We are finely tuned survival machines that have evolved to survive in a niche on one particular planet in one particular epoch. Even our own planet is unimaginably hostile to our kind of life for most of its history.
At least, most of the time. (http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/10/how_habitable_is_the_earth.html)
This is one of the reasons that I find most SF in which mankind spreads across the galaxy remarkably silly.
We're an incredibly niche solution, even with the benefit of technology. Something much more rapacious and much more adaptive would probably do a lot better (something that needn't haul around a bubble of its absurd niche environment.)
Humans are the most adaptive creatures known. We've colonised all four corners of the world and live for periods of time outside in orbit above the planet. There's no reason that humans won't spread across the known galaxy if it becomes both technologically possible and economically viable.
Something much more rapacious and much more adaptive would probably do a lot better (something that needn't haul around a bubble of its absurd niche environment.)
We can't live anywhere unless we duplicate optimal conditions. Don't believe me? Sleep in your garden naked and don't go back inside for a week.
We can't live anywhere unless we duplicate optimal conditions. Don't believe me? Sleep in your garden naked and don't go back inside for a week.
Not a hate-on at all. Humanity is adaptable and amazing. But we need to keep our perspective here; we have no evidence that we're doing particularly well in the long-run, or that our highly cognitive strategy necessarily leads to a survival advantage.
*Disclaimer: I'm an Extropian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extropian)
QuoteWe are finely tuned survival machines that have evolved to survive in a niche on one particular planet in one particular epoch. Even our own planet is unimaginably hostile to our kind of life for most of its history.
This is one of the reasons that I find most SF in which mankind spreads across the galaxy remarkably silly.
We're an incredibly niche solution, even with the benefit of technology. Something much more rapacious and much more adaptive would probably do a lot better (something that needn't haul around a bubble of its absurd niche environment.)
And what's with the hate-on for humanity here recently?
QuoteWe are finely tuned survival machines that have evolved to survive in a niche on one particular planet in one particular epoch. Even our own planet is unimaginably hostile to our kind of life for most of its history.
This is one of the reasons that I find most SF in which mankind spreads across the galaxy remarkably silly.
We're an incredibly niche solution, even with the benefit of technology. Something much more rapacious and much more adaptive would probably do a lot better (something that needn't haul around a bubble of its absurd niche environment.)
Actually it isn't so silly given that we can create our own artificial habitats, such as the International Space Station or in the not too distant future a real moon base.
We are at the apex of evolution on this planet, we shouldn't forget that.
Yet we can't build our own self-sustaining biospheres.
Not yet. We're the current dominant species, but we haven't held that seat for very long.
but the original one-cell design is still going strong.
"apex of our evolution."
I never said the apex of our evolution, of course we are still evolving. With the development of genetic engineering and cybernetics, in the 21st century we will evolve in a very dramatic way (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0899298/).Oops, my bad; I imagined the "our" in there.
Though to be perfectly honest I wouldn't be surprised at all if some virus mutates that kills the entire human population in a few days.
QuoteYet we can't build our own self-sustaining biospheres.
Why do we need that? If we were to setup an outpost somewhere a large part of our food would most likely be grown hydroponically (meat would be imported), the plants would also recycle the oxygen in the form of photosynthesis (and/or blue green algae if the plants aren't doing a good enough job), and the waste recycling system would be pretty much what we have on the space station now.
QuoteNot yet. We're the current dominant species, but we haven't held that seat for very long.
I don't think there are any other animals capable of doing even half the things we do. For example Grizzly bears can't launch sattelites into space.
QuoteThough to be perfectly honest I wouldn't be surprised at all if some virus mutates that kills the entire human population in a few days.
It wouldn't happen, unless it came from outerspace or something like the Andromeda Strain. There are so many of us, and we are not exactly the same, even with HIV and Ebola, there's always at least a few that are immune.
Oddly enough, maybe that's why we evolved into a warlike mentality? Because, at some level, humanity needed the drive to evolve, and if it were not an arms race with predators, it would be a mind race with other tribes?That's a very interesting thought...
And yet we can't do that. We've tried, but we do not at the moment have the ability to build a self-sustaining, stable ecosphere. Check out the 'Biosphere' experiments for an example.
The ISS is a great example of this: Murphy's Law in action.
QuoteAnd yet we can't do that. We've tried, but we do not at the moment have the ability to build a self-sustaining, stable ecosphere. Check out the 'Biosphere' experiments for an example.
Um, what I am talking about is quite feasible, and it is not related to the Biosphere experinments in any way. Hydroponic farming has been proven, as it is becoming a popular way to grow illegal marijuana and the waste recycling systems I'm talking about are already in place on the ISS.
The biosphere experiments were to create a a complete ecosystem, which is not what i am talking about.
QuoteThe ISS is a great example of this: Murphy's Law in action.
How so?
QuoteYet we can't build our own self-sustaining biospheres.
Why do we need that? If we were to setup an outpost somewhere a large part of our food would most likely be grown hydroponically (meat would be imported), the plants would also recycle the oxygen in the form of photosynthesis (and/or blue green algae if the plants aren't doing a good enough job), and the waste recycling system would be pretty much what we have on the space station now.
And yet we can't do that. We've tried, but we do not at the moment have the ability to build a self-sustaining, stable ecosphere. Check out the 'Biosphere' experiments for an example. We do not have the ability to build self-sufficient colonies.
The ISS is a great example of this: Murphy's Law in action.
The point isn't that 'humans suck'. The point is that there are probably many organisms Out There who outperform us at the game of Galactic Domination...and some of them may have stumbled upon solutions that we've missed.
Why would we need to go biosphere on a planetary colony? We'd be exploiting the environment - if you assume we can magic wand the distance issue away (eg. we get a wormhole generator) then we're going to look for planets that are at least vaguely earthlike. Even if we don't get an earthlike planet, there'll be something there we can exploit, even if it's just drawing oxygen out of the rocks themselves (Of course, there'd probably be a lot more we could do - any martian colonies (and, following recent evidence, maybe lunar colonies as well) would be able to optain potentially huge amounts of water locally.
Actually... I kind of think Fermi's Paradox implies that there aren't actually that many things better adapted than we are at all - certainly not within our local little region of space.
The ISS cannot function without constant repair and resupply from groundside.
We do not have the capacity to create an environmental system capable of supporting a long-term colony on another world or in a hostile environment without outside support.
QuoteThe ISS cannot function without constant repair and resupply from groundside.
Because it has no capability of growing food by itself? It was never intended to be that way. You're comparing two completely different situations.
QuoteWe do not have the capacity to create an environmental system capable of supporting a long-term colony on another world or in a hostile environment without outside support.
I also don't recall saying it would be 100% self supporting, just mostly self supporting. Spare parts would be imported, and as I already said meat would also be imported. Mineral resources get sent to space bound refining and manufacturing facilities, also whatever low g research that get s completed would go back to Earth.
At least that is the way it work initially.
Yet we can't build our own self-sustaining biospheres. In the future we probably will be able to, but the fact that we need to is itself a major handicap.
Yet we can't build our own self-sustaining biospheres. In the future we probably will be able to, but the fact that we need to is itself a major handicap.
Indeed. It is a handicap of a sorts. But compared to WHOM?
Bob, the Singularity thingy doesn't exist..and probably never will.
Coakroaches will die with this planet - at least we can leave it and hopefully colonize. Not easy, not cheap, but we can spread beyond Earth by ourselves. Now we just need to discover subspace and we're all set.
QuoteAnd you are sure about that? How would you determine "This point in time marks the Singularity?"
The whole concept of such a creature is redicolous.
If you belive in it, then let me introdue you to my pal, Joe, the rock-creature. You see, he's a perfect survivor. He doesn't breathe, doesn't eat and can endure all sorts of conditions. You attack him and you only get more Joe's. What a perfect survivor.QuoteBut unless we discover that sort of sufficiently advanced technology, it is still next to impossible.
We can always terraform Mars...
Precisely - the ISS cannot function on its own. We do not have the capability to build a facility that can. The ISS' constant system failures are emblematic of why we cannot.
We have no practical way to 'import' anything to a Mars colony at the moment.
In particular, [Invincible] is an imaginary experiment to demonstrate that evolution may not necessarily lead to dominance by intellectually superior life forms.
The cessation of evolution is a dead end that leaves vulnerability on any scale, and we're always dealing with the unknown in a debate like this.
Everyone's arguing that we could go colonize Mars or whatever, that we just have to try hard enough, but...well, the fact that we have to try so hard is kind of the point.
Screw Mars. We could launch our first interstellar mission in ten years, if we wanted to. And how hard we have to try is irrevelant. We can. Nothing else on this planet, and nothing else we can reasonably describe with our knowledge of life, could. The argument is not about the difficulty; it is about the raw capablity.
Everyone's arguing that we could go colonize Mars or whatever, that we just have to try hard enough, but...well, the fact that we have to try so hard is kind of the point.
