I think that each persons level of cybernetic enhancement should be their own choice. I figure that it will average out with a larger minority being un-modified and a small minority looking like the borg and most people will fall in between. The big divide will probably be between mods that modify the persons outward aesthetics and those that are easily hidden. It will probably mirror the the piercing/tattoo culture. many people have hidden piercings and tattoos, fewer have visible piercings or tattoos and very few are fully done.
So what does everybody think, then? Is there a point of augmentation at which you will have gone too far? Can you over-Vader it and become more machine than man? Is that a bad thing? Is it possible to lose your humanity? I say no, as long as your fundamental cognitive processes remain intact. Any dissenting opinions?
I agree. I've never quite understood the whole "lose your humanity" thing. IMHO, even if you're a disembodied intelligence floating through the internet, you retain your humanity.
But if some people were seen as "pushing the envelope", I imagine there are others that would want to do something like, oh, I don't know. . . maybe infringe on their civil liberties? Like: "Dude, you're mostly a toaster. You don't have the right to vote anymore." Or: "You can't marry that Ghost in the Shell construct. It's not really a woman anymore." How would society cope with that?
I imagine there would be a certain part of your anatomy, that would hold the serial number, that is you.
With assault rifles it is typically the lower receiver that carries the serial number. Because of this you can not replace a lower receiver, you have to buy a new weapon.
The same thing would hold true with the line between human and machine. One part would be designated as the key part that can never be replaced. I would believe the brain to be that key part, or at least a certain portion of the brain that holds your identity.
Also, there might be a stem cell related cure for blindness. If embryonic stem cell therapies could really cure blindness, I say, "Kill the little bastards!" Blindness is near the top of the list of my many phobias.
Also, notice that english boffin-boys are doing the research. See, we coulda been doing this if it weren't for our stupid religous zealot frat boy. If Gore had been president, those pohmmy bastards would be using stem cells to straighten their teeth.
I imagine there would be a certain part of your anatomy, that would hold the serial number, that is you.
With assault rifles it is typically the lower receiver that carries the serial number. Because of this you can not replace a lower receiver, you have to buy a new weapon.
The same thing would hold true with the line between human and machine. One part would be designated as the key part that can never be replaced. I would believe the brain to be that key part, or at least a certain portion of the brain that holds your identity.
I disagree. I don't think that there will be any part of the body deemed "off-limits" for prosthetic replacement so long as the ability to do so is available and safe. Let's take a quantum leap to a universe like that of Ghost in The Shell. Its 2036, and prosthetic technology is advanced enough that Alzheimer's is not a problem anymore, and children who are blinded or paralyzed can live normal lives using prosthetic bodies. Now, I think we can almost universally agree that, outside of hallmark cards, peoples personalities and consciousness reside within the brain. If the brain can be duplicated in a digital or cybernetic form, then moving a persons mind from Grey matter to a digital brain would allow for easier and faster acclimation to the better prosthetics. Perhaps, Once the person is cyberized, then their braincase might have the equivalent of a VIN.
Now, I think we can almost universally agree that, outside of hallmark cards, peoples personalities and consciousness reside within the brain. If the brain can be duplicated in a digital or cybernetic form, then moving a persons mind from Grey matter to a digital brain would allow for easier and faster acclimation to the better prosthetics. Perhaps, Once the person is cyberized, then their braincase might have the equivalent of a VIN.
Would it then be possible to live forever? If you could transfer ones consciousness from one brain to another, what is to keep them from just switching back and forth between bodies/brains? What if all these brains connected over the net and formed some sort of consciousness (something also discussed within GiTS)? How would we define ourselves without bodies, if all we had was a personality? It seems to me that it would be very difficult to define a personality without attaching it to a physical object. Even then, all that really differentiates each of us is how our brains work and which pathways we have connected. Could this map of pathways be digitized and is this map really our personality and who we are? How would this digitalization of our minds behave? I ponder these questions often.
If you were able to computerize your brain what would there be to stop you from making multiple exact copies of yourself? With that sort of replication in place wars based on ideology would get far worse!
With no further need of genetic-based reproduction you could just wipe everyone else off the face of the Earth and be left with Jason-clones running around! GAAAHHHH!!!!!!!
You will never be able to safely put your brain on the web.
If your computer gets hacked, toughbreak. But if your brain gets hacked... you're dead. Also, the law will probably never allow for cloning of humans. So, I'm sorry, but you can't create an army of you. (Besides, who will be the REAL you? No one knows.)
As for the implants I'd take... I'd probably want to be able to react faster and process information faster. Also, a jack for my brain a la matrix would be awesome! (Note: No Internet access. There are sick things out there!)
You will never be able to safely put your brain on the web.
If your computer gets hacked,toughbreak. But if your brain gets hacked...you'redead. Also, the law will probably never allow for cloning of humans. So, I'm sorry,but you can't create an army of you. (Besides, who will be theREALyou?No one knows.)As for the implants I'd take... I'd probably want to be able to react faster and process information faster. Also, a jack for my braina la matrixwould be awesome! (Note:NoInternet access.There are sick things out there!)
Hacking is such an overused term. How would you define a brain hack? You could argue that our brains can be hacked even now. Subliminal messaging, drugs that alter your state of mind, psychological tricks; all of these and many more things could be considered "hacks" for your brain. The brain is just an interpreter of electronic impulses, an organic processor if you will, which takes in signals from our organic sensors (fingers, tongue, nose, eyes, ect). So the only difference between your grey matter brain and your hypothetical cyberbrain would be what sensors it would take input from and the hardware that has your "connection map", or personality. Of course it is nearly impossible as we know it now to create some sort of cyberbrain that could simulate this mapping of synapses, but it is an interesting thought experiment.
When I think of 'hacking' I think of taking taking direct control. Taking this kind of control is what I meant.
But, you are right. And at this stage you're going to have to define consciousness, and finally the meaning of life.
Well that is an interesting concept, one which is, in my opinion, covered pretty well in GiTS:SSS
SPOILERS IN WHITE (Highlight to read) ------ When Togusa's cyberbrain is hacked, he loses control over his body, but he is still concious. ------
I think this is an interesting idea, and it seems to go along with Joe's analysis that conciousness may surpass the physical object boundary, or rather it is an abstract entity. You may be right that this type of "hacking" could lead to our death (being forced to destroy the body), but if we have gotten to the point where the personality is an abstract and no longer attached to our physical bodies, it may never be possible to destory ourselves.
Hell no. Borgs are ugly, I want my implants to be relatively aesthetic - this is my body after all. Even better would be upload my mind into a nice robot while at the same time making regular backups of my oh so precious self.
So, I'm reading all of these comments about gray-matter to silicone transfers, specifically regarding duplication, and I start wondering: is there any guarantee that the consciousness in the computer is the same consciousness that you're experiencing right now? I understand that this seems like an abstract concept, but when you talk about copying your brain and running concurrent instances, you've proven that consciousness does not follow a copy. Given that, could you justify downloading yourself into a computer, knowing that the consciousness would not be your own, and you would be, effectively, dead?
So, I'm reading all of these comments about gray-matter to silicone transfers, specifically regarding duplication, and I start wondering: is there any guarantee that the consciousness in the computer is the same consciousness that you're experiencing right now? I understand that this seems like an abstract concept, but when you talk about copying your brain and running concurrent instances, you've proven that consciousness does not follow a copy. Given that, could you justify downloading yourself into a computer, knowing that the consciousness would not be your own, and you would be, effectively, dead?
There's a scary thought.
This might be oversimplifying, I'm going to play the advocate here. I'm thinking of it like this: If you copy a folder to another computer, you now have two instances of the folder that can be edited independently of one another. If you get rid of the original folder (your original consciousness), then all you're left with is a copy that is it's own, separate version.
Someone mentioned GiTS, and Shirow explores a lot of these things in his writing - there's a big Wikipedia article about the philosophy of Ghost in the Shell that might bear reading if you're seriously considering his work. Transferring consciousness touches on a very hotly contested debate. On one side, we have Koestler and Ryle (and Shirow) claiming that consciousness arises naturally out of the growing complexity of a system - and thus, the mind cannot exist without the body. On the other side, we have Dualism, which states that mind and body exist separately and that mental phenomena are non-physical. At the heart of it, the debate is about whether or not we are just an amalgam of neural impulses, or if something like the soul really exists.
The catch here is that, in order for you to believe that you can transfer your same consciousness to another machine (without it being a copy), I think - from the way I understand it - that you have to admit to believing in the idea of the soul.
I hope that isn't a huge, whacked-out tangent ... it's just that a lot of this discussion and argument touches on a lot of philosophy that's been around for generations, and it seems like it's good to keep sight of it.
The same problem arises with teleporters. Sure you can put your matter back together at the other end, but is it your consciousness or did you die when you were disassembled at the beginning? Is the thing at the other end you are a copy of you? Again, it comes down to whether you have a soul (that is apparently attracted/attached to one particular physical system if it can be in one place when you are disassembled and another when reassembled) or a side effect of a complex system that we call consciousness.
I've never seen the teleporter problem arise in fiction or non-fiction but it's been bugging me for years.
I've never seen the teleporter problem arise in fiction or non-fiction but it's been bugging me for years.
This teleporter problem arises in Michael Crichton's Timeline, and I'm sure many other books. Personally, I don't think it's much of a problem because it assumes that teleporters work in a way that kills you and recreates you. What if the teleporter doesn't destroy you, and just moves you through another dimension or something? You are assuming a teleporter works a specific way before it has been invented.
Would you get cybernetic shenanigans if your family and loved ones told you they didn't want you to? What if you could have your body and brain enhanced to the point that you'd have an extremely long life expectancy but your spouse told you that (s)he had ethical/spiritual objections to such shenanigans and only wanted to live a "natural" lifespan. Would you go ahead and do it? Wouldn't that make you a selfish bastard?
What if the procedure you wanted was extremely expensive? How much would you be willing to sacrifice? And what would you be willing to sacrifice to have? For example, I'd sacrifice a lot to have proven cognitive enhancement, but I wouldn't sacrifice very much to have a cybernetic spleen. (A cybernetic liver would be another story - can you imagine? Drinky Drinky.)
Would anyone bother getting a cybernetic penis? What would be the point? Who would get the most pleasure out of such an enhancement? Think hard before you answer.
Dammit, Mamath, you beat me to the teleporter argument.
The thing that always bothered me about Star Trek transporters is that they faxed a copy of an object, and a computer on the receiving end assembled the atoms. Why didn't they just store digital copies, then, of everyone who used the transporter? A red shirt dies... no problem! Pull his last transporter log and lets beam in a new copy. Think about it -- you could have two Kirks! Or three! Or a billion! Those pesky Klingons would never stand a chance.
Now, Star Trek does address the idea of concurrent copies with its Mirror Universe episodes, particularly in DS9. The idea is that in a very slightly parallel universe, dopplegangers live separate but equal lives, and are often evil counterparts to the characters of the "real" universe.
This is sometimes shown by giving the bad guys oily Van Dykes.
Oh, and I'd want some cybernetic metabolic device that burned off excess fat. I'll bet that, given market pressure, this will be among the first of the common applications of nanotechnology.
There was a STNG episode (the one with Scotty) where Scotty stored himself and someone else in a transporter loop/array and they were later pulled out of it.
There are many Sci-Fi books out there where teleportation is done by destroying you on one end and reforming you as you were a few seconds before you were destroyed, thus erasing the harmful memory of being killed.
That's one of my favorite NextGen episodes. But even when I watched it as a very young kid, I had a big problem with it. Apparently, there is no ROM in the future; effectively, Scotty had to find a way to store himself in the teleporter's "RAM" for a couple of centuries. Can't they just store your transporter pattern on an HD-DVD? For chrissakes, people, it's THE FUTURE.
Comments
But if some people were seen as "pushing the envelope", I imagine there are others that would want to do something like, oh, I don't know. . . maybe infringe on their civil liberties? Like: "Dude, you're mostly a toaster. You don't have the right to vote anymore." Or: "You can't marry that Ghost in the Shell construct. It's not really a woman anymore." How would society cope with that?
With assault rifles it is typically the lower receiver that carries the serial number. Because of this you can not replace a lower receiver, you have to buy a new weapon.
The same thing would hold true with the line between human and machine. One part would be designated as the key part that can never be replaced. I would believe the brain to be that key part, or at least a certain portion of the brain that holds your identity.
Also, there might be a stem cell related cure for blindness. If embryonic stem cell therapies could really cure blindness, I say, "Kill the little bastards!" Blindness is near the top of the list of my many phobias.
Also, notice that english boffin-boys are doing the research. See, we coulda been doing this if it weren't for our stupid religous zealot frat boy. If Gore had been president, those pohmmy bastards would be using stem cells to straighten their teeth.
Helllllooooooooo Nurse!
Now, I think we can almost universally agree that, outside of hallmark cards, peoples personalities and consciousness reside within the brain. If the brain can be duplicated in a digital or cybernetic form, then moving a persons mind from Grey matter to a digital brain would allow for easier and faster acclimation to the better prosthetics. Perhaps, Once the person is cyberized, then their braincase might have the equivalent of a VIN.
With no further need of genetic-based reproduction you could just wipe everyone else off the face of the Earth and be left with Jason-clones running around! GAAAHHHH!!!!!!!
You will never be able to safely put your brain on the web.
If your computer gets hacked, tough break. But if your brain gets hacked... you're dead.
Also, the law will probably never allow for cloning of humans. So, I'm sorry, but you can't create an army of you. (Besides, who will be the REAL you? No one knows.)
As for the implants I'd take... I'd probably want to be able to react faster and process information faster. Also, a jack for my brain a la matrix would be awesome! (Note: No Internet access. There are sick things out there!)
When I think of 'hacking' I think of taking taking direct control. Taking this kind of control is what I meant.
But, you are right. And at this stage you're going to have to define consciousness, and finally the meaning of life.
SPOILERS IN WHITE (Highlight to read)
------
When Togusa's cyberbrain is hacked, he loses control over his body, but he is still concious.
------
I think this is an interesting idea, and it seems to go along with Joe's analysis that conciousness may surpass the physical object boundary, or rather it is an abstract entity. You may be right that this type of "hacking" could lead to our death (being forced to destroy the body), but if we have gotten to the point where the personality is an abstract and no longer attached to our physical bodies, it may never be possible to destory ourselves.
There's a scary thought.
Someone mentioned GiTS, and Shirow explores a lot of these things in his writing - there's a big Wikipedia article about the philosophy of Ghost in the Shell that might bear reading if you're seriously considering his work. Transferring consciousness touches on a very hotly contested debate. On one side, we have Koestler and Ryle (and Shirow) claiming that consciousness arises naturally out of the growing complexity of a system - and thus, the mind cannot exist without the body. On the other side, we have Dualism, which states that mind and body exist separately and that mental phenomena are non-physical. At the heart of it, the debate is about whether or not we are just an amalgam of neural impulses, or if something like the soul really exists.
The catch here is that, in order for you to believe that you can transfer your same consciousness to another machine (without it being a copy), I think - from the way I understand it - that you have to admit to believing in the idea of the soul.
I hope that isn't a huge, whacked-out tangent ... it's just that a lot of this discussion and argument touches on a lot of philosophy that's been around for generations, and it seems like it's good to keep sight of it.
I've never seen the teleporter problem arise in fiction or non-fiction but it's been bugging me for years.
What if the procedure you wanted was extremely expensive? How much would you be willing to sacrifice? And what would you be willing to sacrifice to have? For example, I'd sacrifice a lot to have proven cognitive enhancement, but I wouldn't sacrifice very much to have a cybernetic spleen. (A cybernetic liver would be another story - can you imagine? Drinky Drinky.)
The thing that always bothered me about Star Trek transporters is that they faxed a copy of an object, and a computer on the receiving end assembled the atoms. Why didn't they just store digital copies, then, of everyone who used the transporter? A red shirt dies... no problem! Pull his last transporter log and lets beam in a new copy. Think about it -- you could have two Kirks! Or three! Or a billion! Those pesky Klingons would never stand a chance.
Now, Star Trek does address the idea of concurrent copies with its Mirror Universe episodes, particularly in DS9. The idea is that in a very slightly parallel universe, dopplegangers live separate but equal lives, and are often evil counterparts to the characters of the "real" universe.
This is sometimes shown by giving the bad guys oily Van Dykes.
Oh, and I'd want some cybernetic metabolic device that burned off excess fat. I'll bet that, given market pressure, this will be among the first of the common applications of nanotechnology.
There are many Sci-Fi books out there where teleportation is done by destroying you on one end and reforming you as you were a few seconds before you were destroyed, thus erasing the harmful memory of being killed.