-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Transhumanism & Extropianism; or, become a robot with me, GAF
- Thread starter Devil Theory
- Start date
- Status
POWERSPHERE
Member
Devil Theory
They are unhappy as they are and think they would be happier as robots.
To some extent it's possible given enough time and assuming humanity will continue to prosper and science will move forwards.
Why not. Homo Sapien has always relied on tools.
Millenias.
None given the circumstances that the world is a better place than today.
I'm not suffering from any chronic pain atm.
Not much. New religions would be formed so I guess it could actually increase the amount of religions.
Of course the rich would be more advanced. Just like they are today.
Kind of what I was thinking but didn't want to say it
I think that's not really all that accurate, at least not for me.
1. If the option presented itself, and it allowed me to be immortal, of course I'd robotize myself a bit.
2. I'm pretty happy with my life and my body, but I would be happier with "superpowers". If someone offered you superpowers, would you be all "nah, I'm good"?
1. I think a lot of medical sciences potentially have the same effect just without the robotics. If that turns out to be true than would you roboticize yourself or stay all natural?
2. I'd be wary of anybody selling me anything. Most of the superpowers you could want or think about can probably be worn (assisted robotics) without having to alter your body. So yes, I will say I'm good.
Well, I just need to reiterate, this is all strictly hypothetical - but I'd take every single upgrade that I'm comfortable with, robotic or organic.I honestly don't see much of a difference.
And why just wear something when you can integrate it into yourself completely? These hypotheticals have no catches except that you'd have non-organic parts as part of your "self".
Also, not all of these ideas I have for super powers are things to be worn. I'm not talking about "actual" superpowers really, but things like... imagine integrating a system where I could derive nourishment, some or all, from the sun? Or would let me breathe water, see in the full spectrum, make sleep optional, etc. Maybe there could be something that I could wear at all times to have all these interesting effects, but they'd be on all the time, effectively no different than if they were a part of me.
zer0blivion
Member
Sci-Fi author Robert J. Sawyer gave a talk about Transhumanism about a year ago. It's definitely worth checking out if you're interested in this topic.
http://ww3.tvo.org/video/171860/robert-j-sawyer-humanity-20
I find this stuff fascinating and would upgrade in a digital heartbeat.
http://ww3.tvo.org/video/171860/robert-j-sawyer-humanity-20
I find this stuff fascinating and would upgrade in a digital heartbeat.
You wear it so you can take it off!
Most of that stuff you could easily wear something, and the perk is if you aren't doing anything like swimming underwater, you can take it off. The only interesting thing would be to see the full spectrum, but I don't know if that's feasible or not. Everything else does not sound appealing to me, and does not have a high cost-benefit ratio for me to want to roboticize myself.
But why take it off? Why not integrate it into myself completely?
Why is taking something off a perk? Wouldn't it be a perk that I never had to put something on or take it off? That it was just a part of me?
I'm not talking about appealing to you, and these are simply a few ideas that are only currently restricted by my imagination. Wearing something for a task is different than innately having the capability. If I could replace some of my muscle tissue/cells with something 'stronger' and more effecient, and it effectively made me very very very strong, it would be more viable and useful than if I just wore some exoskeleton whenever I wanted to move something heavy. It's the difference between going to the well for water and turning on the tap.
And I can paint many more of these sorts of pictures, like blood cells that are inorganic and orders of magnitude more effective than red blood cells, allowing me to hold my breath for very long times, run for very long times, essentially never feel fatigued etc.
edit: also, the technology to see in a wider spectrum is available now, and some people are apparently capable of seeing in a wider spectrum of light naturally.
I guess my p.o.v. Is that I like being a boring human. The good thing about taking something off is that you don't have to constantly be surrounded by it. It's not about 'stronger, better, faster, stronger' to me. I have no desire to be a superhero.
I saw your edit. Mind sharing a link?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphakia
http://www.disinfo.com/2012/12/scie...ble-human-eyes-to-see-a-wider-color-spectrum/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy#Possibility_of_human_tetrachromats
For the vision stuff.
And I have no problem with people enjoying being a boring human, but I just want to widen your perception when it comes to people who don't mind augmenting themselves technologically~ It's not all about hating your body/circumstances.
