Transhumanism

[LebenIstKrieg]

Hi could someone please give me the basics of transhumanism of point he in the direction of so articles that can help me gain knowledge on the topic.

[elf]

Transhumanism is an international intellectual and cultural movement supporting the use of science and technology to improve human mental and physical characteristics and capacities. The movement regards aspects of the human condition, such as disability, suffering, disease, aging, and involuntary death as unnecessary and undesirable. Transhumanists look to biotechnologies and other emerging technologies for these purposes. Dangers, as well as benefits, are also of concern to the transhumanist movement. /en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism

I always think of trans-humanism as a step on the way to post-humanism. We have the capacity for a certain amount of directed evolution right now. I support the right of all people to self modification, and becoming more than human. Others agree: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posthumanity

Wikipedia also says:
Biologist Julian Huxley, brother of author Aldous Huxley (a childhood friend of Haldane's), appears to have been the first to use the actual word "transhumanism". Writing in 1957, he defined transhumanism as "man remaining man, but transcending himself, by realizing new possibilities of and for his human nature".

[Invincible Summer]

http://humanityplus.org/learn/philosophy/faq

[Ernest Valdemar]

Transhumanism is an example of elitist, petty-bourgeois worship of technology as a solution to social problems.

Instead of changing the world, we are supposed to change ourselves in order to cope with it.

Those of us who can afford to pay for the technology, that is.

Technology, which is used in capitalist society for maximizing private profit and for social control, will not liberate humanity unless and until technology itself is liberated from the control of capital.

Human nature is shaped by the social relations of society, as Marx recognized in his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts and elsewhere. We have to change those social relations in order to be able to find new possibilities for our human nature. There is no tech shortcut.

[Invincible Summer]

Transhumanism is an example of elitist, petty-bourgeois worship of technology as a solution to social problems.

Instead of changing the world, we are supposed to change ourselves in order to cope with it.

I wouldn't say it is inherently elitist.



Those of us who can afford to pay for the technology, that is.

Technology, which is used in capitalist society for maximizing private profit and for social control, will not liberate humanity unless and until technology itself is liberated from the control of capital.
This would be a nice criticism of extropianism or libertarian transhumanism, but do you not think that leftist transhumanists recognize these problems?

As a transhumanist myself, I'd hate to have enhancement technologies (especially more major ones such as mind uploading, organ replacements, nanobots, etc) owned under some corporate logo. The pursuit of capital would not guarantee anyone's safety or well-being with these technologies.



Human nature is shaped by the social relations of society, as Marx recognized in his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts and elsewhere. We have to change those social relations in order to be able to find new possibilities for our human nature. There is no tech shortcut.I - and I'm sure other leftist transhumanists as well - see transhumanist technologies as things to be pursued once capitalism has been overthrown. Of course, the resources and ability to create such technology should be shared with as many societies as possible. It is the logical "next step" in liberating humanity.

I would also think that - given the technology and proper augmentations - that individuals would definitely feel they have the ability to explore "new possibilities" in regards to humanity, or more appropriately, post-humanity.

The issue is not necessarily if transhumanism can provide new horizons of humanity for specific individuals, but rather if transhumanism can provide such liberation for anyone who wishes to partake in the technology.

Basically, I think the main issue here is the distribution of technology, as well as the social context that defines the auspices under which the technology is created. Capitalism would leave transhumanist technologies for a wealthy elite, or disseminate lesser technologies as forms of social control (e.g. "Repo Men").

I would agree that the social context of capitalism is not appropriate for transhumanism, but I would disagree that transhumanism has no place in any society, and that it is inherently "elitist" or whatever.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Transhumanism is an example of elitist, petty-bourgeois worship of technology as a solution to social problems.

That's an awfully wide brush you're painting with there, comrade.


Instead of changing the world, we are supposed to change ourselves in order to cope with it.

What's wrong with that? We cannot simply remain in stasis, or wait for the countless generations for natural selection to do the job (badly) for us. The universe, at least within humanity's spheres of direct concern, is far too hostile, and can change far too quickly for that.


Those of us who can afford to pay for the technology, that is.

Nobody should have to pay.


Technology, which is used in capitalist society for maximizing private profit and for social control, will not liberate humanity unless and until technology itself is liberated from the control of capital.

Human nature is shaped by the social relations of society, as Marx recognized in his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts and elsewhere. We have to change those social relations in order to be able to find new possibilities for our human nature. There is no tech shortcut.

Without the technology, the material conditions for the change do not exist.

[x371322]

I've been a transhumanist for many years. As far as I can see Socialism and Transhumanism can indeed go hand in hand. In fact I think it's imperative that they do. Only through socialism will everyone have equal access to these future technologies.

One thing I've learned while being on these forums, is that anything someone doesn't like immediately gets labeled as petty-bourgeois. That snobbish "my left is more left than your left" attitude is what looks elitist to me. (:lol: that would look good on a shirt wouldn't it? My left is more left than your left.)

[A.R.Amistad]

I don't agree with Transhumanism. Death is what makes us great. I am not advocating unnecessary or early death, I'm just saying that trying to move toward immortality would be very destructive on mankind in the end. It is knowledge of our mortality that challenges us to do great things and give great meaning to our own lives. It is the fact that we always have the choice to kill ourselves, but that those of us who live choose not to, that makes us so great. We don't take the easy way out of the chaos. I think advances in medicine and technology are great, but mankind needs to maintain its dominance over technology, not the other way around. Technology can not give us meaning, only we can. If we were to live an immortal life, or a life that pushed mortality far beyond its natural limits, we would become a depressed and sedentary species indeed.

[Invincible Summer]

I don't agree with Transhumanism. Death is what makes us great. I am not advocating unnecessary or early death, I'm just saying that trying to move toward immortality would be very destructive on mankind in the end. It is knowledge of our mortality that challenges us to do great things and give great meaning to our own lives.

...

I think advances in medicine and technology are great, but mankind needs to maintain its dominance over technology, not the other way around. Technology can not give us meaning, only we can. If we were to live an immortal life, or a life that pushed mortality far beyond its natural limits, we would become a depressed and sedentary species indeed.

I'll have to disagree. What is so great about growing old, senile, and dying? Generally speaking, humans today live decades longer than our ancestors not even 200 years ago. Due to advances in health sciences and technology, we are living "unnaturally" according to our ancestors. Admittedly, people still degrade at the end of their lives, but the expansion of one's "healthspan" would only be beneficial. You say that our mortality pushes us to create meaning in our lives - I would argue that with the extension of one's healthy life, one could spend more time creating their identity and life-meaning without periods of depression due to pressures exerted by society to know oneself by a certain time.

I don't believe that transhumanism promotes the idea that technology is to give humans meaning - it is the idea that technology can aid humans in the process of finding and creating identity/meaning. Technology is merely a tool, after all.


It is the fact that we always have the choice to kill ourselves, but that those of us who live choose not to, that makes us so great. We don't take the easy way out of the chaos.
Exactly. :cool:

[x371322]

Man Helios, you and I must've been separated at birth I swear. :laugh: Do you read any Kurzweil books by any chance? I just finished Transcend. Now I'm onto reading Aubrey Degrey's Ending Aging. You should all read Designer Evolution: A Transhumanist Manifesto, by Simon Young, if you haven't already. The first part takes the form of the Communist Manifesto. He even ends the first chapter by saying something like we have nothing to lose but our biological chains. Very good read. It was actually the first book on Transhumanism I've read.

You've got to remember that we can't avoid progress because we fear what might happen. After all, there were many people who almost violently opposed the telephone during it's inception, because they thought it was somehow going to lead to the deterioration of the human race. I really can't say for certain if I want to live forever, I just know I want to have a say in it. Remember this: A lot of people might tell you they don't want to live to 100... Ask them again at 99.

[A.R.Amistad]

Helios+

I'll have to disagree. What is so great about growing old, senile, and dying? Generally speaking, humans today live decades longer than our ancestors not even 200 years ago. Due to advances in health sciences and technology, we are living "unnaturally" according to our ancestors. Admittedly, people still degrade at the end of their lives, but the expansion of one's "healthspan" would only be beneficial. You say that our mortality pushes us to create meaning in our lives - I would argue that with the extension of one's healthy life, one could spend more time creating their identity and life-meaning without periods of depression due to pressures exerted by society to know oneself by a certain time.

I don't believe that transhumanism promotes the idea that technology is to give humans meaning - it is the idea that technology can aid humans in the process of finding and creating identity/meaning. Technology is merely a tool, after all.

When I say that "death is what makes us great" I do not mean that the actual event of death is great. Its what we do in the face of death that makes us great. By all means we could kill ourselves and it wouldn't make a single iota of difference in the rest of the universe, but yet we still do great things with our lives despite this fact. We also do great things in our lives because we know that our time alive is limited and we can't procrastinate on giving meaning to our lives. Life is great because their is death. The good thing about the fact that life span has increased because of medicine, nutrition, etc. is that now we have more time to do even greater things with our lives. The way that we give meaning to our lives is through the act of labor. But the closer to immortality we get, the less likely it is that people will do great things for both themselves and society. You risk that society would procrastinate on meaning-giving because of their extended life. It could be said that death is our one natural incentive to do work. Once we die we cannot do work and can give no meaning anymore. But when we die, most of us want to leave an essence behind, ie, the difference we made in the world that made us individual.

As for the technology part, I'm cool as long as we don't turn into an I-Robot world ;)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

When I say that "death is what makes us great" I do not mean that the actual event of death is great. Its what we do in the face of death that makes us great.

Don't you think we should be able to do great things without having the threat of permanent non-existence hanging over our heads?

What's worse is that even with the "encouragement" that death provides, the event of death actually stops us, psychologically as well as physically, from going further than we could if we could choose to be immortal. Why plan for eternity if you're going to die?


By all means we could kill ourselves and it wouldn't make a single iota of difference in the rest of the universe, but yet we still do great things with our lives despite this fact. We also do great things in our lives because we know that our time alive is limited and we can't procrastinate on giving meaning to our lives. Life is great because their is death.

I whole-heartedly disagree. Death is the cessation of life, one of the great tragedies of existence.

The prospect of death may be motivating, but the kind of motivation it provides is to cram as much as possible into the short span that we have; this is not at all conducive to providing a lasting legacy. Were there a segment of the population that was effectively immortal, long-term sustainable planning for the future would truly make sense.


The good thing about the fact that life span has increased because of medicine, nutrition, etc. is that now we have more time to do even greater things with our lives. The way that we give meaning to our lives is through the act of labor.

I think that's a terribly narrow way of giving meaning to one's life. There is so much more to human existence than providing goods and services, as important as that is.

What about about science? What about art? What about the humanities? What about love and friendship? If people could choose immortality, the opportunities for all these things could become infinite.


But the closer to immortality we get, the less likely it is that people will do great things for both themselves and society.

I don't see how that follows at all.


You risk that society would procrastinate on meaning-giving because of their extended life.

Why? People would have all eternity to get bored of the trivial and banal distractions that are in abundance even today and would have the opportunity and the motivation to move on to grander projects.


It could be said that death is our one natural incentive to do work.

Then surely it behooves us to provide a much better unnatural incentive to do more than simply exist. The whole point of Transhumanism is that we don't rely on our naturally evolved tendencies to do the major legwork for us.


Once we die we cannot do work and can give no meaning anymore. But when we die, most of us want to leave an essence behind, ie, the difference we made in the world that made us individual.

We want to leave "something" behind because we have no other choice. But what if people had the choice? What if certain oblivion was entirely optional? What if we had a vast and diverse civilisation that treasured life and cherished intelligence? What Olympian heights could we reach if we seized the opportunity?


As for the technology part, I'm cool as long as we don't turn into an I-Robot world ;)

Technology is but a means to an end, that of a destiny of our own making.

[A.R.Amistad]

Don't you think we should be able to do great things without having the threat of permanent non-existence hanging over our heads?


No I don't. It is that permanent threat of non-existence over our heads that makes our existence, and then our essence, so unique and authentic.



What's worse is that even with the "encouragement" that death provides, the event of death actually stops us, psychologically as well as physically, from going further than we could if we could choose to be immortal. Why plan for eternity if you're going to die?
---
I whole-heartedly disagree. Death is the cessation of life, one of the great tragedies of existence.

The prospect of death may be motivating, but the kind of motivation it provides is to cram as much as possible into the short span that we have; this is not at all conducive to providing a lasting legacy. Were there a segment of the population that was effectively immortal, long-term sustainable planning for the future would truly make sense.


Human beings are addicted to giving meaning to life. Even those who fall into the despair of nihilism, dogmatism, etc. give meaning to their lives. If you are still alive and breathing you are giving a meaning to your life: the meaning to live for life's sake. But if we live only for the sake of living, without going beyond that, we forsake our individuality. We are nothing more than a lump of multicellular matter that is taking up space, oxygen and other cells. If we were immortal, if we knew we would live forever, why would we give meaning to our lives? Hell, we wouldn't have to eat. We'd be immortal we wouldn't even have to do simple everyday tasks to keep ourselves alive and healthy. We'd just sit there and live forever and ever, and in the end we'd be no different than a mountain. I don't know about you, but I kind of prefer being a human that can give meaning to life instead of a mountain that just sits there and gets climbed on.


I think that's a terribly narrow way of giving meaning to one's life. There is so much more to human existence than providing goods and services, as important as that is.

What about about science? What about art? What about the humanities? What about love and friendship? If people could choose immortality, the opportunities for all these things could become infinite.


Exactly! Bingo! Science, art, humanities, love, friendship, all of these things are beautiful ways in which we give meaning to our lives and in which we become authentic! But first we need to live in order to do these things. Its kind of hard to produce art without having the power to pick up a paintbrush, so you need to eat. But if we were immortal, we wouldn't need to eat, and then we'd realize, we don't need art to "live" since I am always going to live. I can just sit here and "live." If we were immortal we would see no reason in giving meaning to our lives. But by doing art and science, friendship and humanity, we build a meaning that will last outside of us long after we physically die. We will die, not as mere objects, but as objects that created art, science, humanity and love, and that makes us all the greater and more authentic. If we were immortal, it is highly unlikely that we would do all of these great things that you mention. We do them as a way to sort of "laugh in the face of death," but if death weren't there, there'd be nothing to laugh at.


Why? People would have all eternity to get bored of the trivial and banal distractions that are in abundance even today and would have the opportunity and the motivation to move on to grander projects.


Why do great things if I am immortal? I'm always gong to live, thats a fact, theres nothing that can destroy me. Why should I create art? My art will die before I do. Thats the problem with immortality.


Then surely it behooves us to provide a much better unnatural incentive to do more than simply exist. The whole point of Transhumanism is that we don't rely on our naturally evolved tendencies to do the major legwork for us.

So we just become boring objects that sit around and do nothing, and just let technology do all the great things for us? We should use technology as a tool to make us great, not let technology make itself great while we reduce ourselves to nothing.


We want to leave "something" behind because we have no other choice. But what if people had the choice? What if certain oblivion was entirely optional? What if we had a vast and diverse civilisation that treasured life and cherished intelligence? What Olympian heights could we reach if we seized the opportunity?


If we had the choice, why choose it? If death were a complete option, why do anything great? We would outlive that which we do. We would see what we create die in front of us, and then we'd really feel worthless.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

No I don't. It is that permanent threat of non-existence over our heads that makes our existence, and then our essence, so unique and authentic.

It is living that makes our existence "unique and authentic". Why else do people only end their lives if they feel it is no longer worth living? Why else has immortality and longer life been so desperately sought after for as long as human memory goes back? Because life has its own meaning, and death is the cessation of that meaning.


Human beings are addicted to giving meaning to life. Even those who fall into the despair of nihilism, dogmatism, etc. give meaning to their lives. If you are still alive and breathing you are giving a meaning to your life: the meaning to live for life's sake. But if we live only for the sake of living, without going beyond that, we forsake our individuality. We are nothing more than a lump of multicellular matter that is taking up space, oxygen and other cells. If we were immortal, if we knew we would live forever, why would we give meaning to our lives?

Because just sitting around would get boring.


Hell, we wouldn't have to eat. We'd be immortal we wouldn't even have to do simple everyday tasks to keep ourselves alive and healthy.

Maybe we wouldn't have to eat, bathe or sleep as a physical necessity, but there would still be the pleasure of doing such things for their own sake. Of course, that would only apply to those of us that choose to remain somewhat human.


We'd just sit there and live forever and ever, and in the end we'd be no different than a mountain. I don't know about you, but I kind of prefer being a human that can give meaning to life instead of a mountain that just sits there and gets climbed on.

So you're telling me that if you had the whole of eternity in front of you, you would just sit there? Wouldn't you get bored? Wouldn't you want to be able to do things that you would never be able to do in a lifetime?


Exactly! Bingo! Science, art, humanities, love, friendship, all of these things are beautiful ways in which we give meaning to our lives and in which we become authentic! But first we need to live in order to do these things. Its kind of hard to produce art without having the power to pick up a paintbrush, so you need to eat. But if we were immortal, we wouldn't need to eat, and then we'd realize, we don't need art to "live" since I am always going to live. I can just sit here and "live."

You can, but wouldn't you get bored? You may not need to paint in order to put food on the table, but think of the masterpieces you could produce over the course of the millennia.


If we were immortal we would see no reason in giving meaning to our lives. But by doing art and science, friendship and humanity, we build a meaning that will last outside of us long after we physically die.

It's hard to pursue meaning when one is dead. You're not around to appreciate your legacy, and depending on the circumstances of your death people may sorely miss you (in which case, why should they have to suffer from the lack of your presence?) or they may revile your memory and jubilate over your death, in which case broken bridges can't be mended and yet more more wounds go unhealed.


We will die, not as mere objects, but as objects that created art, science, humanity and love, and that makes us all the greater and more authentic.

How does the eventual destruction of a person make them more "authentic"? That's a comforting myth designed to make us accept the unacceptable.


If we were immortal, it is highly unlikely that we would do all of these great things that you mention. We do them as a way to sort of "laugh in the face of death," but if death weren't there, there'd be nothing to laugh at.

Those pursuits have an intrinsic pleasure in themselves; besides, wouldn't the ultimate example of giving the finger to death be to carry on living?


Why do great things if I am immortal? I'm always gong to live, thats a fact, theres nothing that can destroy me.

I think you're confusing immortality with invulnerability.


Why should I create art? My art will die before I do. Thats the problem with immortality.

So? You can create more, better art. You become the focus of creation, the nexus of meaning, rather than the artefacts you create.


So we just become boring objects that sit around and do nothing, and just let technology do all the great things for us? We should use technology as a tool to make us great, not let technology make itself great while we reduce ourselves to nothing.

Why the obsessive focus on doing nothing? The universe is far too large and interesting to waste time simply existing, and the typical human lifespan is far too short to take it all in.

Technology and humanity (or rather, intelligence) can make each other great in a reciprocal fashion - "greatness" isn't a zero-sum game.


If we had the choice, why choose it? If death were a complete option, why do anything great? We would outlive that which we do. We would see what we create die in front of us, and then we'd really feel worthless.

We would do great things because we would have the opportunity to do so, whereas before we had limited time.

As for outliving our creations, that would not be inevitable. If we can make ourselves eternal, why not our creations? Besides, eternity is a long time. Certainly the universe itself is not eternal; working out how to get around that problem would certainly be a major concern.

[A.R.Amistad]

@ NoXion your theme here seems to be boredom. Boredom is a form of despair in the face of a meaningless life. Believe it or not, boredom can kill, can have effects on people that can result in suicide and such. So it could be said that those of us who choose to continue living fear boredom. But if we were immortal, why fear boredom? Just live for no reason, any reason you give will just vanish as quickly as it was made.

[piet11111]

If i was guaranteed to live for 500+ years i would rush back to get proper education and do everything i can to find a meaningful job and relationship (i isolate myself to save up as much money as i can so that maybe one day i might be a home owner)

As it is now i lack the finances to quit my job without the guarantee of decades of debt rendering the quality of my life much to low for the short period i have to live to make it worth while.

And then there are things like my health i have limited strenght and movement in my left arm (and constant pain) because of a very badly broken elbow joint where pieces of bone had to be surgically removed i would very much like to get that fixed.
Then there is my diabetes that fucks with my eye sight (sometimes i have blurred vision and 2 times my right eye was unable to focus) and as a 24 year old it cuts many years of my life expectancy.

So even under capitalism i would very much like transhumanist technology to come into existence to save my ass from a lifetime of this shit.
Sometimes i just don't think this life is worth living at all.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

@ NoXion your theme here seems to be boredom.

Yes, you seem to be implying that if one could live indefinately, one would do absolutely nothing. I really don't see how that follows. Immortality is not the same thing as losing all motivation.


Boredom is a form of despair in the face of a meaningless life.

Funny, I thought boredom was that dull, unpleasant feeling brought about by a lack of engaging activity.


Believe it or not, boredom can kill, can have effects on people that can result in suicide and such. So it could be said that those of us who choose to continue living fear boredom. But if we were immortal, why fear boredom?

Because it would still be unpleasant even if it didn't kill.


Just live for no reason, any reason you give will just vanish as quickly as it was made.

So make more reasons!

I think it is supremely childish to somehow expect the rest of the universe to justify one's own existence. For far too long we have been leaning on religions and philosophies to justify an absurdity - the search for meaning.

The fact is, meaning is something that humans create. We need to grow up as a species and admit that.

[A.R.Amistad]

The problem with immortality is that it would destroy passion in our lives. We might do things in our lives, maybe even for our entire, eternity long lives. But we wouldn't do it with passion, and this would be harmful for both the individual and for society. People develop passions in life because they know their time is limited. But lets say we were immortal. Why should we have any passion? Ok, so maybe we don't have to be couch potatoes, but why put too much effort into anything hat we do? We would have literally all of the time in the world to do whatever we wanted. We would never stick with one or a few passions, and we would overall become unproductive, passionless and emotionless individuals.

Also, one must realize that the world is a big place for the mortal, but a small place for the immortal. In mortality, we only have a very limited time to experience and see all the great wonders of the world. But if we were immortal, we'd have experianced a lifetime in only a fraction of our very very long lives. Then what would we do? We'd have to do everything all over again, and again and again in the cycle of what would be a normal mortal's lifetime. Tht would be boring. In your first two lifetimes of immortlity, you would be able to say: "I have actually seen and done it all." Then you would really have no purpose to give to your life.



The fact is, meaning is something that humans create. We need to grow up as a species and admit that.

I agree whole heartedly, but if we were immortal, giving meaning to things would get old really quickly.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The problem with immortality is that it would destroy passion in our lives. We might do things in our lives, maybe even for our entire, eternity long lives. But we wouldn't do it with passion, and this would be harmful for both the individual and for society. People develop passions in life because they know their time is limited.

I submit that this is not universally the case. People are passionate for all sorts of reasons.


