you want any more "humans", they'd have to either be born via artificial womb and then augmented later, or construct the mind from scrap. Both of these, for some time, will be unbelievably more expensive than "normal" child-bearing and rearing. Or, if the entirety of the population is not modified, you've potentially reduced genetic diversity enormously amongst those who remain.

3) People would still need to "eat" if in synthetic bodies. Unless your plan is to have a handful of maintenance people and everyone else is hooked up to a nuclear power grid in a stationary computer unit, you're probably going to require more than a minimal amount of energy to keep going. Yes, a 'robot' wouldn't need to eat grains or the like any more, but you're still eating and reliant on acquiring energy.


----------



## soutthpaw (Apr 24, 2012)

It is a wonderful philosophy.  What will prevent it from happening is Religion and their billions of mindless followers.  Religions depend of Dogma and tradition and hate change.  not to mention they would and do claim we are playing god.  However, as god does not exist I just call it playing human.


----------



## Elim Garak (Apr 24, 2012)

Attaman said:


> Wee bit of a problem with your "synthetic alternative" Caroline Dax. Three, actually.
> 
> 1) Not everyone is going to want to be modified. I can't blame them, and even if you do blame them you have to realize that by mandating any sort of body modifications you're essentially telling them that they do not own their own body. This is one of the most basic human rights violations, telling someone "Yeah, you can't do what you want with your own body. We can."
> 
> ...


1. Their choice to stay behind, they don't have too, its like people who don't want vaccines and die because of it.

2.I am sure you could mimic biological reproduction as soon as you can mimic a womb(Save sperm and egg cells for later use(IVF with an artifical womb)). The idea would be to create regular babies and let them grow up to an age where they can choose to make the transfer or not.

3. Sleeping would be substituted by charging chambers or even beds. There's already ways of wireless electricity as well however its in its infancy.

Like I say, this is a vision, we aren't anywhere near the level of technology needed, it's up to a large amount of scientists to find the problems to these issues over the years, I am only one man, I don't have all the answers, just the vision. There's many like me today, in the past and in the future, like I said, it's up to science to find all the answer.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 24, 2012)

Caroline Dax said:


> Perfection is never there, but we can strive to it, continued developtment and understanding, that's what science is, some areas on a continues quest for knowledge, some areas on a continued quest to use that knowledge and advance our society(Or, sadly, like the nuclear bomb(USA) destroy the world).
> Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law



To be perfectly honest a "perfect" world would be a very, very boring world to live in.



Caroline Dax said:


> 2.I am sure you could mimic biological  reproduction as soon as you can mimic a womb(Save sperm and egg cells  for later use(IVF with an artifical womb)). The idea would be to create  regular babies and let them grow up to an age where they can choose to  make the transfer or not.
> 
> Like I say, this is a vision, we aren't anywhere near the level of  technology needed, it's up to a large amount of scientists to find the  problems to these issues over the years, I am only one man, I don't have  all the answers, just the vision. There's many like me today, in the  past and in the future, like I said, it's up to science to find all the  answer.



So basically what you're wanting is world where anything biological  doesn't exist, a world ruled by computers and machines. Oh wait, just  like in the Terminator movies. I don't think it will be just religious  folk against this idea. I'm not religious and even I'm against the idea.  I do not want a world ruled by machines and computers. Fuck. That.  Shit.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 24, 2012)

Oops double posted. Sorry


----------



## Elim Garak (Apr 24, 2012)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> To be perfectly honest a "perfect" world would be a very, very boring world to live in.
> 
> 
> 
> So basically what you're wanting is world where anything biological  doesn't exist, a world ruled by computers and machines. Oh wait, just  like in the Terminator movies. I don't think it will be just religious  folk against this idea. I'm not religious and even I'm against the idea.  I do not want a world ruled by machines and computers. Fuck. That.  Shit.