Yeah, I should have reworded it. I never think situations are as black and white as that, and I don't have a problem with people augmenting themselves, it's just that a lot of the types of people who talk about this do tend to not like aspects of themselves, but as they say, the squeakiest wheel gets the oil. Thanks for the link I'll check it out.
Edit: I also don't mind 'natural' (for lack of a better word) augmentations of the body. For example, taking the cells from your gums to give you your teeth back if you've missed them. It's the total robot/cyborg thing that I am wary of for humanity.
I personally think it's a naive idea that technology will empower us should things continue as they are.
We are already seeing the effect of diminishing returns, accelerated by concentration of wealth and lack of social mobility. You are not going to see an A.I when we can't even understand our own psyche and are becoming more disconnected every day, just more cheap plastic and a stagnating hedonistic culture with an increasingly polluted nature and resource conflicts. You think this is progress?
At the same time we live in a plutocracy and social control is everywhere, it's just not centralized like in the age of a sovereign ruler.
But people seem happy to become cheerful robots just like CW Mills said. Electronic entertainment is just a new manifestation of the same thing that was used to control people in Rome. The masses are not interested about substance, we are not really searching our "souls" to improve local communities and thus eventually reach the stars by working together. At the same time the elite are well educated and understand what is up but don't really give a fuck either. Hollow monuments in Dubai, yachts and squandered opportunities.
NASA is done, stick a fork in it. A few decades ago we sent a man to the moon but now the orbit is just full of junk so we can watch pornography and sports. Angry Birds is our singularity, yay.
We are already seeing the effect of diminishing returns, accelerated by concentration of wealth and lack of social mobility. You are not going to see an A.I when we can't even understand our own psyche and are becoming more disconnected every day, just more cheap plastic and a stagnating hedonistic culture with an increasingly polluted nature and resource conflicts. You think this is progress?
At the same time we live in a plutocracy and social control is everywhere, it's just not centralized like in the age of a sovereign ruler.
But people seem happy to become cheerful robots just like CW Mills said. Electronic entertainment is just a new manifestation of the same thing that was used to control people in Rome. The masses are not interested about substance, we are not really searching our "souls" to improve local communities and thus eventually reach the stars by working together. At the same time the elite are well educated and understand what is up but don't really give a fuck either. Hollow monuments in Dubai, yachts and squandered opportunities.
NASA is done, stick a fork in it. A few decades ago we sent a man to the moon but now the orbit is just full of junk so we can watch pornography and sports. Angry Birds is our singularity, yay.
Darkmakaimura
Can You Imagine What SureAI Is Going To Do With Garfield?
SquiddyCracker
Banned
Guess I'll answer the OP questions
1. Do you believe this at all possible to any extent? If so, how far do you think we can go, and if not, why?
Everything is possible, to any extent.
Except when it breaks the laws of physics.
2. Would you be in favor of being able to alter humanity at the core of what makes us "human"?
What makes us "human" is pretty subjective to begin with, so as we alter humanity we'd of course change what "human" means. Even if we were to abandon human flesh, the organic concept of "human" so to say, we'd still have the left over influences of having stayed in such an organic existence - and our mind would still be human shaped regardless of where it is stored.
Our descendants though, in these new forms of existences, will no longer be human though.
Instead of humankind, we'll have mindkind.
3. How long do you think this will take for us to achieve?
Augmentations equivalent to biological organs and limbs - 10-15 years.
Germline engineering - 10-15 years
Nanomachines capable of replacing your neurons and drastically alter your body - 15-25 years.
Aaand after that I have no idea, because then we'll get artificial intelligences.
4. What personal moral issues do you have (if any) with this movement?
Well, it can't be denied that there's a lot of naivety and hopeful thinking bordering wishful thinking within the movement. That, someone, somewhere, will solve all these issues and then everyone will be better off. I think there are great dangers when it comes to these technologies, not because of the technologies themselves which could indeed bring in utopia but because humans shaping those technologies could misuse them.
With that said, the solution is not to slow down technological progress, but to take the reigns of technological progress so as to implement a safeguard from "evil" people trying to develop it on their own.