Clarify please?
I don't in any way disagree.
Nonetheless the fundamental need to drag around all this absurd life support suggests that there are far better ways to do it.
Hurr? Transhumanism means unlimited freedom to adapt purely on the basis of conscious planning, instead of the half-assed consciousness we have right now.
QuoteWhy would we need to go biosphere on a planetary colony? We'd be exploiting the environment - if you assume we can magic wand the distance issue away (eg. we get a wormhole generator) then we're going to look for planets that are at least vaguely earthlike. Even if we don't get an earthlike planet, there'll be something there we can exploit, even if it's just drawing oxygen out of the rocks themselves (Of course, there'd probably be a lot more we could do - any martian colonies (and, following recent evidence, maybe lunar colonies as well) would be able to optain potentially huge amounts of water locally.
Sure, but I'm afraid we can't magic wand the distance away, can we?
Look at early efforts to colonize the Americas. That's what you'll see en masse in colonization. It will be a long, hard road before it goes right.
Ex-****ing-actly. :wtf: Our sample size is one measly planet. We have no idea what's out there.
Hurr? Transhumanism means unlimited freedom to adapt purely on the basis of conscious planning, instead of the half-assed consciousness we have right now.
I am actually a big advocate for Transhumanism as well, but it still does have limitations. If we were able to upload our consciousness into a computer system of some sort, that system also needs to operate within a rather tempremental environmental limitations. Even though the limits are relaxed, they still do exist and we shouldn't forget that. We would still need some sort of life support to live on the moon, we would still need to develop some sort of FTL-ish space propulsion system to get to other stars in a reasonable amount of time.
We would still need some sort of life support to live on the moon, we would still need to develop some sort of FTL-ish space propulsion system to get to other stars in a reasonable amount of time.
I'm all for aiding the body with implantations (provided they work well and without side-effects), but completely replacing it? No. Just, no. :no:
Yeah, but at least the replacement material is just as warm and squishy as the original. And I want to be able to scratch my own biological ass in Alpha Centauri, thank you very much. :pI'm all for aiding the body with implantations (provided they work well and without side-effects), but completely replacing it? No. Just, no. :no:
The kneejerk fear of the dualist! :p
The fact is that your body gets replaced all the time anyway. The matter that makes up precious ol' You cycles all the time. All that's preserved is the pattern of information.
Hurr? Transhumanism means unlimited freedom to adapt purely on the basis of conscious planning, instead of the half-assed consciousness we have right now.
Um, why? Just dial down your clock speed. Or shut off your boredom.
I'm all for aiding the body with implantations (provided they work well and without side-effects), but completely replacing it? No. Just, no.
QuoteUm, why? Just dial down your clock speed. Or shut off your boredom.It isn't just a problem of that, it would cause you to fall behind everyone else by a few thousand years. If we were to have colonies in other star systems, rapid communication becomes that much more important.
QuoteI'm all for aiding the body with implantations (provided they work well and without side-effects), but completely replacing it? No. Just, no.
Your brain is eventually going to fail when it gets old, one of the symptoms of this is dimentia, occasionally along with alzheimers, etc. What do you do about that? What about people like Steven Hawking?
As long as the rest of your body continues to function well and you're not unfortunate in the genetic lottery, your brain can keep soldiering on forever.That is just a hypothesis though, we can't know for sure. The brain is constantly evolving.. can that process be sustained succesfully for extended periods? Maybe in mere thousand years it will entangle itself into a nonsolvable puzzle - and just freeze.
That is just a hypothesis though, we can't know for sure. The brain is constantly evolving.. can that process be sustained succesfully for extended periods? Maybe in mere thousand years it will entangle itself into a nonsolvable puzzle - and just freeze.
You guys are arguing two different things. First you say colonization is impossible because we pathetic humans need such a precise environment to survive in and all attempts to replicate that environment have failed. Now you're saying it's a distance issue. Sure, distance is an issue. My point is that if distance is the big problem, then we've got a much smaller range of planets we can potentially colonize - Mars, Venus, the moon, maybe a few of the jovian/saturnian moons - but there're no massive barriers to surviving on those planets - for at least a few years - with current or near future technologies - they're just not economically viable. If distance somehow ceased to be an issue through FTL, we'd go looking for a better, more earthlike colony world and it'd become easier to do. The only barrier to colonies offworld is economics.In the article, it says that colonization is practically impossible because of the environmental requirements, distance, and economics in real life conditions. I take it that is the misunderstanding?
Transhumanism is a big load of monkey poo.
Transhumanism is a big load of monkey poo.
Fine, we'll make sure you don't get any. :p
Actually, no. Unless you can find a way around c, bandwidth between any interstellar colony and Earth will be severely limited.
That IS your brain. For someone of us.
Though, again, you're demonstrably wrong, since you're surrounded by transhumans.
Read the ****ing thread. Examples have already been posted.
Technological augmentation of the human condition has been underway for years.
Still doesn't matter. A copy is a copy. It's not you, it's a copy of you.
You don't lie down on a table, go to sleep, and wake up in a computer.
You lie down on a table, go to sleep, and wake up with a copy of you on a computer. Then you die and your existance ends. THE END.
From your POV nothing changes.
The You2 is not you, won't be you and won't even really think it's you, cause it's knows it's a copy. That knowledge by itself may even be enough to throw it into a existential crisis.
Windows has too much overhead. :p
Still doesn't matter. A copy is a copy. It's not you, it's a copy of you.
You don't lie down on a table, go to sleep, and wake up in a computer.
You lie down on a table, go to sleep, and wake up with a copy of you on a computer. Then you die and your existance ends. THE END.
From your POV nothing changes.
Still doesn't matter. A copy is a copy. It's not you, it's a copy of you.
You don't lie down on a table, go to sleep, and wake up in a computer.
You lie down on a table, go to sleep, and wake up with a copy of you on a computer. Then you die and your existance ends. THE END.
From your POV nothing changes.
Teehee. Actually, this has already happened to you hundreds of times.
Yet you believe you're you! Even though, materially, you're really just a copy of you, and all that's been preserved is the information.
It's funny that you'd be afraid of something that has already happened to you countless times.
Still doesn't matter. A copy is a copy. It's not you, it's a copy of you.I have to agree, sort of. Let's see..
that doesn't make sense, does it? I can only be *one*
Again, I recommend some additional reading. Altered Carbon, by Richard Morgan, in particular.
But then, your other brain miraculously comes back to life! And now there are two you. You look back at your old body and you're like 'whoa, not me any more.' And meanwhile, you're looking at your new body and being like 'whoa, not me any more!'So here's the real question, then...if You #1 and You #2 get wasted and wind up "experimenting," does it just count as masturbation? :p
Crazy, huh? And yet they're both equally you.
So here's the real question, then...if You #1 and You #2 get wasted and wind up "experimenting," does it just count as masturbation? :p
The word 'fork' is being used way too much in this thread. :P
Right. While forking is not particularly hard to understand from a biological or physical standpoint, the legal and social implications are mad!
(Which is probably why so many people find it so counterintuitive.)
And The_E's right, even if your last fork is from, say, a day or a month before your accident, the backup will still be 'you'...as much as the person you were a day or a month ago is you.
But, once you have a process of converting a human mind into digital information, copying it is a trivial exercise. Downloading that information into a body is only marginally more complex than uploading it, so sooner or later, someone is going to take the Agent Smith approach to manpower requirements.Oh goody, that's just what we need. :p
Right. While forking is not particularly hard to understand from a biological or physical standpoint, the legal and social implications are mad!
(Which is probably why so many people find it so counterintuitive.)
And The_E's right, even if your last fork is from, say, a day or a month before your accident, the backup will still be 'you'...as much as the person you were a day or a month ago is you.
Instead of forking is there some way to effect a total transfer?
An easy way to untangle your misunderstanding is to say 'the copy is now BoB1', and the 'old you body' becomes BoB2, in the same way that 'you five years ago' is no longer TrashMan.
Huh? What's the difference? Each 'fork' is complete.
Not even teleportation helps here really.
Teleportation destroys the original. The one who teleported dies. For him, the whole deal SUCKS.
Sure, the copy won't notice...the other won't notice. But the original will. And if the original is you, than that's the only thing that really matters.
Not even teleportation helps here really.
Teleportation destroys the original. The one who teleported dies. For him, the whole deal SUCKS.
Sure, the copy won't notice...the other won't notice. But the original will. And if the original is you, than that's the only thing that really matters.
But only the perspective of the one you who is You is important. What happens from the perspective of ANYONE else is irrelevenat.
If you are Bob1, then only what you see, feel and experience is important. When you die, you don't see, feel or experience what Bob2, or 3 or 57 does.
Each Bob copy is a SEPARATE ENTITY.
An easy way to untangle your misunderstanding is to say 'the copy is now BoB1', and the 'old you body' becomes BoB2, in the same way that 'you five years ago' is no longer TrashMan.