Like I said, children would grow up untouched and get the decision of what to do with their body, just augmentations or full body replacement.
It's not a world ruled by computers and machines, the human essence, the mind will be transferred into a "machine", I would see looking at the body as a tool to interact with the world. These so called machines would still be human, but the next step in evolution. Though, like I said in the other thread, AIs would be free to walk a long us as equal members of society.
Of course people are against the idea, people used to be against the idea of autopsy to investigate the human insides in the middle ages, scientists went stealing the corpses of executed people.
People are against IVF and stemcell research today, and stem cell research is so promising!


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 24, 2012)

Caroline Dax said:


> Like I said, children would grow up untouched and get the decision of what to do with their body, just augmentations or full body replacement.
> It's not a world ruled by computers and machines, the human essence, the mind will be transferred into a "machine", I would see looking at the body as a tool to interact with the world. These so called machines would still be human, but the next step in evolution. Though, like I said in the other thread, AIs would be free to walk a long us as equal members of society.



No, a human is made out of skin, bone and fleshy stuff, not metal and wires.


----------



## Elim Garak (Apr 24, 2012)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> No, a human is made out of skin, bone and fleshy stuff, not metal and wires.


If you see it that way. What's more human, say you could implant a dog brain on a human body and it would function, it's still made of skin, bone and fleshy stuff, by your definition it is more of a human then say a human's conscience transferred into a machine that looks exactly the same as a human being, yet the organs and the likes are made of metal and sillicon, superior to the meat variant would be considered not a human. It's not like I would have people look like an ASIMO, we could simulate the human appearance and the unnecessary but aesthetic functions while still benefiting of the longer life span, the better mobility, better sensory and so on.


----------



## Attaman (Apr 24, 2012)

Caroline Dax said:


> 1. Their choice to stay behind, they don't have too, its like people who don't want vaccines and die because of it.


 This, to me, sounds like a blatantly dishonest comparison. For starters, when you talk about "uploading your body", they would actually live _longer_ because the replication is merely a copy. If someone discarded their mind then offed their original body, they are dead. They have a copy that might act mostly like them (assuming that the replicant can be made sufficiently to have comparable input from the body on the consciousness), but it is not "them". Second, it's arguable how much can be accomplished before trashing the human body. I find it a bit - shall we say - alarming, how willing you are to write them off as "OH EMG GEE MERCURY VACCINES" people for not wanting to risk such procedures.



Caroline Dax said:


> 2.I am sure you could mimic biological reproduction as soon as you can mimic a womb(Save sperm and egg cells for later use(IVF with an artifical womb)).


 The issue is not creating something that can do "Sperm + Egg", it's getting them in the first place. Unless the bodies have jacked the old person's parts (which again contributes to "carve up pre-upload body like a turkey"), you have to do something to get your reproductive materials. That or you need to fabricate the intelligence from nothing (which, to be fair, would save a lot of time compared to having to wait until someone had physically matured before uploading to prevent any sort of age-related complications).



Caroline Dax said:


> The idea would be to create regular babies and let them grow up to an age where they can choose to make the transfer or not.


 Agreed, but that again leads to the issue of "Need food to reproduce" and "are limited to what materials you preserved".



Caroline Dax said:


> 3. Sleeping would be substituted by charging chambers or even beds. There's already ways of wireless electricity as well however its in its infancy.


 And you still need to have a source to this power. Some sort of fuel. Furthermore, now that you bring it up, sleeping of some fashion or another will be required. The human mind reacts... poorly, to prolonged periods of consciousness. And the problem of trying to have enough space for the mind to consciously address the constant sensory input for days, weeks, or even months at a time (if you were extremely crazy with how long you wanted the body to work before needing rest).


----------



## Unsilenced (Apr 24, 2012)

Uploading your consciousness to a computer sounds like a terrible idea. 

"Welcome to personality Vista Home Edition!" 

Yup. You're fucked.