5. If given the chance, would you alter your mind or body (abolitionist theme) to reduce pain? Or, simply augment?
Not to reduce pain, as I value it as part of my existence, but I would augment myself to a degree in order to not become a social pariah. I would probably not opt for any technologies which takes away my independence though (direct mind-to-internet links with no intermediate non-integrated module).
6. If this became possible, how would it affect world religions?
Oh, it depends on the religion. I think most of the abrahemic religions would be okay with artificial augmentations, but initially object the use of biological ones on the basis of it altering God's designs in some way (whereas the mechanical ones can easier be rationalized as simply more advanced prosthetics).
7. Is this possible without severe class warfare, i.e., the rich advancing their state, the poor behind left behind?
Sure, if the right people develop the technology (say, a replicating swarm of robots and nanites under control of a nigh-omnipotent AI, spreading across the world and enforcing utopia). Otherwise, you will see severe class warfare I fear.
1. Do you believe this at all possible to any extent? If so, how far do you think we can go, and if not, why?
Everything is possible, to any extent.
Except when it breaks the laws of physics.
2. Would you be in favor of being able to alter humanity at the core of what makes us "human"?
What makes us "human" is pretty subjective to begin with, so as we alter humanity we'd of course change what "human" means. Even if we were to abandon human flesh, the organic concept of "human" so to say, we'd still have the left over influences of having stayed in such an organic existence - and our mind would still be human shaped regardless of where it is stored.
Our descendants though, in these new forms of existences, will no longer be human though.
Instead of humankind, we'll have mindkind.
3. How long do you think this will take for us to achieve?
Augmentations equivalent to biological organs and limbs - 10-15 years.
Germline engineering - 10-15 years
Nanomachines capable of replacing your neurons and drastically alter your body - 15-25 years.
Aaand after that I have no idea, because then we'll get artificial intelligences.
4. What personal moral issues do you have (if any) with this movement?
Well, it can't be denied that there's a lot of naivety and hopeful thinking bordering wishful thinking within the movement. That, someone, somewhere, will solve all these issues and then everyone will be better off. I think there are great dangers when it comes to these technologies, not because of the technologies themselves which could indeed bring in utopia but because humans shaping those technologies could misuse them.
With that said, the solution is not to slow down technological progress, but to take the reigns of technological progress so as to implement a safeguard from "evil" people trying to develop it on their own.
5. If given the chance, would you alter your mind or body (abolitionist theme) to reduce pain? Or, simply augment?
Not to reduce pain, as I value it as part of my existence, but I would augment myself to a degree in order to not become a social pariah. I would probably not opt for any technologies which takes away my independence though (direct mind-to-internet links with no intermediate non-integrated module).
6. If this became possible, how would it affect world religions?
Oh, it depends on the religion. I think most of the abrahemic religions would be okay with artificial augmentations, but initially object the use of biological ones on the basis of it altering God's designs in some way (whereas the mechanical ones can easier be rationalized as simply more advanced prosthetics).
7. Is this possible without severe class warfare, i.e., the rich advancing their state, the poor behind left behind?
Sure, if the right people develop the technology (say, a replicating swarm of robots and nanites under control of a nigh-omnipotent AI, spreading across the world and enforcing utopia). Otherwise, you will see severe class warfare I fear.
Darkmakaimura
Can You Imagine What SureAI Is Going To Do With Garfield?
Just a heads up everyone. On Tuesday, they will be discussing transhumanism on Coast to Coast AM.
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2013/04/02
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2013/04/02
that1dude24
Member
"happier" is a strange description to use, i'd think. for me (and i'd rather not elaborate too much on what essentially amounts to a pipe dream), it's just that we are so damned inefficient. we waste so much time chasing streams of neurotransmitters. it takes inordinate amounts of time to learn, retain, recall, and utilize concepts - especially if the neural connections associated with the concepts languish. we require unimaginable amounts of energy and upkeep to sustain the trillions of cells that allow us to function.
it certainly is nice to be human, and perceive the multitudes of stimuli we are able to interpret, but there is potential for so much more.