Which is where you are wrong. Bob1 does not become Bob2. Bob1 is Bob1 and Remaion Bob1 regardless of how many Bobs are out there.
Do you just assume that your concicness jumps into another body? But how can that be if two or more active bodeis exist at the same time? Each Bob has his own experience and regards himself as "self". Bob 1 isn't suddenly aware of what bob2 is doing or seeing. Each Bob looks at things trough his own eyes.
When Bob1 dies, he doesn't suddenly switch to look trough Bob2's eyes. He's done. Done for. Gone.
Bob2 might be perfectly healthy and happy, but Bob2's essence of self is not Bob1's essence of self. You can't have 2 different point of views that are the same point of view.
I really don't know to put it any simpler. It doesn't matter how perfect a copy the other me is. There is only ONE sense of "self" one has. Why should I care that the other me is still alvie and kicking? MY life experience has ended. *I* am dead. The other me is a seperate entity.
It really cannot be any simpler than this.
QuoteHuh? What's the difference? Each 'fork' is complete.
I'd rather not have the original Kosh destroyed or allowed to die. I'm perfectly ok with making copies of myself but the original needs to go on somehow otherwise it is not true immortality. Even if Kosh1, Kosh2,.....,Koshn continue, me, Kosh prime, is still stuck in a meat based mind which is not something I find comforting. Personally I'd prefer moving to forking.
Here, for Scotty and TrashMan: think of it this way to work yourself out of the logical trap.
You have two brains in your head. One's your backup brain, which just copies your real brain exactly. In fact, you can switch between them in real time if you like! It's great. Totally awesome, no difference at all.
One day, you die. As you've arranged, your brain gets pulled out of your head and put in a new body. You wake up. "Whoa!" you say. "Pretty ****ing weird. Lucky I got pulled out."
Remember, the two brains are interchangeable, now. Totally the same.
So you go on your way, confident that you're the real you. And you are. I don't think anybody would argue it. You live in your brain, right? And now your brain is just in a new head. It's all good.
But then, your other brain miraculously comes back to life! And now there are two you. You look back at your old body and you're like 'whoa, not me any more.' And meanwhile, you're looking at your new body and being like 'whoa, not me any more!'
Crazy, huh? And yet they're both equally you.
(You'll note that at no point did I specify which brain gets pulled out and transferred...because it doesn't matter! They're interchangeable.)
You know, calling the gradual change in the precise matter that makes up your body as exactly the same as a sudden jump from one body into another is just downright silly. There is a fundamental difference.
NB also, in the general concept of transhumanism, if you somehow took your mind out of the slew of chemicals in your brain and replaced it with a computer, you'd no longer be the same person, even if your thought patterns or whatever were identical, because it'd almost certainly not appropriately replicate the effects of biochemistry on emotion and mental state.
You simply have to agree that Brain B is just as valid a home to the Magical Fluid.
Unless TrashMan believes in the Precious Fluid of Trashmanness - i.e. he believes that there is a soul separate from the purely physical body - then he simply has nothing to worry about. So long as the brain is replicated in perfect detail, it must, by necessity, be him.So if we do believe in the existence of a soul, we can keep worrying? :p
You simply have to agree that Brain B is just as valid a home to the Magical Fluid.
No, I don't haev to agree with anything.
You are simply, completely, utterly, totally 1 billion percent wrong....and apparently you don't read anything I post. You yell apples, I say oranges.
The perfection or validity of the copies is irrelevant. The exprience and POV is relevant. Bob1, Bob2, Bob3, Bob4 all have different points of view and are all separate entities - they all feel for themselves, see for themselves, experience only themselves and have their own sense of self.
It doesn't really matter which Bob you are - if you die, you don't continue to live trough another Bob. Period.
And then we come to one of the awesomer points. What if someone would develop a technique to merge an arbitrary number of uploads of the same person back into one? So that you would effectively exist as a swarm of you for a given time?
Aaaand...I simply don't agree.
Only one Point of view matters - the one of the Trasman (or Bob) trough whom eyes we're currently looking at.
Bob2 might be the same as Bob1, but if Bob1 is dead then Bob1 wouldn't give a f*** about that fact.
You can only be one person at a time.
While the view GB and The E are advocating is plausible in many ways, I feel I must still slightly side with TrashMan on this one :)
This analogy somewhat describes my problem:
Assume two CPUs, both running a process with the exact same code. If you stop one of the CPUs, the instance of the process there will die. While the other process still runs on the next CPU, its not the *same process*, it is another instance completely -- it has nothing to do with the other process that died, it just happens to be similar.
You may argue that if the processess are identical, it doesn't matter if one of them dies - it means nothing. Well maybe, but how does it apply to following?
In theory, there could already exist exact copies of us, in an almost identical parallel universe. Now assume we here get crushed by a meteor, and the folks in the other universe won't (the meteor missess slightly, the only difference between these two universes), would this make *us* any less dead?
I walk in to the office. I sit down in the chair. They put the helmet on my head. The scan is over in the time it takes me to blink. I get up and walk outside. A car screeches down the pavement and hits me. I fade away into nothingness.
I walk in to the office. I sit down in the chair. They put the helmet on my head. I blink. When I wake up, I am in a different room. "What happened?" I ask. "Did it work?" They tell me that it worked flawlessly, but that my other fork was killed shortly after the scan. I shrug. Like a good TrashMan, I can only be one person at a time, so I don't care what happened to the copy.
Only one Point of view matters - the one of the Trasman (or Bob) trough whom eyes we're currently looking at.
Bob2 might be the same as Bob1, but if Bob1 is dead then Bob1 wouldn't give a f*** about that fact.
You can only be one person at a time.
Any copying system is also a teleport. We just assume the teleport's going to destroy the original. Yet for some reason we're cool with teleporting, but not with copying.
And that's because we're actually deeply afraid that there's some Vital Soul Essence that will only end up in one body.
Anyway, the original instance will not suddenly leap into the created instance's consciousness upon death. The minute the copy is created, the original and the copy slowly start to become different, in the same way twins become. Both have the original background the same, but the experience one has slowly makes them different.
So let's replace copying with cloning, does that fit into your concept? After all, it IS you in a way.
Also, how many amoebas are there alive in your opinion?
Well, are you cool with a nanoswarm in your brain gradually replacing each neuron with an exactly functionally identical machine that'll last forever? This process will take ten years.To be brutally honest, not really. I have enough days where I feel like even the relatively limited number of years I've spent on this planet have given me all of the irritation I can bear, so spending an eternity dealing with its daily stupidities sounds like my idea of a living hell. I suppose that sort of breaks down this whole concept as far as I'm individually concerned. :p
I imagine you are.
So let's replace copying with cloning, does that fit into your concept? After all, it IS you in a way.
Also, how many amoebas are there alive in your opinion?
Cloning is not at all similar, nor is the reproduction of amoebas. That's the coarse transmission of the biological specifications of the organism - like handing off the blueprints.
A true 'copy' would be a full-body snapshot of everything at once, including your brain state. Ironically, this snapshot is exactly what's passed on from moment to moment in your current self, even as individual atoms enter and leave.
That's why I say we die every moment. Your snapshot from five minutes back is as irretrievably lost to you as your other copy after a fork.
Really, the only difference between your day-to-day existence and the instantaneous construction of a copy, as in the teleport, is a spatial discontinuity. Yet I cannot imagine you feel that if you were suddenly moved ten feet to the left by an act of god, you would be a new person, and the old you would be dead.
Should I explain that last paragraph further?
Oh, also - posting this as separate in case you're drafting a post - I just want to ask.
Your reasoning seems to be 'we're not cool with the teleport if it destroys the instance'. Well, my whole point was that the teleport doesn't destroy the instance. It does nothing that doesn't happen to you all the time; it just happens a lot faster.
Any copying system is also a teleport. We just assume the teleport's going to destroy the original. Yet for some reason we're cool with teleporting, but not with copying.
So let's replace copying with cloning, does that fit into your concept? After all, it IS you in a way.
Also, how many amoebas are there alive in your opinion?
Cloning is not at all similar, nor is the reproduction of amoebas. That's the coarse transmission of the biological specifications of the organism - like handing off the blueprints.
But that's what you are doing on a more precise scale. You are leaving blueprints for other instances. Your idea of immortality becomes no more interesting than the idea of leaving offspring.
I agree, we are not the same person that we were the instant before, in a way. But by forking, you and your other fork (since you dislike the word "copy") are no longer the same by your own logic! They become different persons even if they start out the same (thus my mention of twins). This is also where we begin disagree. You consider yourself to be every fork, if either one of them dies, you assume yourself to the other fork. We view ourselves as only one of the forks. Hence if that particular fork dies, game over.
I walk in to the office. I sit down in the chair. They put the helmet on my head. The scan is over in the time it takes me to blink. I get up and walk outside. A car screeches down the pavement and hits me. I fade away into nothingness.