But lets say we were immortal. Why should we have any passion? Ok, so maybe we don't have to be couch potatoes, but why put too much effort into anything hat we do? We would have literally all of the time in the world to do whatever we wanted. We would never stick with one or a few passions, and we would overall become unproductive, passionless and emotionless individuals.

Time by itself is not enough if you want something done. You have to put in the effort, you have to have a will to get it done. You're not going to get anything done, ever, if you just sit around.


Also, one must realize that the world is a big place for the mortal, but a small place for the immortal. In mortality, we only have a very limited time to experience and see all the great wonders of the world. But if we were immortal, we'd have experianced a lifetime in only a fraction of our very very long lives. Then what would we do? We'd have to do everything all over again, and again and again in the cycle of what would be a normal mortal's lifetime. Tht would be boring. In your first two lifetimes of immortlity, you would be able to say: "I have actually seen and done it all." Then you would really have no purpose to give to your life.

Since you have not done everything there is to do and seen everything there is to see, how can you possibly say that?

The assumption implicit in your argument is there are a limited amount of original experiences in the universe. I don't think this assumption is at all warranted. We need to actually take the journey in order to judge if it is worthwhile - and that means gaining immortality.

It is the height of hubris to somehow assume that you know better than somebody who has lived even the tiny lifespan of half a millennium.


I agree whole heartedly, but if we were immortal, giving meaning to things would get old really quickly.

Hardly. Immortality is not the same thing as stasis; we would constantly change as individuals, as a society, as a civilisation, and as a species. We would be able to truly appreciate and experience the slow pulses of nature, measured in centuries, millennia, and geological eras. As the billennia pass, the universe itself would evolve and provide us with new challenges.

Indefinate lifespans would magnify the quantity and scope our experiences beyond our currently limited imagination.

[Mendax]

I agree whole heartedly, but if we were immortal, giving meaning to things would get old really quickly.
Why would you need to give meaning to things? There so much that people don't understand and if we ever get to the point where we understand everything then we'll have the intire universe to explore, you don't need to give things meaning because everything we do has meaning on its on own, even if we have forever to do it.

[Invincible Summer]

Hardly. Immortality is not the same thing as stasis; we would constantly change as individuals, as a society, as a civilisation, and as a species. We would be able to truly appreciate and experience the slow pulses of nature, measured in centuries, millennia, and geological eras. As the billennia pass, the universe itself would evolve and provide us with new challenges.

Indefinate lifespans would magnify the quantity and scope our experiences beyond our currently limited imagination.

I think this is an important point. As our societies change and evolve, the way humans interact and perceive their world will follow suit. If we were to be "immortal" (i.e. live over centuries) then we would follow these changes in society and thus be constantly stimulated with philosophical challenges, etc.

Given these changing social contexts, we would constantly have to re-evaluate the meanings we associate with things. We won't just "run out of meaning."

[Revy]

I wonder if people lived for centuries if they would be able to remember events in their early life. or just faintly ?

[Invincible Summer]

I wonder if people lived for centuries if they would be able to remember events in their early life. or just faintly ?

Depends on how advanced mind uploading (http://www.transtopia.org/uploading.html) is

[Mendax]

I wonder if people lived for centuries if they would be able to remember events in their early life. or just faintly ?
Don't know about you but I struggle to remember last week :( So if I lived for centuries I'm going to remember very little of my early life.

[x371322]

By the time we get to that point, I'm sure we'll be able to expand our memory capacities. So we'll be able to retain even more information, and in better detail. Memories might even play back in HD. :thumbup1:

[A.R.Amistad]

...still worries me greatly

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I wonder if people lived for centuries if they would be able to remember events in their early life. or just faintly ?

It depends on the nature of the extended lifespan. If it's simply preventing degradation of tissues and mental faculties, it seems likely that the earliest memories would become progressively fainter as the centuries advance, unless enhancements are used.


Depends on how advanced mind uploading (http://www.transtopia.org/uploading.html) is

Even the most primitive uploading will allow as much memories to be stored as there is drive space, it seems to me.

[ComradeOm]

Depends on how advanced mind uploading (http://www.transtopia.org/uploading.html) isA bit like Bowman at the end of 3001: The Final Odyssey then?

[Revy]

I had an idea about virtual reality and mind uploading...you could upload your mind to the virtual reality and live forever inside that. of course if the virtual reality was somehow destroyed then you'd die.

[Velkas]

The organization I belong to, FedCom/Malatora, has socialism and transhumanism as two of its top goals. We plan to establish an independent socialist society, as well as create cyborgs, called CyberTransplants or cytrans for short. And both of these goals work together. Part of the reason for our seeking independence (other than, you know, to create a non-capitalist alternative society) is to have a place where cytrans can live in freedom, their rights protected as sapient organisms. And cytrans will give us a considerable military advantage against our enemies. Especially since one of the most popular proposed cytran design is based on mythological dragons: very large and powerful, capable of flight, etc. We have researched present technology and most of the technology we would need to advance advance the cytran project is already existent. Cytrans would likely revolutionize warfare, at our advantage.

[piet11111]

cytran design is based on mythological dragons

Seriously WTF ?!? :laugh:

[Velkas]

Well, if they want to take the form of dragons...
Dragons are pretty cool, though. You have to grant them that.

[Invincible Summer]

The organization I belong to, FedCom/Malatora, has socialism and transhumanism as two of its top goals. We plan to establish an independent socialist society, as well as create cyborgs, called CyberTransplants or cytrans for short. And both of these goals work together. Part of the reason for our seeking independence (other than, you know, to create a non-capitalist alternative society) is to have a place where cytrans can live in freedom, their rights protected as sapient organisms. And cytrans will give us a considerable military advantage against our enemies. Especially since one of the most popular proposed cytran design is based on mythological dragons: very large and powerful, capable of flight, etc. We have researched present technology and most of the technology we would need to advance advance the cytran project is already existent. Cytrans would likely revolutionize warfare, at our advantage.

That's very interesting to say the least. I may be misreading what you're saying, but how does FedCom propose that such levels of technology will be available within an autonomous society?

[Velkas]

I don't quite understand your question. What do you mean?

[Velkas]

Most of the technology necessary for the creation of cytrans is currently being tested and employed in various fields of robotics and medicine. We build off of these existing technologies and take the next step: combining these technologies and smoothing away the rough edges.

[Invincible Summer]

I don't quite understand your question. What do you mean?

So in your previous post, you said:


We plan to establish an independent socialist society, as well as create cyborgs, called CyberTransplants or cytrans for short. And both of these goals work together. Part of the reason for our seeking independence (other than, you know, to create a non-capitalist alternative society)

It seems to me that you're saying that FedCom promotes building autonomous collectives within capitalism (correct me if I'm wrong). If so, how does FedCom propose that these autonomous collectives obtain the resources to build these cyborgs?

[Velkas]

It seems to me that you're saying that FedCom promotes building autonomous collectives within capitalism (correct me if I'm wrong). If so, how does FedCom propose that these autonomous collectives obtain the resources to build these cyborgs?
We have many plans to gain access to resources that we need. For instance, we plan to create front companies to export the surplus goods we manufacture and buy the materials we need from the capitalists. For instance, we can build luxury furniture from the local resources, export these, and use the funds to import tools, raw materials, and technology needed for industrialization. We also plan to import large quantities of industrial and electric waste, which we will recycle in order to use the materials for ourself. We have many other strategies, as well. As we do these we will grow less dependent on the outside world, until we are almost entirely self-sufficient.

[Velkas]

Does that answer your question?

[Invincible Summer]

Check your inbox - didn't want to turn this thread into a FedCom thread

[cska]

The organization I belong to, FedCom/Malatora, has socialism and transhumanism as two of its top goals. We plan to establish an independent socialist society, as well as create cyborgs, called CyberTransplants or cytrans for short. And both of these goals work together. Part of the reason for our seeking independence (other than, you know, to create a non-capitalist alternative society) is to have a place where cytrans can live in freedom, their rights protected as sapient organisms. And cytrans will give us a considerable military advantage against our enemies. Especially since one of the most popular proposed cytran design is based on mythological dragons: very large and powerful, capable of flight, etc. We have researched present technology and most of the technology we would need to advance advance the cytran project is already existent. Cytrans would likely revolutionize warfare, at our advantage.

3 words: WTH? You remind me of that Order of the Enoch guy: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1732723&postcount=1

Just like we have an opposing ideologies forum, we need a forum to restrict loonies to...

[Velkas]

Just like we have an opposing ideologies forum, we need a forum to restrict loonies to... :lol:
I'm not a "loony", though.
These ideas are all feasible and can be accomplished.
The successful completion of our goals would make the world a step closer to socialism.
We would create an independent socialist society.

[cska]

:lol:
I'm not a "loony", though.
These ideas are all feasible and can be accomplished.
The successful completion of our goals would make the world a step closer to socialism.
We would create an independent socialist society.

I'm not going to argue about your freeganism like stance, but just going to ask how you think it is feasible to make humans into dragons?

[Velkas]

The human body is a life support system for the brain. (Granted, it does more than that, but bear with me.) If the human body is replaced with a synthetic life support system that protects the brain and keeps it alive, this synthetic life support system could take a variety of forms, including that of a dragon. Modern technology allows the nervous system to be connected with prosthetic limbs. We will take this to the next level - the CNS will remain intact, but it will be connect with an entire synthetic body. Such a cytran would likely be able to live centuries, and never have any diseases or age, and to be very hard to kill, allowing them to take dangerous jobs that could easily kill an ordinary human. Additionally, the artificial muscles would allow a cytran, especially one of the larger ones (like dragons), to have great strength.

Does the technology behind CyberTransplantation make any more sense to you now? Do you have any questions?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The organization I belong to, FedCom/Malatora, has socialism and transhumanism as two of its top goals. We plan to establish an independent socialist society, as well as create cyborgs, called CyberTransplants or cytrans for short.

I would bet money that this would fail due to a lack of material and intellectual resources. This kind of lifestylism has failed before, with even less ambitious goals.


And both of these goals work together. Part of the reason for our seeking independence (other than, you know, to create a non-capitalist alternative society) is to have a place where cytrans can live in freedom, their rights protected as sapient organisms.

Wouldn't it be better to campaign for the rights of sapient non-humans in society as a whole, rather than to try to create some cybernetic Liberia while attitudes in a potentially hostile mother culture remain unchanged? Because so far your plan sounds like a recipe for a genocidal war between a cytran and a non-cytran society.


And cytrans will give us a considerable military advantage against our enemies. Especially since one of the most popular proposed cytran design is based on mythological dragons: very large and powerful, capable of flight, etc.

Oh dear. Tanks and fighter planes and whatnot are shaped like they are for very good reasons. Save the cyberdragons for the amusement park.


We have researched present technology and most of the technology we would need to advance advance the cytran project is already existent. Cytrans would likely revolutionize warfare, at our advantage.

The basics for cybernetic organisms are certainly there, but there needs to be focused researched on their actual creation, and beforehand, making sure each of the individual technologies involved runs smoothly in one design. All of that is big-budget stuff, at least at the moment. Molecular nanofacturing would be needed to be take your plan beyond being a non-starter.

Cybernetics certainly do have the potential to revolutionise warfare, the problem is that your approach to it just doesn't make sense from an engineering perspective.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The human body is a life support system for the brain. (Granted, it does more than that, but bear with me.) If the human body is replaced with a synthetic life support system that protects the brain and keeps it alive, this synthetic life support system could take a variety of forms, including that of a dragon.

But your reason for choosing the dragon form - and I quote - is "very large and powerful, capable of flight, etc."

I'm afraid that's simply wrong. If you want to be large and capable of flight, by far the best optimised form is the aeroplane.


Modern technology allows the nervous system to be connected with prosthetic limbs. We will take this to the next level - the CNS will remain intact, but it will be connect with an entire synthetic body. Such a cytran would likely be able to live centuries, and never have any diseases or age, and to be very hard to kill, allowing them to take dangerous jobs that could easily kill an ordinary human.

CNS tissue degrades due to age and disease as well. Why not avoid the hassle, go the whole hog and upload oneself? Any dangerous jobs that need to be done in the physical world can then be done via remote-controlled waldoes or autonomous/semi-autonomous machinery.


Additionally, the artificial muscles would allow a cytran, especially one of the larger ones (like dragons), to have great strength.

In military terms, bigger is not necessarily better.

[Velkas]

Oh dear. Tanks and fighter planes and whatnot are shaped like they are for very good reasons.Who says we can't still have tanks and fighter planes?


But your reason for choosing the dragon form - and I quote - is "very large and powerful, capable of flight, etc."

I'm afraid that's simply wrong. If you want to be large and capable of flight, by far the best optimised form is the aeroplane.I do not wish to take the dragon form. Other members of FedCom do, but I don't. I'm currently leaning towards the humanoid replicant form, which should be indistinguishable from humans. I don't know the exact reasons why others picked the dragon form. And aeroplanes are good for flying, but wouldn't it be great if you could just take to the sky whenever and wherever you wanted?


CNS tissue degrades due to age and disease as well.It will still survive longer without a biological body.


Why not avoid the hassle, go the whole hog and upload oneself?Because the technology for uploading minds doesn't exist. There's not even technology sufficiently similar for us to build off of, as we plan to do in the cytran project.


In military terms, bigger is not necessarily better.I know. But it can be better in certain situations.

I'm sorry, but I can't reply to all your points at the moment. I really don't have the time.

[Taygon]

Velkas asked me to join this forum and this discussion, so first of all: hello everyone, I'm Taygon. :cool:
I may not have as much free time to burn here as Velkas does, but I'll try to answer some questions and address some concerns when I can. Fair enough?

__________________________________________________


Wouldn't it be better to campaign for the rights of sapient non-humans in society as a whole, rather than to try to create some cybernetic Liberia while attitudes in a potentially hostile mother culture remain unchanged? Because so far your plan sounds like a recipe for a genocidal war between a cytran and a non-cytran society.Politicians can always be counted upon to do what is in their interests, not what is good for society as a whole. Capitalism only compounds that issue. We certainly do want to see the world accept sapient non-humans as equals, but that seems unlikely, so long as humanity still has prejudice, discrimination, and racism. If some humans can't learn to see through the color of another human's skin, how can they possibly see through an appearance that looks very inhuman?

We anticipate some measure of fear, suspicion, hostility, and even blatant racism against cytrans in the general population of humanity. That is why we are building a sovereign nation: so we can ensure that our cytran population has a bastion where they can live freely and escape the social conflicts the world will undoubtedly respond with. A sovereign nation answers to no higher power: it is its own "mother culture". Nobody else will have any legal power over us: if they want to stop us and oppress the cytrans inside our borders, they will have to invade and conquer us, and we're certainly not going to let them do that without one hell of a fight.

Cytrans will not fire the first shot: the choice of peace or war is firmly in the hands of the outside world. I doesn't take a genius to figure this out: so long as foreigners leave Malatora in peace, we will leave them in peace too. However, if humanity is stupid enough to launch a genocidal crusade to wipe out cytrans, they will sign their own death warrants. Cytrans will fight furiously for their right to exist (because failure would mean death anyway, and it's better to go down fighting than with your tail between your legs), and the consequences for humanity will be extreme. In short: picking a fight with a cytran is NOT worth the effort or the risk, unless you're a suicidal psychopath. Cytrans can be your best and most loyal friends, or a more vicious and merciless enemy than anything that ever haunted your worst nightmares: humanity gets to pick one.

__________________________________________________


Why not avoid the hassle, go the whole hog and upload oneself?Because that technology is still firmly in the realm of science-fiction, and nobody knows how to make it real, or if it's even possible at all. Uploading is presently no more than "wishful thinking". It might be easier to invent a viable faster-than-light propulsion system, or learn to control wormholes...

Cytran technology is based on current robotics and biomedical research. It is grounded in established fact and rides the cutting edge of modern technology. These various technologies need only be assembled and merged, and you have the basics of a viable cytran.

Becoming a cytran also extends the lifespan long enough that those who do it will probably be around long enough to enjoy the fruits of a proper mind-upload, if or when such an option is available. Also, it is no stretch to assume that biomedical technology will be able to rejuvenate neural tissues within the next few centuries, which would either make the need for uploading obsolete, or further extend the lifespans so that cytrans can wait for upload technology to finally arrive. Uploading is probably several centuries away: your biological body isn't going to wait that long, but a synthetic cytran body will put that timescale within reach.

__________________________________________________


Any dangerous jobs that need to be done in the physical world can then be done via remote-controlled waldoes or autonomous/semi-autonomous machinery.Any remote-control device can be shut down with a proper jamming signal, or by destroying the transmitter or receiver. An army of remote-control robots can be stopped cold with a single well-placed bomb: on the transmitter that controls the army.

Autonomous robots lack the instinct, intuition, intelligence, and subjective judgment that a living mind possesses. They cannot compete, which is why the robots that need these things are all remote-controlled.


Tanks and fighter planes and whatnot are shaped like they are for very good reasons.They are shaped like that because that's how they evolved, and each new design is based off of previous versions. Tanks and planes are based on designs merely a century old. Effective as they are, you still have to think outside the box to create something truly innovative. Cytrans are based on designs found in the natural world: designs tested and perfected over the course of millions of years.


If you want to be large and capable of flight, by far the best optimised form is the aeroplane.No, the most efficient form of flight is all around you, in nature. Birds are more efficient than any clunky human can, are far more maneuverable and flexible, can adapt to their environment and use it to their advantage, and they aren't restricted to runways either.


Cybernetics certainly do have the potential to revolutionise warfare, the problem is that your approach to it just doesn't make sense from an engineering perspective.And what would you know of our engineering perspective? We said that we're working on making cytrans, and you assume that's the end of the story. It isn't. Cytrans will change our population demographics, but cytran technology will revolutionize countless other fields. The impact on warfare could be as great as the introduction of the tank, the airplane, or even firearms. The various elements that combine to create a cytran have far-reaching and extremely diverse applications in all branches of military, science, and industry.

The core technology in cytrans will be applied to military equipment design. Lessons from cytran skeletal systems can be applied to vehicle chassis. The same artificial muscles cytrans use can be employed as linear actuators in myriad military and industrial applications. Cytran skin technology can be modified as flexible armor for human soldiers, as well as vehicles. The very shape of the vehicles of the future will be influenced by the development of cytran technology, and they needn't look anything like your boxy tanks or fixed-wing aircraft. Communications, computers, sensors, mobile power generation, energy storage, stealth, EMP hardening... the list goes on and on. Get the picture yet?

__________________________________________________


But your reason for choosing the dragon form - and I quote - is "very large and powerful, capable of flight, etc."
I'm afraid that's simply wrong.It is wrong. That's not the point at all. Those who choose to be dragons do so because that's the form that most accurately expresses how they perceive themselves as individuals. They want to look like a dragon because they feel like a dragon. The point isn't to be "big and powerful" at all: it's to feel content with yourself. Everything else is a perk of the design, which is separate from the intent.

Presently, everyone is imprisoned in their human bodies, whether they like it or not... Cytran technology will free the mind so that it can take its preferred physical form. This is about the freedom of self-expression, and giving people the ability to show the world their true colors. Cytrans, whether they look human or not, will fulfill that freedom — this is transhumanism incarnate.

[ComradeOm]

I'm sure that the above is a very interesting discourse but I'm struggling to come up with a reason as to why it should be taking place on a revolutionary left website and not one devoted to science fiction. Which is really a charge that could be levelled at most of these 'transhumanist' threads

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Who says we can't still have tanks and fighter planes?

In that case, there is no reason to have dragon-like forms, at least in combat.


I do not wish to take the dragon form. Other members of FedCom do, but I don't. I'm currently leaning towards the humanoid replicant form, which should be indistinguishable from humans. I don't know the exact reasons why others picked the dragon form. And aeroplanes are good for flying, but wouldn't it be great if you could just take to the sky whenever and wherever you wanted?

It would be great, which is why I suggested uploading. Once uploaded, one can be transferred at will to any piece of hardware capable of supporting a virtual consciousness. Failing that, one can take direct control of a vehicle remotely. To get the "feeling" of flying, swimming, etc, one only has to move their sensorium, not necessarily their whole consciousness.


It will still survive longer without a biological body.

Indeed, but if it's immortality you're after, uploading is the way to go.


Because the technology for uploading minds doesn't exist. There's not even technology sufficiently similar for us to build off of, as we plan to do in the cytran project.

So why not do research, using the as much of the resources of larger society as possible, on the better option of uploading? I am very critical of the idea of forming seperate transhumanist enclaves from a political, scientific and cultural standpoint. In my estimation it is a recipe for disaster.


Politicians can always be counted upon to do what is in their interests, not what is good for society as a whole. Capitalism only compounds that issue. We certainly do want to see the world accept sapient non-humans as equals, but that seems unlikely, so long as humanity still has prejudice, discrimination, and racism. If some humans can't learn to see through the color of another human's skin, how can they possibly see through an appearance that looks very inhuman?

Who said anything about politicians? Despite the recent appropriation of the language of liberation by those besuited bastards, historically the change has come from the masses. Now there may still be racists, but nevertheless progress has been made; you can see this in the language that modern racists use. Because open racism has become publicly unacceptable in large sectors of society, you'll see them resort to code-words and weasel phrases such as "I'm not a racist, but...".


We anticipate some measure of fear, suspicion, hostility, and even blatant racism against cytrans in the general population of humanity. That is why we are building a sovereign nation: so we can ensure that our cytran population has a bastion where they can live freely and escape the social conflicts the world will undoubtedly respond with. A sovereign nation answers to no higher power: it is its own "mother culture". Nobody else will have any legal power over us: if they want to stop us and oppress the cytrans inside our borders, they will have to invade and conquer us, and we're certainly not going to let them do that without one hell of a fight.

The problem is that historically that sort of thing has not turned out well at all. The anarchists in the Ukraine were were betrayed by the Bolsheviks. The Paris Commune was crushed by the Versaille. Liberia I have already mentioned, but Israel also provides a lesson: Choose your location carefully and don't trample on the people already living there.

Another problem with setting up one's own society is that in such a situation, internal conflicts are greatly magnified, since there is so much more at stake. Unless there is room for dissenters to expand into (like what a Mars colony would have), fratricidal infighting is highly likely. There aren't a hell of a lot of places on Earth (at least on land) which aren't already claimed or occupied by someone.


Cytrans will not fire the first shot: the choice of peace or war is firmly in the hands of the outside world. I doesn't take a genius to figure this out: so long as foreigners leave Malatora in peace, we will leave them in peace too. However, if humanity is stupid enough to launch a genocidal crusade to wipe out cytrans, they will sign their own death warrants. Cytrans will fight furiously for their right to exist (because failure would mean death anyway, and it's better to go down fighting than with your tail between your legs), and the consequences for humanity will be extreme. In short: picking a fight with a cytran is NOT worth the effort or the risk, unless you're a suicidal psychopath. Cytrans can be your best and most loyal friends, or a more vicious and merciless enemy than anything that ever haunted your worst nightmares: humanity gets to pick one.