Monocle
Member
You can't expect humanity to adapt to the digital revolution overnight. For all we know, the cultural malaise you've described is a normal and perhaps necessary symptom of our adjustment period. What we do know is that technology has made humanity safer, more peaceful, more prosperous, better fed, better educated, and more cosmopolitan. We live in a time of unprecedented knowledge and connectedness, on the cusp of at least one more major technological revolution (via nanotech). I doubt our future is as bleak as you suggest.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
That bleakness might be what we need to ensure that it doesn't turn out that way though.
Cautionary use of technology will become even more important as technology start posing an even greater existential threat.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
Just wondering if anyone is trying out calorific restriction or other methods to prolong ones lifespand (long enough for medical technologies to pop out that'll take care of that for you)?
Afaik, the safest bet of prolonging your life is to live on a constant calorie deficient (50% or so), which I can't handle.
Afaik, the safest bet of prolonging your life is to live on a constant calorie deficient (50% or so), which I can't handle.
Princess Carl
Member
If those extra years are frail and shitty, whats the point. I guess if you are hoping to stay around long enough until the breakthrough of indifinite lifespan; but even then you would require a lot of finances to afford it.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
That is the argument I've been using.
Calorific restriction will reduce your QoL, pretty drastically imho, and you're looking at 70 years vs 105 years (in the best case scenario, discounting individual genetic factors when it comes to aging).
I consider myself relatively lucky to have ancestors who've all, without fail, lived beyond the age of 90 - which would hopefully give me another 70 or so years for hypothetical life prolongation technology to be invented, and go down in price.
B-B-Bomba!
Member
Not had time to read through except the first 50 or so posts, so please excuse this if it's somewhat tangential. Have subscribed and will catch up.
Firstly, great topic with lots of information. Plus I'm interested to find how unexepctedly relevant the subject is to me. I hadn't realised how much I've been thinking about this type of stuff, nor how hungry I was for some external input.
Secondly, my first argument is a little bit of devil's advocacy. I'm fascinated with tech, I deplore my limitations (aging! Christ ...), and my thinking isn't coloured by any dogma at all. However I think it's worth making a very strong case (perhaps as a bit of a test or a leash for unrestrained progress down unfortunate avenues) that all of this fascination and hope is born simply and purely of an unhealthy dissatisfaction with the here and now (or with fundamental facts of life that just can't be changed). Or more accurately, a failure to fully comprehend and not take for granted the magnitude of the gifts, the talents, the powers which we already possess, each of us, this very second.
For me personally, I recognise I am not at all prepared to be a pioneer. I don't want shonky first gen bionic limbs, or cerebral implants that leak pus out of my ears and accidentally give me cancer. I want it to fully work, 100% safe with all the problems already ironed out. Meaning I want to rely on the pioneering spirit (and consequent suffering) of others. That again makes me question whether I really want what I think I want.
Having said all that, progress and change are inevitable anyway, and ultimately my belief is that my truest nature isn't something that has a necessary relationship with my corporeal humanity. I am happy to imagine what we might evolve into. However I honestly think we have much work to do on our inner spiritual life first, so that we don't (as we currently do) simply export our inner nightmares into the outer world!
Firstly, great topic with lots of information. Plus I'm interested to find how unexepctedly relevant the subject is to me. I hadn't realised how much I've been thinking about this type of stuff, nor how hungry I was for some external input.
Secondly, my first argument is a little bit of devil's advocacy. I'm fascinated with tech, I deplore my limitations (aging! Christ ...), and my thinking isn't coloured by any dogma at all. However I think it's worth making a very strong case (perhaps as a bit of a test or a leash for unrestrained progress down unfortunate avenues) that all of this fascination and hope is born simply and purely of an unhealthy dissatisfaction with the here and now (or with fundamental facts of life that just can't be changed). Or more accurately, a failure to fully comprehend and not take for granted the magnitude of the gifts, the talents, the powers which we already possess, each of us, this very second.
For me personally, I recognise I am not at all prepared to be a pioneer. I don't want shonky first gen bionic limbs, or cerebral implants that leak pus out of my ears and accidentally give me cancer. I want it to fully work, 100% safe with all the problems already ironed out. Meaning I want to rely on the pioneering spirit (and consequent suffering) of others. That again makes me question whether I really want what I think I want.