I walk in to the office. I sit down in the chair. They put the helmet on my head. I blink. When I wake up, I am in a different room. "What happened?" I ask. "Did it work?" They tell me that it worked flawlessly, but that my other fork was killed shortly after the scan. I shrug. Like a good TrashMan, I can only be one person at a time, so I don't care what happened to the copy.
Not really, we all understand what you are entailing. What you seem to misunderstand is our notion of immortality is different from yours.
Oh, also - posting this as separate in case you're drafting a post - I just want to ask.
Your reasoning seems to be 'we're not cool with the teleport if it destroys the instance'. Well, my whole point was that the teleport doesn't destroy the instance. It does nothing that doesn't happen to you all the time; it just happens a lot faster.QuoteAny copying system is also a teleport. We just assume the teleport's going to destroy the original. Yet for some reason we're cool with teleporting, but not with copying.
Perhaps there is a problem with the explanation, because I'm getting more confused by the minute.
I wouldn't be cool with a system like that.
I did read it, and its the same thing being argued back and forth between the same people, with hardly a change except for the exact wording of the replies. It's not like I took anything away from the thread.
There are two opposing viewpoints, both based on purely hypothetical inference and/or guessing, and neither willing to admit the other might possibly be right. :blah:
I understand what he's saying too. I just disagree. :P
The fundamental disagreement here is that Battuta seems to be treating each copy, clone, call it what you will as merely a bottle for continued consciousness. To be blunt, it doesn't work that way.
In a manner of speaking, your consciousness will continue, but it won't be you, as in the original consciouness in the first place. The copy may start at the same place you left off, but it isn't you.
Say that Battuta Prime makes three copies. Each of those copies starts at the point in Battuta's life they were made. Then Battuta Prime dies. Now Battuta Prime, as a conscious entity, has ceased to exist in our frame of reference. Battuta Prime, I can guarantee you, will not give a damn about how well his copies are doing, because he will be dead. His copies may continue on as if nothing happened, but the point is irrelevent, since it matters nothing to the original consciousness. I rather enjoyed that example of two CPUs running the exact same process at the same time, since it illustrates nearly the same point.
(Next point)To clarify, since you seem to making a big point of all of this (ALL of you): The difference between gradual replacement and this is that during gradual replacement, at no point does the entirety of the being cease. Or even a tiny minority of the being. A good example would be playing with legos. Imagine you build a car/ship/what have you. Now imagine that you are replacing all the pieces of the structure a piece at a time. At no point in the process does the creation cease to be that creation. Now completely dismantle it. When you build it again, even if every piece is fundamentally the same, it is a different structure.
I walk in to the office. I sit down in the chair. They put the helmet on my head. The scan is over in the time it takes me to blink. I get up and walk outside. A car screeches down the pavement and hits me. I fade away into nothingness.
I walk in to the office. I sit down in the chair. They put the helmet on my head. I blink. When I wake up, I am in a different room. "What happened?" I ask. "Did it work?" They tell me that it worked flawlessly, but that my other fork was killed shortly after the scan. "Shucks!" I say. "I waste all that money and one of my copies gets himself run over?"
I'm going to point out at this junction that I both fully understand and fully agree with Battuta.
Since I get the feeling he must be feeling like he's trying to explain how a card trick works to a dog at this point. :p
What do you mean? You're just a flawed copy of yourself from five years ago. How have you remained alive and continually conscious?
You don't get it. The original Kosh has been destroyed hundreds of thousands of times. You are now a copy.
say, by teleporter
What do you mean? You're just a flawed copy of yourself from five years ago. How have you remained alive and continually conscious?
That's kind of what I meant. After a while, the body starts to not be able to replace itself like normal. If the "copies" start at the same point as the original is at that point, is there any noticeable effect on life expectancy?
The teleporter wouldn't be quite the same because (as least as I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong) it will preserve your quantum state, so you wouldn't actually notice anything. At least that's my understanding.........
Is 'Me' a physical thing or a conceptual thing? Personally, I see it more as a concept than a physical entity, so to my mind, the recepticle for 'Me' is no more than some technology used to move my brain around, be it an organic construct or a non-organic one, the perception of 'Me' would not change as long as the mental identity has been transferred 100%.See, that's the fundamental point that I'd personally disagree with. To me (heh), the "Me" is me, the complete physical entity that comprises my body and the consciousness that has arisen from it. I am not just a vessel meant to hold some intellectual structure. I am my relative lack of athletic ability, my slightly-protruding gut, my blue eyes. I am a self-contained biological entity with a sentient consciousness. I was born, and I am able to die. This defines me as human...were I anything else, human I would not be. This isn't a statement of fear; it's embracing my true human nature and condition.
I agree.As do I, which is why I had the "things science can't do" caveat in my post. :p
Exactly, this assumes that your soul somehow knows when you are dead beyond the point of rescue, and also knows whether you are going to get revived or not.
That's just a little too close to a religious belief to be acceptable as a scientific argument from my viewpoint.
And I'm not sure any effects of quantum states on consciousness have ever been verified.
As do I, which is why I had the "things science can't do" caveat in my post.
And no, you don't die constantly. Your perception of self, your life , your point of view - they are constant untill you die.Disturbing though it may be, this claim has no epistemological foothold whatsoever. Imagine that the universe has just sprung into existence, in its present configuration, only a split second ago. You would remember a life that hadn't actually "happened," but what would it matter? All your memories up to any given moment are no more and no less than your physical configuration at that moment. Your sense of the past is entirely a product of your state in an infinitely minute present, and thus the existence of a causal connection between you and your remembered self is pure conjecture.
And Battuta/karajorma, I think (or at least hope) that everyone gets the idea of the fork concept by now, but TrashMan raises a completely valid point himself. In the general sense, the concept of "you" survives no matter what happens to one of the individual Bobs, since all of them share those same thoughts and memories from before the fork. However, from the perspective of one single Bob, this concept means ****-all from a practical standpoint, since his death would result in the permanent loss of the thoughts and memories he's acquired since the fork took place. To him, the whole concept doesn't represent any degree of immortality at all, because his own individual self can die just as easily as any normal human can, with the same results.
Okay, this is a Sci-fi board so let's try a sci-fi example. In the Star Trek TNG episode Second Chances Riker finds out that a transporter accident caused a duplicate to end up stranded on a planet for 8 years.
Now let's suppose that instead this error had caused two Rikers to appear in the transporter room. Which one is the real Riker? There isn't one, they are both the real Riker.
People keep arguing as if we're dealing with a situation where one of the two is real and one is the copy. But in this situation both are Riker prime.
I walk in to the office. I sit down in the chair. They put the helmet on my head. The scan is over in the time it takes me to blink. I get up and walk outside. A car screeches down the pavement and hits me. I fade away into nothingness.
I walk in to the office. I sit down in the chair. They put the helmet on my head. I blink. When I wake up, I am in a different room. "What happened?" I ask. "Did it work?" They tell me that it worked flawlessly, but that my other fork was killed shortly after the scan. "Shucks!" I say. "I waste all that money and one of my copies gets himself run over?"
Let's be done with this debate, I don't want to spend another whole day thinking about it.
I've gotta go to sleep....
HOLD THE PRESSES.
I have figured out a way into the TrashMan/Scotty/Kosh argument that makes me agree with it in part and moves my understanding of the entire idea closer to a synthesis of the two perspectives. It makes me think we've been arguing the same thing from two different directions and that some of Ghostavo and Scotty's points have actually been more valid than I thought.
I will wait until one of them posts again to see if it's necessary, though.
Okay, this is a Sci-fi board so let's try a sci-fi example. In the Star Trek TNG episode Second Chances Riker finds out that a transporter accident caused a duplicate to end up stranded on a planet for 8 years.
Now let's suppose that instead this error had caused two Rikers to appear in the transporter room. Which one is the real Riker? There isn't one, they are both the real Riker.
People keep arguing as if we're dealing with a situation where one of the two is real and one is the copy. But in this situation both are Riker prime.
Actually, the original Riker is dead. Vaporized by the transporter. Both Rikers are copies.
And the copy might now it's a copy. By simple deduction. It depends on how the copy is made in the first place. If the last memory before you wake up is you lying on a cloning table and you wake up in a copy tube..well, it doesn't take a genius to figure it out.
Which of these two narratives is what really happens from your point of view?
And yeah, Kara's correct with the transporter example. You tried to dodge it by saying that 'the original is dead', but by that argument, you're dead - you're not made of the same matter you were a year ago.
I really do understand where you're coming from - your issue is that no individual fork can guarantee prospective immortality, and that's true, even though any given fork is guaranteed retrospective immortality - but the resolution to your dilemma simply lies in the fact that the two forks are utterly interchangeable and therefore you can't tell one from the other.
You continue to 'ride the rails' of one fork, insisting that it's the original. But you have no meaningful way of telling which one is the original and which one is the copy, which makes your argument irrelevant.
QuoteActually, the original Riker is dead. Vaporized by the transporter. Both Rikers are copies.
In which case you've completely undermined your own argument. If the transporter kills the original and replaces it with a copy I presume that you would never ever use one and anyone in the Trek universe who had the same issue with it as you wouldn't use one either.
People keep arguing as if we're dealing with a situation where one of the two is real and one is the copy. But in this situation both are Riker prime.
I really couldn't have said it any more clearly. :rolleyes:
Bizarre, huh?
Which of these two narratives is what really happens from your point of view?
That depends on which of the two me's I was. I can only be one entity.
No, it doesn't matter which one is the origial. What matters is that each one has it's own sense of self - and that sense of self dies with him. Which makes all of YOUR points moot.
A system whereby my consciousness can continue indefinitely, without fear of permanent extinction, and without any interruption more significant than normal sleep or unconsciousness, and in which all my memories, both implicit and explicit (thereby including skills, cognitive structures) are preserved, along with my neural structure and embodied cognitive elements.
QuoteBizarre, huh?Interesting but it doesn't totally answer my question. How do you know this stuff? I'm curious about your sources so I can learn more.....
And in that sense, your whole concpet of immortality is flawed. You equate yourself with your memories and patterns, nothing more. It's like the POV and sense of self don't matter. They do.
But if we're throwing around theories and "what if's", how about this one - the uncertanty principle (or some other universal law) makes making perfect copies impossible. What then?
I have not been keeping up with this discussion, but I just skimmed the last page and I had a thought.
what if forks were made by temporally freezing you, splitting your body lengthwise and atom by atom reconstructing the other half? which one is the 'original' then?
1) How do you decide who gets to fork? Obviously if everyone can fork indefinitely you'll run out of resources sooner or later (assuming new people continue to be created), so that's not really an option.In most fictional implementations, running multiple versions of you is actually frowned upon or prohibited. The social and legal implications are just too messy.
Maybe you can transfer your pattern into another, more efficient container like a super cool man-made computer that everyone and their Dad can inhabit but good luck getting people to give up sex. I mean what's the point if it's just you and your immortal life partner going "0010101110 mmmmmm UUUUuuuuuuh" on a bit of RAM somewhere?
2) Think about all the crap that goes down presently because people think they can go on to everlasting life. Imagine if it actually worked! Revolving door suicide bombers, man. Also isn't it a relief knowing that Dick Cheney will one day cease to exist? You know he'd be second in line to fork it up indefinitely.
3) When you do have the inevitable duplication errors, what do you do when Riker1 and Riker2 both want to go back to their quarters and fork Troi (assuming Rikers and Troi wouldn't be totally into this)?
okay, so, lets say you do make a copy of yourself, and your thoughts are duplicated. are you in two places at the same time? I get how you can be the same person even though your body is different. different cells but same process. BUT, what happens when there are two of you?
like this, you go to the brain scanner thingy, you get your brain scanned and at the same time another *you* is created. great, now there are two of you walking around. cool. but which one gets to live in your house?
Undermined how? I wouldn't use a transporter, no.
Please don't tell me you're trying to use the behaviour/belief on characters in a fictional universe as proof of anything.
Irrelevant. They can both be real. Doesn't change the fact that each is a separete entity.
Basic logic. If it's two, then it can't be one. 1+1=2, not 1.
I'm using the fact that virtually everyone on this board would use a transporter as proof you are wrong. I suspect that you are one of the only people here who wouldn't use one. Hell. I'd use one to avoid walking down the stairs in my building. :p
Here I was thinking not of running parallel copies (that's what I was trying to say in #3) but of extending yourself indefinitely by means of forking off near or at the point of death like the Cylon resurrection thing. The problem I'm getting at is who would be allowed to do this, given that people will still desire to create new people in the traditional way, and you can't just have your population expanding forever. Some solutions I thought might be suggested were:1) How do you decide who gets to fork? Obviously if everyone can fork indefinitely you'll run out of resources sooner or later (assuming new people continue to be created), so that's not really an option.In most fictional implementations, running multiple versions of you is actually frowned upon or prohibited. The social and legal implications are just too messy.
Yes :D. Maybe more to the point, I think everything would suck more without the urgency of having a finite span in which to do whatever it is you want. The less limited I am, the less adversity I face, the less motivation I have.QuoteMaybe you can transfer your pattern into another, more efficient container like a super cool man-made computer that everyone and their Dad can inhabit but good luck getting people to give up sex. I mean what's the point if it's just you and your immortal life partner going "0010101110 mmmmmm UUUUuuuuuuh" on a bit of RAM somewhere?
Non-issue, actually. Provided that that machine can give the brain all the stimuli it needs, it shouldn't make that much of a difference. (Not to mention the weirder things that are possible in such an environment; again, read Accelerando or Glasshouse)
Besides that, I have trouble seeing your point here. Are you saying that sex wouldn't be fun anymore, just because you don't get to use actual bodies?
Hmm, I thought that of all the crazy crap that had been proposed, the notion that power tends to accumulate in the hands of the already powerful was the least far-fetched. Looking around the world today, the people in charge all seem to be those coming from a base of wealth and power in an age group where they have accumulated a lot of experience and connections but their faculties have not yet critically declined. This seems to be exactly the type of group we are proposing expanding and further empowering here.Quote2) Think about all the crap that goes down presently because people think they can go on to everlasting life. Imagine if it actually worked! Revolving door suicide bombers, man. Also isn't it a relief knowing that Dick Cheney will one day cease to exist? You know he'd be second in line to fork it up indefinitely.
Again, that's why there would be severe restrictions on things like that. And there is no reason to believe that just because someone was powerful once, he will stay powerful forever (or "evil"). Besides, I don't think Cheney et al would really be capable of adapting to a new environment like that.
This was the issue Topgun just posted about, I guess I wasn't very clear. In my scenario, Riker is duplicated on the transporter pad, and both Rikers head back to their quarters expecting to fulfill their husbandly duties with Troi. Sexy hilarity ensues.Quote3) When you do have the inevitable duplication errors, what do you do when Riker1 and Riker2 both want to go back to their quarters and fork Troi (assuming Rikers and Troi wouldn't be totally into this)?
Umm. Could you elaborate on this? What does one thing (replication errors) have to do with the other?
Besides, I believe if this technology ever becomes available, it would have to be proven to work correctly each time, every time before even the cutting edge people would seriously consider it.
QuoteHumans are the most adaptive creatures known. We've colonised all four corners of the world and live for periods of time outside in orbit above the planet. There's no reason that humans won't spread across the known galaxy if it becomes both technologically possible and economically viable.
Ah, but the point is that we're very narrowly adapted to a very rare set of environmental conditions and we've only been around for a very, very, very, very, very small period of time. We're talking a blink here.
If you just measure success by 'how long you stick around', the dinosaurs are still outplaying us tremendously.
Here I was thinking not of running parallel copies (that's what I was trying to say in #3) but of extending yourself indefinitely by means of forking off near or at the point of death like the Cylon resurrection thing. The problem I'm getting at is who would be allowed to do this, given that people will still desire to create new people in the traditional way, and you can't just have your population expanding forever. Some solutions I thought might be suggested were:
A) DEATH PANELS (lol) that would decide based on a person's value to society who would get to resurrect.
B) Everyone gets a certain number of resurrections like in a video game. Maybe you can get extra lives for doing community service or blowing up a lot of space invaders.
C) You get free bodies up to a certain age and then you're on your own (for me this is the least unpalatable option).
D) Only people who can afford it can resurrect (for me this is the most likely option).
E) The disembodied option described below:
Yes :D. Maybe more to the point, I think everything would suck more without the urgency of having a finite span in which to do whatever it is you want. The less limited I am, the less adversity I face, the less motivation I have.
Hmm, I thought that of all the crazy crap that had been proposed, the notion that power tends to accumulate in the hands of the already powerful was the least far-fetched. Looking around the world today, the people in charge all seem to be those coming from a base of wealth and power in an age group where they have accumulated a lot of experience and connections but their faculties have not yet critically declined. This seems to be exactly the type of group we are proposing expanding and further empowering here.
This was the issue Topgun just posted about, I guess I wasn't very clear. In my scenario, Riker is duplicated on the transporter pad, and both Rikers head back to their quarters expecting to fulfill their husbandly duties with Troi. Sexy hilarity ensues.
QuoteHumans are the most adaptive creatures known. We've colonised all four corners of the world and live for periods of time outside in orbit above the planet. There's no reason that humans won't spread across the known galaxy if it becomes both technologically possible and economically viable.
Ah, but the point is that we're very narrowly adapted to a very rare set of environmental conditions and we've only been around for a very, very, very, very, very small period of time. We're talking a blink here.
If you just measure success by 'how long you stick around', the dinosaurs are still outplaying us tremendously.
Yeah so how is that important? Reality is reality. So the Dinosaurs were around for a long time, and at the end they were still just dinosaurs. Humans on the other hand have been around for a compartively short amount of time and we've advanced a tremendous amount. In fact, I would suggest that an animal which is naturally adaptive is a poor choice compared to a human because humans are forced to adapt with technology. If a human can't survive in the artic he builds a house out of ice and wears some caribou hides for clothes. Whereas if we have another creature that can more easily adapt then where's the need for innovation? The animal goes on being an animal and doesn't improve itself because it's already suited to wherever it goes. It doesn't build a house it doesn't learn fire it doesn't learn to eat new types of prey through cooking it doesn't do anything other than eating, sleeping and crapping.
What doesn't kill you, makes you stronger and any environment which poses a challenge to an individual has the capacity to make them stronger. A creature which can adapt naturally has no challenge and therefore no need to improve itself.
übermetroid: Well that's certainly one possibility, but a matrix type of thing seems to operate on the assumption that having your intellect tied inextricably to a body is a crippling design flaw rather than a key feature, which I'm not so sure about.
This sounds like a lot of the points NGTM-1R raised earlier. I don't believe a word of it, really. Again, read the relevant literature. It explains and explores the issues far more eloquently than I ever could.
Right, but it could still be tied to a body (and probably would have to be) - just a simulated body that you could do weird stuff to.Heh, talk about a fate worse than death. What I was thinking in regards to the physical limitations being an important part of our design has something to do with this simulated body thing too. Would it be a good thing to be able to do weird stuff to yourself like radically altering your programming? Would being able to erase unwanted memories (a la Eternal Sunshine) or inhabit other peoples' simulations (Being John Malkovich) or any number of other nutty operations that would be possible in this scenario raise or lower your quality of life? How about the nature of the simulation itself (assuming we're talking about using avatars or whatever like in the Matrix movies where everything you directly observe is a video game type fabrication)? The sim can never be as complex as the "real" universe, no matter how much energy you accumulate--is it a good idea to sacrifice that quality for the greater quantity of intelligences you could fit on a matrix planet?
I think that such a matrix would probably be a 'bad idea', at least at first. Imagine if you were uploaded into Second Life...what a way to go.
The sim can never be as complex as the "real" universe, no matter how much energy you accumulate--is it a good idea to sacrifice that quality for the greater quantity of intelligences you could fit on a matrix planet?
I'm using the fact that virtually everyone on this board would use a transporter as proof you are wrong. I suspect that you are one of the only people here who wouldn't use one. Hell. I'd use one to avoid walking down the stairs in my building in the morning. :p
I never said they weren't separate. I was challenging your claim that one of them always knows they are a copy. Battuta gives another example where you are drugged and copied and neither version knows which one is the "real" version.
Virtually everyone on this board? Eh? Was there some poll made when I wasn't looking? Or do you jsut assume virtualy everyone is backing you up?
And even if we assume they do, what of it? How does a buch of people willing to use transporters prove anything discussed in their thread?
I never said one would always know. I said that in most cases, the copy would be abelt to find out if it is a copy.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't thir thread originalyl about human expansion and colonization?
Anyway, the human being's inherent cognitive abilities are part of their adaptive abilities. Which fulfills the definition of "a creature which can adapt naturally has no challenge and therefore no need to improve itself", and makes your argument a bit circular.
Something much more rapacious and much more adaptive would probably do a lot better (something that needn't haul around a bubble of its absurd niche environment.)
We're far from optimized for galactic domination. I'm sure there are designs out there that can do everything we can do, but do it better, and then do a lot more on top of it.
If a creature doesn't need to haul around a bubble of it's absurd environment, then it has no need to create an artificial bubble, if it has no need to create the bubble it has no need to improve it's own technology.
What you're essentially saying is that a creature whose physiology is more diverse and can adapt to more environments would be a better candidate for mass expansion than a human, but what I'm saying is that a human with its physical limitations and it's "niche environment" (btw everyone it's pronounced NEESH not NITCH!!!!!! :mad:) would ultimately be more successful because it has actually has a need to create technology to overcome its physical shortcomings.
A creature which adapts through intelligence and design will always be more successful than a creature which adapts simply by its the diverse abilities of its physical being.
And perhaps even in the development process a creature with diverse physiology simply has no need to develop a higher intelligence because it can instinctively do what it does and will therefore remain our definition of an animal or a lifeform lacking sentience.
Virtually everyone on this board? Eh? Was there some poll made when I wasn't looking? Or do you jsut assume virtualy everyone is backing you up?
Find me a post where someone else has said they'd never use a transporter because they'd be dead and a copy would live on in their place. I'll wait.
Virtually everyone on this board? Eh? Was there some poll made when I wasn't looking? Or do you jsut assume virtualy everyone is backing you up?
Find me a post where someone else has said they'd never use a transporter because they'd be dead and a copy would live on in their place. I'll wait.
If it was a huge issue I'm pretty sure someone would have brought it up. What with this being a Sci-fi board and all. But if you want I'll post a poll and see if you're in in the minority. Might be interesting.
Then yeah, miraculously, you've been resurrected. It seems crazy, but it's exactly the same as if you rot for a billion years and then some kind of crazy Anti-Entropic Field pulls you back together exactly as you were.Ok, I don't agree with everything, but you seem to be consistent in your line of thought. :)
wow, that's kinda like what I think.Then yeah, miraculously, you've been resurrected. It seems crazy, but it's exactly the same as if you rot for a billion years and then some kind of crazy Anti-Entropic Field pulls you back together exactly as you were.
Just as a side note (as it's even more OT), I have the itch that it will not be possible to actually replicate a mind; I assume a mind is like a fractal that modifies itself as it goes.. To replicate a mind, you need to know the "equation", to know the equation, you need to replicate the mind (that is, no matter how fine details you pass over, it will never be complete - just a cardboard copy).
wow, that's kinda like what I think.Then yeah, miraculously, you've been resurrected. It seems crazy, but it's exactly the same as if you rot for a billion years and then some kind of crazy Anti-Entropic Field pulls you back together exactly as you were.
Just as a side note (as it's even more OT), I have the itch that it will not be possible to actually replicate a mind; I assume a mind is like a fractal that modifies itself as it goes.. To replicate a mind, you need to know the "equation", to know the equation, you need to replicate the mind (that is, no matter how fine details you pass over, it will never be complete - just a cardboard copy).
In universe reference, McCoy. :P
Which is probably why in sci-fi, other species see humans as inferior. But we are in some ways still physically more adaptable than some life forms on earth considering that we have efficient iron based blood that is good at absorbing oxygen instead of the less efficient copper based blood, as well as having a 4 chambered heart for increased stamina. Also, the fact that we are warm blooded which enables us to live almost anywhere in the world, and we are also omnivores to boot, which enables us to eat a wide variety of foods. We also have the ability to sweat if we get too hot and tan for more protection from the sun, and that also aids in heat dissipation.
No one besides you could ever know if it has your consciousness.
Urm, what if it got the technology before it became so adapted? I.E. the organism redesigned itself?
You should have read the thread.
Well, okay, no, while I'm inclined to agree, we don't have any evidence of that at all. We've barely been around an eyeblink. One of the things we have to consider is that our 'intelligence and design' is actually a weakness, a bad survival strategy. Or, alternatively, that we're not actually particularly intelligent - there's plenty of evidence that we are pretty half-assed thinkers.
Again, zero evidence.
You should learn a bit about evolution, it's really fun stuff. I will try to dig up a book or two. Basically, one thing you should be aware of is that selection pressure is not the only way to evolve.
Im not worried about an accident, Im worried that the one who got teleported is not me.In universe reference, McCoy. :P
I should point out that I'm not asking who wouldn't use a transporter because they were scared of an accident. That's a complete different and much more rational fear. I'm asking who absolutely, in all circumstances wouldn't use a transporter because even if it worked 100% correctly they'd still be dead.
In that case, I would take the transporter. becuase the odds of the teleporter not killing me are better than the odds of me finding a shuttle in time. and even if the teleporter does kill me, at least my copy will get to go on and have a full life.In universe reference, McCoy. :P
So you're on a planet that's about to explode in one minute, the Enterprise offers to beam you up and you say no and start looking for a shuttle because if you can't find one you are just as dead if you beam up as if you blow up with the planet. Find me someone who believes that.
yeah, star wars, where most jedi are human :doubt:
One example would be that in Star Wars: The Phantom Menace, Anakin is pod racing and you hear the announcer say something that indicates that humans are seen as inferior. If you watch sci-fi, you will often encounter other species putting down humans as being weak, stupid, primitive, and like animals, and even selfish, but some of that even I could not argue with and would agree on.
10 pages? No thanks.
You've obviously got some fascination with genetic manipulation as you think it's the solution to most everything.
The real question is would a sentient species be willing to throw away their identity. I suspect that in any, thinking species there would be a lot of resistance to that.
Regardless of how smart or not we are there is no evidence of any lifeform more intelligent.
QuoteAgain, zero evidence.