Noble sentiments, but I fear what such things could translate to in real life. I certainly have no interest in retreading the mistakes of the past with new technology but with old-style sturm und drang.


Because that technology is still firmly in the realm of science-fiction, and nobody knows how to make it real, or if it's even possible at all. Uploading is presently no more than "wishful thinking". It might be easier to invent a viable faster-than-light propulsion system, or learn to control wormholes...

How could uploading not be possible, barring some supernatural element such as a soul to human consciousness? We may not know exactly what's involved or have the technological finesse needed (which is why I support nanotechnology research), but we know what to aim for:


The Moravec Transfer gradually moves (rather than copies) a human mind into a computer. You need never lose consciousness. (The details which follow have been redesigned and fleshed out a bit (by yours truly) from the original in Mind Children.)

1. A neuron-sized robot swims up to a neuron and scans it into memory.

2. An external computer, in continuous communication with the robot, starts simulating the neuron.

3. The robot waits until the computer simulation perfectly matches the neuron.

4. The robot replaces the neuron with itself as smoothly as possible, sending inputs to the computer and transmitting outputs from the simulation of a neuron inside the computer.
This entire procedure has had no effect on the flow of information in the brain, except that one neuron's worth of processing is now being done inside a computer instead of a neuron.

Repeat, neuron by neuron, until the entire brain is composed of robot neurons.

Despite this, the synapses (links) between robotic neurons are still physical; robots report the reception of neurotransmitters at artificial dendrites and release neurotransmitters at the end of artificial axons. In the next phase, we replace the physical synapses with software links.
For every axon-dendrite (transmitter-receiver) pair, the inputs are no longer reported by the robot; instead the computed axon output of the transmitting neuron is added as a simulated dendrite to the simulation of the receiving neuron.
At the end of this phase, the robots are all firing their axons, but none of them are receiving anything, none of them are affecting each other, and none of them are affecting the computer simulation.

5. The robots are disconnected.

You have now been placed entirely inside a computer, bit by bit, without losing consciousness. In Moravec's words, your metamorphosis is complete.
If any of the phases seem too abrupt, the transfer of an individual neuron, or synapse, can be spread out over as long a time as necessary. To slowly transfer a synapse into a computer, we can use weighted factors of the physical synapse and the computational synapse to produce the output. The weighting would start as entirely physical and end as entirely computational. Since we are presuming the neuron is being perfectly simulated, the weighting affects only the flow of causality and not the actual process of events.

Slowly transferring a neuron is a bit more difficult.

4a. The robot encloses the neuron, the axons, and the dendrites with a robotic "shell", all without disturbing the neural cell body. (That's going to take some pretty fancy footwork, I know, but this is a thought experiment. The Powers will be doing the actual uploading.)

4b. The robotic dendrites continue to receive inputs from other neurons, and pass them on to the enclosed neural dendrites. The output of the biological neuron passes along the neural axon to the enclosing robotic axon, which reads the output and forwards it to the external synapse, unchanged.

4c. The robotic axon outputs 99% of the received biological impulse, plus 1% of the computed robotic impulse. Since, by hypothesis, the neuron is being perfectly simulated, this does not change the actual output in any way, only the flow of causality.

4d. The weighting is adjusted until 100% of the output is the computed output.

4e. The biological neuron is discarded.

Assuming we can simulate an individual neuron, and that we can replace neurons with robotic analogues, I think that thoroughly demonstrates the possibility of uploading, given that consciousness is strictly a function of neurons. (And if we have immortal souls, then uploading is a real snap. Detach soul from brain. Copy any information not stored in soul. Attach soul to new substrate. Upload complete.)

From HERE (http://yudkowsky.net/obsolete/singularity.html#upload).


Cytran technology is based on current robotics and biomedical research. It is grounded in established fact and rides the cutting edge of modern technology. These various technologies need only be assembled and merged, and you have the basics of a viable cytran.

As a research project, I would be fully behind this. But as some kind of seperatist political enclave? No.


Becoming a cytran also extends the lifespan long enough that those who do it will probably be around long enough to enjoy the fruits of a proper mind-upload, if or when such an option is available. Also, it is no stretch to assume that biomedical technology will be able to rejuvenate neural tissues within the next few centuries, which would either make the need for uploading obsolete, or further extend the lifespans so that cytrans can wait for upload technology to finally arrive. Uploading is probably several centuries away: your biological body isn't going to wait that long, but a synthetic cytran body will put that timescale within reach.

Perhaps, although I'm not convinced that uploading is "centuries" away. I would say two centuries at most, assuming civilisation is still pottering along reasonably healthily and there is no Singularity to hasten things.

For myself, I would consider cyborgisation is uploading was not available, but I would be even more reluctant to take that option if doing so meant having to move to potentially highly unstable new society.


Any remote-control device can be shut down with a proper jamming signal, or by destroying the transmitter or receiver. An army of remote-control robots can be stopped cold with a single well-placed bomb: on the transmitter that controls the army.

Yet despite that, remote controls are still used, even in military situations where jamming attempts and/or attacks on controlling stations are highly likely.


Autonomous robots lack the instinct, intuition, intelligence, and subjective judgment that a living mind possesses. They cannot compete, which is why the robots that need these things are all remote-controlled.

Only if you put autonomous robots in jobs they are simply not qualified to carry out. One starts with giving autonomous robots simpler jobs like airborne reconaissance, before moving one's designs onto more complex tasks based on the experience of previous models from a design standpoint. This process can be accelerated by designing autonomous machines capable of learning.

Not to mention of course the fact that in predictable situations such as manufacturing, robots already come tops.


They are shaped like that because that's how they evolved, and each new design is based off of previous versions. Tanks and planes are based on designs merely a century old. Effective as they are, you still have to think outside the box to create something truly innovative. Cytrans are based on designs found in the natural world: designs tested and perfected over the course of millions of years.

No organism I know of has evolved a 120mm smoothbore cannon or the ability to fly supersonic.


No, the most efficient form of flight is all around you, in nature. Birds are more efficient than any clunky human can, are far more maneuverable and flexible, can adapt to their environment and use it to their advantage, and they aren't restricted to runways either.

They're also a lot smaller, are completely unarmed relative to aircraft, have inferior sensors, and are a lot more fragile.


And what would you know of our engineering perspective? We said that we're working on making cytrans, and you assume that's the end of the story. It isn't. Cytrans will change our population demographics, but cytran technology will revolutionize countless other fields. The impact on warfare could be as great as the introduction of the tank, the airplane, or even firearms. The various elements that combine to create a cytran have far-reaching and extremely diverse applications in all branches of military, science, and industry.

The core technology in cytrans will be applied to military equipment design. Lessons from cytran skeletal systems can be applied to vehicle chassis. The same artificial muscles cytrans use can be employed as linear actuators in myriad military and industrial applications. Cytran skin technology can be modified as flexible armor for human soldiers, as well as vehicles. The very shape of the vehicles of the future will be influenced by the development of cytran technology, and they needn't look anything like your boxy tanks or fixed-wing aircraft. Communications, computers, sensors, mobile power generation, energy storage, stealth, EMP hardening... the list goes on and on. Get the picture yet?

I understand that the technologies that are planned for developing cytrans have revolutionary potential technologically speaking, but I think you grossly miscalculate the form that the revolutions will take. You pour scorn on "boxy" tanks and fixed-wing aircraft, but tanks are "boxy" for a damn good reason and aircraft do not necessarily have to be fixed-wing, but that does not mean they will look like birds either.


I'm sure that the above is a very interesting discourse but I'm struggling to come up with a reason as to why it should be taking place on a revolutionary left website and not one devoted to science fiction. Which is really a charge that could be levelled at most of these 'transhumanist' threads

We're discussing potentials and hypotheticals, which is why it might seem like "science fiction" to you. I'm certainly bored stiff with the historical re-enactment that seems popular on the revolutionary left, which makes me wonder as to it's relevance.

[ComradeOm]

We're discussing potentials and hypotheticals, which is why it might seem like "science fiction" to you. I'm certainly bored stiff with the historical re-enactment that seems popular on the revolutionary left, which makes me wonder as to it's relevance.Fair enough. Personally I'm of the opinion that studying the revolutions and worker struggles of the past is of considerably more relevance to the revolutionary left than "uploading" or robotic dragons

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Fair enough. Personally I'm of the opinion that studying the revolutions and worker struggles of the past is of considerably more relevance to the revolutionary left than "uploading" or robotic dragons

You're talking as if such things have become the dominant topic of conversation on Revleft, but in reality such subjects are in the tiny minority, certainly far smaller than the oceans of spam that Chit-Chat consists of.

[Taygon]

In that case, there is no reason to have dragon-like forms, at least in combat.You underestimate the advantages such a being can bring to a battlefield, especially one such as the jungles of Malatora. Tanks and planes are wholly ineffective in such an environment. In sharp contrast, a single cytran dragon would be at least as effective as a full platoon of the most modern infantry, as mobile as any attack helicopter, as tough as an APC, and with the senses to pinpoint hostile targets through the thick undergrowth. In the terrain of Malatora, traditional aircraft can't see the ground, traditional vehicles can't navigate the trees, but a cybernetic organism as mobile as any living creature has a distinct advantage.

And then there are the smaller humanoid cytrans. They can stand alongside their human comrades and do everything a human can do, yet they can survive things that would turn a human into hamburger, charcoal, or a popsicle. Try to imagine an army of these cybernetic super-soldiers, each as tough as the Terminator, but sporting dozens of different shapes and physical capabilities, with the strengths of one being offsetting the weaknesses of another, strengthening and reinforcing the whole. Diversity makes a group capable of tackling any challenge.



It would be great, which is why I suggested uploading. Once uploaded, one can be transferred at will to any piece of hardware capable of supporting a virtual consciousness. Failing that, one can take direct control of a vehicle remotely. To get the "feeling" of flying, swimming, etc, one only has to move their sensorium, not necessarily their whole consciousness.Interesting as that is, a disembodied consciousness is not desirable to everyone. Personally, I would find the concept of living with my brain plugged into a computer simulation (a la the Matrix) that I could not freely escape from, at will, to be horrifying. I would rather live in the real world, as a real being. The virtual environment should be used for training and recreation, not life.



Indeed, but if it's immortality you're after, uploading is the way to go.Believing any corporeal form to be immortal is a pipe dream. Cytran technology will make an individual "biologically immortal" (meaning time is no object, and they will not deteriorate with age). That does not prevent death by trauma, whether it is accidental or deliberate. Indeed, no physical entity is capable of achieving true immortality. The best we can do is remove the ticking clock to make our lifespans open-ended, and harden our physical bodies against damage.

Cytran technology is a form of life extension, but it is not a bid for immortality. We all have a rendezvous with Death, eventually. That doesn't mean we can't throw up barricades and fight for life.



So why not do research, using the as much of the resources of larger society as possible, on the better option of uploading?
. . .
How could uploading not be possible, barring some supernatural element such as a soul to human consciousness? We may not know exactly what's involved or have the technological finesse needed (which is why I support nanotechnology research), but we know what to aim for...Who said the idea wasn't being considered? I know all about the concept of replacing neurons with nanites. Cytran technology is simply easier and more practical right now, so that's what we're starting with. Mind-uploading can be done later, when the prerequisite technologies are better developed. Those who want uploading can view cytrans as an intermediate step toward that goal.



Choose your location carefully and don't trample on the people already living there.
. . .
There aren't a hell of a lot of places on Earth (at least on land) which aren't already claimed or occupied by someone.We are well aware of history, and study it well: one of the Codes of Malatora is "Know the past, lest it repeat."

Malatora is ideal for our project. Ideal topography, ideal strategic location, ideal environment... The land where we will be building our colony is uninhabited jungle, and the neighboring locals are few and ill-equipped to challenge anyone. We have chosen wisely.



As a research project, I would be fully behind this. But as some kind of separatist political enclave? No.A patriot to your country? Then don't criticize us for being the same to our country. We seek freedom and self-determination. We need such freedom to create cytrans without the meddling intervention of outsiders. We doubt any extant government would permit us to go through with this project: they would either stop it, or take the project and twist it into a weapon for their gain. We want to be in control of our own project, and that means it has to happen in a country that is supportive of allowing this project to proceed unmolested. Since no country currently exists that fits that requirement, a new one must be created.

Though cytrans are certainly not the sole reason for creating a new country, they are a powerful motivation. Once created, they will assure that this new country will be capable of defending itself from outside aggression. The world will have no choice but to accept and acknowledge our right to exist.



Perhaps, although I'm not convinced that uploading is "centuries" away. I would say two centuries at most, assuming civilisation is still pottering along reasonably healthily and there is no Singularity to hasten things.There are some who would call the pursuit of the Singularity extremely foolish, reckless, and dangerous. An artificial intelligence capable of recursively upgrading its own intelligence would probably very quickly determine that it has no use for organic lifeforms, and could easily view humanity with the same regard as humans view insects. The consequences would truly be terrifying, assuming humanity (or any organic species) survived.



For myself, I would consider cyborgisation if uploading was not available, but I would be even more reluctant to take that option if doing so meant having to move to potentially highly unstable new society.Malatoran society is built upon the foundation of tightly-woven communities, mutual aid, libertarian socialism, and direct democracy. It uses a moneyless gift economy for all internal economic matters.

You're a member of RevLeft, and yet you think these principles are unstable and incapable of functioning in any society? What are you doing here then?



No organism I know of has evolved a 120mm smoothbore cannon or the ability to fly supersonic.No organism needs such things.

Who needs brute force when you can attack the weak points and simply bypass heavy armor? Who needs to fly supersonic when you can simply evade missiles? The strengths of these designs isn't in one-upping what mankind has created: it's in slipping between the cracks and exploiting the weaknesses of human designs.




No, the most efficient form of flight is all around you, in nature. Birds are more efficient than any clunky human can, are far more maneuverable and flexible, can adapt to their environment and use it to their advantage, and they aren't restricted to runways either.They're also a lot smaller, are completely unarmed relative to aircraft, have inferior sensors, and are a lot more fragile.Birds, yes. The design of a bird's wing? No. Scale it up to the right size for a larger vehicle or cyborg. That's what I was talking about: biologically-inspired designs. Mimic nature's best designs for our own purposes.

Don't over-estimate the scale of a cytran dragon: they are not as big as you probably think. They will range from 300 to 1200 kilograms, averaging around 800 kg, and the biggest will be about the size of a large draft horse (plus a long tail and neck). Wingspans top out at around 20 meters, and body lengths about 12 meters (from nose to tail). Small enough to walk inside a structure designed for humans, with some difficulty.



I understand that the technologies that are planned for developing cytrans have revolutionary potential technologically speaking, but I think you grossly miscalculate the form that the revolutions will take. You pour scorn on "boxy" tanks and fixed-wing aircraft, but tanks are "boxy" for a damn good reason and aircraft do not necessarily have to be fixed-wing, but that does not mean they will look like birds either.I don't scorn tanks or aircraft. I fully understand that they have their uses and their strengths, but I also understand that they have their weaknesses too.

Cytrans are the same way: they have their own set of strengths and weaknesses, unique and separate from tanks/planes/infantry. They fill gaps that tanks/planes/infantry have, and can avoid many of the strengths that tanks/planes/infantry have over them.

A fight between traditional military forces and an army of cytrans will not be a traditional battle. It will be extremely asymmetric, with the savvy cytrans using their strengths to bypass the weaknesses of their opponents. I like dragons, so I'll highlight some of their tactics:


Dragon vs. Attack Helicopter... The dragon uses his thermal camouflage to remain hidden until the helicopter is close (or right above him). He then vaults into the air, latches onto the helicopter's underbelly (where the weapons can't reach), and rips the tail off. With a quick dive and somersault, the dragon detaches and watches the helicopter crash.
Dragon vs. APC... Dragon spots APC from low altitude, lands next to it, grabs the side, and rolls it over before it can respond. The dragon is then free to tear off a hatch and incinerate the interior, or eliminate nearby forces and then return to finish the APC.
Dragon vs. Tank... Dragon flies above tank, where the tank's weapons cannot reach. It lands on the tank, and can then set fire to the engine compartment, break the turret traverse motors, break the treads, or pry the commander's hatch open and spray the interior with flame.
Dragon vs. Infantry... The most unbalanced match-up of all. Dragons can swoop low over soldiers and destroy whole formations with a single blast of fire. They can land and brutally shred any human soldier by claw, tooth, and caudal spade in seconds. They can pluck humans off the ground and send them skydiving without a parachute. Their skin is designed to shrug off small-arms fire and shrapnel with impunity. A single dragon could eradicate hundreds or even thousands of infantrymen in a few hours.
Dragon vs. SAM (heatseeker)... Dragons automatically adapt their skin temperature to match the ambient temperature, and lack the hot exhaust of human aircraft. A heatseeker SAM (most shoulder-fired SAMs are like this) fired at one will think it was fired into an empty sky.
Dragon vs. SAM (radar-guided)... More difficult to evade, but a dragon can wheel about on a dime in mid-air, and is far slower and more maneuverable than any missile, so the missile will make repeated passes and misses. The dragon can evade until the missile runs out of fuel, or simply land to foil the lock with ground clutter. If struck, the small warheads of these missiles (designed to defeat thin-skinned human aircraft) are very unlikely to actually kill the dragon; at the worst, a wing is shredded, and the dragon is grounded until he gets the wing repaired. He could be flying again in a matter of hours.
Dragon vs. Fighter Jet... A more even match-up. The fighter has a massive speed advantage, but the dragon has the advantage of maneuverability. So maneuverable and slow, in fact, that the fighter pilot will have mere seconds to fire a missile or gun burst before they overshoot the dragon and have to circle around for another pass. If the dragon gets lucky, it could get close enough to slash the fighter open with its tail spade, or use a cloud of fire to cause a flame-out in the fighter's engines. Splashing the fighter with liquid dragonfire might also cause the warheads on the missiles to cook off, destroying the fighter. A dragon locked in a dance of death with a fighter jet can always disengage and dive for a landing, then vanish into the trees. They can also call for backup via their built-in radio. Dragons will have weaponized backpacks, vambraces, and other wearable systems that will extend their abilities and allow them to more directly fill the role of an air superiority interceptor. Just like humans, they can use tools too.

Notice how a dragon uses surprise to get in close. Dragons are point-blank brawlers, and at that range they can bring down any human vehicle if they try hard enough and go for the weak points. They fly silently, can navigate dense terrain with great stealth, and have the sensors to see and smell humans long before the human is aware they are being hunted. Dragons will be the apex predators of the known universe. "Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy, and go well with steak sauce."

Other cytran models have their own advantages, and cytran-tech vehicles do as well. These advantages are minimal in an open field against modern forces, but on the terrain of Malatora, they are powerful force multipliers.

[ComradeOm]

You're talking as if such things have become the dominant topic of conversation on Revleft, but in reality such subjects are in the tiny minority, certainly far smaller than the oceans of spam that Chit-Chat consists of.I thought that "historical re-enactment" was "popular on the revolutionary left"? In any case, I'd have no problem with relegating a discussion of robot dragons fighting tanks to Chit Chat. I do become concerned when such nonsense is treated as a legitimate debate on socialism

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You underestimate the advantages such a being can bring to a battlefield, especially one such as the jungles of Malatora.

Hang on a minute, how do you know you're going to be able to set up in a jungle?


Tanks and planes are wholly ineffective in such an environment.

Not if you're willing to clear it using heavy ordnance, which some might be willing to do in order to eliminate a "lair" of so-called "dangerous cyborgs".


In sharp contrast, a single cytran dragon would be at least as effective as a full platoon of the most modern infantry, as mobile as any attack helicopter, as tough as an APC, and with the senses to pinpoint hostile targets through the thick undergrowth.

Even granting you the generous assumption that you could get it to work as a viable military weapons platform, you would end up with a mediocre jack of all trades, yet master of none. It's fairly basic engineering; the more roles you assign to a single machine, the fewer design space there is for each role.

Why bother building a cyber-dragon when one can use the technology to create powered armour for infantry units? Why use flapping/gliding wings when rotors and jets are so much faster? And your dragon can't be as tough as a tracked AFV because you want it to fly and move relatively fast, right?


In the terrain of Malatora, traditional aircraft can't see the ground, traditional vehicles can't navigate the trees, but a cybernetic organism as mobile as any living creature has a distinct advantage.

A cybernetic organism would be giving off more heat than background and thus would be visible to IR sensors. Large versions like your dragon would be easily tracked by radar, especially in the air.


And then there are the smaller humanoid cytrans. They can stand alongside their human comrades and do everything a human can do, yet they can survive things that would turn a human into hamburger, charcoal, or a popsicle. Try to imagine an army of these cybernetic super-soldiers, each as tough as the Terminator, but sporting dozens of different shapes and physical capabilities, with the strengths of one being offsetting the weaknesses of another, strengthening and reinforcing the whole. Diversity makes a group capable of tackling any challenge.

Humanoid supersoldiers are fine (mostly), it's the dragons I have a major problem with.


Interesting as that is, a disembodied consciousness is not desirable to everyone. Personally, I would find the concept of living with my brain plugged into a computer simulation (a la the Matrix) that I could not freely escape from, at will, to be horrifying. I would rather live in the real world, as a real being. The virtual environment should be used for training and recreation, not life.

Who says you have to stay for the rest of your existence in some kind of cybernetic fantasia? Once you've uploaded, exploration of the material world becomes even easier since you can travel at the speed of light. You could get to the Moon in a second, or Alpha Centauri in four-and-a-bit years, without any time passing for you subjectively. Once you get there you can be a bioshell or a cybershell or a nanotech foglet cloud or whatever takes your fancy. If it's morphological freedom you truly want, uploading has no contest besides becoming a Power (http://yudkowsky.net/singularity/power).


Believing any corporeal form to be immortal is a pipe dream. Cytran technology will make an individual "biologically immortal" (meaning time is no object, and they will not deteriorate with age). That does not prevent death by trauma, whether it is accidental or deliberate. Indeed, no physical entity is capable of achieving true immortality. The best we can do is remove the ticking clock to make our lifespans open-ended, and harden our physical bodies against damage.

An uploaded entity is not corporeal in the same way that a human being is; what matters is the pattern of information, not what makes up that pattern. The pattern can be transferred from medium to medium as it wears out or becomes obsolete. The laws of physics as currently understood would allow approximately one gram to store and run the entire human race at a million subjective years per second. That's tens of billions of years a day, longer than the universe has lived so far in two hours or less.

Is that immortal enough for you?


Cytran technology is a form of life extension, but it is not a bid for immortality. We all have a rendezvous with Death, eventually. That doesn't mean we can't throw up barricades and fight for life.

I don't share your fatalism. There is no reason why death should not be optional, and trillions upon trillions of years is more than long enough for superhuman intellects to attempt to find a way around the death of the universe itself.