Having said all that, progress and change are inevitable anyway, and ultimately my belief is that my truest nature isn't something that has a necessary relationship with my corporeal humanity. I am happy to imagine what we might evolve into. However I honestly think we have much work to do on our inner spiritual life first, so that we don't (as we currently do) simply export our inner nightmares into the outer world!
SquiddyCracker
Banned
I'm kinda the same tbh.
Doesn't mean we're not as into self modification, but rather just a bit more wary of the risks.
Doesn't mean we're not as into self modification, but rather just a bit more wary of the risks.
B-B-Bomba!
Member
And this is why, despite my misgivings above, I recognise the desire and need for advancements (and don't put my own squeamishness ahead of that need). When I say I'm unwilling to be a pioneer, of course there are plenty of people around who would give their eye teeth for the opportunity. Good luck, I hope you see a transformation in your lifetime.
B-B-Bomba!
Member
Haha, an eloquently painted picture. However I don't believe it's possible to make any statement, from any perspective no matter how wide, that doesn't still have its equally relevant and powerful opposite. And here I think Monocle does a fair job:
They're both true and worth incorporating imo.
Relevant to this subject is another recent GAF thread on this Cracked article about real people with natural superpowers. Link is to the second page, at the top of which is a guy who can apparently control his body's response to cold, via meditation.
This is a totally different direction to go with the idea of superhumanism - inwards instead of outwards - and I think the two really have to go hand to make any sense on their own. Inner transformation is personal rather than cultural, something you have to do yourself rather than wait for (horrifying, exploitative) global society to produce for you.
Or perhaps the adult insight here is that it's possible to achieve everything we have discussed so far, in its essential substance if not in its exact facts, via organic, inward, personal commitment to doing so.
Robot dicks that fuck forever while you watch your girl squirt in infrared, ultraviolet and slow-mo while recording the whole thing are among the biggest draws to transhumanism; however if you changed your definition of what you are and what's possible for you, could you imagine doing the same without any tech at all? Or accept that nothing at all can improve what sex already is, except that you can improve how well you understand and relate to it?
Side question: Can you accept at this point that you are in a committed sexual relationship with your computer?
SquiddyCracker
Banned
I'm much more interested in inward improvements over outward ones.
Robotarms, roboteyes, etc, might be cool, but they don't excite me like being able to change your mood or the way you think.
It's exciting because it has such a greater impact on the human nature than external upgrades.
I reckon that even the ardent luddites are fine with technology that merely replaces and supplement, won't at all be surprised by seeing traditionalist religious folk being okay with bionic eyes and the such.
It's when you start playing around with the brain, and with the mind, that I'm expecting to see a lot of resistance from all sorts of people - because now you're not merely building a robotic shell around the core concept of humanity, you're changing it.
Robotarms, roboteyes, etc, might be cool, but they don't excite me like being able to change your mood or the way you think.
It's exciting because it has such a greater impact on the human nature than external upgrades.
I reckon that even the ardent luddites are fine with technology that merely replaces and supplement, won't at all be surprised by seeing traditionalist religious folk being okay with bionic eyes and the such.
It's when you start playing around with the brain, and with the mind, that I'm expecting to see a lot of resistance from all sorts of people - because now you're not merely building a robotic shell around the core concept of humanity, you're changing it.
Dangerous. Until we know brain very well, until we know where consciousness comes from, how it works, etc. we shouldn't touch those things, not directly anyway.
I say this because there's a too big chance of doing something irreversible or very negative (something that causes madness or.. i don't know, something bad).
Usually i have no problem with poking things we don't quite understand yet (indeed, we often work onward with incomplete knowledge, the nuclear weapon research comes to mind), but changing our very core? That can't be done without understanding, understating we don't have yet, we've just scratched the surface.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm fine with the idea of enhancing human brain in addition to enhancing human body. Just that: not yet, not soon. Not without complete knowledge.
We don't want any mad scientists, do we?
Of course, i prefer genetic engineering to roboticization of human body. Cybernetics don't move on to next generation automatically (unless, perhaps we can create synthetic cells/DNA/stuff that enhances humans but also passes on to following generations).
