The Day We All Killed Ourselves

i for one would not feel the decision to replace my organs and limbs and upload my mind onto a computer...i'd go all natural.

 

The logic is this article stupefies me. Perhaps that because I'm looking for something that doesn't exist.

 

People take cybernetic enhancement to the extreme in Science Fiction.
People will eventually make it a practice of replacing badly damaged organs with artificial ones.
However that doesn't mean it's possible to just tear a whole body apart and replace it with robotics.

 

reminds me of... umm, '2001 a space odyssey'

well the predictions with dates and what/not anyways

 

You're skepticism is unbased, I advise you talk to Skywalker, he's a great articulator of Transhumanism and technological capabilities.

It's only a matter of time.

 

^^^^^^^^ or read the book "The Singularity is Near" by Ray Kurzweil. I'm pretty sure they allude to it on that site. I'm actually reading it right now. It is an interesting blend between philosophy and technology.... and nothing like a 2001 Space Odyssey

 

That's what they said about hover cars.
And I certainly don't any hover cars.

 

Thats because flying cars are conceptually flawed.

Seriously -- Where is the logic tree on this one?

 

The logic behind eventually replacing ourselves with machines is so flawed I don't know where to begin. It's almost as if the people who dream up such absurd theories have no grasp of psychology or sociology at all.

 

Oh, I'm sure for the time being, we'll hang on to our physical organic bodies as long as we can. But say your lungs fail from whatever, wouldn't you say "yes please" to an artificial efficient set of lungs that would give you the stamina of a giddy 15 year old? Beats dying gradually and painfully from lung-athrophy suffocation.

A few years later, your eyes go all out of focus. Now you can either get legally blind as it worsens, or, invest in a set of new eyeballs that in addition to the standard 20-20 vision also has a 8x optical zoom, 24x digital zoom, UV and IR spectra ability and glare filtering abilities that would make the only reason to wear shades, is dressing up to some weird soooo 20th Century theme costume party.

And so on. Given the choice between serious impairment or even death, and replacing broken parts with artificial ones, all of us would go for the artificial alternative. That is, except those weirdo's that won't allow any surgery or altering out of some religious insanity. Christian Science and Jehovas Witnesses kinda freaks.

Ultimately, our brain needs replacement shall our conscious "I" survive. Hell, given the choice, death or upload, I'll do the virtual thing in an instant. And so I presume will most if not nearly all.

 

If i live that long, im going to go directly into a shell. fuck this slow decay.

And, just becuase we dont have flying cars doesnt mean we cant. Same with human 2.0.

edit: ive posted this before, but for those who missed it.

http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0551.html

 

Yeah its all possible, even likely if we can manage to survive long enough, though the suicide thing seems unlikely. Why not just erase our memories and do it again? I think it would lead to the hindu idea of reincarnation.

Niether of you have provided logical arguments for why the others idea doesn't make sense or why your own idea does.

 

I'm far too unfamiliar with the concepts of transhumanism to argue them adequately. Other members know much more about it than me.

I resigned from that debate.

 

I structure my theory on, "Replacing ourselves with computers is flawed" by examining the, "Assumed Progression" theory. You see, assumed progression means that we predict the next 'logical' development in our world's technology by current developments and rates of speed. For example, because we are cloning and creating artificial organs now, it is 'logical' that in the next few decades we will be able to replace entire limbs with fully-flexible and working cybernetic limbs. There is no proof that progress will ever be made but we base this assumption on our current rate of technological development.

Also, take replacing brains with computers for example. It is of course possible in the next few decades we will be able to transplant cybernetic microchips into our brains. So the 'transhumanists' compile that fact with the fact that we can create artificial organs. And once they have the 2+2 idea in their head, they just take a stream of assumptions and run with them. "Well if we can replace organs, and we can alter our brain with microchips, than does it not make sense we can replace half our brain with cybernetics? And once we come that far, is it not also logical that we can then replace the second half of our brain with cybernetics, after all the artificial parts would be more effective and can work efficiently together!"

It's basically a just a bunch of "Well if....The next step would be to.." assumptions stacked on top of each other until they basically kill off the entire human with cybernetics.

Of course they miss out on the fact that we'd be dead.

 

I once thought in theory, yes, full tranhumanism can and will be reached. After pondering it for a short while, months had past and i came to current conclusion that in order for the human to remain itself, the brain mustn't be touched, but built around.

Your doubtfullness only shows your biased points.

Keep this in mind; assumptions are just as important as the known facts one deals with in any advancement. How can anyone change the situation without first 'guessing' whats next?

Almost like a man gunning for the kill, we will advance to described above, in my life time, i fear not. but, there are those who will not stop until we have fully reverse engineered ourselves to become immortal. no matter what time frame its in is irrelivent.

the arguement you've lain is benign and foolish.I take my leave, until something worth posting to surfaces in this thread.

Good day,
~naku06




"Its better to dream, and fail. then to never at all."

 

Stop watching so many Sci-Fi flicks and back up your radical claims with evidence.

 

Ive provided a link on the previous page. It has a few hundered articles and topics including off links and support teams. Go read.

And on a personal note, im not a fan of science fiction stories. I'm a fan the inevitable, with pros and cons aside.

 

This reminds me of the Futurama episode where giant brains collected all the information in the Universe and then tried to destroy the Universe right after they collected it all.


In fact, that sounds strangely similar.

I believe we already have a collective consciousness, but not many can use the ability, or use it properly for that matter.