You should learn a bit about evolution, it's really fun stuff. I will try to dig up a book or two. Basically, one thing you should be aware of is that selection pressure is not the only way to evolve.
Sure, and zero evidence to the contrary too.
Im not worried about an accident, Im worried that the one who got teleported is not me.
let me put it this way, I believe what you are saying, but I wouldn't take the chance.
In that case, I would take the transporter. becuase the odds of the teleporter not killing me are better than the odds of me finding a shuttle in time. and even if the teleporter does kill me, at least my copy will get to go on and have a full life.
I never said all sci-fi thought bad about humans and when I was talking about human adaptability, I was not comparing it to alien species. I was just saying that we are not the least adaptable life form on the block and it seemed like Battuta was not giving us enough credit for our bodies' ability to adapt.
Urm, what if it got the technology before it became so adapted? I.E. the organism redesigned itself?
You should have read the thread.
10 pages? No thanks.
You've obviously got some fascination with genetic manipulation as you think it's the solution to most everything.
The real question is would a sentient species be willing to throw away their identity. I suspect that in any, thinking species there would be a lot of resistance to that.
Regardless of how smart or not we are there is no evidence of any lifeform more intelligent.
Urm, what if it got the technology before it became so adapted? I.E. the organism redesigned itself?Huh? I haven't suggested genetic manipulation as a solution to more than one problem here. Nor, in fact, did I even...recommend genetic manipulation.
You should have read the thread.
You're contradicting yourself again. You say that the real adaptive ability of humans lies in their technology, and then you accuse me of being fascinated with technology.
You've got a double standard - you think technology is what keeps us moving and adapting, and then you say 'no, it's our nature that makes us human, not our technology.'
QuoteThe real question is would a sentient species be willing to throw away their identity. I suspect that in any, thinking species there would be a lot of resistance to that.
Now that's just out and out silly. You have no reason to think any other species will behave like humans. Even if 99% of species think that way, the whole point of the thread is that the 1% who don't will have an advantage.
Furthermore, again, double standard: you're advocating technological adaptation, and then saying it 'destroys our nature'. I can only imagine you preaching to the tribe: "We no sharpen spear! We use fists! Is NATURE!"
10 pages? No thanks.
And right here, you lost most of your credibility. If you're not going to bother reading what has been said before, why should I bother reading anything you say?
Define "Identity". Does being human necessitate having a 100% biological human body? I say No. What makes us human are our minds and spirits, our bodies matter comparatively little.
Also, genetic manipulation is only one tool in the box. There are other methods which are equally fun.
QuoteAre you telling me there is zero evidence for these mechanisms?QuoteAgain, zero evidence.Sure, and zero evidence to the contrary too.
You should learn a bit about evolution, it's really fun stuff. I will try to dig up a book or two. Basically, one thing you should be aware of is that selection pressure is not the only way to evolve.
So if you transfer your consciousness to a robot are you still human? No, you're not.
Without the limitations of the human form we lose our humanity. Our humanity is conversely essential to what it means to be human. Fundamentally altering our bodies will alter our perceptions of ourselves and ultimately the way we perceive and act within the world. At the end we will no longer be human, but rather something which was once human and still fancies itself to be human but is at the end, no longer human. Our humanity is as much a product of our shortcomings as it is a product of our strengths.
Spear = a tool. I'm not talking about using tools or technology, you talk about a species re-designing itself to survive in environments to which it is not suited. That is genetic manipulation. Creating a new organism which is "superior" to the original.
Oh yes the grand cop out. "They're ALIEN, we don't know how they will think!!!". <cue spooky music>
Spare me.
So if you transfer your consciousness to a robot are you still human? No, you're not.
Without the limitations of the human form we lose our humanity. Our humanity is conversely essential to what it means to be human.
When do you want to stop developing technologies to overcome human shortcomings? By what you said, sooner or later you just have to stop, unless you wish to be nonhuman. Would that mean that a cure for the complex of degenerative conditions known as old age would be unacceptable, since becoming frail is part of the human condition? What about eye implants that enhance our visual spectrum? What about brain implants to enhance our cognitive facilities?
Where is the line drawn?
QuoteSpear = a tool. I'm not talking about using tools or technology, you talk about a species re-designing itself to survive in environments to which it is not suited. That is genetic manipulation. Creating a new organism which is "superior" to the original.
Um, no, there are lots of ways to do that, many of which we already practice. Do you have glasses? A pacemaker?
QuoteOh yes the grand cop out. "They're ALIEN, we don't know how they will think!!!". <cue spooky music>
Spare me.
It's not that at all. You simply took a fairly narrow human cultural belief and attributed it to our entire species and then to entire other species. That's simply unfounded.
QuoteSo if you transfer your consciousness to a robot are you still human? No, you're not.
Without the limitations of the human form we lose our humanity. Our humanity is conversely essential to what it means to be human.
Defining humanity as 'what it means to be human' is no definition at all.
But the nice thing is that you don't have to take advantage of any such abilities if you don't want to. We currently stand somewhere between animal and thinking being; at some point we'll decide to move the rest of the way.
We'll just have to disagree here.
But let me ask, how much alteration would you say is sufficient to turn someone into a nonhuman?
Another question: When do you want to stop developing technologies to overcome human shortcomings? By what you said, sooner or later you just have to stop, unless you wish to be nonhuman. Would that mean that a cure for the complex of degenerative conditions known as old age would be unacceptable, since becoming frail is part of the human condition? What about eye implants that enhance our visual spectrum? What about brain implants to enhance our cognitive facilities?
Where is the line drawn?
But that's besides the point, you're not even on the same argument. Why you keep meandering I'll never know. The fundamental discussion is whether humans are ill-suited to galactic expansion because of their need to bring around their "niche" environment with them.
You say that a species can re-design itself to live in more diverse environments rather than bringing around that bubble. The only way to redesign yourself and stay a species (as opposed to a machine) is to use genetic manipulation.
Therefore you seem to believe genetic manipulation will trump a non-manipulated species simply using technology.
While I suggest that any intelligent free thinking species would not willingly alter themselves to such a fundamental degree, to do so would they would lose the core of what it means to be what they are.
People are afraid of change.
Is this thinking a product of our planet? If an animal grew up on another world would it suddenly think differently for no reason at all? The idea that an alien species will think in alien ways is a cop out because there is no evidence supporting it, and a lot of evidence to the contrary. Many animals act like humans, just on a less developed level.
I wasn't defining humanity I was saying saying without our humanity we are not human. And without our bodies we do not have humanity. Therefore without our bodies we are not human.
"It's easy to construct a more intelligent human by eliminating or correcting a few common heuristics. We're not very rational organisms yet."
Our irrationality is at the core of being human. The day the human race ceases to be irrational is the day the human race dies.
Death is at the very core of existence of life.
Without the need to "life each day to the fullest", people will create less, do less, advance less. Sure there'll be a few go-getters, but a person cannot remember everything. If you get 25 degrees from university will you remember much beyond the last 2?
What would be the purpose of brain implants for higher cognition anyway? Human achievement is the sum of experience not intelligence. That is what fundamentally separates us from animals. We are able through storytelling to pass on what we have learned to future generations. I would argue that the freedom and abundance of information in the modern world has already the potential to make humans more intelligent. Everything we create is based on experience, the more we experience, the more we can create.
Of course then you'll say "well if you can live longer, and have a better brain to experience more then isn't that a good thing?". But again without a finite existence there is no drive to create. And also creation is as much about the lack of information as it is about the existence thereof.
yes I know, but canonically, there are more human jedi than alien.
Here's a thought...
A friend of mine has a pacemaker, and an artificial hip, does that mean he's less human than someone without them?
Again, this is a simple diversion from the core argument about whether humans are suited for mass galactic expansion. It's only come up because with every post GB makes he gets farther and farther from the core issue to the point of using silly non-issues in an attempt to refute my previous statements.
No it means he's using technology in an effort to combat his human shortcomings.
Selection pressure is not the only means to evolve.
The real question is, is there any real NEED to improve the basic healthy human body?
For example if a human wants to become a better explorer so they give themselves night vision like a cat is that an improvement? Being afraid of the dark is a fundamental part of human existence, especially childhood. How will we be without fear of the dark, fear of the unknown? For example, if "the dark" is a simply a physical manifestation of "the unknown" in general how will humans interact and think about the unknown? Will there be less incentive within the human psyche to explore and pursue the unknown?
We don't know.
All we know is that the human race has achieved an incredible amount of knowledge, creativity and technology with our current limitations. If those limitations are taken away will we be better for it? If all humans are born with the same superior eyesight we lose individiuality. If we're born with the same photographic memory and same higher intelligence we lose identity. Will the human race have the same potential without the individuality? If we're all factory made carbon copies where is ambition? the drive to do better?
You people should all turn off your computers, go to Rogers and rent Gattaca.
Selection pressure is not the only means to evolve.
It is, however, the one that moves quickest. It would take significantly longer even in geological terms to get anywhere without it.