Who said the idea wasn't being considered? I know all about the concept of replacing neurons with nanites. Cytran technology is simply easier and more practical right now, so that's what we're starting with. Mind-uploading can be done later, when the prerequisite technologies are better developed. Those who want uploading can view cytrans as an intermediate step toward that goal.

We are well aware of history, and study it well: one of the Codes of Malatora is "Know the past, lest it repeat."

Noble sentiment, but will you remember it when the time comes?


Malatora is ideal for our project. Ideal topography, ideal strategic location, ideal environment... The land where we will be building our colony is uninhabited jungle, and the neighboring locals are few and ill-equipped to challenge anyone. We have chosen wisely.

So you're squatting on someone's hunting grounds. Nice.


A patriot to your country? Then don't criticize us for being the same to our country. We seek freedom and self-determination. We need such freedom to create cytrans without the meddling intervention of outsiders. We doubt any extant government would permit us to go through with this project: they would either stop it, or take the project and twist it into a weapon for their gain. We want to be in control of our own project, and that means it has to happen in a country that is supportive of allowing this project to proceed unmolested. Since no country currently exists that fits that requirement, a new one must be created.

As a transcontinentalist I would make a poor patriot. Splitting off into little splinter societies represents a step back; we live on a single planet that is united in all respects except politically. To run off and form our own little colonies and enclaves would be turning our back on those still in chains.

We need to set ourselves free as a civilisation before we set ourselves free as a species.


Though cytrans are certainly not the sole reason for creating a new country, they are a powerful motivation. Once created, they will assure that this new country will be capable of defending itself from outside aggression. The world will have no choice but to accept and acknowledge our right to exist.

Or it will be yet another subdivision in an already divided humanity.


There are some who would call the pursuit of the Singularity extremely foolish, reckless, and dangerous. An artificial intelligence capable of recursively upgrading its own intelligence would probably very quickly determine that it has no use for organic lifeforms, and could easily view humanity with the same regard as humans view insects. The consequences would truly be terrifying, assuming humanity (or any organic species) survived.

You are projecting human contempt for so-called "lower" life forms onto AIs.
Humans have evolved, AIs will be programmed (at least in the beginning) by human beings. That beginning is important, and the prime motivation for creating Friendly AI (FAI).

But also, destroying the human species has to be just as meaningful (to the AI) as preserving it. If human life truly is meaningless, then destroying it is just as futile as creating it, and an AI will realise that.


Malatoran society is built upon the foundation of tightly-woven communities, mutual aid, libertarian socialism, and direct democracy. It uses a moneyless gift economy for all internal economic matters.

You're a member of RevLeft, and yet you think these principles are unstable and incapable of functioning in any society? What are you doing here then?

It's not the principles that are the problem, it's the setting. Doubtless it was pleasant in the Paris Commune, at least until the fighting (with outside forces) started. The Soviet Union had a better chance of succeeding due to its size and strength, but failed for other reasons.


No organism needs such things.

Who needs brute force when you can attack the weak points and simply bypass heavy armor? Who needs to fly supersonic when you can simply evade missiles? The strengths of these designs isn't in one-upping what mankind has created: it's in slipping between the cracks and exploiting the weaknesses of human designs.

What "weak points"? Sure, there are thin parts on a modern MBT's armour, but you still something along the lines of an autocannon or a heavy machinegun to get through to do some damage. It's not a simple matter to evade proximity detonated missiles that fling our shrapnel and shockwaves at supersonic speeds, even if you can travel supersonic yourself.

Have you any conception how shockingly powerful modern weaponry is?


Birds, yes. The design of a bird's wing? No. Scale it up to the right size for a larger vehicle or cyborg. That's what I was talking about: biologically-inspired designs. Mimic nature's best designs for our own purposes.

The design of a bird's wing was optimised by evolution for a bird of that particular size. Size really does matter (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Science/Size.html); never mind that the article talks about spaceships, the arguments are engineering-related.


Don't over-estimate the scale of a cytran dragon: they are not as big as you probably think. They will range from 300 to 1200 kilograms, averaging around 800 kg, and the biggest will be about the size of a large draft horse (plus a long tail and neck). Wingspans top out at around 20 meters, and body lengths about 12 meters (from nose to tail). Small enough to walk inside a structure designed for humans, with some difficulty.

20m wingspan! That's larger than an F22! And I will bet money they will be nowhere near as fast.

In other words, they are big fat targets.


I don't scorn tanks or aircraft. I fully understand that they have their uses and their strengths, but I also understand that they have their weaknesses too.

Cytrans are the same way: they have their own set of strengths and weaknesses, unique and separate from tanks/planes/infantry. They fill gaps that tanks/planes/infantry have, and can avoid many of the strengths that tanks/planes/infantry have over them.

Are you at all familiar with the concept of combined arms? Modern military vehicles fill in specific roles that complement each other. Jack-of-all-trades machines like you propose tend to do poorly.

If you want to take lessons from nature, then look at one of the most successful types of organism on our planet; the insects. Specialisation is their speciality, so to speak. Some eusocial organisms like ants and termites even specialise within their own species. You won't see a type of ant between a worker or a soldier, or a Queen or a drone.


A fight between traditional military forces and an army of cytrans will not be a traditional battle. It will be extremely asymmetric, with the savvy cytrans using their strengths to bypass the weaknesses of their opponents. I like dragons, so I'll highlight some of their tactics:

Dragon vs. Attack Helicopter... The dragon uses his thermal camouflage to remain hidden until the helicopter is close (or right above him). He then vaults into the air, latches onto the helicopter's underbelly (where the weapons can't reach), and rips the tail off. With a quick dive and somersault, the dragon detaches and watches the helicopter crash.

In the real world, the dragon would be spotted by radar/lidar and blown out of the sky.


Dragon vs. APC... Dragon spots APC from low altitude, lands next to it, grabs the side, and rolls it over before it can respond. The dragon is then free to tear off a hatch and incinerate the interior, or eliminate nearby forces and then return to finish the APC.

In the real world, the dragon is filleted by air defence cannon because the damn fool thing is flying low.


Dragon vs. Tank... Dragon flies above tank, where the tank's weapons cannot reach. It lands on the tank, and can then set fire to the engine compartment, break the turret traverse motors, break the treads, or pry the commander's hatch open and spray the interior with flame.

In the real world, the dragon is waxed by the tank's infantry support.


Dragon vs. Infantry... The most unbalanced match-up of all. Dragons can swoop low over soldiers and destroy whole formations with a single blast of fire. They can land and brutally shred any human soldier by claw, tooth, and caudal spade in seconds. They can pluck humans off the ground and send them skydiving without a parachute. Their skin is designed to shrug off small-arms fire and shrapnel with impunity. A single dragon could eradicate hundreds or even thousands of infantrymen in a few hours.

Only if the infantry are terminally stupid or under-trained. You might surprise an army that's never fought dragons before, but before long they'll realise that dragons are hideously vulnerable to anti-aircraft fire and attacks from much faster fighter jets.


Dragon vs. SAM (heatseeker)... Dragons automatically adapt their skin temperature to match the ambient temperature, and lack the hot exhaust of human aircraft. A heatseeker SAM (most shoulder-fired SAMs are like this) fired at one will think it was fired into an empty sky.

Not if the dragons are anywhere near as powerful as you make them out to be; they need power plants that will have a greater-than-background heat signature, and that will need to be dissipated if you don't your dragons to start melting. Once you're dissipating heat, you can be detected.


Dragon vs. SAM (radar-guided)... More difficult to evade, but a dragon can wheel about on a dime in mid-air, and is far slower and more maneuverable than any missile, so the missile will make repeated passes and misses.

Not if it's proximity-detonated with shrapnel warheads.


The dragon can evade until the missile runs out of fuel, or simply land to foil the lock with ground clutter. If struck, the small warheads of these missiles (designed to defeat thin-skinned human aircraft) are very unlikely to actually kill the dragon; at the worst, a wing is shredded, and the dragon is grounded until he gets the wing repaired. He could be flying again in a matter of hours.

If the dragon lands, either willingly or due to a broken wing, then it will be even more vulnerable since it cannot move as fast on land, and in the air it will be a target.

So, shoot at the dragons with anti-aircraft fire until they land or go down, then cut them to pieces on the ground with bombing runs, AFV assaults, artillery barrages, or whatever is appropriate.


Dragon vs. Fighter Jet... A more even match-up. The fighter has a massive speed advantage, but the dragon has the advantage of maneuverability. So maneuverable and slow, in fact, that the fighter pilot will have mere seconds to fire a missile or gun burst before they overshoot the dragon and have to circle around for another pass. If the dragon gets lucky, it could get close enough to slash the fighter open with its tail spade, or use a cloud of fire to cause a flame-out in the fighter's engines. Splashing the fighter with liquid dragonfire might also cause the warheads on the missiles to cook off, destroying the fighter. A dragon locked in a dance of death with a fighter jet can always disengage and dive for a landing, then vanish into the trees. They can also call for backup via their built-in radio. Dragons will have weaponized backpacks, vambraces, and other wearable systems that will extend their abilities and allow them to more directly fill the role of an air superiority interceptor. Just like humans, they can use tools too.

I think you massively underestimate the range of modern air-to-air combat. The fighter pilot can shoot a cannon spread at the dragon from over a kilometre away, missiles further. If a helicopter with it's rotors can't dodge an AMRAAM, what on Earth makes you think a dragon will do so by flapping its wings?


Notice how a dragon uses surprise to get in close. Dragons are point-blank brawlers, and at that range they can bring down any human vehicle if they try hard enough and go for the weak points. They fly silently, can navigate dense terrain with great stealth, and have the sensors to see and smell humans long before the human is aware they are being hunted. Dragons will be the apex predators of the known universe. "Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy, and go well with steak sauce."

Notice that these days there is very little in way of "point-blank [brawling]" happening on battlefields. Range and speed and devastation are the order of the day. There are a range of very good reasons for that.


Other cytran models have their own advantages, and cytran-tech vehicles do as well. These advantages are minimal in an open field against modern forces, but on the terrain of Malatora, they are powerful force multipliers.

You've made a whole load of assumptions, the primary one (that you will settle in a jungle), is completely unfounded, and the rest concerning cyberdragons are based on a Hollywood conception of military tactics and a complete ignorance of engineering.


I thought that "historical re-enactment" was "popular on the revolutionary left"?

I was talking about Transhumanism and all that other stuff that you seemed to be whingeing about.


In any case, I'd have no problem with relegating a discussion of robot dragons fighting tanks to Chit Chat. I do become concerned when such nonsense is treated as a legitimate debate on socialism

Look at it this way; I am giving this person a lesson on basic engineering and military tactics through the medium of debate. I can't help it if they have a particular fixation on dragons; for my part I am trying to be as scientific as I can, limiting myself to the laws of physics. I also can't help it if your conception of the world is so dull and petty that anything remotely speculative sounds unpalatably fantastic to you.

[Revy]

If you want to be a dragon, fine. But I don't think you should breathe fire. That's too dangerous. You might accidentally burn someone to a crisp. or intentionally.

[Taygon]

Hang on a minute, how do you know you're going to be able to set up in a jungle?Because that is the terrain in the area we have chosen. High-altitude tropical jungle.


Not if you're willing to clear it using heavy ordnance, which some might be willing to do in order to eliminate a "lair" of so-called "dangerous cyborgs".Yes, environmental warfare. How typical of humanity: what you can't control, you try to destroy. Well, you don't have all the facts of the case because I have not shared everything: in this case, even if humanity reduces the surface to glass, we will survive and have our revenge... and don't expect us to show any mercy if humanity takes things that far.


Why bother building a cyber-dragon when one can use the technology to create powered armour for infantry units?Why not do both?
I said as much previously. Please don't make me repeat myself.


Why use flapping/gliding wings when rotors and jets are so much faster?Jets are hot, rotors are big, both are noisy as hell and guzzle fuel. Wings are stealthy, permit far greater maneuverability and fluid motion, and are more energy-efficient. They are also portable, can be deployed and ready for action in the blink of an eye, and can function in environments that would disable or destroy jet engines (such as a cloud of volcanic ash, anoxic atmospheres, or even underwater).

You seem to assume that more speed is automatically better. It isn't.


And your dragon can't be as tough as a tracked AFV because you want it to fly and move relatively fast, right?They will be just as tough. We've designed layered composite skin that is very flexible and very tough. It will shrug off repeated strikes from large-caliber ammunition by absorbing the impact and dissipating the kinetic energy.

You do not need thick and heavy metal plates to stop bullets and shrapnel. Ever heard of Kevlar, tungsten disulfide nanotube composites, or dilatant foam?


A cybernetic organism would be giving off more heat than background and thus would be visible to IR sensors.Our cytrans will only give off heat when they choose to turn on their exothermic systems to warm themselves or others. Cytrans run off of battery power: they do not generate heat like an engine. They also have thermo-electric circuits to regain energy from heat, and the little that cannot be reclaimed is vented through their lungs. At the most, and overheating cytran dragon would be a couple of degrees Celsius warmer than the environment.

That's not enough for heatseekers to lock onto, and all heatseeker missiles are tuned to look for the thermal signature of jet engine exhaust, which a cytran would obviously lack.


Large versions like your dragon would be easily tracked by radar, especially in the air.Ever heard of 'ground clutter'? Apparently not.


Humanoid supersoldiers are fine (mostly), it's the dragons I have a major problem with.Why? You a specisist? Think humans are inherently special and superior? Am I threatening your cozy view of the order of nature?

Sorry, but the hegemony of mankind will come to an end. You can either take the wise choice: play nice and share this world... or suffer the fate of fools.

Humanity would benefit enormously by accepting cytrans, and you would no longer be alone in the universe.


Is that immortal enough for you?I am not presently seeking immortality. Ask me again in a few centuries... perhaps I'll change my opinion by then.


Noble sentiment, but will you remember it when the time comes?The time is now, and we consider the lessons of the past very carefully.


As a transcontinentalist I would make a poor patriot. Splitting off into little splinter societies represents a step back; we live on a single planet that is united in all respects except politically. To run off and form our own little colonies and enclaves would be turning our back on those still in chains.

We need to set ourselves free as a civilisation before we set ourselves free as a species.Speak for your own species then. Leave mine out of your petty human politics. It is of little relevance to my kin.

Your global communist insurrection will never happen. Capitalism is too strong. Like a military invasion, your revolution needs a foothold to gain momentum. FedCom is that foothold. The world can then follow our example, but the foothold must be established first. A scattered uprising will easily be crushed, but an uprising with a centralized point of stability and coordination has a solid chance of success.

Don't criticize us for striving to transform our little corner of the world into the socialist bastion you wish existed. Patience: the rest of the world will soon see our success and be motivated to make their own changes. That's a far better strategy than blindly groping around in the dark with a small group of friends on a global scale. Do that, and the glorious communist revolution might as well be a fly on an elephant's ass.

It's not our fault that those in chains do not choose to free themselves. They can do so simply by joining our struggle for freedom. Or they can remain sceptical, and stay in the chains of wage-slavery. It's their choice, and if they don't want that future enough to stand up and take action, then they don't deserve to reap the benefits.

Great as a global revolution would be, we realize it's a pipe dream. We aren't going to waste our energy overthrowing all the governments of the world at the same time. That's not going to happen. In contrast, we can focus our efforts in a small location, make our changes there, and show the world that it works. They we can support revolutions in neighboring countries, and help the world transition region by region. It's not the instantaneous results that most socialists dream about, but it's far more likely to actually work.

Dream away. We're doing this the smart way, and we're in it for the long run.


Or it will be yet another subdivision in an already divided humanity.If that happens... divide and conquer.


But also, destroying the human species has to be just as meaningful (to the AI) as preserving it. If human life truly is meaningless, then destroying it is just as futile as creating it, and an AI will realise that.Do you need a major philosophical reason to justify swatting a fly in your house, or do you just grab the flyswatter and do it?


What "weak points"? Sure, there are thin parts on a modern MBT's armour, but you still something along the lines of an autocannon or a heavy machinegun to get through to do some damage.You're still thinking along the same narrow lines: breach the armor with brute force. I'm talking about bypassing that armor and slipping between the cracks.

I can bring down an M1A2 Abrams tank with nothing more than a tin can filled with thermite, a bit of magnesium ribbon, and a lighter. I can turn it into a 70-ton roadblock with a simple crowbar. I can kill the crew with a pistol and commandeer the tank. I can run off with the .50-cal on the roof. I can do all these things while the crew sleeps. I know the weak points, and I know where to strike to cause the most damage. If the tank is moving, I simply avoid it, or ambush it with a single anti-tank missile or remote mine. With a large enough volume of small-arms fire (or a few skilled snipers), I can force the crew to 'button up' to protect their delicate periscopes: the tank is totally blind in such a state.

If the enemy is strong, you remain hidden and undetected, then you sneak in and slit his throat while he sleeps. You don't meet your foe on an open field with guns blazing: you snipe his soldiers from a distance, and pin him down. You use the terrain to conceal your movements and launch ambush attacks. You lay traps to terrorize his troops and make the environment itself seem like it's trying to kill them. You destroy or capture his supplies, weakening his position while you grow stronger. If the enemy is big and slow, then you are small and mobile. If the enemy has more firepower, then you have greater accuracy. You balance your strengths against his weaknesses. That is asymmetric warfare.


It's not a simple matter to evade proximity detonated missiles that fling out shrapnel and shockwaves at supersonic speeds, even if you can travel supersonic yourself.Obviously. But those warheads are designed to bring down human aircraft, which have very thin skin and are very vulnerable to such weapons. As I mentioned above, cytran dragon skin is designed to repel bullets and shrapnel. That gives them a margin of safety. The worst AA warhead for a dragon would be the expanding ring type.

It is because of such proximity fuses that dragons will be trained to take evasive action whenever a missile is shot at them. Not all missiles have such a fuse, but it's better to present a radically maneuvering target than to tempt fate.


Have you any conception how shockingly powerful modern weaponry is?Very much so. More than you, I think, because not only do I know how powerful it is, but I also know the weaknesses and limitations of such weaponry. I can use that to, for example, build a bunker strong and deep enough to laugh at little bunker-buster bombs, and even smile in the face of an unrelenting nuclear bombardment on the surface.


The design of a bird's wing was optimised by evolution for a bird of that particular size.The principles of bird flight dynamics are scalable. Human aircraft use the same basic technique to achieve lift. See next counter-argument...


20m wingspan! That's larger than an F22! And I will bet money they will be nowhere near as fast.

In other words, they are big fat targets.Fighter jets have higher speed, so they have higher wing loading ratios: that's why their wings can be smaller. A wingspan of 20 meters is mathematically correct for a creature of this weight. Dragons are NOT jets, so don't compare them to jets. A much closer comparison is a glider. Look at the wingspan of gliders. Look at the wing loading and aspect ratios. You will soon see that 20 meters is actually larger than is necessary, granting a dragon extra lift.

Bet all the money you like, capitalist. I'm not arguing that a dragon would be anywhere near as fast as a jet. They aren't supposed to be that fast. Get that through your head.


Are you at all familiar with the concept of combined arms? Modern military vehicles fill in specific roles that complement each other.Indeed I am. Combined arms was mastered by the Soviet Union, and FedCom follows the same layered and balanced system.

Our military is designed for homeland defense, not long-range offensive action far from home. To see an example of a similar system in action, look no further than the Swiss Porcupine Principle.


Jack-of-all-trades machines like you propose tend to do poorly.Dragons are not jack-of-all-trades. They have their specializations too, and have their own special niche in the battlefield. They are most effective against infantry forces and light vehicles, but not so inflexible that they are helpless in any other situation.


If you want to take lessons from nature, then look at one of the most successful types of organism on our planet; the insects. Specialisation is their speciality, so to speak. Some eusocial organisms like ants and termites even specialise within their own species. You won't see a type of ant between a worker or a soldier, or a Queen or a drone.Ant colonies work because ants have no intelligence, and cannot function alone. They are also over-specialized: lose the queen, and colony dies.

Just like a lot of modern military gear: over-specialized. Great, so long as your using Weapon X against the thing it was designed to defeat. Like chess pieces. use the wrong unit for the wrong task, and you get stomped. over-specialization may make something very effective for a particular task, but when that thing is forced into a situation where it is out of its element, it's a failure waiting to happen. (I'm going back to asymmetric warfare again here; maybe you should learn what that is.)

Want to see another successful species that got where it is specifically by being adaptable? Look in the mirror.

__________________________________________________


In the real world, the dragon would be spotted by radar/lidar and blown out of the sky.Assuming you could pick it out from the ground clutter as it skimmed the treetops, and assuming you had a weapon to do the job with.


In the real world, the dragon is filleted by air defence cannon because the damn fool thing is flying low.Oh my, you seem to have a horrible misunderstanding of how anti-aircraft artillery works, and basic physics as well. If I fly that low, riding the nape of the earth, then I can appear over the treetops and fly past you in the time it takes you to spit out your chewing gum. I can maneuver at that altitude faster than your guns can track, while I rain fire down on your heads. I can land right on top of your AAA vehicle before you have a change to flick the arming switch. I can approach from any direction I like, and use the trees and terrain to block your view of me. I know where you are, but you don't know were I am. I have every advantage.

Your flak might be effective against me if I was flying high enough for you to track and shoot at, but not when my breeze rustles your hair.


In the real world, the dragon is waxed by the tank's infantry support.That infantry might as well be firing spit-wads. See above on the armor.

Also, the dragon can incinerate and scatter the infantry support before it attacks the tougher armor. There's no reason why it wouldn't do so, in fact.


Only if the infantry are terminally stupid or under-trained. You might surprise an army that's never fought dragons before, but before long they'll realise that dragons are hideously vulnerable to anti-aircraft fire and attacks from much faster fighter jets.Most infantry in the world are.

And I've already explained how dragons would be difficult to shoot down using modern weapons. Your weapons are designed to shoot down aircraft flying high, emitting hot exhaust, with [comparatively] poor maneuverability and large radar signatures. They are not designed to address such an alien threat, so they will be much less effective.

And the tendency for a dragon to appear out of nowhere and incinerate whole columns of troops in the space of a few seconds... that makes them quite literally 'death from above' for infantry. Infantry are no match for a dragon in his element. They could kill human infantry like a terrier kills rats.


Not if the dragons are anywhere near as powerful as you make them out to be; they need power plants that will have a greater-than-background heat signature, and that will need to be dissipated if you don't your dragons to start melting. Once you're dissipating heat, you can be detected.Sorry to bust your bubble, but cytrans won't have those kinds of power plants. They store energy with batteries (no, not AA cells, so don't be an asshole and ask), and recharge at their home base. They can also generate supplemental power in the field with microbial fuel cells. None of these technologies generate heat like traditional engines.


Not if it's proximity-detonated with shrapnel warheads.And the shrapnel bounces off their skin, because their skin is designed to defeat that shrapnel.


If the dragon lands, either willingly or due to a broken wing, then it will be even more vulnerable since it cannot move as fast on land, and in the air it will be a target.A dragon on the ground is far from defenseless or slow.


So, shoot at the dragons with anti-aircraft fire until they land or go down, then cut them to pieces on the ground with bombing runs, AFV assaults, artillery barrages, or whatever is appropriate.Of those, only the bombing and artillery would be effective, and only if the target stays still. Don't expect a grounded dragon to stay anywhere near its landing area. If it can move, it will; rapidly. And good luck tracking it in the undergrowth of Malatora's jungles.


I think you massively underestimate the range of modern air-to-air combat. The fighter pilot can shoot a cannon spread at the dragon from over a kilometre away, missiles further. If a helicopter with it's rotors can't dodge an AMRAAM, what on Earth makes you think a dragon will do so by flapping its wings?I don't underestimate the range: I know all about how far those weapons can reach.

Helicopter rotors act like gyroscopes, preventing radical shifts in position. A living organism with wings can flex its spine and whip around in mid-air, flipping around with a somersault, with a turn radius of less than a meter. No human-piloted aircraft can change direction so fast or in such a small turn radius. Cytran anatomy makes them far more resistant to g-forces than humans. A dragon cytran can fly circles around a helicopter.


Notice that these days there is very little in way of "point-blank " happening on battlefields. Range and speed and devastation are the order of the day. There are a range of very good reasons for that.Yes, there are good reasons. Because it's hard to get in close to a foe that can blast you from long range. Because that is the ingrained group-think, and militaries don't think of the alternatives. Because armies today have total disregard for collateral damage.

That is also a weakness. Armies today are too reliant on their range advantages. Deny them that advantage, and the odds suddenly shift. Get in close enough to touch any modern soldier, and you deny his ability to use his weapons. Position your army where the enemy can't see you until they are right on top of you, and you catch them by surprise, and at their weakest range. Use camouflage to remain unseen, and you have the element of surprise. (This goes back to the asymmetric warfare principles I outlined above.)

__________________________________________________


You've made a whole load of assumptions, the primary one (that you will settle in a jungle), is completely unfounded...Quite the opposite. We know exactly what kind of terrain awaits us on Malatora. This is not an assumption: it is a verified fact.


...and the rest concerning cyberdragons are based on a Hollywood conception of military tactics and a complete ignorance of engineering.Considering I majored in industrial engineering and design, I find that statement quite hilarious.

You are a small being, trying to attack what you don't understand. Give up: you won't win, and we will prove you wrong.


Look at it this way; I am giving this person a lesson on basic engineering and military tactics through the medium of debate.Your so-called 'lesson' is not required. You do not have all the facts because they have not been revealed. I will not reveal vital military secrets here.

I will say that we have plans to neutralize aircraft and artillery from the equation. We will also force any hostile army to fight on our terms, on terrain of our choosing, and with our tactics. We know the limitations of our plans, and we know how to play our strengths to maximum effect, while hiding and shielding our weaknesses.

I have studied engineering and military tactics all my life... have you? Don't assume I know nothing of these topics.


I also can't help it if your conception of the world is so dull and petty that anything remotely speculative sounds unpalatably fantastic to you.You've got a lot of room to talk, hypocrite.

__________________________________________________


If you want to be a dragon, fine. But I don't think you should breathe fire. That's too dangerous. You might accidentally burn someone to a crisp. [B]or intentionally.Precisely. :cool:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Because that is the terrain in the area we have chosen. High-altitude tropical jungle.

Where is this area?


Yes, environmental warfare. How typical of humanity: what you can't control, you try to destroy. Well, you don't have all the facts of the case because I have not shared everything: in this case, even if humanity reduces the surface to glass, we will survive and have our revenge... and don't expect us to show any mercy if humanity takes things that far.

If you think burrowing underground or whatever will make you invulnerable, you're sorely mistaken. Bunker-busting missiles are available, and it's technically very easy to give them nuclear warheads.


Why not do both?
I said as much previously. Please don't make me repeat myself.

Because it's needlessly wasteful. The time, skill and resources wasted developing cybernetic combat dragons could instead be spent improving conventional forces.


Jets are hot, rotors are big, both are noisy as hell and guzzle fuel. Wings are stealthy, permit far greater maneuverability and fluid motion, and are more energy-efficient. They are also portable, can be deployed and ready for action in the blink of an eye, and can function in environments that would disable or destroy jet engines (such as a cloud of volcanic ash, anoxic atmospheres, or even underwater).

Performance is very important in military applications If flapping wings were such a great way of moving around, we'd have operating military ornithopters already. In air combat, speed is more important than maneuverability, which is why we have supersonic fighter jets rather than subsonic ornithopters that can turn on a dime. Portability is a secondary concern due to the great ranges of jets and aircraft carrier deployment. As for environments, jets can fly over ash clouds and peer into them IR and radar, while with anoxic atmospheres or underwater, you're much better off using specialised vehicles.


You seem to assume that more speed is automatically better. It isn't.

It is when it comes to air combat.


They will be just as tough. We've designed layered composite skin that is very flexible and very tough. It will shrug off repeated strikes from large-caliber ammunition by absorbing the impact and dissipating the kinetic energy.

You do not need thick and heavy metal plates to stop bullets and shrapnel. Ever heard of Kevlar, tungsten disulfide nanotube composites, or dilatant foam?

Weight savings in armour mean more of a vehicle's weight can be devoted to other systems, such as weapons and magazines. In other words, the sort of tech that can make a combat cyberdragon viable can be used to improve tanks even further.


Our cytrans will only give off heat when they choose to turn on their exothermic systems to warm themselves or others. Cytrans run off of battery power: they do not generate heat like an engine. They also have thermo-electric circuits to regain energy from heat, and the little that cannot be reclaimed is vented through their lungs. At the most, and overheating cytran dragon would be a couple of degrees Celsius warmer than the environment.

Any system will give off waste heat; that is inescapable fact of thermodynamics, and it applies to batteries as well, which also have the problem of storage. The latest battery technology may not even be able to get the damn things off the ground, let alone give the performance you're attributing to them. Waste heat also cannot be reclaimed as energy, otherwise you'd have a perpetual motion machine of the second kind, which is impossible unless you've completely re-written physics, in which case why aren't you claiming your Nobel prize?

I'm extremely skeptical, to say the least, of your claim that an "overheating" cytran dragon will only be a couple of degrees above ambient temperature.


That's not enough for heatseekers to lock onto, and all heatseeker missiles are tuned to look for the thermal signature of jet engine exhaust, which a cytran would obviously lack.

Unless you can provide me with some evidence (rather than your say-so) otherwise, I'm going to assume that your cytran dragons are going to be giving off enough heat for a missile to be programmed to lock onto.


Ever heard of 'ground clutter'? Apparently not.

Modern anti-aircraft platforms have their own target-acquisition radar in addition to any large area-sweeping arrays used for general surveillance. This is especially true of anti-aircraft cannons, which are designed to target low-flying aircraft taking advantage of clutter.


Why? You a specisist? Think humans are inherently special and superior? Am I threatening your cozy view of the order of nature?

No, I just think your ideas are motivated by wish-fulfilment fantasies rather than practical military concerns.


Sorry, but the hegemony of mankind will come to an end. You can either take the wise choice: play nice and share this world... or suffer the fate of fools.

Forming xenophobic isolationist colonies isn't "playing nice". Humanity will disappear eventually, but I want it to be a transformation, not a takeover.


Humanity would benefit enormously by accepting cytrans, and you would no longer be alone in the universe.

Your seperatist tendencies and potential actions will incline you to look down on the rest of humanity. That is a recipe for tyranny, if your colony isn't wiped out in a devastating war.


The time is now, and we consider the lessons of the past very carefully.

The very fact you're even considering seperatism indicates you don't.


Speak for your own species then. Leave mine out of your petty human politics. It is of little relevance to my kin.

I am "certain to five nines" that you are human like I am and thus "petty human politics" is of deadly grave relevance to you and those who share your ideas, whatever they may be.


Your global communist insurrection will never happen. Capitalism is too strong.

They said similar things about feudalism. Now look at us! None of us are peasants, and kings are powerless figureheads for the most part.


Like a military invasion, your revolution needs a foothold to gain momentum. FedCom is that foothold. The world can then follow our example, but the foothold must be established first. A scattered uprising will easily be crushed, but an uprising with a centralized point of stability and coordination has a solid chance of success.

A centralised point of stability is a big fat juicy target. On the other hand, a decentralised network deeply enmeshed within greater society cannot be completely eradicated without the system doing grievous damage to itself (which is why filesharing cannot be permanently got rid of). People can be assassinated, enclaves can be raided or bombed, but ideas can leap from mind to mind and relationships can break and reform as easy as that. We cannot transform society without winning the consent and cooperation of the majority of the people who actually live in it.


Don't criticize us for striving to transform our little corner of the world into the socialist bastion you wish existed. Patience: the rest of the world will soon see our success and be motivated to make their own changes. That's a far better strategy than blindly groping around in the dark with a small group of friends on a global scale. Do that, and the glorious communist revolution might as well be a fly on an elephant's ass.

Your solution is to gather the precious few who agree with you and place them in close geographical proximity where they can be easily attacked, not just physically, but psychologically as well; with you lot separate from the rest of humanity, it will be all too easy for you to misrepresented and slandered by the rest of the world, and there will be little you can do about it. Look at North Korea; whatever its real faults, it is beset on all sides by its enemies, and it future is not bright.


It's not our fault that those in chains do not choose to free themselves. They can do so simply by joining our struggle for freedom. Or they can remain sceptical, and stay in the chains of wage-slavery. It's their choice, and if they don't want that future enough to stand up and take action, then they don't deserve to reap the benefits.

Most people don't even realise that they are in chains, because they have lived since birth in them. It should be our task as revolutionaries to educate people so they can realise what a fucked-up situation they are in, not to simply leave them to their fate if they are not fortunate, educated or articulate enough to come to the same conclusions that we have.


Great as a global revolution would be, we realize it's a pipe dream. We aren't going to waste our energy overthrowing all the governments of the world at the same time. That's not going to happen. In contrast, we can focus our efforts in a small location, make our changes there, and show the world that it works. They we can support revolutions in neighboring countries, and help the world transition region by region. It's not the instantaneous results that most socialists dream about, but it's far more likely to actually work.

We don't have to wait for every nation-state to drop dead at the stroke of midnight; that's not how societies change, even in revolutionary situations. Rather, we should by main force do our level best to force global capitalism down the slippery slope of destruction, riding it all the way in the direction we desire. But to start the transition, we need to position ourselves that we are not perceived as a threat and wiped out before we can get things rolling.


If that happens... divide and conquer.

Unfortunately, it means that you will likely be among the conquered.


Do you need a major philosophical reason to justify swatting a fly in your house, or do you just grab the flyswatter and do it?

I swat flies because they're disgusting pests (a visceral reaction that AIs will not share) that spread disease (pray tell me what diseases an AI could catch off humans?).


You're still thinking along the same narrow lines: breach the armor with brute force. I'm talking about bypassing that armor and slipping between the cracks.

I can bring down an M1A2 Abrams tank with nothing more than a tin can filled with thermite, a bit of magnesium ribbon, and a lighter. I can turn it into a 70-ton roadblock with a simple crowbar. I can kill the crew with a pistol and commandeer the tank. I can run off with the .50-cal on the roof. I can do all these things while the crew sleeps. I know the weak points, and I know where to strike to cause the most damage. If the tank is moving, I simply avoid it, or ambush it with a single anti-tank missile or remote mine. With a large enough volume of small-arms fire (or a few skilled snipers), I can force the crew to 'button up' to protect their delicate periscopes: the tank is totally blind in such a state.

If the enemy is strong, you remain hidden and undetected, then you sneak in and slit his throat while he sleeps. You don't meet your foe on an open field with guns blazing: you snipe his soldiers from a distance, and pin him down. You use the terrain to conceal your movements and launch ambush attacks. You lay traps to terrorize his troops and make the environment itself seem like it's trying to kill them. You destroy or capture his supplies, weakening his position while you grow stronger. If the enemy is big and slow, then you are small and mobile. If the enemy has more firepower, then you have greater accuracy. You balance your strengths against his weaknesses. That is asymmetric warfare.

Something which modern armies are increasingly familiar with. Which also means that they are gaining valuable experience in how to defend against it.

Notwithstanding your braggadocchio, big standing armies still have a place on the modern battlefield, and would be the perfect tool for grinding Malatora into the dirt. The asymmetric warfare you propose would only be effective once they have already landed on your territory, and that is granting the generous assumption that would bother to occupy the place instead of simply scorching the earth.


Obviously. But those warheads are designed to bring down human aircraft, which have very thin skin and are very vulnerable to such weapons. As I mentioned above, cytran dragon skin is designed to repel bullets and shrapnel. That gives them a margin of safety. The worst AA warhead for a dragon would be the expanding ring type.

It is because of such proximity fuses that dragons will be trained to take evasive action whenever a missile is shot at them. Not all missiles have such a fuse, but it's better to present a radically maneuvering target than to tempt fate.

Not all aircraft are so thin-skinned - ground attack craft like the A-10 are heavily armoured and durable, and can carry heavier armament than your dragons can.


Very much so. More than you, I think, because not only do I know how powerful it is, but I also know the weaknesses and limitations of such weaponry. I can use that to, for example, build a bunker strong and deep enough to laugh at little bunker-buster bombs, and even smile in the face of an unrelenting nuclear bombardment on the surface.

Oh good grief. Pacify the surface, drill a hole down the surface into proximity with bunker, lower a tacnuke into it, then light the blue touch paper and retire. Bunker is pulverised.


The principles of bird flight dynamics are scalable. Human aircraft use the same basic technique to achieve lift. See next counter-argument...

The wings on human aircraft don't flap.


Fighter jets have higher speed, so they have higher wing loading ratios: that's why their wings can be smaller. A wingspan of 20 meters is mathematically correct for a creature of this weight. Dragons are NOT jets, so don't compare them to jets. A much closer comparison is a glider. Look at the wingspan of gliders. Look at the wing loading and aspect ratios. You will soon see that 20 meters is actually larger than is necessary, granting a dragon extra lift.

Bet all the money you like, capitalist. I'm not arguing that a dragon would be anywhere near as fast as a jet. They aren't supposed to be that fast. Get that through your head.

That's irrelevant to the fact that they are bigger targets. When will you get it through your head that being slower is a massive disadvantage in air combat?


Indeed I am. Combined arms was mastered by the Soviet Union, and FedCom follows the same layered and balanced system.

Our military is designed for homeland defense, not long-range offensive action far from home. To see an example of a similar system in action, look no further than the Swiss Porcupine Principle.

Long-range offensive action is still important. Are you going to wait until that carrier group is within their strike range before attacking it?


Dragons are not jack-of-all-trades. They have their specializations too, and have their own special niche in the battlefield. They are most effective against infantry forces and light vehicles, but not so inflexible that they are helpless in any other situation.

You're attempting to combine functions from infantry, armour and air support into one very fanciful package. In military and engineering terms that is a jack-of-all-trades.


Ant colonies work because ants have no intelligence, and cannot function alone. They are also over-specialized: lose the queen, and colony dies.

Just like a lot of modern military gear: over-specialized. Great, so long as your using Weapon X against the thing it was designed to defeat. Like chess pieces. use the wrong unit for the wrong task, and you get stomped. over-specialization may make something very effective for a particular task, but when that thing is forced into a situation where it is out of its element, it's a failure waiting to happen. (I'm going back to asymmetric warfare again here; maybe you should learn what that is.)

It's a tactic of desperation or necessity, if it's the sole method combat.


Want to see another successful species that got where it is specifically by being adaptable? Look in the mirror.

You don't seem to be seeing the same as I am.


Assuming you could pick it out from the ground clutter as it skimmed the treetops, and assuming you had a weapon to do the job with.

Attack helicopters are heavily armed and their pilots aren't blind, so I reckon so.


Oh my, you seem to have a horrible misunderstanding of how anti-aircraft artillery works, and basic physics as well. If I fly that low, riding the nape of the earth, then I can appear over the treetops and fly past you in the time it takes you to spit out your chewing gum. I can maneuver at that altitude faster than your guns can track, while I rain fire down on your heads. I can land right on top of your AAA vehicle before you have a change to flick the arming switch. I can approach from any direction I like, and use the trees and terrain to block your view of me. I know where you are, but you don't know were I am. I have every advantage.

Dragon, meet the Flugabwehrkanonenpanzer Gepard:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/99/Gepard_1a2_overview.jpg/800px-Gepard_1a2_overview.jpg

And now watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYVzEF1I-X4

Pay attention towards the end, and note how fast the turret can traverse and the guns elevate. Note also that it has two radar, one for target tracking while the other constantly scans at the same time.

Now, after the rather dry technical video, how about a music video to ram the point home?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGUmCLxk3uY&NR=1

Is that Rammstein? I love Rammstein.


Your flak might be effective against me if I was flying high enough for you to track and shoot at, but not when my breeze rustles your hair.

If you're flying that low, watch out for buildings and tank fire.


That infantry might as well be firing spit-wads. See above on the armor.

I'm pretty sure you're aware that infantry carry more than rifles and machineguns, so your comments about "spit-wads" is pure bravado.


Also, the dragon can incinerate and scatter the infantry support before it attacks the tougher armor. There's no reason why it wouldn't do so, in fact.

Apart from the fact it's getting blatted by SPAAGs.


Most infantry in the world are.

And I've already explained how dragons would be difficult to shoot down using modern weapons. Your weapons are designed to shoot down aircraft flying high, emitting hot exhaust, with [comparatively] poor maneuverability and large radar signatures. They are not designed to address such an alien threat, so they will be much less effective.

So the soldiers and officers, being of the adaptable human species you mentioned earlier, will come up better weapons and tactics.


And the tendency for a dragon to appear out of nowhere and incinerate whole columns of troops in the space of a few seconds... that makes them quite literally 'death from above' for infantry. Infantry are no match for a dragon in his element. They could kill human infantry like a terrier kills rats.

How do you know? Dragons don't exist (currently).


Sorry to bust your bubble, but cytrans won't have those kinds of power plants. They store energy with batteries (no, not AA cells, so don't be an asshole and ask), and recharge at their home base. They can also generate supplemental power in the field with microbial fuel cells. None of these technologies generate heat like traditional engines.

See my comments about battery storage and thermodynamics.


And the shrapnel bounces off their skin, because their skin is designed to defeat that shrapnel.

What is this impressive substance exactly? Can I have it for my attack helicopters, then we'll see which does better in combat?


A dragon on the ground is far from defenseless or slow.

Of those, only the bombing and artillery would be effective, and only if the target stays still. Don't expect a grounded dragon to stay anywhere near its landing area. If it can move, it will; rapidly. And good luck tracking it in the undergrowth of Malatora's jungles.

Bombs and artillery are not limited to stationary targets, otherwise they would not be able to target vehicles. Can your wounded dragon outrun a pursuit by AFVs and CAS, all the while dragging its bulky form through a jungle?


I don't underestimate the range: I know all about how far those weapons can reach.

Helicopter rotors act like gyroscopes, preventing radical shifts in position. A living organism with wings can flex its spine and whip around in mid-air, flipping around with a somersault, with a turn radius of less than a meter. No human-piloted aircraft can change direction so fast or in such a small turn radius. Cytran anatomy makes them far more resistant to g-forces than humans. A dragon cytran can fly circles around a helicopter.

Fine; since you're proposing futuristic technologies, allow me to propose some of my own; a fighter jet piloted by an AI or uploaded consciousness which can withstand g-forces capable of pulverising the cytran's organic brain.


Yes, there are good reasons. Because it's hard to get in close to a foe that can blast you from long range. Because that is the ingrained group-think, and militaries don't think of the alternatives. Because armies today have total disregard for collateral damage.

That is also a weakness. Armies today are too reliant on their range advantages. Deny them that advantage, and the odds suddenly shift. Get in close enough to touch any modern soldier, and you deny his ability to use his weapons. Position your army where the enemy can't see you until they are right on top of you, and you catch them by surprise, and at their weakest range. Use camouflage to remain unseen, and you have the element of surprise. (This goes back to the asymmetric warfare principles I outlined above.)

Modern militaries get around the problem of things getting too close by having overlapping defences. They detect ambushes using reconaissance. They keep an eye (and a radar and an IR) out for sneak attacks. If fighting close up was really so great, we'd still be using swords and shields.


Quite the opposite. We know exactly what kind of terrain awaits us on Malatora. This is not an assumption: it is a verified fact.

Right, so I take it you have chosen a location. Doesn't mean you'll get it.


Considering I majored in industrial engineering and design, I find that statement quite hilarious.

You are a small being, trying to attack what you don't understand. Give up: you won't win, and we will prove you wrong.

It seems your major was a waste of time, or else you're suffering from the same selective application of learning that afflicts geologists who are simultaneously young earth creationists. In other words you're letting your fascination with dragons overcome any objective assessment.

Strange things like that happen.


Your so-called 'lesson' is not required. You do not have all the facts because they have not been revealed. I will not reveal vital military secrets here.

I will say that we have plans to neutralize aircraft and artillery from the equation. We will also force any hostile army to fight on our terms, on terrain of our choosing, and with our tactics. We know the limitations of our plans, and we know how to play our strengths to maximum effect, while hiding and shielding our weaknesses.

I have studied engineering and military tactics all my life... have you? Don't assume I know nothing of these topics.

You do realise that this sort of hush-hush talk is the perfect tactic for a bullshitter? You don't have to actually provide evidence for your claims because "military seekrits".

As for your claim to have studied engineering and military tactics "all your life"; do you honestly expect me to believe you if you carry on like you are?


You've got a lot of room to talk, hypocrite.

Dragons are so passe. As for becoming one, that seems to me to be nothing less than a power-fantasy concocted by someone who (subconsciously at least) feels powerless themselves.

[Velkas]

Because that is the terrain in the area we have chosen. High-altitude tropical jungle. Where is this area?I'm sorry, but that information is classified and is only known to members of our organization. We cannot reveal our planned location, especially on a public forum such as this, where anyone could be watching. If our location becomes known, our plans are completely meaningless and can't be completed, unless we find a new location. However, most of our plans have been developed with that location in mind, so we will not reveal our location.

[Revy]

Your website says Malatora is a tiny African "proto-nation". African countries may be developing countries, but they have territorial claims as well and are not going to let someone try and start a country, especially people with no indigenous connection to the land. I am just curious how you plan to create this country in a way that won't seem colonialist.

[x371322]

I just think your ideas are motivated by wish-fulfilment fantasies

This.

I usually try to be nice around here. I don't like to be a dick for the most part (although I have my moments)... but to be honest, all this sounds like a group of seven year olds playing fort to me. Dragons? Seriously? I'm just not sure how hard I should be laughing right now. Should this even be in a transhumanism thread? This shit is a little "out there," even for me (and that's really saying something). That's not to say it's impossible, just very impractical. I can't think of anyone who would want to be a dragon, apart from a very select few. So good luck forming an entire army out of them.

Good luck to you guys I guess... But despite your explanations, I just don't see how (or why) any of this would ever happen, realistically.

[Velkas]

I can't think of anyone who would want to be a dragon, apart from a very select few. So good luck forming an entire army out of them.The cytran project has more models other than just dragons. We do have humanoid models, for instance, and a great variety of others.

[cska]

This discussion is indicative of the general level of RevLeft. I mean, we have two posters on here who are seriously arguing in favor of making humans into dragons.

This filth has got to end.

[Velkas]

I mean, we have two posters on here who are seriously arguing in favor of making humans into dragons.People should be allowed to be whoever — or whatever — they want to be, so long as they do not harm others (except in self-defense, or with good reason).

[khad]

I'm sure that the above is a very interesting discourse but I'm struggling to come up with a reason as to why it should be taking place on a revolutionary left website and not one devoted to science fiction. Which is really a charge that could be levelled at most of these 'transhumanist' threads
Agreed. This is a verbal warning to the entire thread. No more talk about dragons, masturbating over military hardware, weaponizing human beings, or any of that bullshit. There's no need for any of this to be on a revolutionary leftist web forum.

Stick to the topic of transhumanism, or there will be further warnings and/or infractions as the situation necessitates.

[Dimentio]

Agreed. This is a verbal warning to the entire thread. No more talk about dragons, masturbating over military hardware, weaponizing human beings, or any of that bullshit. There's no need for any of this to be on a revolutionary leftist web forum.

Stick to the topic of transhumanism, or there will be further warnings and/or infractions as the situation necessitates.

The problem is that the topic of transhumanism is very open to such ideas, since a lot of transhumanists are... well... loons. Most of them are also adherents to bright or dark singularitarianism, which is basically misinterpreting Silicon Valley for the world.

[khad]

The problem is that the topic of transhumanism is very open to such ideas, since a lot of transhumanists are... well... loons.
I understand that, but this isn't chit-chat, so I would hope that people keep in mind that this discussion ought to concern transhumanism's relationship to revolutionary politics.

[Dimentio]

I think this thread should be moved to Chit-chat. Transhumanism is a... hm... sort of philosophy. Theory would also be a good choice.

[Velkas]

Yeah, it might be best to move it to Chit-chat (at least for the parts concerning FedCom). And then could you please remove the negative reputation, khad?

[Revy]

You could split the thread. I need Velkas or Taygon to answer my question about this Malatora concept.

[Velkas]

I agree. That would probably be best.

I still want to discuss this more...

Perhaps you could move the FedCom parts to Chit-chat. It seems to be the best way to discuss such topics in peace.

[Taygon]

I understand that, but this isn't chit-chat, so I would hope that people keep in mind that this discussion ought to concern transhumanism's relationship to revolutionary politics.Well, this began by pointing out the indelible connection between FedCom (a socialist new-nation project) and a major transhumanist project being pursued as a vessel to facilitate realizing that goal. That's a pretty strong relationship right there, and with the revolutionary left being [generally] more open to unorthodox ideas and diversity, it's a good place to find transhumanist concepts. Certainly much more open and accepting that the narrow-minded fascists of the far right (and we all know how they treat anyone who doesn't perfectly match their "club"...racists).

Anyways, THC and others, if you have specific questions, I'd be happy to take this to a PM discussion, and answer them to the best of my ability. :cool:

[Invincible Summer]

I was thinking about what piet said, how he would welcome transhumanist technologies even if it was under capitalism.

What do the rest of you think of that? We're all familiar with how corporate profit interests usually interfere with the quality of technologies and there are also privacy concerns. Would you get a bionic eye or arm even if it was corporate tech? What about more invasive things such as mind implants or nanobots?

[Taygon]

With dirty schemes like "planned obsolescence" now invading even the the prosthesis market, it doesn't look too promising. Taking advantage of soldiers who lost limbs, by selling them expensive replacements that will break a few months after the warranty expired? Yeah, modern gotcha capitalism, right there.

At least a socialist still believes that quality is more important than the quantity of cheap crap that comes out of China.

I wouldn't want corporate tech anywhere near me, let alone IN me. It would undoubtedly be programmed to fail after a preset time limit, and then I've have to buy a replacement, again and again and again and...

I'd build my own replacement arm or leg. At least then I would know how tough it was and what it could do.

[cska]

I was thinking about what piet said, how he would welcome transhumanist technologies even if it was under capitalism.

What do the rest of you think of that? We're all familiar with how corporate profit interests usually interfere with the quality of technologies and there are also privacy concerns. Would you get a bionic eye or arm even if it was corporate tech? What about more invasive things such as mind implants or nanobots?

It doesn't matter wether it is capitalist or not, as the symptoms of transhumanist technologies are not fully understood, so unless I needed some artificial thing, I wouldn't get it.

[piet11111]

This.

I usually try to be nice around here. I don't like to be a dick for the most part (although I have my moments)... but to be honest, all this sounds like a group of seven year olds playing fort to me. Dragons? Seriously? I'm just not sure how hard I should be laughing right now. Should this even be in a transhumanism thread? This shit is a little "out there," even for me (and that's really saying something). That's not to say it's impossible, just very impractical. I can't think of anyone who would want to be a dragon, apart from a very select few. So good luck forming an entire army out of them.

Good luck to you guys I guess... But despite your explanations, I just don't see how (or why) any of this would ever happen, realistically.

I would suggest splitting this thread up.
But i do have to say this is serious comedy gold.

[Invincible Summer]

It doesn't matter wether it is capitalist or not, as the symptoms of transhumanist technologies are not fully understood, so unless I needed some artificial thing, I wouldn't get it.

Okay well how about using less extreme examples. Researchers have created bionic arms (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0_mLumx-6Y) and exoskeletons (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ4J69EEpu4). Now these videos are from a few years ago - imagine what advances they'd make in 5, 10 years. You'd basically have body parts that could be invulnerable to disease and have consistent strength. These are probably the least invasive and pretty basic forms of transhumanist technology, with little to no consequences.

If robotic prosthetics that were stronger than actual human arms were built, would you not even consider it?

[cska]

Okay well how about using less extreme examples. Researchers have created bionic arms (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0_mLumx-6Y) and exoskeletons (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ4J69EEpu4). Now these videos are from a few years ago - imagine what advances they'd make in 5, 10 years. You'd basically have body parts that could be invulnerable to disease and have consistent strength. These are probably the least invasive and pretty basic forms of transhumanist technology, with little to no consequences.

If robotic prosthetics that were stronger than actual human arms were built, would you not even consider it?

I know we can do this stuff. I'm just saying that we don't fully understand the downsides of it yet.

If robotic prosthetics stronger than actual human arms were built, I certainly wouldn't consider it. If I cared how strong my arms were, I would be working out. But I don't, and my arms are pretty weak, and I don't care...

[piet11111]

Okay well how about using less extreme examples. Researchers have created bionic arms (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0_mLumx-6Y) and exoskeletons (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ4J69EEpu4). Now these videos are from a few years ago - imagine what advances they'd make in 5, 10 years. You'd basically have body parts that could be invulnerable to disease and have consistent strength. These are probably the least invasive and pretty basic forms of transhumanist technology, with little to no consequences.

If robotic prosthetics that were stronger than actual human arms were built, would you not even consider it?

For my left arm definitely (the one i broke in the joint limiting strength and movement as well as being a constant source of moderate pain) but for my right one i wouldn't until it looked and felt like the real thing.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

As a socialist who reads a fair amount of science fiction, I admit to being somewhat intrigued by the FedCom project. However as other posters have said, a basic idea of scientific socialism is that successionist projects can't work. Utopian socialist communes in 19th century America, 60s countercultural projects, have all failed. How would your project work when so many others like it haven't? There's a major difference between utopian socialism and Marxism.

Eugene Debs talked about separatism-there was an idea to create a socialist colony in Western Canada in the early US SP, but the project was scuttled. The way forward for any movement is linking up with existing struggles.

Having said that FedCom could have plausibility as part or an expression of a global revolutionary strategy. In a cultural sense, as an example of something we could aspire to, it could have a lot of appeal and I would be a strong supporter, dragons and all.

From the website I couldn't tell if its a serious project or more of a RPG.Do you guys own real estate in Central Africa? According to website it would be about 20 sq. miles.

Also...


The Council of Leaders functions as a small meritocratic intellectual group, and operates in a "round table" format, with no Councilor higher or lower in status to any other. The Council's various functions are to serve as an advisory "think tank" for the People's Assembly, to collectively serve as the nation's figureheads (for diplomacy), to establish and coordinate social improvement projects, and unify the nation's defenses. In situations of national peril, the Council can temporarily use emergency powers to guide the nation out of the crisis.


... sounds a bit elitist.

[Stand Your Ground]

I don't agree with Transhumanism. Death is what makes us great. I am not advocating unnecessary or early death, I'm just saying that trying to move toward immortality would be very destructive on mankind in the end. It is knowledge of our mortality that challenges us to do great things and give great meaning to our own lives. It is the fact that we always have the choice to kill ourselves, but that those of us who live choose not to, that makes us so great. We don't take the easy way out of the chaos. I think advances in medicine and technology are great, but mankind needs to maintain its dominance over technology, not the other way around. Technology can not give us meaning, only we can. If we were to live an immortal life, or a life that pushed mortality far beyond its natural limits, we would become a depressed and sedentary species indeed.
This.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

This.

All of his arguments are either rubbish or based on misunderstandings. Did you actually read any replies to what he said?

[Dimentio]

Since when was this turned into a RPG forum?

[Invincible Summer]

Since when was this turned into a RPG forum?

I assume you're referring to the dragon stuff and not transhumanism in general (although I know you're not a fan of H+)?

[NGNM85]

I'm really into Transhumanism, and would like to discuss the subject at length, but until then I just wanted to post this link;
http://www.thelightsinthetunnel.com/
"What will the economy of the future look like?

Where will advancing technology, job automation, outsourcing and globalization lead?

Is it possible that accelerating computer technology was a primary cause of the current global economic crisis—and that even more disruptive impacts lie ahead?
This groundbreaking book by a Silicon Valley computer engineer and entrepreneur explores these questions and shows how accelerating technology is likely to have a highly disruptive influence on our economy in the near future—and may well already be a significant factor in the current global crisis.
THE LIGHTS IN THE TUNNEL employs a powerful thought experiment to explore the economy of the future. An imaginary "tunnel of lights" is used to visualize the economic implications of the new technologies that are likely to appear in the coming years and decades.
The book directly challenges nearly all conventional views of the future and illuminates the danger that lies ahead if we do not plan for the impact of rapidly advancing technology. It also offers unique insights into how technology will intertwine with globalization to shape the twenty-first century and explores ways in which the economic realities of the future might be leveraged to drive prosperity and to address global challenges such as poverty and climate change."

Just click the link and the website will let you download the book in PDF format for free.

[synthesis]

I really hope y'all have thought this whole "colonization" thing through before you actually decide to go and do it. I have this mental image of a few dozen computer programmers setting up shop in the middle of Rwanda, running out of Mountain Dew, realizing their group is entirely male, and the whole thing just winding up like the Roanoke Colony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Colony_DNA_Project).

[Dimentio]

I assume you're referring to the dragon stuff and not transhumanism in general (although I know you're not a fan of H+)?

I mean the dragon stuff. I am not hostile to H+, I am hostile to a lot of its proponents, because they are hurting transhumanism. Humans do not generally want to transcend their humanity.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I mean the dragon stuff. I am not hostile to H+, I am hostile to a lot of its proponents, because they are hurting transhumanism.

Indeed. I think the problem with a lot of transhumanist prognostications is that they are not radical enough. Far too many do not appreciate the power of intelligence as well as their own limitations.


Humans do not generally want to transcend their humanity.

If this is true, then a lot of objections to transhumanism are pretty much moot, since they seem to be based on a fear of "losing humanity" in some way.

[NGNM85]

I mean the dragon stuff. I am not hostile to H+, I am hostile to a lot of its proponents, because they are hurting transhumanism.

Every group has it's crazies.


Humans do not generally want to transcend their humanity.

I disagree. I think everyone wants to be smarter, faster, stronger, healthier, sexier, etc. If you could make yourself smarter instantaneously, would you just make yourself .2% smarter? At what point would you automatically say; "Thus far, and no further."? It's a personal question. However, I think most people would very comfortably surpass the limitations of the human organism, and keep going...

[Mendax]

People always seem to use links to things like robotic limbs but what about things we've already designed which could improve peoples bodies without fixing intire limbs like...

Carbon nanotube muscle
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090319/full/news.2009.178.html

or

Piezoelectric skin? (I couldn't find a link for this google bought up loads of pages about Dragons (I just realised the irony of that.) ><, will fix once I've searched a bit more)

or control computers with your mind

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJJPbpHoPWo&feature=player_embedded#at=42

Slap me if this has all already been thrown into the mix.

[Invincible Summer]

People always seem to use links to things like robotic limbs but what about things we've already designed which could improve peoples bodies without fixing intire limbs like...

Carbon nanotube muscle
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090319/full/news.2009.178.html

or

Piezoelectric skin? (I couldn't find a link for this google bought up loads of pages about Dragons ><, will fix once I've searched a bit more)

or control computers with your mind

TJJPbpHoPWo

Slap me if this has all already been thrown into the mix.


This stuff is excellent! The only reason I keep linking prosthetics is because I feel that it they are simple examples that have very clear implications and results.

[x371322]

Check out this shit. Injectable Bio-Computers made from DNA. I love the future...

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-06/worlds-first-dna-based-logic-gates-could-lead-injectable-bio-computers

[AK]

Check out this shit. Injectable Bio-Computers made from DNA. I love the future...

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-06/worlds-first-dna-based-logic-gates-could-lead-injectable-bio-computers
http://www.popsci.com.au/wp-content/themes/popsci/images/under_construction.jpg

[JTB]

Hi could someone please give me the basics of transhumanism of point he in the direction of so articles that can help me gain knowledge on the topic.
Transhumanism, like eugenics, revolves around the idea of improving the human form to better the quality life for all mankind.

[JTB]

Transhumanism is an example of elitist, petty-bourgeois worship of technology as a solution to social problems.


Just like those who use medicine to fight disease? Using technology to solve social problems is bad? You mean like using genetically modified crops to fight famine and improve the condition of the starving poor?


Instead of changing the world, we are supposed to change ourselves in order to cope with it.
We are part of the world and our ability to change nature and the universe is limited.


Those of us who can afford to pay for the technology, that is.

Like all advancements, the goal is to ultimately make them available to everyone. Recall that even the humble plow, critical to the existence of civilized, yet alone advanced, society, was once available only to those with access to the materials and the skill to make it, or those with enough wealth to trade for one.

To lament that technological advance has always been available first to the few before the many could benefit does not constitute a sound argument against advancement, but merely against the way in which such advancements are made available to the People. Attack the social aspects with which you take issue, not the science that can serve to improve the condition of Man.

Technology, which is used in capitalist society for maximizing private profit and for social control, will not liberate humanity unless and until technology itself is liberated from the control of capital.

Human nature is shaped by the social relations of society, as Marx recognized in his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts and elsewhere. We have to change those social relations in order to be able to find new possibilities for our human nature. There is no tech shortcut.[/QUOTE]

[JTB]

I don't agree with Transhumanism. Death is what makes us great. I am not advocating unnecessary or early death, I'm just saying that trying to move toward immortality would be very destructive on mankind in the end. It is knowledge of our mortality that challenges us to do great things and give great meaning to our own lives. It is the fact that we always have the choice to kill ourselves, but that those of us who live choose not to, that makes us so great. We don't take the easy way out of the chaos. I think advances in medicine and technology are great, but mankind needs to maintain its dominance over technology, not the other way around. Technology can not give us meaning, only we can. If we were to live an immortal life, or a life that pushed mortality far beyond its natural limits, we would become a depressed and sedentary species indeed.
Has increasing the human lifespan thusfar caused us to cease to do great things? Or has living past 35 or 45 allowed us to commit more time and effort to doing truly great things?

[JTB]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by A.R.Amistad
When I say that "death is what makes us great" I do not mean that the actual event of death is great. Its what we do in the face of death that makes us great
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't you think we should be able to do great things without having the threat of permanent non-existence hanging over our heads?

ARA reminds me of the religious persons who make the same claims regarding the threat of Hell

[JTB]

Most of the technology necessary for the creation of cytrans is currently being tested and employed in various fields of robotics and medicine. We build off of these existing technologies and take the next step: combining these technologies and smoothing away the rough edges.
The roughest edge seems to be the human immune system

[NGNM85]

I just read this interesting piece on 'uploading' and I thought I'd share. Here's a few excerpts;

"Arguments for identity transfer cannot be stated without invoking nonphysical entities, and lead to absurdities that cannot be avoided without introducing arbitrary rules.... Dualism is built into the language that Moravec uses throughout, and that we use on a daily basis, “my brain, my body,” as if brain and body were distinguishable from “me,” the true “me” — the soul.... Moravec does not use the word “soul,” but he uses words which are effectively synonymous.

..The premise that Moravec starts with — that you would not feel any different if some small number of your natural neurons were to be replaced by artificial neurons that provided the same input-output functions to the rest of the brain — might at first seem reasonable. Neurons die all the time, by the thousands every day, and you don’t notice any difference. If a few of them were replaced, how could you even tell?

But what if your brain cells all died at once, faster than the speed of neural transmission, say because a bomb exploded nearby? Would you notice then? No, you would be gone before you could feel anything. Death does not require our ability to perceive it; nor can we escape the Reaper by refusing to acknowledge him. In this we are unlike Wile E. Coyote, who can’t fall until he sees that he’s over the edge of the cliff.

Moravec claims that “you have not lost consciousness” at the completion of his process. This is powerful verbal magic, appealing to the sense that consciousness is an indivisible whole. Yet any number of experiments and observations from psychology show this to be an illusion. You are one body, leading one life, but your mind’s unity is a synthesis.

What is this thing, the “mind,” that Moravec claims can be “removed” and “transferred”? What exactly is it made of? Some say “information,” and that sounds appropriately scientific, but information has no existence, so far as we know, without the physical “substrate” used to “represent it.” When we speak of “information transfer” from one thing to another, we usually mean that some physical agent makes some physical measurement of the first thing and imposes related physical changes on the second thing. Pure information, completely separated from any physical matter or energy, would be something whose existence could not be distinguished from its nonexistence..."

Read the whole thing, here;http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?p=175399

Pretty compelling stuff. I must admit, I've wondered about this, myself.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

In that case, surely it does not matter? If the sense of self, of personal continuity, is an illusion, then a whole load of objections to uploading effectively disappear? I mean, if there nothing to lose in the first place...

[NGNM85]

In that case, surely it does not matter? If the sense of self, of personal continuity, is an illusion, then a whole load of objections to uploading effectively disappear? I mean, if there nothing to lose in the first place...

Did you read the article? The essential issue, at least to my mind, whether or not 'uploading' necessitates the belief in a 'soul'.

Something else I've privately wondered about is how we would know someone was actually 'uploaded', and that we haven't just created an artificial facsimile. There's an important difference between reloacting the consciousness, and making a copy of one. In that scenario the original person is dead, you've just created a cybernetic equivalent with the same memories. I don't see how one would verify this had not taken place. I also find it a lot less attractive. This was one of the failings of that crappy sci-fi movie with Arnold Schwarzenegger; "The 6th Day"; the villains are completely unbelievable. (Beyond the fact that the script is crap.) They show no concern for death because their memories are copied and put into new bodies, however, there's no reason this should be of any comfort because this isn't immortality in any sense. They are still dead, they just have a copy of themselves running around after they die. However, if the 'upload' has all of the same memories, how would it be possible to verify you hadn't just killed somebody? Technically, you could argue the one-for-one exhange balances the moral scorecard, but I think it matters.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Did you read the article? The essential issue, at least to my mind, whether or not 'uploading' necessitates the belief in a 'soul'.

I don't think it does. Uploading should be viewed more as a physical transformation than as some kind of "transfer of consciousness".


Something else I've privately wondered about is how we would know someone was actually 'uploaded', and that we haven't just created an artificial facsimile. There's an important difference between reloacting the consciousness, and making a copy of one. In that scenario the original person is dead, you've just created a cybernetic equivalent with the same memories. I don't see how one would verify this had not taken place.

If there is no detectable difference, then I submit that there is no real difference at all.


I also find it a lot less attractive. This was one of the failings of that crappy sci-fi movie with Arnold Schwarzenegger; "The 6th Day"; the villains are completely unbelievable. (Beyond the fact that the script is crap.) They show no concern for death because their memories are copied and put into new bodies, however, there's no reason this should be of any comfort because this isn't immortality in any sense. They are still dead, they just have a copy of themselves running around after they die.

I think that has more to do with current cultural conceptions of identity, which are centred around completely subjective and undetectable phenomena such as qualia. We must be prepared for the revelation that our understanding of identity and personhood are based on dualistic fictions.


However, if the 'upload' has all of the same memories, how would it be possible to verify you hadn't just killed somebody? Technically, you could argue the one-for-one exhange balances the moral scorecard, but I think it matters.

I don't think there is a moral problem, unless the uploadee was unwilling.

[NGNM85]

I don't think it does. Uploading should be viewed more as a physical transformation than as some kind of "transfer of consciousness".

Still, I find it hard to envision a sort of 'uploading' that doesn't involve this sort of dualism.


If there is no detectable difference, then I submit that there is no real difference at all.

I would think it would make an enormous difference to the prospective 'upload.' There's a substantial differene between relocating my consciousness to a different substrate where I could have greater cognition, memory, etc., and killing me and producing a cybernetic version of me. The latter is decidedly less attractive.


I think that has more to do with current cultural conceptions of identity, which are centred around completely subjective and undetectable phenomena such as qualia. We must be prepared for the revelation that our understanding of identity and personhood are based on dualistic fictions.

I think there could probably be a thread dedicated to that, alone, so I'm not going to try and tackle that. Simply put, I think it's a question that would need to be resolved for such a project to be viable. At least from an ethical standpoint, I think we'd be obligated to answer that.

[QUOTE=NoXion;1782973]I don't think there is a moral problem, unless the uploadee was unwilling.

Again, though, that's really sort of playing with the moral scorecard, trading one-for-one. I'm morally uncomfortable with that. Also, I think if a lot of people knew this they'd be a lot less excited about the propspect.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Still, I find it hard to envision a sort of 'uploading' that doesn't involve this sort of dualism.

Sloppy use of language seems to encourage slipping into bad old dualistic habits.


I would think it would make an enormous difference to the prospective 'upload.' There's a substantial differene between relocating my consciousness to a different substrate where I could have greater cognition, memory, etc., and killing me and producing a cybernetic version of me. The latter is decidedly less attractive.

It depends on what you envision the uploading process to be, which is why I emphasise the stepwise transformational method; there's no moment you can point to and reasonably say the uploadee is dead:


The Moravec Transfer gradually moves (rather than copies) a human mind into a computer. You need never lose consciousness. (The details which follow have been redesigned and fleshed out a bit (by yours truly) from the original in Mind Children.)

1. A neuron-sized robot swims up to a neuron and scans it into memory.

2. An external computer, in continuous communication with the robot, starts simulating the neuron.

3. The robot waits until the computer simulation perfectly matches the neuron.

4. The robot replaces the neuron with itself as smoothly as possible, sending inputs to the computer and transmitting outputs from the simulation of a neuron inside the computer.
This entire procedure has had no effect on the flow of information in the brain, except that one neuron's worth of processing is now being done inside a computer instead of a neuron.

Repeat, neuron by neuron, until the entire brain is composed of robot neurons.

Despite this, the synapses (links) between robotic neurons are still physical; robots report the reception of neurotransmitters at artificial dendrites and release neurotransmitters at the end of artificial axons. In the next phase, we replace the physical synapses with software links.
For every axon-dendrite (transmitter-receiver) pair, the inputs are no longer reported by the robot; instead the computed axon output of the transmitting neuron is added as a simulated dendrite to the simulation of the receiving neuron.
At the end of this phase, the robots are all firing their axons, but none of them are receiving anything, none of them are affecting each other, and none of them are affecting the computer simulation.

5. The robots are disconnected.

You have now been placed entirely inside a computer, bit by bit, without losing consciousness. In Moravec's words, your metamorphosis is complete.
If any of the phases seem too abrupt, the transfer of an individual neuron, or synapse, can be spread out over as long a time as necessary. To slowly transfer a synapse into a computer, we can use weighted factors of the physical synapse and the computational synapse to produce the output. The weighting would start as entirely physical and end as entirely computational. Since we are presuming the neuron is being perfectly simulated, the weighting affects only the flow of causality and not the actual process of events.

Slowly transferring a neuron is a bit more difficult.

4a. The robot encloses the neuron, the axons, and the dendrites with a robotic "shell", all without disturbing the neural cell body. (That's going to take some pretty fancy footwork, I know, but this is a thought experiment. The Powers will be doing the actual uploading.)

4b. The robotic dendrites continue to receive inputs from other neurons, and pass them on to the enclosed neural dendrites. The output of the biological neuron passes along the neural axon to the enclosing robotic axon, which reads the output and forwards it to the external synapse, unchanged.

4c. The robotic axon outputs 99% of the received biological impulse, plus 1% of the computed robotic impulse. Since, by hypothesis, the neuron is being perfectly simulated, this does not change the actual output in any way, only the flow of causality.

4d. The weighting is adjusted until 100% of the output is the computed output.

4e. The biological neuron is discarded.

Assuming we can simulate an individual neuron, and that we can replace neurons with robotic analogues, I think that thoroughly demonstrates the possibility of uploading, given that consciousness is strictly a function of neurons. (And if we have immortal souls, then uploading is a real snap. Detach soul from brain. Copy any information not stored in soul. Attach soul to new substrate. Upload complete.)

From HERE (http://yudkowsky.net/obsolete/singularity.html#upload).

If we accept that what we very loosely call "consciousness" is a function of the brain, then I fail to see how the above process, or something like it, would not work.


I think there could probably be a thread dedicated to that, alone, so I'm not going to try and tackle that. Simply put, I think it's a question that would need to be resolved for such a project to be viable. At least from an ethical standpoint, I think we'd be obligated to answer that.

Fair enough. But I still say we should be prepared to overturn our previous conceptions, which are almost certainly bound to be wrong.


Again, though, that's really sort of playing with the moral scorecard, trading one-for-one. I'm morally uncomfortable with that. Also, I think if a lot of people knew this they'd be a lot less excited about the propspect.

The moral scorecard is something you're bringing up, not me. I don't think there's some kind of cosmic moral scoreboard; what concerns me is informed consent, which can't be measured using a points system.

If uploading becomes practical within my lifetime, I intend to "hedge my bets" and have it done as late in my biological life as possible. That means if it turns out that uploading is some kind of death, I won't have missed out on too much. Strikes me as a sensible arrangement, especially in light of the fact that there's no reason why biological life-extension technologies cannot be developed at the same time, allowing uploading to be further refined if necessary.

[NGNM85]

Sloppy use of language seems to encourage slipping into bad old dualistic habits.

Language is definitely a stumbling block, here. However, virtually all texts about uploading seem to echo this refrain. If consciousness can be removed and put into new hardware, that there is something else, some essence, beyond the meat.


It depends on what you envision the uploading process to be, which is why I emphasise the stepwise transformational method; there's no moment you can point to and reasonably say the uploadee is dead:

From HERE (http://yudkowsky.net/obsolete/singularity.html#upload).

I'm familiar with Yudkowsky's work. Yeah, that sounds like the best way to do it, if such a technology is actually possible to create. However, as you said, we couldn't point to any instance where the 'uploadee' is dead, however, that doesn't mean they aren't.


If we accept that what we very loosely call "consciousness" is a function of the brain, then I fail to see how the above process, or something like it, would not work.

It sounds like the best approach. again, using highly theoretical speculations. There's an overwhelming amount of 'if's.'


Fair enough. But I still say we should be prepared to overturn our previous conceptions, which are almost certainly bound to be wrong.

Very likely. However, this is a reason to be more skeptical.


The moral scorecard is something you're bringing up, not me. I don't think there's some kind of cosmic moral scoreboard; what concerns me is informed consent, which can't be measured using a points system.

Granted.


If uploading becomes practical within my lifetime, I intend to "hedge my bets" and have it done as late in my biological life as possible. That means if it turns out that uploading is some kind of death, I won't have missed out on too much. Strikes me as a sensible arrangement, especially in light of the fact that there's no reason why biological life-extension technologies cannot be developed at the same time, allowing uploading to be further refined if necessary.

I second that.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Language is definitely a stumbling block, here. However, virtually all texts about uploading seem to echo this refrain. If consciousness can be removed and put into new hardware, that there is something else, some essence, beyond the meat.

I wonder if an analogy can clear things up. Try this on for size:

Think of a book. On a purely physical level, the slight differences in pigmentation (the letters) within it are entirely meaningless to someone who cannot read at all.

But suppose this illiterate was asked to copy the book into a computer with painstaking attention to detail, making sure to copy each mysterious string of symbols faithfully, perhaps even going so far as to create a virtual book inside a virtual library.

Once this process is completed, anyone with the ability to read will be able to enjoy the book and the story within, even though there are no real pages to turn.

At the risk of making my analogy more clumsy than it already is, "body" is to "book" as "mind" is to "story".

You can't hold something like a mind or a story in isolation, without some kind of medium to express it in - surely that would be dualism! But you can tell the same story using different media, and I have no reason to believe that minds are limited to existing as brains, any more than stories are limited to existing as books.

I hope that made some kind of sense.

[CommunityBeliever]

My prediction for the future is that out of the web a super intelligence will develop, with a super powerful AI operating and improving itself and discovering things.

Humans will live entirely on computers in the web and instead of seeing, hearing, etc, they will just be accessing memory objects. People will be able to have memories that are public to everyone inside the web and they might have other ones with privacy protection, and there will be a variety of virtual realities that people will live in :thumbup1:

I don't really see how transhumanism applies here because I haven't heard anything about eliminating bodies altogether in any transhumanist discussion.

[Invincible Summer]

I don't really see how transhumanism applies here because I haven't heard anything about eliminating bodies altogether in any transhumanist discussion.

Well I think the elimination of human bodies is a form of post-humanism, which is related to transhumanist discourse.

[NGNM85]

I wonder if an analogy can clear things up. Try this on for size:

Think of a book. On a purely physical level, the slight differences in pigmentation (the letters) within it are entirely meaningless to someone who cannot read at all.

But suppose this illiterate was asked to copy the book into a computer with painstaking attention to detail, making sure to copy each mysterious string of symbols faithfully, perhaps even going so far as to create a virtual book inside a virtual library.

Once this process is completed, anyone with the ability to read will be able to enjoy the book and the story within, even though there are no real pages to turn.

At the risk of making my analogy more clumsy than it already is, "body" is to "book" as "mind" is to "story".

You can't hold something like a mind or a story in isolation, without some kind of medium to express it in - surely that would be dualism! But you can tell the same story using different media, and I have no reason to believe that minds are limited to existing as brains, any more than stories are limited to existing as books.

I hope that made some kind of sense.

I think this is an excellent argument about the viability of creating a synthetic brain. However, and forgive me if I'm just missing something here, but I don't see how this really adresses the idea of transferring a consciousness, not replicating it. As I understand it, my thoughts are an electrochemical process being carried out by neurons and synapses, this meat is my mind, not simply the housing, but it actually is my mind. That there is no separating hardware from software because they are the same.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think this is an excellent argument about the viability of creating a synthetic brain. However, and forgive me if I'm just missing something here, but I don't see how this really adresses the idea of transferring a consciousness, not replicating it. As I understand it, my thoughts are an electrochemical process being carried out by neurons and synapses, this meat is my mind, not simply the housing, but it actually is my mind. That there is no separating hardware from software because they are the same.

The "transfer" happens during the gradual transformative upload process I mentioned above. If the uploadee reports remembering being human and remembering going through the upload process, which I have no reason to believe they would not, surely then, whatever the philosophers say, the objective has been achieved?

[Honggweilo]

Those who choose to be dragons do so because that's the form that most accurately expresses how they perceive themselves as individuals. They want to look like a dragon because they feel like a dragon.

but you cant have a uterus!

are you denying my right to have uterus?

no, but it is medically impossible

well atleast can i have the right to have a uterus

yes you can have the right to have uterus

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

but you cant have a uterus!

are you denying my right to have uterus?

no, but it is medically impossible

well atleast can i have the right to have a uterus

yes you can have the right to have uterus

Obviously rights only make sense if you can exercise them. I think what is meant is that if it is possible to radically alter one's phenotype, then it should be worked on as a practical option and be made freely available to all who desire it.

I'm not sure if it's possible to have a functioning uterus (installed into an originally male body, I assume), but if it is possible then why the hell not?

[NGNM85]

I found this sort of amusing.

Courtesy of KurzweilAI.net;

"The Singularity Goes Prime Time"
(http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-singularity-goes-prime-time)

This week's episode of the CBS sitcom "The Big Bang Theory" brings the idea of the technological Singularity to one of the widest audiences it has ever reached.

In the opening teaser, ubergeek Sheldon (Jim Parsons) explains to his long-suffering roommate and best fried Leonard (Johnny Galecki) that he is trying to determine how much longer he has to live. Referring to the time line shown here, he laments that he will probably not make it far enough into the future to, well, live to see it would be one way of putting it:

Sheldon: At best I have 60 years left. 60 only gets me to here. I need to get here.
Leonard: What’s there?
Sheldon: The earliest estimate of the Singularity, when man will be able to transfer his consciousness into machines and achieve immortality.
Leonard: So, you’re upset about missing out on becoming some sort of freakish, self-aware robot…
Sheldon: By this much!
Leonard: Tough break. You want eggs?
Sheldon: You don’t get it, Leonard. I’m going to miss so much: the Unified Field Theory, Cold Fusion, the dogopus…
Leonard: What’s a dogopus?
Sheldon: A hybrid dog and octopus — man’s best underwater friend.
Leonard: Is somebody working on that?
Sheldon: I was going to. I planned on giving it to myself for my 300th birthday.

Here's the clip;
http://www.cbs.com/primetime/big_bang_theory/video/?pid=2ebRygEmk9DqFEOjA9kGsxJ8LSN8KO3d&play=true&vs=Default

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Problem being that TV tends to simplify technical concepts to the point of stupidity, for various reasons including time constraints and the fact that media types think viewers are morons (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ViewersAreMorons).

[LebenIstKrieg]

wow seems like I created thread that actually meant something.:lol:

[Summerspeaker]

I'm pleased to see so many revolutionary leftists familiar with and discussing transhumanism. The project of my blog focuses on influencing the movement toward radical social change. There's scant support for this in mainstream transhumanist circles. Corporate-military enthusiasts, liberal reformists, and aloof technofixers dominate the debate. We on the left need to figure out how to take control of technology for liberation rather than oppression. Class analysis and the dismal record industrial policy makes the notion that invention alone can cut our economic chains untenable. Old-fashioned struggle remains essential.

[MellowViper]

There's a lot of different factions in Transhumanism. Its basically the acknowledgment that human evolution is currently in flux and that were, as a species, leading the way for a more superior, more intelligent successor. It doesn't just have to do with natural selection either. The idea in much of Transhumanism is that it can be aided by our decisions in this life time. The more fascist variants believe this can be accomplished through forced Eugenics programs. Others believe this might occur through cybernetics and bio-engineering. I'm of the psychedelic variety. I believe that the ego death and oneness with the universe that entheogens put people into touch with can help push our cultural evolution to a more democratic and egalitarian transition. Biological evolution isn't something you have a lot of control over, but cultural evolution is something that can be changed a lot more radically in one's life time. As for cybernetics, the internet could one day become a shared, global consciousness for the human race, and I think this would be key in the transition to true communism. There's a lot of potential for the current technology now, really. Internetworking can make direct democracy much more of a possibility than its ever been in the whole existence of humanity. It just needs to be put to use. I'll probably post a thread discussing this. I don't really like the overly futurist fantasies that come from much of Transhumanism. I'm much more interested in solutions that I can take part in in my lifetime. As for transhumanists that seek immortality, I think this is a waste of time. All matter is bound to dissipate in the future, and, of course, you'll die and become subject to the forces of chaos again. Psychedelics will pretty much show you that death is illusory anyway. When you escape into the state of non-entity you existed in before birth, "you'll" still be aware. You just won't be aware that you're aware in the human context.

[Sentinel]

The most common mistake people make is associating transhumanism only with the advocacy of cybernetics and genetic engineering, and being positive to technology. While this is correct per se, at least for me the most important message of transhumanism is the rejection of the concept of 'the natural', ie, the refusal to accept death and disease as inherit and unchangeable facts of life.

[Summerspeaker]

Exactly, Sentinel. In this I see an inherent connection between the queer movement and transhumanism, which I've written about (http://queersingularity.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/queer-immortalism-denying-the-narrative-of-nature/) on my blog. Regardless of how Aubrey de Grey fares and whether any of us live past a hundred, the idea that we should try to overcome death holds beauty and value.

[MellowViper]

I'm not saying we shouldn't strive to live a really really long time, like a few a few million years or something. I'm just saying focusing on immortality is probably not gonna happen and that death is illusory and that we ultimately shouldn't fear it. Watching the end of this universe might be really cool though for whoever manages to see it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm not saying we shouldn't strive to live a really really long time, like a few a few million years or something. I'm just saying focusing on immortality is probably not gonna happen

I'm pretty sure that the human species is capable of "focusing" on more than one issue at a time. As for "probably not gonna happen" - citation?


and that death is illusory and that we ultimately shouldn't fear it.

Really? Then why don't you kill yourself? After all, if death is illusory, then it doesn't matter whether you live or die.


Watching the end of this universe might be really cool though for whoever manages to see it.

I'd like to think that if our descendants survive that long then they would have find a way around that.

[MellowViper]

I'm pretty sure that the human species is capable of "focusing" on more than one issue at a time. As for "probably not gonna happen" - citation?



Really? Then why don't you kill yourself? After all, if death is illusory, then it doesn't matter whether you live or die.



I'd like to think that if our descendants survive that long then they would have find a way around that.

Calm down man. I'm just saying that the universe is expanding and that matter is eventually going to decay out of existence. This is evidence of how impermanent everything is. If there was really some way to find a way around it, I imagine that beings from a previous universe before this one would have managed to do so and made contact with us. It probably would have happened an infinite number of times already, and our universe now would be full of transcendent entities from previous universes. However, you may have a point. Maybe there's an extra dimensional realm we could hop around to if the multiverse exists. If the multi-verse is infinitely large, then over crowding with the extra-dimensional Noahs wouldn't be an issue. Maybe when we make first contact it'll be with extra-dimensional travelers. If the number of universes are very limited where theres only two or one though, then the fact that were not crowded with survivors from previous big bangs would prove the impossibility of surviving universal collapse. I doubt that this universe is absolutely finite and that this is the first and only time this will ever happen though. Something can't just come from nothing, and conditons of any existent system are repeatable. There has to be a cyclical system of some kind behind all of this.

I'm also saying death is illusory because human consciousness is ultimately the alteration of a dimension that exists in congruence with spacial and time dimensions. This is what I've come to realize taking psychedelics. When we die, we simply go back to a state of proto-mind that we existed in before we were born.

The reason why I don't want to kill myself is because I see value in human life. The human mind makes us aware that were aware. When were dead, we'll still probably have an awareness of some kind as some sort of singularity of de-individualization, but there won't be any context behind it. I like being alive because I am currently an expression of the universe subjectively experiencing itself. This puts humanity at the center of things existentially, and we don't want to fuck it up through self annihilation, or else we lose all out progress and all our discoveries. The human race should be continued as long as possible and be able to develop. Extinction means that the universe will become ignorant of itself again, and that's why it should be postponed (or eliminated) at all costs.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Calm down man. I'm just saying that the universe is expanding and that matter is eventually going to decay out of existence. This is evidence of how impermanent everything is.

"Permanent" is a relative term. Also the predicted heat death of the universe assumes that there will be no cosmic engineering of any kind.


I'm also saying death is illusory because human consciousness is ultimately the alteration of a dimension that exists in congruence with spacial and time dimensions. This is what I've come to realize taking psychedelics. When we die, we simply go back to a state of proto-mind that we existed in before we were born.

I'm going to be frank here, because I think it's fundamentally more honest; that's a steaming pile of horse manure. Psychedelics can give you an insight into your own psyche, but they cannot tell you anything about the rest of the universe. I've taken psychedelics as well, but I've also studied the evidence, which tells us that human consciousness is a function of the brain, and that when the brain is destroyed, you are dead.


The reason why I don't want to kill myself is because I see value in human life. The human mind makes us aware that were aware. When were dead, we'll still probably have an awareness of some kind as some sort of singularity of de-individualization, but there won't be any context behind it. I like being alive because I am currently an expression of the universe subjectively experiencing itself. This puts humanity at the center of things existentially, and we don't want to fuck it up through self annihilation, or else we lose all out progress and all our discoveries. The human race should be continued as long as possible and be able to develop. Extinction means that the universe will become ignorant of itself again.

Oh dear. Look, I understand that insights gained when high can seem profound at the time, but they fall apart like wet tissue paper when subjected to critical examination.

For example, what in Hell's Bells is a "singularity of de-individualisation"? How do we confirm its existence without taking psychedelics? If we cannot, then how do we establish whether that is something that's really true about reality, or just a delusion brought about by the increased neurotransmitter activity induced by the ingestion of psychedelics?

The reason that science is so successful at finding out things about reality and applying them in practice is because of its emphasis on empiricism - actually observing reality and tinkering with it in a controlled manner via experimentation - instead of sitting around on our arses and trying to second-guess the universe with drugs or our own prejudices.

[MellowViper]

"Permanent" is a relative term. Also the predicted heat death of the universe assumes that there will be no cosmic engineering of any kind.



I'm going to be frank here, because I think it's fundamentally more honest; that's a steaming pile of horse manure. Psychedelics can give you an insight into your own psyche, but they cannot tell you anything about the rest of the universe. I've taken psychedelics as well, but I've also studied the evidence, which tells us that human consciousness is a function of the brain, and that when the brain is destroyed, you are dead.



Oh dear. Look, I understand that insights gained when high can seem profound at the time, but they fall apart like wet tissue paper when subjected to critical examination.

For example, what in Hell's Bells is a "singularity of de-individualisation"? How do we confirm its existence without taking psychedelics? If we cannot, then how do we establish whether that is something that's really true about reality, or just a delusion brought about by the increased neurotransmitter activity induced by the ingestion of psychedelics?

The reason that science is so successful at finding out things about reality and applying them in practice is because of its emphasis on empiricism - actually observing reality and tinkering with it in a controlled manner via experimentation - instead of sitting around on our arses and trying to second-guess the universe with drugs or our own prejudices.

I never said there was cosmic engineering. I'm following this completely from the view that there's no bearded man pulling all the levers. What I mean by "underlying system" is that the universe and the energy in it has always existed in one form or another, that it follows certain rules, and that its in one particular state now that allows for matter and molecular bonding and all that stuff. That's what I was addressing by "something can't come from nothing". There's some type of cyclical pattern.

It doesn't just have to be psychedelics. You can get the same thing with a stroke or a traumatic brain injury and feel less like an individual and feel a oneness with the universe. You notice that you're less of a partition and more of an arbitrary point in a larger whole. . (I prefer psychedelics as a method to intentionally giving myself strokes and head injuries, though, because it doesn't result in life long trauma and disability. Well, the risk of it is a lot lower anyway.) In the same way that smashing an atom helps reveal the nature of matter, the perturbing of consciousness can help reveal insights as well.

What I'm addressing with "singularity of de-individualization" is the issue of individuality. Its more than just one brain has a set of processes and another has a set of separate processes. That might explain how two separate laptops or wind up clocks work, but it in no way explains why there's two separate entities observing from different vantage points. Why are we observers and not two separate, complex. biological juggernauts that simply just do all these human actions in response to stimuli with nothing actually watching the drama take place. In accordance to materialistic theories, there's really no reason why this shouldn't be the case. By de-individualization. I just mean that we cease to be "us" and rejoin the universe to the state of non-entity that we were in before we were born. We'll no longer be in this weird state of individuality that we find our selves in now.

Yah, science is good at modeling things, especially physics. They can model gravity with extreme accuracy and precision, but they don't really know how it actually works. I think when they manage to form a unified theory, they;ll find out. One of the key things they might be leaving out, though, is consciousness. Its just one of those things taken for granted but is all pervasive. There would be no real understanding of this universe, with all its laws, if there weren't entities observing it and experiencing it.

A strict materialist might explain the individuality of a person, the signature of their consciousness (what makes you you and me me) as being based on the separate hunk of atoms that composes one brain in relation to another. However, there will be a completely different set of atoms in our bodies, including our brains, one year from now. This rules out matter as being a culprit for our separate vantage points.

The concepts we have of our selves come from information encoded on our brains constantly reminding "us" of who we are from moment to moment. What truly links the moment that we find our selves in now to moments in the past is ultimately symbolism stored on our brain that was encoded from past moments of experience and are reminding us now of our own identities. That symbolism isn't necessarily an accurate representation of the actual moments they're based on either. damage to the brain can easily alter or erase this symbolism. This symbolism is all based on how matter is organized in the brain. The same would hold true for optical discs or any storage media for a computer.

This symbolism can be damaged, just as the symbolism on a hard drive can be damaged, but it doesn't mean that the observer behind the eyes isn't necessarily less conscious. It just means that there's a symbolic identity they can't relate to if they have no memories of their childhood or what their name is or what country they're from. The only thing left, really, is moment to moment awareness. However, there's nothing to relate one moment with another if you lack short term memory and can't remember the previous moment. If you lack the ability to remember 45 seconds ago, the only thing you an conclude is that, the person that experienced the moment 45 seconds ago is not the person that is experiencing the moment int he present. There's no relation.

You can argue, also, that that's the case with anyone living any moment, even if they do have a past identity. There's only an illusion of unity between those moments because of these symbolic reminders encoded in our brains. Hypothetically, nano-machines could re-engineer your brain structure to make you assume the identity of Napoleon, and that wouldn't be an accurate representation, at all, of what your body and brain went through in the past. Its all symbolism. The fact that people can be brain washed into thinking that they were abused in Satanic rituals as children is testament to how fragile and symbolic memory and self concepts really are. The fact is that, by the blow to the skull, an individual can be reduced to a string of unconnected un-related momentary perceptions.

All an individual is, at the heart, is a string of inter-related, fleeting moments of emotional awareness. ...and what connects this all together is the symbolic encoding of the mind. I'm not the same person I was a moment ago, or 10 minutes ago or 5 years ago. The me from 1 minute ago is now gone, and symbolism representing that experience is re-imposing itself on this current moment, this current, brief flash of brain activity.

What is this momentary experience that I am right now? Its the momentary flash of activity in the brain before it shifts and changes to a new form and becomes a new moment. That's where the momentary observer lie. Whats within this electrical activity creates the observer? Is it the electrons their selves? As I said, why isn't it just a logical set of processes,simply responding to things in accordance to programming and protocol? If it electrons, what is the relation between those independent and separable subatomic units in flux in the brain that form the signature of my individuality and conscious experience? Why am I me an not someone else? Again, why am I not just a very complex machine and nothing more for that matter. Why am I an "I" at all? Consciousness is really weird and bizarre. One conclusion I can come up with is there's a dimension of proto-mind that exists in empty space. There's a dimension of reality that has the potential for consciousness. Maybe its something the electrons do to empty space. Maybe there's the potential for consciousness universally, and the activity of the brain warps this dimension into human experience, not unlike how the mass of an object warps space-time. What I amount to, the signature of myself, may be the specific point in time too. "I" may just be an arbitrary point. The reason why I'm me, and someone else is someone else, is they're one point in space and time and I'm another. However, the fact that this was all a singularity in the distant past leads credence to the notion that all is ultimately one. The fact that we live in a realm of cause and effect where everything and everyone just bounces off of each other and directly influences each other also gives this credibility. How this all actually works is a current mystery, but completely describing consciousness in terms of matter is really ignoring a lot of things. The idea that consciousness and self awareness is just something that happens when enough computer processes happen simultaneously and in the right coordination is only answering part of the question. There has to be a reason why there's an observer within all that electrical activity and not just process. The momentary observer exists somewhere within the electrical activity of the brain and the empty space it occupies on a given point in space and time.

I hope that gives you a better idea of where I'm coming from.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I never said there was cosmic engineering. I'm following this completely from the view that there's no bearded man pulling all the levers.

You misunderstand. When I talk about cosmic engineering, I'm talking about naturally evolved beings, like ourselves, gaining the power to massively alter the universe through technology. Nothing supernatural.


What I mean by "underlying system" is that the universe and the energy in it has always existed in one form or another, that it follows certain rules, and that its in one particular state now that allows for matter and molecular bonding and all that stuff. That's what I was addressing by "something can't come from nothing". There's some type of cyclical pattern.

"Something can't come from nothing" is a general case to which the beginning of the universe may be an exception. Without further evidence I think it's foolish to make a statement of complete certainty either way. But the overwhelming evidence for the Big Bang points to a beginning. Perhaps not the beginning, but a beginning nonetheless.


It doesn't just have to be psychedelics. You can get the same thing with a stroke or a traumatic brain injury and feel less like an individual and feel a oneness with the universe. You notice that you're less of a partition and more of an arbitrary point in a larger whole. . (I prefer psychedelics as a method to intentionally giving myself strokes and head injuries, though, because it doesn't result in life long trauma and disability. Well, the risk of it is a lot lower anyway.)

What do those events have in common? They are centred around the brain. This means that it is more likely that feelings of oneness, ego death, etc are specific mental states engendered by certain brain configurations, rather than revealing Ultimate Truths about the universe as a whole.

Further, such feelings are entirely subjective and cannot be independantly verified, unlike observations and experiments.


What I'm addressing with "singularity of de-individualization" is the issue of individuality. Its more than just one brain has a set of processes and another has a set of separate processes. That might explain how two separate laptops or wind up clocks work, but it in no way explains why there's two separate entities observing from different vantage points.

Why not? Brains are made of the same kind of stuff, they follow the same physical laws, they stop working when sufficiently disrupted, and so on.


Why are we observers and not two separate, complex. biological juggernauts that simply just do all these human actions in response to stimuli with nothing actually watching the drama take place. In accordance to materialistic theories, there's really no reason why this shouldn't be the case.

I think you will find that it is the case. The Cartesian idea that we are all purely rational observers of the universe with free will does not stand up to scientific scrutiny.


By de-individualization. I just mean that we cease to be "us" and rejoin the universe to the state of non-entity that we were in before we were born. We'll no longer be in this weird state of individuality that we find our selves in now.

That just sounds like a New Agey semantic reconstitution of death. When we die, the pattern of energy and matter of which we are made dissipates into everything else, but after death there is no consciousness involved in the process.


Yah, science is good at modeling things, especially physics. They can model gravity with extreme accuracy and precision, but they don't really know how it actually works. I think when they manage to form a unified theory, they;ll find out. One of the key things they might be leaving out, though, is consciousness. Its just one of those things taken for granted but is all pervasive. There would be no real understanding of this universe, with all its laws, if there weren't entities observing it and experiencing it.

Consciousness isn't "all pervasive" - it exists in a limited manner, confined to the skulls of humans and some other animals. The Moon is still there even if nobody is looking at it.


A strict materialist might explain the individuality of a person, the signature of their consciousness (what makes you you and me me) as being based on the separate hunk of atoms that composes one brain in relation to another. However, there will be a completely different set of atoms in our bodies, including our brains, one year from now. This rules out matter as being a culprit for our separate vantage points.

No it doesn't, because those atoms are replaced in a piecemeal fashion and besides, neurons (the building blocks of brains) are orders of magnitude larger than individual atoms.


In the same way that smashing an atom helps reveal the nature of matter, the perturbing of consciousness can help reveal insights as well.

About individual consciousness, perhaps. But not about the universe as a whole.


Again, why am I not just a very complex machine and nothing more for that matter.

How do you know you're not?


Why am I an "I" at all? Consciousness is really weird and bizarre. One conclusion I can come up with is there's a dimension of proto-mind that exists in empty space. There's a dimension of reality that has the potential for consciousness. Maybe its something the electrons do to empty space. Maybe there's the potential for consciousness universally, and the activity of the brain warps this dimension into human experience, not unlike how the mass of an object warps space-time.

Maybe you're just pulling shit out of your arse without any evidence to back it.


What I amount to, the signature of myself, may be the specific point in time too. "I" may just be an arbitrary point. The reason why I'm me, and someone else is someone else, is they're one point in space and time and I'm another. However, the fact that this was all a singularity in the distant past leads credence to the notion that all is ultimately one. The fact that we live in a realm of cause and effect where everything and everyone just bounces off of each other and directly influences each other also gives this credibility.

This is just nonsense.


How this all actually works is a current mystery, but completely describing consciousness in terms of matter is really ignoring a lot of things. The idea that consciousness and self awareness is just something that happens when enough computer processes happen simultaneously and in the right coordination is only answering part of the question. There has to be a reason why there's an observer within all that electrical activity and not just process.

Being an observer is a process. The only reason you're getting so hung up on consciousness is because of the pernicious idea of dualism, the idea that there's a seperate "mind-stuff" to all that mundane matter.

Problem is, the "mind-stuff" has thus far proven impossible to find, leading us to only reasonable conclusion: that we are meat machines and that consciousness is part of how meat machines operate.


I hope that gives you a better idea of where I'm coming from.

Clear as mud, I'm afraid.

[MellowViper]

You misunderstand. When I talk about cosmic engineering, I'm talking about naturally evolved beings, like ourselves, gaining the power to massively alter the universe through technology. Nothing supernatural.

aight


"Something can't come from nothing" is a general case to which the beginning of the universe may be an exception. Without further evidence I think it's foolish to make a statement of complete certainty either way. But the overwhelming evidence for the Big Bang points to a beginning. Perhaps not the beginning, but a beginning nonetheless.In some ways, I think it takes a lot more faith to think its possible that the universe can come into existence out of nowhere than it is to believe that an anthropomorphic being made it all. At least the deity is said to stretch into the infinite past and doesn't pose the issue of a preceding cause that a finite theory would. The idea that there was absolute nothingness, that a black void stretched into the infinite past, and that for some crazy reason, the big bang happened out of nowhere doesn't have a lot of credibility. There has to be something cyclical to explain it. Mind you the deity makes no sense either, because I don't think a being that complex could just exist on its own either. There has to be something more rudimentary driving the universe. Maybe this is branes or superstings or chaos or something, but it can't just be nothingness. There has to be a reason why matter comes into a being, and the conditions for this have to be repeatable.


What do those events have in common? They are centred around the brain. This means that it is more likely that feelings of oneness, ego death, etc are specific mental states engendered by certain brain configurations, rather than revealing Ultimate Truths about the universe as a whole....or it could be that the brain establishes arbitrary divisions and distinctions between yourself and the rest of the universe, and the disruption of normal brain states puts you in closer range to what "you" and "I" were before coming into existence, just as the gravitation field created by a large mass of matter goes back to an un-warped field of space time when the star or planet stops occupying it, or how an atom is put into a previous state it existed in when its heated up to a very hot plasma.



Further, such feelings are entirely subjective and cannot be independantly verified, unlike observations and experiments.The only reason we know consciousness exists is by personal experience and anecdotal reports from other people sharing the same thing.



Why not? Brains are made of the same kind of stuff, they follow the same physical laws, they stop working when sufficiently disrupted, and so on.What I was getting at is, why aren't we just soulless zombies that react to stimuli and pre-programming based off instinct and self programming based on encountered, environmental change? You didn't really answer that. If i was an alien observing humans, it would be hard for me to tell whether humans were just complex robots responding to stimuli or conscious beings like my alien self. The only way I could tell if humans were really conscious is if I was a human myself. The only way you can know if an ant is conscious is if you were an ant yourself. ...and maybe electrons make fleeting, free will decisions from a very limited number of choices, but nobody will ever know, because an electron or a subatomic particle wouldn't have enough complexity to contemplate any of it. The same would probably be true for something as comlex as an ant as well. Maybe they just decide between what primary colors they feel like perceiving. What are these labels for impulses from our optical nerves that we call color anyway? Why do we perceive anything as bizarre as that? I think matter plays a direct role in creating human consciousness, but matter is a separate aspect of an integrated whole that also entails some dimension in empty space that consciousness forms out of. The brain projects information, but i think arbitrary vantage points of empty space have this information projected onto it and become lived experience. The pallet that lived experience works off of are emotions, colors, sensations, and the harmonious and disharmonious interactions that result in how those are combined, and some how this all correlates to neural activity. The human mind is exploiting an ill understood aspect of reality in ways we don't understand yet.


I think you will find that it is the case. The Cartesian idea that we are all purely rational observers of the universe with free will does not stand up to scientific scrutiny.I think that's still debated.


That just sounds like a New Agey semantic reconstitution of death. When we die, the pattern of energy and matter of which we are made dissipates into everything else, but after death there is no consciousness involved in the process.I suppose you'd call the reconstitution of space-time into the pre-existent state it was in before it was bent by a large planet a new agey idea too.


Consciousness isn't "all pervasive" - it exists in a limited manner, confined to the skulls of humans and some other animals. The Moon is still there even if nobody is looking at it.What I meant by that is the perceiving brain can exist pretty much anywhere in the universe where that skull goes to, unless there isn't a star or asteroid occupying it. However, if the large body gets moved out of the way, the brain can occupy the same space and still produce consciousness. Also, the universe wouldn't have any true understanding or context of itself if it wasn't for beings with these skulls contemplating it. That makes it a very key component in giving meaning and understanding to the universe.


No it doesn't, because those atoms are replaced in a piecemeal fashion and besides, neurons (the building blocks of brains) are orders of magnitude larger than individual atoms.Well, I'm glad were in agreement about atoms in the brain not carrying the signature of one's own individuality. However, those nerves are made up of those atoms, and the neurons are just arbitrary configurations. They're just a maintained form, constantly being being replaced with new matter, not unlike replacing bricks in a wall and maintaining the same form of the wall. The only thing that really changes is new connections. That, in no way, explains why I'm me and you're you though. I don't want to have to repeat all the stuff about reprogramming someone's brain to think they're napoleon and how the concepts of our selves are mostly made of symbolism imposed on a fleeting moment by the machinery of the brain and how if you had severe short term damage, there would be no way to relate conscious moment of perception in the present to one from 3 minutes ago. It would be essentially like you're two separate people when there isn't that relation. Ok I repeated it. lol



How do you know you're not?I'm not saying I'm not. I'm just pointing out that I'm more than just a sophisticated version of Asimo. There's an extra faculty there. I can experience things, and its just a bunch of gears and motors that respond to electrical impulses. I respond to impulses too, but it can't experience the color green or the emotion happy or the sensation warm. A thermometer might tell you whether something's warm on an lcd screen, but the thermometer doesn't feel the sensation "warm".


Being an observer is a process. The only reason you're getting so hung up on consciousness is because of the pernicious idea of dualism, the idea that there's a separate "mind-stuff" to all that mundane matter.

Problem is, the "mind-stuff" has thus far proven impossible to find, leading us to only reasonable conclusion: that we are meat machines and that consciousness is part of how meat machines operate.Well, show me where gravity stuff exists. You can't, but we know that that physical force exists based off our observations, just as we know consciousness exists from our own confirmed experiences. They're so normal to us that we just take them for granted, but they're both anything but normal. Originally gravity was just something that was just passed off as just being something that happens when you have enough mass, and nobody thought there was any process going on in empty space. I think a similar model of consciousness will develop in the future when cultural prejudice about the topic gets put aside. I agree that being an observer is a process, as far as one conscious moment has to be symbolically connected to a previous conscious moment to make any real sense of anything as an observer. However, the actual, fleeting, conscious moment is really difficult to explain with the current models matter. I don't know exactly if I'm a dualist. I'm just think there might be an inter-relation between something existent in empty space and the physical brain, just as the three dimensions of a cube are an inter-relation between height, width, and length.




Clear as mud, I'm afraid.Well, I wrote most of that when I was really tired, so I understand why you feel that way. lol. Its a fun topic, and I enjoy debating this stuff. Maybe we should start a separate thread sometime on these things since the convo veered so much from transhumanism though.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

What I was getting at is, why aren't we just soulless zombies that react to stimuli and pre-programming based off instinct and self programming based on encountered, environmental change?

What evidence is it that we aren't?

The little voice in your head? We can remove that part of your brain, net effect on behavior none. And not everyone has it, are they not human?
Sense of self? We can remove that part of your brain, net effect on behavior you start saying "This one" instead of "I". And not everyone has it, are they not human?
Rationality? We can remove that part of your brain, net effect on behavior 3%. And not everyone has it, are they not human?

We are machines, wonderfully complex and beautiful machines. Our decision making apparatus didn't magically happen at some magical line between chimp and man, it evolved over millions of years.


I think that's still debated.As a psychiatrist, no it fucking is not.
The only people debating it are you know, people not in the fields of psychology and psychiatry. People who have nothing valuable to contribute to the disscussion.

Common sense dualism has no place in scientific discourse, i mean for fucks sake we know that the belief in dualism is itself pre-programmed.


Edit: Also


If i was an alien observing humans, it would be hard for me to tell whether humans were just complex robots responding to stimuli or conscious beings like my alien self. The only way I could tell if humans were really conscious is if I was a human myself. The only way you can know if an ant is conscious is if you were an ant yourself.Ok and this? This is really really fundamentally flawed on so many levels.
If you can't tell the difference between two things by inputs and outputs then by definition they are the same thing. To prove a difference between two things they must be meaningfully different.

[MellowViper]

What evidence is it that we aren't?

...that we aren't just souless zombies? Well, its the fact that there's somebody in my head and in your head perceiving emotion and the five senses. There's something actually experiencing the information. Its not just information, but its also experience. This is why I think there's a warping of some dimension within space and time that generates human consciousness when a functioning brain occupies it.

[QUOTE]The little voice in your head? We can remove that part of your brain, net effect on behavior none. And not everyone has it, are they not human?
Sense of self? We can remove that part of your brain, net effect on behavior you start saying "This one" instead of "I". And not everyone has it, are they not human?
Rationality? We can remove that part of your brain, net effect on behavior 3%. And not everyone has it, are they not human?Yah, those cognitive faculties aren't the point. The voice in the head is a linguistic tool, and sense of self is just a tool for evolutionary purposes. If you removed them, there'd still be an observer though. There'd be an entity perceiving visual information and audible information through the remaining components. I think this is the case for other higher mammals too. I don't know if them being less human is the point. After all, the voice in one's head is a faculty specific to the human species. Their lives wouldn't be any less valuable though. They'd still be able to perceive pain and experience emotion.


We are machines, wonderfully complex and beautiful machines. Our decision making apparatus didn't magically happen at some magical line between chimp and man, it evolved over millions of years.I never said that it didn't, and I agree with you. My argument is that all animals make free will decisions, even the lowest life forms. The laws of the universe might even involve a free will decision making process in some form. Its just the human brain gives us a lot more options to choose from than most other things and phenomena possess.


As a psychiatrist, no it fucking is not.
The only people debating it are you know, people not in the fields of psychology and psychiatry. People who have nothing valuable to contribute to the disscussion.Specifically, I meant that the issue of free will is debated and not so much the Cartesian mind. I wasn't aware that Carl Jung wasn't in the field of psychology.


Common sense dualism has no place in scientific discourse, i mean for fucks sake we know that the belief in dualism is itself pre-programmed.Yah, dualism, in the sense of thinking one's personality and identity is eternal, is pre-programmed. If you truly feel your place in the universe is arbitrary and that the present state you find yourself in is very finite in contrast to the eternal reality, that could prove to be a major survival disadvantage. You won't fight as hard to stay alive. I don't think that we have a ghost that lives on past death that caries our personality and memories into the next life. Those are just technical processes of the brain. I don't even know if I like the term dualism because of the baggage, but I think that there's two components that make up human and animal mind, organized matter and some dimension in the fabric of space and time that makes awareness possible. I think that the electrical impulses of the brain diffract some sort of proto-mind into a prism of of various emotional and sensual states and that the animal brain has evolved to exploit this.



Edit: Also

Ok and this? This is really really fundamentally flawed on so many levels.
If you can't tell the difference between two things by inputs and outputs then by definition they are the same thing. To prove a difference between two things they must be meaningfully different.I'm not talking about systems. I'm talking about a strange phenomenon where conscious mind feels its the center of its own universe as an individual. My point was that there's no way you can tell another species is conscious without actually being that species.of course I have separate inputs and outputs from an ant. I have my eyes and brain; they have their eyes and ganglia. I understand this. Is there something perceiving the information processed by the ants ganglia though. There'd be no way to know for sure unless you're the ant or until better experiments come about to test for this sort of thing. Once we learn to merge brain signals/consciousness through cybernetics, we'll know these philosophical mysteries for sure.

[Cham_Empire]

Transhumanism is a pseudoscience that only exists for those trying to fill the hole where religion used to be. I say all such faith based systems be damned! there is no proof of transhumanism being true or beneficial to humanity. it's a pseudoscience for the weak.

[NecroCommie]

Transhumanism is a pseudoscience that only exists for those trying to fill the hole where religion used to be. I say all such faith based systems be damned! there is no proof of transhumanism being true or beneficial to humanity. it's a pseudoscience for the weak.
It does not even attempt to claim itself as science. (as far as I understand) It's more like this descriptive term given for scientific advances, ideas and philosophies that advocate or advance the rejection of "natural". Kind of hard to explain, I think Sentinel did a pretty good job earlier on.

[EvilRedGuy]

Transhumanism just means to extend the human life and adding on to the human life, technically we allready have transhumanism because before we didn't have medicine and now we can live longer with vacines.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

...that we aren't just souless zombies? Well, its the fact that there's somebody in my head and in your head perceiving emotion and the five senses. There's something actually experiencing the information. Its not just information, but its also experience. This is why I think there's a warping of some dimension within space and time that generates human consciousness when a functioning brain occupies it.

If that was true, then why hasn't LIGO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO) detected any human minds yet? Where is the evidence that human bodies distort spacetime any more than their mass would suggest? Without that evidence, your statements are nothing more than armchair philosophising about subjects which people with actual degrees are studying.

The fact that you claim to feel like an observer sitting inside a meat robot doesn't come into it; for all we know you could simply be a lying zombie.

[NecroCommie]

Transhumanism just means to extend the human life and adding on to the human life, technically we allready have transhumanism because before we didn't have medicine and now we can live longer with vacines.
... And eyeglasses and all sorts of surgical advances and heart assistants (or whatever the hell those things are called in english) and about a myriad other inventions that make certain individuals more cyborgs than humans.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

The laws of the universe might even involve a free will decision making process in some form. Its just the human brain gives us a lot more options to choose from than most other things and phenomena possess.

Ahhhhh ubiquitous consciousness.
That's actually a reasonably valid hypothesis, if with very very weird ramifications.


I'm not talking about systems. I'm talking about a strange phenomenon where conscious mind feels its the center of its own universe as an individual.That's not a strange phenomenon at all, It's called Sense of Self. And as i mentioned we can remove that part of your brain and said sensation ceases to exist, with no impact on behavior.

There is no "observer", there's just a handful related systems. One of these systems just happens to trick you into thinking there is an "observer".

[NGNM85]

I'm becoming increasingly weary of Ray Kurzweil's shrill polemics, (Among other things.) however, I was browing through his website and this jumped out at me;

"..I believe we will achieve the original goals of communism (“from each according to their ability, to each according to their need”), which forced collectivism failed so miserably to achieve."
http://www.kurzweilai.net/ask-ray-we-could-have-had-the-benefits-of-the-singularity-years-ago