Transhumanism-Discuss

Hardware Hub Tech Policy & News
21

lol wut?
sorry no, not at all. In fact America is the worst case, its the only country in the world where the average white males life expectancy is actually declining, and not representative of the whole. However those figures do not really relate to the wealthy, the fact is this is a popular misrepresentation, the wealthy tend to live longer and be healthy, there are of course outliers, but that is all they are.

and in relation to more kids (and i agree, except about the generalisation as to why they have more kids), this is well researched, with higher levels of education and financial prospects child birth rates decline, this is why the average birth rates in western lib dems have been consistently declining over the last few decades.

this is not purely because they are 'poorer' but has to do with cultural, socio econ, 'instinctual', poorer education - leads to poorer decision making and poorer support structures to offer advice/incentivise certain behaviours while minimising others (etc) there are a whole range of reasons, and to link them to being just poor ignores the underlying causes of WHY poor people have more children--- ie they don't have more children because they are poor, but because being poor limits their capacity/ability/prospects/exposure to a wide range of other factors.

2 Likes
22

Eh. See the issue here is that interfacing and controlling the brain is dangerously easy.

A computer can not directly do anything to the brain. There HAS to be some type of electromechanical machine that interfaces between the brain and the computer. This machine will probably be so basic that making any computer code to interface with it is going to be painfully simple and bland.

I honestly think the base code is going to be fool proof. However the software that will make the base code secure may be an issue.

23

A fat girl would get through a famine which the skinny one would start passing out after a few days of no food. Your making my point on evolution you, pick looks and money.

24

Lots of questions, not many answers.

So here's something. Logan pointed out in one of the TEK's an article where It's generally understood that we are being programmed by people like Zuckerberg already. The way to behave and react and click is all given to us as multiple choice options. The gas station pump, the checkout line, the ticket kiosk, are all ways of making your life more efficient (as long as you understand it), less likely to get in an altercation with a drunk/high employee, and cheaper for the company providing. We're being shown what to do, and we're being made more and more comfortable with a life devoid of contact. Think of Japan with their restaurants that have stuffed animals as companions, and rubber life size dress up dolls that don't cheat on you, and that twitch is even a thing.

Everyone has levels of plugging in that they've accepted, either because they want to, or because it's literally their only option. When you get that, people like Zuckerberg don't need to have a map of your mind, because they've already written the code.

So lets take that to our immediate future. A guy sitting in a chair with more "immersion." Occulus Rift with a bundle of wires coming out, joysticks, microphones, Cortana.

Exploring the internet almost feels like free will, but the end result is youtube comments. What are they actually doing?

I can easily imagine a deeper level of immersion is just around the corner. I don't think it would even require direct brain access (although that would be cool) to know what everyone is doing and thinking and behaving at any given moment.

There was a concept in one of the Metal Gear games where the end goal was to make an A.I. that could intercept chat messages and change them in real time. That way, only the ideas that were parallel to the owners ideas would ever be made public. The majority wins. One of the main goals of A.I. is to make a device that a human can't differentiate between it and another human. It's hard to base reality off of a video game, but it was an interesting thought.

If we move on to the next generation, and the concept of "lets go for a hike" doesn't compute because it's boring, but they might beat me up and take my money, why bother, then all of our actions are going to be guided.

Casey Neistat had an interesting video the other day, where at the end he had a quote that was something like, "5% of the population thinks, 10% think they think, and the remaining 85% would rather die than think." It's a concept that, people truly want/need to be told what to do, and in a society where most of the retired population can't survive without the government, we're letting ourselves be driven.

25

actually a fat chick cant hunt or do anything useful because she's too fat. i'd rather have someone athletic.

1 Like
26

well, there's no gene making her fat, that's just her behavior. (i know some would argue but lets make another thread about that)

27

but you forget that in some cultures it is considered desirable to be fat as it is a sign of wealth, you also forget how the 'ideal' figure has evolved throughout the centuries and is very different depending on the era/culture. there are a few specific traits that some individuals are drawn too, and 'attractiveness' in modern terms is not really one of the major ones people think it is.

28

the way i see it, there are two things going on now.

recent advance in genetics have opened the door to epigenetics

so we now know the external factors of your environment can determine what genes you express, and consequently you pass on those expressed genes to your offspring. so i would argue having access to more resources (money) actually does make you, evolutionarily speaking, fitter.

so as our technology get more advance so does it affect our genome as well. we have, and are, doing this in parallel since, quote the video, someone took a stick to get at a higher piece of fruit. and will continue to do so.

1 Like
29

I sense a Butlerian Jihad in our future... or perhaps at least a Battlestar Galactica style society where weaponized technology has become so advanced that we can no longer use networked technology safely/reliably. Or maybe someone really invents a non-nuclear EMP system that just keeps turning everything off. Sort of like how Wendell keeps saying that lasers will make the air force obsolete, Iran in 2150 will make AI's whose sole purpose is to destroy everything networked in the world, or in 2084 the US will allow the NSA to spy on people's brains after a terrorist attack involving ice cream poisoning on a massive scale and we literally have no privacy. If our brains were plugged in they could do Minority Report without psychics. We may come to the point where we can read brain activity without plugging anything in too, I think that could be more likely and less invasive, but would also give us no choice in the matter.

In short, I think the idea that we all join in an electronic consciousness on a large scale without an apocalypse shortly proceeding is very optimistic.

1 Like
30

Ok let the philosophical think tank begin :P note: this may be a bit of read, grab a wine or whiskey and relax. Also note as each one of your questions really could be an essay onto itself take statements with a grain of salt as for brevity there will be oversimplifications.

My question of loss of individuality isn't one of if it is a good or a bad thing but rather a will or will not happen.
To be fair writing out all sides of that questions would take far too long so I will talk on the side of it is a "bad" thing and it "will" happen.

Humans as a species are social creatures - this is fact. Either through means of intercommunication or hierarchy a social state is created and nurtured in our species, so much so we now have a social economy (think likes and such on Facebook, or better yet "how many friends/followers do you have?") I will quickly note that social economy is not a new thing - it has just been gamified.

With this in mind, if we value social interactions so much as need (albeit created need) to have measurable social value (don't shoot me here, I do not think how many likes you have makes you a better person) what would happen if we are no longer able to have these? By principal a meaningful social interaction is a connection made physically or emotionally between one or more individuals. So with this removed as we all become humanity rather than a part of humanity, what would that mean to us as a species who has now lost one of its earliest and primary facets?

I do not think this is something to be feared, but if this possibility is to be near certain - it is one we must think about.

As to what benefits we could have it really is an open ball game where on one side with all individuality removed and a sort of "hive mind" created we would have the single greatest intellect humanity has ever had as our resource and what could be produced is untold. However, without individuality and without social economy - besides survival - what would possibly drive and give reason to an intellect to do anything? it is hard to grasp because by its very nature it would no longer be a human intellect in the sense that we have now. It very well may no longer have emotions and that is a set of brain patterns designed to reinforce social connection.

To answer your next point simply, the natural growth of humanity will not in my opinion naturally lead to loss of individuality. The concern from this is something present even today - the loss of Identity. Particularly acute with Caucasian persons, simply ask "What is your heritage" and for most it will be "A bit of this, some of that and a touch of this for texture." DO NOT GET ME WRONG this is a problem across all peoples and creed, take for instance Native Americans who know who they are however there identity is lost from the smothering and loss of ancestral knowledge. These two situation represent different affects from the same problem. What I hope is that we advance along our path long enough that the question/problem is no longer relevant.

Now this is the kicker to the whole thing, we do not value individuality. Social outcasts, loners, introverts etc these are all systemic of people not fitting in with the "norm" (I am sooooo not going to get into a debate over what is normal, so lets just agree for the time being that is the majority social accepted status quo) (also not all of these things are forced, there are those who by choice separate themselves from the "norm" or majority). So by effect, if you express too much of your individuality you are separated from the majority. The flip side of this is that we will protect our right to our Identities vehemently.

I think that will be enough for now haha - enjoy and think :)

3 Likes
31

agree completely! :P

i took the comments as implying that it was a 'bad thing'

Agree, few points;
would not a 'collective' be the ultimate social interaction?
yes but who says we will not move beyond this need?
As we become more intelligent the more our needs/desires change/can be perceived (unless we are all autistic -_- )

\Again agree

think of it as 'conflicting thoughts one may have about performing a task -should i do this should or should i do that - you can still have different thoughts within a collective.... but thats all too hypothetical

cop out answer;
how could we know what something so intelligent desires
and
less cop out answer;
the same things that usually do; exploration, discovery, knowledge.

yea agree - i don't think it is the case at all, that people are losing indiv now though, we are more individual than at anytime in our history. i don't think that loss of cultural identity really constitutes loss of the indiv, and i personally see that loss as a good thing, we need to redifine who we are in order to change our social conditioning/constructs, and this could be a massive tangent of it's own i will stop there.

it's a psychological phenomena known as conformity (among many other things but for simplicity's sake) and our need for it. It is a massive part of our daily lives and we probably conform more than we are individuals every day... (I'd have to look for exact figures to verify this...). what we eat/how we eat/what we wear/what we listen to/how we listen to it/why we listen to it/etc etc


edit; forogot to mention, in this video, you wil see one of the reasons i think complete loss of the indiv would be a 'bad' thing - conformity-often means denying things - yet this can also be overcome too with increased intell/perception etc etc

cognitive dissonance;

(every time i get in an elevator I make a point of facing the wrong way makes so many people physically uncomfortable lol - it's also why they put mirrors in an elevator, so you have something to look at/distract you - challenge to anyone - get in an alevator and don't look at yourself/in the mirror haha :P )

2 Likes
32


I'm surprised nobody mentioned this, the first one made was Logan's favourite game and related to the topic at hand.

2 Likes
33

i doubt we could be a member of Tek without knowing Deus Ex :P

34

You might find Dr Steel something fun.
http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/anissimov20080816

2 Likes
35

Because loss of self would be the same thing as death (loss of sentience). Also, introvertion, is a very common personality type. Forced oneness with a collective conscious would be terrifying for people like that.

Eventhough something is a exact copy of you it still isn't. Main issue with conscious transfer

1 Like
36

The transporter dilemma. I don't have an issue with it. A lot of people think it's horrible because it isn't the actually you, but I think there's a bit to much holiness put into identity. Some people care so much about identity that they'll throw away their own to perceived meager identity for a stronger group identity in country, race, or religion. To the point where if it was taken from them they would lost to themselves. I see a lot of it pretty much everywhere in a bigger city like Louisville. People feel like they need some kind of identifier to sort themselves out of the noise of the city and stand out, but it ends up having a reversed affect

I don't even think that humans are so different from each other. Each person is more or less a reflection of the other. Identity practically serves a purpose to have better meme diversity. Just like gene reproduction so that and organism doesn't become so homogeneous that it is overly vulnerable.

Identity changes so much in your life that it seems naive to be so steadfast in it. If identity is the issue with having a dupe I don't really think it's an issue. Seeing as identity is such a fluid and fragile thing.

I don't really see any other issue with consciousness transfer. Even though it isn't you, it might as well be. I may have died, but it's an exact copy so not really? I don't see the problem. I think it's a minor hang up.

Especially since I'd need to transfer my synapses to better artificial brain and metal gear-esque body. None of the moral quips are enough of a reason for me, gimme that shit.

If you want to read a some manga with this kinda sci-fi in it check out akumetsu. It's about a guy that can be in multiple places at once. He goes on a terrorist rampage through Japan. It's one of my favorites.

4 Likes
37

I think with intelligence comes the value of individuality. I live in a poor area and watch what happens. The not so bright people all gather together and thrive on the real life soap opera of peoples problems and mistakes. They watching people fight with each other the most. They try to get it to happen often just so there entertained. Anyone that doesn't come out to play that they know is found and bullied for not showing up. It almost like a gang that pick on itself.

Now with the internet the social outcasts, loners, introverts have a way to communicate with other like minded people and get the reward of socializing.

You wont see too make elite academics partying every weekend. They tend to enjoy their time alone and socialize selectively we people that stimulate them.

I dont think there will ever be a hive mind but new ways to connect people together will most likely be embraced by some aspect of humans.

2 Likes
38

Well said. You put into words a big chunk of what I was thinking.

39

On the ball there, Marty.

40

Dying is a big hang up to me. Call me weird. Nope if I could keep my brain and put it into another shell I would be fine with that.

What is an interesting question is the Ships of Theseus Paradox. Due to the transfer of matter outside and inside the body about every 7 years your body no longer has the same matter it did 7 years ago. Are you the same person?

Now with something similar to a synaptic transfer (or teleportation) would it still be you? @wendell and @DeusQain I would love to hear your guy's thoughts on this.

2 Likes