Seriously though, organic tissue has incredible self-correcting/repairing ablity that has yet to even come close to being matched by sythetic materials. Basically, until computers are capable of their own stable and self-perpetuating evolution, being one, even only in part, is a terrible idea.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 24, 2012)

Caroline Dax said:


> If you see it that way. What's more human, say you could implant a dog brain on a human body and it would function, it's still made of skin, bone and fleshy stuff, by your definition it is more of a human then say a human's conscience transferred into a machine that looks exactly the same as a human being, yet the organs and the likes are made of metal and sillicon, superior to the meat variant would be considered not a human. It's not like I would have people look like an ASIMO, we could simulate the human appearance and the unnecessary but aesthetic functions while still benefiting of the longer life span, the better mobility, better sensory and so on.



No, metal and silicone is not superior to skin and flesh. Metal does not have the biological capability to repair itself when it's damaged whereas skin, bone and many other body parts do have the capability to repair and/or regenerate itself. I don't think the lifespan would be any longer, there is still a high chance electronic components will fail, moisture could get into the circuits and cause damage. Depending on the type of metals used the metal could corrode. 

Computers these days, despite how far they have come since the day they were invented, still are not 100% reliable despite how technically advanced they are. They are still prone to viruses and components are still prone to failing and do not last anywhere even near as long as a human life. 

To be honest I'd rather touch a REAL person, a person made of flesh and bone, to make love to a real person etc etc. Not a machine that just simulates being human. 

ASIMO is just a machine that has the human capability of learning. That is all it is, a machine with a pre-programmed computer on board. A lump of wires, electronic components and boards. what you are wanting is the option to give up a real life, for an artificial one. To be honest, I wouldn't even want to extend my life, this world isn't worth it.


----------



## Ikrit (Apr 24, 2012)

i just want to get rid of unnecessary body hair


----------



## Elim Garak (Apr 24, 2012)

fuel is not going to be much of a problem over time, with safe nuclear fuel on the moon, alternative energy sources, increasing efficiency of generators and power usage of electronics. 
Well,  maybe the example is a little extreme but honestly I see the benefits medically. 

The body repairs itself poorly that's why we have medicine, machines could become self repairing and what if you didn't know the person was a machine if it was so real? Why wouldn't you give him or her a chance? You say 

artificial life is different but it isn't when it's sentient.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 24, 2012)

Caroline Dax said:


> fuel is not going to be much of a problem over time, with safe nuclear fuel on the moon, alternative energy sources, increasing efficiency of generators and power usage of electronics.
> Well,  maybe the example is a little extreme but honestly I see the benefits medically.
> 
> The body repairs itself poorly that's why we have medicine, machines could become self repairing and what if you didn't know the person was a machine if it was so real? Why wouldn't you give him or her a chance? You say
> ...



Medicine doesn't repair our body, duh, it cures illness and helps us deal with irreparable problems such as diabetes and cancer. 

Artificial life is different, on so many levels. It doesn't require oxygen to survive, or water, or food. It doesn't require bathroom breaks. Artificial "life" isn't life. It's still just a machine. Thus, it is not life. 

To be perfectly honest with you, I'd much rather sit and cuddle with a REAL human being, touch real skin, fondle real boobs, kiss real lips, not silicone replicas.


----------



## Elim Garak (Apr 24, 2012)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Medicine doesn't repair our body, duh, it cures illness and helps us deal with irreparable problems such as diabetes and cancer.
> 
> Artificial life is different, on so many levels. It doesn't require oxygen to survive, or water, or food. It doesn't require bathroom breaks. Artificial "life" isn't life. It's still just a machine. Thus, it is not life.
> 
> To be perfectly honest with you, I'd much rather sit and cuddle with a REAL human being, touch real skin, fondle real boobs, kiss real lips, not silicone replicas.


What I meant was the field of medicine, organ transplant, dialasys(keeping it alive), artificial hearts,  artificial functional eyes and so on. Also that list sounds like artificial life is better. It does need energy. I see living a life more as enjoying its qualities such as art, love, entertainment and hell,  even discussions (online,  debate,  lecture or at a Mensa meeting) 
Also like I said, you wouldn't know the difference between a machine and a 'real'  person if it looks, feels and smells the same.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 24, 2012)

Caroline Dax said:


> What I meant was the field of medicine, organ transplant, dialasys(keeping it alive), artificial hearts,  artificial functional eyes and so on. Also that list sounds like artificial life is better. It does need energy. I see living a life more as enjoying its qualities such as art, love, entertainment and hell,  even discussions (online,  debate,  lecture or at a Mensa meeting)
> Also like I said, you wouldn't know the difference between a machine and a 'real'  person if it looks, feels and smells the same.