Well, this in scale of human species, can't modify grown human with genetic engineering, not fully anyway, at least not yet.
So, for myself, the only option seem to be cybernetics...
Oh, and "changing your mood or the way you think". If you can do that for yourself, there's a danger of changing oneself to something that no longer wants to change at all.
Also, mind control. Via viruses or something like that (hacking?). There is a big difference in forcibly changing someone, and persuading someone (well, there's influencing someone as well but it is a bit gray area), so don't start the "persuasion is just a form of mind control" argument. EDIT well, not sure if it is common argument but i've heard it, and reject it.
If we intend to tweak brain, then perhaps we should first develop something to prevent outsider from affecting our brain, a firewall if you will.
Me, i'd be fine with relatively conservative brain augmentations: alternate/additional memory (flash memory), computer interface, internet link, augmented hearing and other senses.
Not too keen on stuff for affecting brain chemistry or such, we have drugs and alcohol for that already (which i don't use at all).
As for thinking, i think very differently from your average human already.
EDIT oh and one additional issue i have with cybernetic transhumanism. I'd really prefer if humanity would avoid this "virtual reality transcendence". You know, upload a copy/consciousness to virtual reality where everything is possible. It is a failure for a species, a dead end. We have a real universe waiting for us, let's go there instead of retreating into some pitiful fantasy.
B-B-Bomba!
Member
I dunno, man. I think we already exist with an 'influence soup'. Who's to say whose thoughts or feelings come from where? Part of the fun of human life comes in picking through such stuff. I think culturally we are crystallising an idea that 'I am' in its purest sense refers to conscious awareness, and nothing more. So the origin of a given stimulus is less important than one's awareness of it, and what may or may not happen within us after the fact ...
Cameron122
Member
Should I become a cyborg in the future?
Or should I spend that money making my wheelchair transformable into a dual rotor helicopter?
Choices, man.
Or should I spend that money making my wheelchair transformable into a dual rotor helicopter?
Choices, man.
Take the third possibility:
Fuse the wheelchair with your body. Become a flying cyborg with wheels.
pancakesandsex
Member
Can I be an Adrian Barbeaubot?
Cameron122
Member
laesperanzapaz
Member
how far are we from T-1000?
i wanna be it.
i wanna be it.
Obviously we don't know enough (in detail) to properly recreate a human brain, it's very much a work in progress. Our current computers differ so much from the way the brain functions (actually a fascinating topic), but we're constantly working towards a solution. There's a project at the moment (which has been met with some skepticism) to reverse engineer the human brain and build a synthetic one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Brain_Project
Long story short, neurons work differently than computers, but we're working on it. Only a matter of time before synthetic brains are functionally identical to the human brain.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
Cross-post from Kinitari's thread:
How to create a friendly AI
Amazing little document on how to create a friendly AI - going through the steps of creation as well as defining "friendly" in addtion to "AI".
How to create a friendly AI
Amazing little document on how to create a friendly AI - going through the steps of creation as well as defining "friendly" in addtion to "AI".
Crossposting from the Deus Ex ending Thread.
LIke I said in the rant above, I'm all for transhumanism.
LIke I said in the rant above, I'm all for transhumanism.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
I saw this interesting argument on reddit couple of days ago, that I thought I'd share with you guys.
Aren't we all already kinda transhumanist?
Modern medicine&technology has already for years been used to change our bodies and environment for what most agree is the better.
Is there any difference from being handed pencillin, or having an operation, to replacing your eyes with robotic ones?
It's just a case of changing what would have happened if you lived unassisted in the wild.
Aren't we all already kinda transhumanist?
Modern medicine&technology has already for years been used to change our bodies and environment for what most agree is the better.
Is there any difference from being handed pencillin, or having an operation, to replacing your eyes with robotic ones?
It's just a case of changing what would have happened if you lived unassisted in the wild.
Transhumanism, at least for me, it's not about technology to help us, like medicine, but to replace evolution itself.
We can live better and longer, but our future generations will change according to biological evolution. Tranhumanism is the idea of not letting time and our own biology shape us, but do it ourselves.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked