Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I see no need, and I still don't know what ethical dilemma you see in cybernetics.

To those that consider the body as a defining part of what it means to be human, cybernetics may seem very highly in-ethical. If you can't at least meet me halfway, I don't think we are ever going to see eye to eye.

I don't see any reason to care if we're human or not.

Replacing chunks at a time miiiight be better than transferring the whole brain via scanning or whatever.

I really don't think this method helps anything. What if replacing a certain chunk breaks continuity of consciousness? It's impossible to tell.

It's impossible to tell because your continuity of consciousness isn't real. It is a temporal perception, that's all.

[alway]

Replacing chunks at a time miiiight be better than transferring the whole brain via scanning or whatever.

I really don't think this method helps anything. What if replacing a certain chunk breaks continuity of consciousness? It's impossible to tell.

Which is exactly why the entire point is moot.

As for mind control, by that point in time, your brain will be just as vulnerable to control even without a silicon substrate. http://video.pbs.org/video/1757258624/
Of particular interest is the bit starting a little after 7 minutes.

[Frumple]

This is just steroids for muscle growth. Why not try steroids for bone strength? Chemicals to make the bones harder, the marrow denser. The brain continues to develop, even as an adult. As the brain is "exercised" it develops more folds and more neurological pathways. Who's to say we can't speed up that growth as well?

In regards to this, from an optimization standpoint... there's flat limits, as I understand it, to just what bone and muscle and nerves can do and still be bone and muscle and nerves (and not steel and wiring or whatev'.), and it's entirely possible (though I'd have to defer to someone actually working in the related field(s) to know if it's plausible) that you can get entirely greater returns on your investment with replacement over improvement. If we can get 10x improvement in functioning by replacing an arm with a prosthetic for a tenth or hundredth what it'd take (in terms of resource investment) to get that level of improvement via biological improvement, well...

And, as I understand, getting notably improved bones and muscles and whatnot, beyond the current human limits is a... non-trivial project. Even in relation to the barriers related to cybernetic replacement. Denser muscles, stronger bones, etc., so forth, so on... there's costs to them (caloric in particular), and infrastructure, so to speak (want denser muscles, need stronger bones, and better circulation, and who knows what else), issues related to them. We should progress along both lines of research, of course (because there's a flat guarantee they'll be a positive feedback interaction between the fields.), but my personal guess is that cybernetics is going to be a lot more fruitful when it comes to major external stuff, as well as having certain internal stuff (re: neurology, particularly) that physiology just can't really do, or at least not nearly as well, or as cheaply, or with as few nasty side effects.

But then again, we're a long way away from biological wi-fi, insofar as I'm aware. Maybe by the time we're capable of stuff like that, current supposition will be largely out the window.

[Grek]

So, wait. Why is continuous consciousness something we care about? Let's look at an example:

Omega (an all-knowing, all-powerful, perfectly honest entity that likes offering people strange and philosophically interesting deals) appears before you at noon today and offers you X$ in exchange for permission to use his Omega powers at 12:30 today to erase your memory of events happening between 12:26 and 12:27 today. Omega further promises (and you know that he is telling the truth - Omega is perfectly honest, after all) that nothing will happen to you between 12:26 and 12:27 if you accept the deal which wouldn't happen otherwise. The only change due to the deal is that you become X$ richer and, after 12:30, cannot remember that particular minute of your life.

Is accepting this deal equivalent to agreeing to be killed and replaced with a clone for mere money? If not, then why care about having continuous consciousness? If so, then how do you feel about the hours and hours of sleep each night that you cannot remember? Is sleep equivalent to death and replacement as well?

Is there any value of X where you would accept that deal? If so, what is the minimum value you would accept? That minimum value is how much you value not having a 1 minute discontinuity in your consciousness.

Does your answer change at all if, instead of being paid X$ to have 1 minute of memory removed, you get paid X$ to be sent 1 minute into the future?

[Lagslayer]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

This is just steroids for muscle growth. Why not try steroids for bone strength? Chemicals to make the bones harder, the marrow denser. The brain continues to develop, even as an adult. As the brain is "exercised" it develops more folds and more neurological pathways. Who's to say we can't speed up that growth as well?

In regards to this, from an optimization standpoint... there's flat limits, as I understand it, to just what bone and muscle and nerves can do and still be bone and muscle and nerves (and not steel and wiring or whatev'.), and it's entirely possible (though I'd have to defer to someone actually working in the related field(s) to know if it's plausible) that you can get entirely greater returns on your investment with replacement over improvement. If we can get 10x improvement in functioning by replacing an arm with a prosthetic for a tenth or hundredth what it'd take (in terms of resource investment) to get that level of improvement via biological improvement, well...

And, as I understand, getting notably improved bones and muscles and whatnot, beyond the current human limits is a... non-trivial project. Even in relation to the barriers related to cybernetic replacement. Denser muscles, stronger bones, etc., so forth, so on... there's costs to them (caloric in particular), and infrastructure, so to speak (want denser muscles, need stronger bones, and better circulation, and who knows what else), issues related to them. We should progress along both lines of research, of course (because there's a flat guarantee they'll be a positive feedback interaction between the fields.), but my personal guess is that cybernetics is going to be a lot more fruitful when it comes to major external stuff, as well as having certain internal stuff (re: neurology, particularly) that physiology just can't really do, or at least not nearly as well, or as cheaply, or with as few nasty side effects.

But then again, we're a long way away from biological wi-fi, insofar as I'm aware. Maybe by the time we're capable of stuff like that, current supposition will be largely out the window.

Every structural material has it's own limits. Nothing is ever completely positive or negative. When you gain one thing, something else is lost. Would you wear pajamas made of steel plates? Would you make a nylon tank?

Do you want a slightly more optimized system that only works under very specific conditions, or a more flexible system which is slightly less efficient at it's primary function, but doesn't fall apart at the drop of a hat? Organics and hard machinery both have their benefits and pitfalls; one simply has to choose which problems they want to deal with. I choose organics because I feel that, ethically speaking, to remove our organic parts is to dehumanize us, hurting us as a species and a culture. This is not a question of logic, but of emotion. I hate the idea that our bodies or minds would so apathetically be tossed aside.

[Descan]

You didn't answer my question. Plus, who's talking about minds?


Also, Grek, that's not the same thing. It's more like if the minute in question was being literally dead, with our brain erased from the world, and then brought back with exactly the same configuration.

[Moghjubar]

I hate the idea that our bodies or minds would so apathetically be tossed aside.

Don't worry, you would be programmed to not hate it afterwards.

[Levi]

This is not a question of logic, but of emotion. I hate the idea that our bodies or minds would so apathetically be tossed aside.

Its not like you need to toss YOUR brain aside.  Let the rest of us do what we want with our minds and bodies. 

[Grek]

@Lagslayer: While all materials have strengths and weaknesses, not all strengths are equal nor weaknesses the same. Robots, even today, move several times as fast, stop hundreds of times more precisely and think at thousands of times the rate that the human body does. The various advantages of organic life (mostly the incredible ability to self-repair) are less valuable to most people than the advantages of a less-organic form. At least given the fact that you can replace a worn out mechanical body.

@Descan: Forgetting is the same thing as being killed and replaced as far as continuity of consciousness is concerned. If you have objections to being killed at T=0 and replaced with an exact duplicate at T=1 above and beyond those you have to having your memory from T=0 to T=1 removed at T=1, then those objections are based in something other than worrying about your consciousness have discontinuities in it.

[Eagle_eye]

There is no continuity of consciousness. Time, in a very physical sense, is discrete. As far as I'm aware, the Planck time is the absolute smallest unit of time.

[Levi]

Does it even really matter if you lose a bit of continuity?  I can't imagine being all broken up for losing a day or two.

[Korbac]

The question is if you still exist when you come back together. At least, that's my concern.

Eagle_eye : If there is no continuity of consciousness, then what makes you you? Surely you're a different Eagle_eye than the one a second ago?

[misko27]

Does it even really matter if you lose a bit of continuity?  I can't imagine being all broken up for losing a day or two.

Because its death. You die, and a copy exactly like you is made. Its not transferal  really, its copy and pasting, and deleting the original. That's you. So that means, you die. That brings up a host of various questions.

[Frumple]

This is not a question of logic, but of emotion. I hate the idea that our bodies or minds would so apathetically be tossed aside.

Yeah, I can understand coming from that direction, mostly. I just... well, frankly, I'm not too fond of the flesh. It's got some things going for it, but if I could replace an eight hour sleep cycle with a twenty minute defrag or something... damn. Right here, right now. That's just an example. I hate the necessities and burdens of the human form and maybe chunking some of it out will help replace those with less onerous necessities and burdens. The positives of the human form haven't really been worth the negatives, for me, at all. Most of my positives have come from neurochemstry, not the rest of the fleshy bits, and signs point to mechanical aspects being able to massively improve those positives, in due time. But trust me, there's nothing apathetic about my anticipation for a general and effective augmentation movement. S'one of the relatively few things that actually get me jumping about and hopeful.

S'all pretty hypothetical, so far, though. Have to wait until we can actually weigh the pros and cons of biological and mechanical cognitive enhancement. Then the real hoedown can commence

[alway]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

This is just steroids for muscle growth. Why not try steroids for bone strength? Chemicals to make the bones harder, the marrow denser. The brain continues to develop, even as an adult. As the brain is "exercised" it develops more folds and more neurological pathways. Who's to say we can't speed up that growth as well?

In regards to this, from an optimization standpoint... there's flat limits, as I understand it, to just what bone and muscle and nerves can do and still be bone and muscle and nerves (and not steel and wiring or whatev'.), and it's entirely possible (though I'd have to defer to someone actually working in the related field(s) to know if it's plausible) that you can get entirely greater returns on your investment with replacement over improvement. If we can get 10x improvement in functioning by replacing an arm with a prosthetic for a tenth or hundredth what it'd take (in terms of resource investment) to get that level of improvement via biological improvement, well...

And, as I understand, getting notably improved bones and muscles and whatnot, beyond the current human limits is a... non-trivial project. Even in relation to the barriers related to cybernetic replacement. Denser muscles, stronger bones, etc., so forth, so on... there's costs to them (caloric in particular), and infrastructure, so to speak (want denser muscles, need stronger bones, and better circulation, and who knows what else), issues related to them. We should progress along both lines of research, of course (because there's a flat guarantee they'll be a positive feedback interaction between the fields.), but my personal guess is that cybernetics is going to be a lot more fruitful when it comes to major external stuff, as well as having certain internal stuff (re: neurology, particularly) that physiology just can't really do, or at least not nearly as well, or as cheaply, or with as few nasty side effects.

But then again, we're a long way away from biological wi-fi, insofar as I'm aware. Maybe by the time we're capable of stuff like that, current supposition will be largely out the window.

Every structural material has it's own limits. Nothing is ever completely positive or negative. When you gain one thing, something else is lost. Would you wear pajamas made of steel plates? Would you make a nylon tank?

Do you want a slightly more optimized system that only works under very specific conditions, or a more flexible system which is slightly less efficient at it's primary function, but doesn't fall apart at the drop of a hat? Organics and hard machinery both have their benefits and pitfalls; one simply has to choose which problems they want to deal with. I choose organics because I feel that, ethically speaking, to remove our organic parts is to dehumanize us, hurting us as a species and a culture.

Yay, false dichotomies! It's not either-or, and to reduce it to that is to overlook any possibility for rational thought about the matter. I wouldn't wear pajamas made of steel plates, but neither would I wear pajamas made of live mice. Non-living, organic fibers tend to make a pretty good pair; though depending on your tastes, it may originate from a 4 legged animal or a small worm, or maybe even a plant. Or perhaps you happen to like the feel of a more artificial fiber, replicating and improving upon qualities you like from some of the others.

Point is, treating it like it's a binary thing misses the concept entirely, and leaves you with a false dichotomy where you are simply choosing which form of extremism is closer to your liking.