Ya know, if I wanted to be with something artificial I'd go buy a blow up doll. :v


Seriously though I had this debate with a friend on YIM and he turned around and said "What if the body was a furry?" and I was like "No comment" lol


----------



## Elim Garak (Apr 24, 2012)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Ya know, if I wanted to be with something artificial I'd go buy a blow up doll. :v
> 
> 
> Seriously though I had this debate with a friend on YIM and he turned around and said "What if the body was a furry?" and I was like "No comment" lol


 oh no. 
I just realized that people are going to make modifications to it for sex. Humans with dog dicks,  the horror.


----------



## JArt. (Apr 24, 2012)

Caroline Dax said:


> Also that list sounds like artificial life is better..



Things like using the restroom, getting hungry/thirsty, and pain may not sound all that fun but they are a few of the things that make life bettern all feelings and emotions should be treasured.
Also i don't think we have it within our rights to mutate a beautiful work of nature. The human body is not perfect but it is a gift, one that should be treasured and admired.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 24, 2012)

Caroline Dax said:


> oh no.
> I just realized that people are going to make modifications to it for sex. Humans with dog dicks,  the horror.



Well, wouldn't it already be adapted for sex? After all you keep claiming that it would be EXACTLY like a human. To be exactly like a human so you can;t notice any difference it would have to function exactly like one. Also if your GF/bf chose to have their mind placed in an artificial replica of themselves, wouldn't you want it adapted for sex?

I don't get why you sound so surprised about my post.


----------



## Ikrit (Apr 24, 2012)

JArt. said:


> Things like using the restroom, getting hungry/thirsty, and pain may not sound all that fun but they are a few of the things that make life bettern all feelings and emotions should be treasured.
> Also i don't think we have it within our rights to mutate a beautiful work of nature. The human body is not perfect but it is a gift, one that should be treasured and admired.



this,
i don't believe in intelligent creation, but nature forced us to become this way, and nature is by no means random


----------



## RayO_ElGatubelo (Apr 24, 2012)

I think I should put my own 2 cents.

Yes, I am a transhumanist. I specifically have the hedonistic view of it that RaÃ«lians have, although without the crazy alien creation dogma.

Let's get this out of the way. I don't freaking want to die. I can't believe how people can accept their own mortality like they do. Imagine that you buy a TV, and you can watch all the channels you want for a short while. Then just like that, nothing but snow? Do you just sit by and accept that? No, you get another TV. Same with life. I like feeling. I like enjoying. I love learning new things. I don't ever want to have to give that up for the awfully boring nothingness.

I am jealous of my werecat fursona. He has lived through five centuries. It would be so impressive to accumulate that much knowledge. I would become one hell of a polyglot. Also, more time on earth means more experience with girls, and more food trips! Who says eternal life is boring?

Personally I think transhumanism will be more organic-based. The body can repair itself well, it just needs more maintenance so we don't become old or sick. Turn off aging, and stop viruses before they infect us.

_"Ay, las tumbas son / crucifixiÃ³n / monotonÃ­a, monotonÃ­a / cruel dolor/ si sigo aquÃ­, enloquecerÃ©. / De las tumbas quiero irme / no sÃ© cuando pasarÃ¡ / las tumbas son pa' los muertos / y de muerto tengo na'."
__("Oh, tombs are / crucifixion / monotony, monotony / cruel pain / if I stay here, I will go crazy. / I want to leave the tombs/ I don't know when it will happen / tombs are for dead people / and I ain't no dead guy.")
- Ismael Rivera_


----------



## Unsilenced (Apr 25, 2012)

The desire for immortality is always proceeded by a gross miscalculation of infinity. 

You  know how as you grow older, the past compresses? Every year seems  shorter than the last? That trend will not cease. You will eventually be  unable to comprehend time on a scale that is relevant to those around  you. Your thoughts won't matter by the time you think them. As  your timescale grows infinite, the difference between one moment and  another will grow irrelevant. 

Imagine life as a graph of a  jagged line on a piece of paper. The line can symbolize happiness,  excitement, tension, suspense, whatever. The line goes up and down, but it generally stays within a certain range. If you were to  look at a short section, you would see peaks and valleys, highs and lows  as time passes. You could say whether or not it was going up or down in  that span. 

Sampled along an infinite span though, the line would appear completely flat. You could rest a level on it. This is what immortality would be like. 

All  points of reference would be lost. No height or valley would remain  significant in the face of the millions just like it. No matter how  exciting something was, you would always have seen better. No matter how  bad things got, they would always have been worse. Everything that  could happen would have happened before, and turned out just like it  will again. 

Life would be a grey mush. A random collage of  events not worth comprehending. You could stand up, you could sit down.  It would all turn out the same, and nothing and no-one would ever change  for it. You wouldn't be happy, you wouldn't be sad. Every day you would simply be, and you'd do it again tomorrow. 



To put it in less 14-year-old-wannabe-poet terms,  immortal life would be like watching a sitcom in it's 90th season. It  would suck balls, but you would be too brain dead to care, and there'd  be nothing better on anyways.


----------



## RayO_ElGatubelo (Apr 25, 2012)

Unsilenced said:


> The desire for immortality is always proceeded by a gross miscalculation of infinity.
> 
> You  know how as you grow older, the past compresses? Every year seems  shorter than the last? That trend will not cease. You will eventually be  unable to comprehend time on a scale that is relevant to those around  you. Your thoughts won't matter by the time you think them. As  your timescale grows infinite, the difference between one moment and  another will grow irrelevant.
> 
> ...



Well, you can always an hero when life gets too boring. For some people it could be 100 years. For some it could be even more. Who knows?


----------



## LouyieBlu (Apr 25, 2012)

Fay V said:


> I love it when people talk about the evolution of humans when they don't even understand the process of evolution.
> 
> Here's a hint. Evolution doesn't give a fuck, and it certainly won't give you perfection. If that were true then you wouldn't have species like the kakapo, a flightless basically defenseless giant parrot.
> Take a bunch of traits, and the ones that don't directly get you killed will get passed on. That means that good and bad traits get passed, just the bad traits aren't detrimental in that area.
> The actual idea of turning into energy is so absurd that I'm fairly sure most of your science knowledge comes from scifi shows making fun of star trek episodes.



Agreed, although it may be possible to become pure energy, might not be the best idea, any show or movie that references super computes or super beings originally created by humans that then enslave us. Fay here is quite right, evolution doesnt care at all. Matter happens and does stuff. 
And overall I really prefer being able to pet a soft dog with a real hand, or pick up real flowers or leaves, feel the kick back of a 45' with my real hand to being pure energy.

However everyone is entitled to there opinions and can believe whatever gives them the strength to get up everyday and do what they want, thus is a free conscious.

Its late, im just typing what im thinking so some of the above may be derpetised in some areas and derping all over the place.

Edit: i have looked over this thread and realized one thing. People be crazy. Oh life can be complicated...thats obvious isnt it? Sigh....I tired


----------



## Seian Verian (Apr 25, 2012)

Unsilenced said:


> snip



In many ways you DO have a point. Immortality would by itself suck, given the human manner of processing time. With that said, however- If lifespan could be extended, perhaps so might certain aspects of the very mind itself. The perception of time and contrasts wouldn't -necessarily- have to work the same way as it does now. We're a long way off from ever changing the mind itself in such a way, but with enough time it could be discovered. In addition, one with infinite time could continue to build knowledge, even if not at the same rate as they once did. There's always more to learn, and with further time, more can be understood.

Immortality would not be bliss by any means, and there's no doubt that few people who desire it actually really look at its implications. At the same time, there are still potential good points to the idea, especially when one looks at it not only by itself, but what else could be done.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 26, 2012)

Seian Verian said:


> In many ways you DO have a point. Immortality would by itself suck, given the human manner of processing time. With that said, however- If lifespan could be extended, perhaps so might certain aspects of the very mind itself. The perception of time and contrasts wouldn't -necessarily- have to work the same way as it does now. We're a long way off from ever changing the mind itself in such a way, but with enough time it could be discovered. In addition, one with infinite time could continue to build knowledge, even if not at the same rate as they once did. There's always more to learn, and with further time, more can be understood.
> 
> Immortality would not be bliss by any means, and there's no doubt that few people who desire it actually really look at its implications. At the same time, there are still potential good points to the idea, especially when one looks at it not only by itself, but what else could be done.



Immortality wont come in the form of a mechanical body. Eventually parts will fail, or even become outdated. Look at the modern computer, you could go out and buy the latest motherboard, or video card or any other piece of computer hardware or software, and six months later something else better has been released thus rendering what you bought to become outdated.

People will soon reject the idea of having their minds put into an artificial body when they realize that it will never, no matter how well it imitates the human body, it will never, ever match the real thing.

What about cloning? We already know it is possible to clone living creatures. Why not grow a replacement body?


----------



## M. LeRenard (Apr 26, 2012)

I've always thought that the pinnacle of human existence is for everyone to become pure gravitational potential energy.  Then things with mass can sink into our 4-D wells if they lose angular momentum.
(This sarcastic remark was to remind people why saying 'pure energy' makes no sense at all)

Anyway, I think the main issue with the human race turning into a conglomeration of immortal robots (or immortal anything) is that we would lose the one thing that causes society to progress, which is the continuous cycling of generations.  Imagine freezing the current state of the US.  Every current citizen of the US is going to be around _forever_, making decisions, holding public office, voting, etc.  Imagine a world where the evolution vs. creationism debate is eternal and unchanging, where crazy liberals continue forever to rally against nuclear energy, where crazy conservatives rally forever against homosexuality, where white people keep fighting with Arabs forever over religion, and so on and so forth.
I'm not saying the future will have the exact problems we're having now.  I'm using today as an example, since that's what I know.  But the future will have problems, and if you freeze the generations and make everyone immortal, those problems will end up taking _forever_ to solve because we won't have the benefit of curmudgeonly old bastards with authority dying off and making room for new ideas.  Yes?
I think we need death for a lot of reasons.  But I do like the idea of technological augmentation to improve lives.  I would totally fuck with my body like you wouldn't believe.  Fuck nature.  Nature is so heinously inefficient at making things.  It took nature billions of years to make humans, and look at how shitty the current version of the product is.  We barely live a century and we're wracked with engineering issues the entire time, and our brains still interpret the world almost entirely on assumptions based on incomplete data.  We can imagine better, and hence we can do better.


----------



## Bipolar Bear (Apr 26, 2012)

M. LeRenard said:


> I've always thought that the pinnacle of human existence is for everyone to become pure gravitational potential energy.  Then things with mass can sink into our 4-D wells if they lose angular momentum.
> (This sarcastic remark was to remind people why saying 'pure energy' makes no sense at all)
> 
> Anyway, I think the main issue with the human race turning into a conglomeration of immortal robots (or immortal anything) is that we would lose the one thing that causes society to progress, which is the continuous cycling of generations.  Imagine freezing the current state of the US.  Every current citizen of the US is going to be around _forever_, making decisions, holding public office, voting, etc.  Imagine a world where the evolution vs. creationism debate is eternal and unchanging, where crazy liberals continue forever to rally against nuclear energy, where crazy conservatives rally forever against homosexuality, where white people keep fighting with Arabs forever over religion, and so on and so forth.
> ...



Such is life, Renard.


----------



## Seian Verian (Apr 26, 2012)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Immortality wont come in the form of a mechanical body. Eventually parts will fail, or even become outdated. Look at the modern computer, you could go out and buy the latest motherboard, or video card or any other piece of computer hardware or software, and six months later something else better has been released thus rendering what you bought to become outdated.
> 
> People will soon reject the idea of having their minds put into an artificial body when they realize that it will never, no matter how well it imitates the human body, it will never, ever match the real thing.
> 
> What about cloning? We already know it is possible to clone living creatures. Why not grow a replacement body?



I never said anything about a mechanical body. Transhumanism doesn't  imply "mechanical" at all, it includes genetic augmentations and basically ANYTHING that enhances the human body and mind beyond its normal limitations.

However, I do have to say that any claim that it will NEVER match the human body is... Absurdly limiting. Just because nothing we have now comes close doesn't mean it never will. There's absolutely no reason to think of the human body as the pinnacle of what can be. Claiming ANYTHING as perfect or impossible to surpass is not a praise of what it does. All that  claim does is limit things unnecessarily.

[/pet peeve]

I will admit though that it likely that any technologies that would reach that level wouldn't even RESEMBLE chips, wires, gears, and everything else we have now Technology itself stands for a great deal of improvement that may be limited simply by materials. By the time we reach that point, the technology may well be on a level that really can't be properly compared to current tech.


----------



## soutthpaw (Apr 26, 2012)

I think that a catastrophic ecological event will be the limiting factor because evolution is a slow process.   If the moon fell out of orbit and crashed into the earth.   the long term effects for those that did survive would be adapting bodies to a new orbit and possibly a new rotational axis.  imagine that axis was parallel with sun.   half the earth would be in eternal night and half in eternal day.   (not my idea, stole it from a vampire book that had a vampire planet like that).


----------



## Ikrit (Apr 26, 2012)

soutthpaw said:


> I think that a catastrophic ecological event will be the limiting factor because evolution is a slow process.   If the moon fell out of orbit and crashed into the earth.   the long term effects for those that did survive would be adapting bodies to a new orbit and possibly a new rotational axis.  imagine that axis was parallel with sun.   half the earth would be in eternal night and half in eternal day.   (not my idea, stole it from a vampire book that had a vampire planet like that).



not likly to happen...

our axis would become unstable and we would be wobbling around...a lot


----------



## Spatel (Apr 26, 2012)

M. LeRenard said:


> Anyway, I think the main issue with the human race turning into a conglomeration of immortal robots (or immortal anything) is that we would lose the one thing that causes society to progress, which is the continuous cycling of generations.  Imagine freezing the current state of the US.  Every current citizen of the US is going to be around _forever_, making decisions, holding public office, voting, etc.  Imagine a world where the evolution vs. creationism debate is eternal and unchanging, where crazy liberals continue forever to rally against nuclear energy, where crazy conservatives rally forever against homosexuality, where white people keep fighting with Arabs forever over religion, and so on and so forth.


That is a legitimate concern. Even if people lived thousands of years that would still slow the advancement of politics to a crawl. One possible solution is that by then we would have the technology to download each other's thoughts. So people with ridiculous views could be quickly persuaded that they are wrong by experiencing someone else's memories--gaining full exposure to the evidence that holds up their beliefs directly.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 26, 2012)

Spatel said:


> That is a legitimate concern. Even if people lived thousands of years that would still slow the advancement of politics to a crawl. One possible solution is that by then we would have the technology to download each other's thoughts. So people with ridiculous views could be quickly persuaded that they are wrong by experiencing someone else's memories--gaining full exposure to the evidence that holds up their beliefs directly.



IMO, that is an extremely risky and dangerous thing to do, especially if it got into the wrong hands.


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 26, 2012)

RayO_ElGatubelo said:


> .
> I am jealous of my werecat fursona. He has lived through five centuries. It would be so impressive to accumulate that much knowledge. I would become one hell of a polyglot. Also, more time on earth means more experience with girls, and more food trips! Who says eternal life is boring?




My Fursona has about nine centuries on him, and immortality is overrated. You have knowledge of all the centuries and events, sure. You can live it up like it is your last day on earth, but after awhile, it becomes as bland as Oatmeal. :V

Ironically, my history professor infuenced his reation and concept.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 26, 2012)

Seian Verian said:


> However, I do have to say that any claim that it will NEVER match the human body is... Absurdly limiting. Just because nothing we have now comes close doesn't mean it never will. There's absolutely no reason to think of the human body as the pinnacle of what can be. Claiming ANYTHING as perfect or impossible to surpass is not a praise of what it does. All that  claim does is limit things unnecessarily.
> 
> [/pet peeve]



I wasn't saying the human body was perfect. There is nothing on this planet that we have, that could imitate the human body perfectly. even if it did happen what would be the point? If it imitates the body to the letter why not just stick with the real human body? 

What if things happen the other way? what if medical science produce things to slow down the aging process? What if they progress enough to transplant practically any body part? What if they start producing reliable, fully functioning artificial body parts to replace faulty real ones? Or even grow real parts?

I know some of what I just saicd has already been done, but I am talking about that it becomes an everyday thing, would that not throw the point of creating an artificial body out the window?


----------



## Unsilenced (Apr 27, 2012)

You could just shoot yourself one day, but think about what that means. If you decide to shoot yourself, it means you thought yesterday was worth living, but that tomorrow won't be. Could you draw that line? Say here I want to live, here I do not? Think of how much your life has sucked in the past. It's generally gotten better hasn't it? So why would you want to cut it off now? What would one more day do? It's kind of a one-way decision, once you chose death you can't turn back. There's a reason rational, sane people with jobs and families don't just randomly decide to blow their brains out on the way back from work. Generally, something has to fuck up  more than anything has every fucked up in the history of fucking up, and when you have infinite time, you're going to see a lot of fuckng up. Plus, if things suck, you're not just giving up 50 more years of a shitty job and a loveless marriage; you're giving up an infinite future that, for all you know, might be full of puppies and ice cream. You're going to have to put a gun to head and give up puppies and ice cream in favor of oblivion. 

You'd also have to plan it in advance you know. You'd have to tell people when you were going to off yourself. What if your friend's birthday was the Saturday after? Kind of a dick move, seeing as you'd be kind of raining on his parade with your funeral and all. When in life do you think there would be a time when nobody would want you to stay? You'd be sure to piss someone off. "Sorry I can't make it to your daughter's recital. I'm going to hang myself on Thursday." 

The only reason our lives sometimes seem to have "conclusions" where we've done all the shit we've supposed to is because we can kind of guess about when we're going to die and not start massive projects when we're diagnosed with terminal cancer at 79. Certain dreams can be given up on in favor of more realistic ones in the face of time constraints. People can die surrounded by their grand kids feeling like they've done their part. 

If you are going to *have* to off yourself though... well fuck. I mean, what are you going to do? "Well I'd really like to sail around the world, but I'm scheduled to shoot myself in the face on Friday because it's my time to go." 

You know that one thing you really want to do, but are never going to? You probably have one. Anyways, imagine that that goal of yours never became blatantly impossible. If you have all the time in the world, you could always do it tomorrow. There would always be a reason to hope, and that hope would drag you along for centuries. 



Seian Verian said:


> In many ways you DO have a point. Immortality would by itself suck, given the human manner of processing time. With that said, however- If lifespan could be extended, perhaps so might certain aspects of the very mind itself. The perception of time and contrasts wouldn't -necessarily- have to work the same way as it does now. We're a long way off from ever changing the mind itself in such a way, but with enough time it could be discovered. In addition, one with infinite time could continue to build knowledge, even if not at the same rate as they once did. There's always more to learn, and with further time, more can be understood.
> 
> Immortality would not be bliss by any means, and there's no doubt that few people who desire it actually really look at its implications. At the same time, there are still potential good points to the idea, especially when one looks at it not only by itself, but what else could be done.



If you change the way a human's mind works fundamentally enough to re-write it's perception of time to the point where it does not recognize boredom and has theoretically infinite storage space for memories (impossible, btw,) could you still call it human? It would be an inhuman mind in an inhuman body. I don't think it would still be Lincoln's axe, so to speak.


----------