(In fact a situation without it is effectively impossible, because there will always be a negative interest to it as all other methods will not necessarily be beneficial.)
So by the time you've made it without selection pressure, it's probably too late anyways. :P
The only scientific hiccup I could see would be procreation, I think it would be extremely difficult to create a technological solution to procreation, but then, if humans were rendered practically immortal, procreation would drop massively.
but a Human is a mental construct, and something far more special and delicate, but it doesn't depend on Homo-Sapiens for it's existence, it's lumbered with it.
Uh, okay, I think you're just spouting religion. I can't see any empirically valid points in there, and a few that are even philosophically absurd.
QuoteBut that's besides the point, you're not even on the same argument. Why you keep meandering I'll never know. The fundamental discussion is whether humans are ill-suited to galactic expansion because of their need to bring around their "niche" environment with them.
Absolutely no question of that. We are ill-suited compared to some hypothetical species that are better suited. We are, after all, engaged in an exercise of the imagination here.
QuoteYou say that a species can re-design itself to live in more diverse environments rather than bringing around that bubble. The only way to redesign yourself and stay a species (as opposed to a machine) is to use genetic manipulation.
Why aren't machines species?
Why is it a good thing to stay the same species?
What's wrong with genetic manipulation? We do it all the time already. How are you going to decide who to marry? Your genes are looking for compatible partners to hybridize with - and you're making conscious designs about a good mate.
QuoteWhile I suggest that any intelligent free thinking species would not willingly alter themselves to such a fundamental degree, to do so would they would lose the core of what it means to be what they are.
Why?
Why's that a bad thing? Why would we want to keep the core of being something obsolete?
Why would any intelligent free thinking species reject technology and consciousness in favor of their animal roots?
You just argued that animals would be against genetic engineering. There are plenty of humans around you who are pro-genetic-engineering. Just by that alone we can see that there's no reason to believe everyone would be as scared of change as you are.
Our irrationality is at the core of being human. The day the human race ceases to be irrational is the day the human race dies.QuoteWhy is our irrationality at the core of being human?
Again, what's the problem if the human race dies or speciates? Would you have rather stayed as homo habilis?
QuoteWithout the need to "life each day to the fullest", people will create less, do less, advance less. Sure there'll be a few go-getters, but a person cannot remember everything. If you get 25 degrees from university will you remember much beyond the last 2?
Any evidence?
Are people more creative if they only have a lifespan of 25 years? 50 years? 100 years? Where does it start dropping off?
It's just a silly superstition.
Er, so, how do brain implants hurt...? We're better at thinking than homo habilis was.
QuoteOf course then you'll say "well if you can live longer, and have a better brain to experience more then isn't that a good thing?". But again without a finite existence there is no drive to create. And also creation is as much about the lack of information as it is about the existence thereof.
Evidence for any of that? Do uneducated third world sweatshop workers make better poets?
You mostly sound very afraid. Which is fine. Nobody's forcing anything on you.
My ideas do not spawn from any religious basis merely my experience and my own spirit.
Don't be an idiot.
Okay, here, I'll give you the simple point I've made again and again.
Which is more efficient:
A ship that must carry a full life support biosphere for a living crew?
Or a ship that must carry minor life support for a crew capable of biological hibernation?
Cite please? If that's so, why are human beings evolving so quickly today?
Every scientist who has ever postulated the rules of the universe has done so out of a lack of understanding. Without that lack of understand there is no need to create.
QuoteDon't be an idiot.
Come on, now. I'm happy to continue the debate, but if this turns personal, I really don't want to fight.
I have no problem if you disagree with me profoundly. I get enough agreement to know I'm not crazy.
You seem to be arguing madly against something that is, so far as I can tell, utterly unrelated to anything I'm saying.
Could you go back and answer the question you're interested in?
QuoteOkay, here, I'll give you the simple point I've made again and again.
Which is more efficient:
A ship that must carry a full life support biosphere for a living crew?
Or a ship that must carry minor life support for a crew capable of biological hibernation?
We'll proceed from there.
Cite please? If that's so, why are human beings evolving so quickly today?
Oh come now. You know as well as I that sentience gave us the ability to direct it and delibrately pursue it. You also know as well as I that I'm discussing the evolution of sentience rather than post-sentience, because that's what all my posts in this thread have been about.
Therefore while the ship with minor lifesupport will be a more efficient ship, the ship with a full biosphere will have a more efficient crew because they will be conscious and capable of productive work for a greater length of time than a species which by necessity needs to habitually hibernate for several months of the year.
The answer also depends on the capabilities of the ship. If you're talking about a slow non-FTL ship then sure, but if the ship has FTL and is capable of transiting systems at high speed and there is no "downtime" then where is the need for hibernation?
Huh? All I asked for was a citation on the fact that natural selection was the fastest driver of evolution.
Well, I'd be hasty to say we're evolving towards post-sentience. We can't even say we're fully sentient yet.
QuoteTherefore while the ship with minor lifesupport will be a more efficient ship, the ship with a full biosphere will have a more efficient crew because they will be conscious and capable of productive work for a greater length of time than a species which by necessity needs to habitually hibernate for several months of the year.
Nope, we said capable, not mandated to hibernate. They can stay awake whenever they please.
A human crew capable of hibernation, whether through external or internal means, has all the capabilities of a baseline human plus one: they can hibernate. They win. You could have the same number of live crew as on a regular ship plus extra crew hibernating if you wanted.
QuoteThe answer also depends on the capabilities of the ship. If you're talking about a slow non-FTL ship then sure, but if the ship has FTL and is capable of transiting systems at high speed and there is no "downtime" then where is the need for hibernation?
Ironic that your mind revolts at the idea of giving a woman a genetic tweak so she can have perfect memory - and in fact you argue, based solely on your own poetry, that this would rob her of humanity - but then you throw 'FTL' out there rapidly.
You're content to say 'humanity is fine as is; if we improved at all, we'd stop improving', but that same argument could have been made when we were even more limited.
What evidence do you have that our current suite of limitations is the correct one?
None.
Yes, but then you effectively agreed it was later in the reply so I figured you'd found your own citation. :P
As it is the only really directed method possible without conscious thought, it will allow the quickest progress.
I shouldn't even need to cite this. Yes, in theory the other methods available without thought could randomly move faster, but the law of mediocrity says that's most likely not going to happen, and certainly not going to sustain.
QuoteWhat evidence do you have that our current suite of limitations is the correct one?
None.
What evidence do you have that it isn't?
Ah, and there it is - the great weakness!
My evidence is the fact that none of the previous suites of limitations, all the way back to single-celled life, were the correct ones. Thus your choice of our current state is arbitrary and rooted in simple satisficing behavior.
As for your objections regarding hibernation, I'll just refer you to Flipside's wonderful last post. The armor had tradeoffs, but nonetheless, it had a net benefit.
The existence of tradeoffs to a strategy does nothing to change the fact that it may be a good strategy.
The problem with your "great weakness" idea is that no organism has achieved what we have. No organism in the millions upon millions of years of life on this planet has achieved what we have achieved in the smallest, tiniest, minute amount of time. So I would propose that this is evidence for humans being "just right".
Dinosaurs evolved into pigeons. Was that an improvement?
The problem with your "great weakness" idea is that no organism has achieved what we have. No organism in the millions upon millions of years of life on this planet has achieved what we have achieved in the smallest, tiniest, minute amount of time.
We are limited, irrational beings, and frankly, I wouldn't have us any other way.
I embrace the fact that, some day, I won't be walking around here anymore
As Nuke would probably say, because it's far more fun that way. :pQuoteWe are limited, irrational beings, and frankly, I wouldn't have us any other way.
Why do you want people making decisions about the deployment of nuclear weapons using a cognitive toolset that dates to the Stone Age?
Well, to be brutally honest once again, from where I'm sitting, the world is a pretty ****ing terrible place as a whole. I'm completely comfortable with not seeing what else we manage to muck up after my natural lifespan expires.QuoteI embrace the fact that, some day, I won't be walking around here anymore
Um, me too. I just want to see what awesome stuff we get up to in the next few hundred years. I have no problem with dying, but I have a problem with not living any more. There's so much to see, to do, to learn...why would anyone want to give that up?
And if you would want to give it up, why do you want to force that choice on me?From my perspective, I'm not "forcing" anything on you personally, because this entire argument is remarkably abstract. We as a species aren't yet capable of even building something resembling an intelligent A.I. It's going to be far longer than you or I will spend on this planet before what you're proposing becomes feasible, if it ever does.
But more seriously, because that irrationality comes part and parcel with so much that makes you you. Try to stamp out irrationality, and you wind up with a literal Spock (only without his occasional flashes of emotion).
As someone mentioned on the previous page, love is perhaps the most irrational emotion we experience, and arguably the most powerful. Would you risk losing that just for the sake of "updating the cognitive toolset"?
From my perspective, I'm not "forcing" anything on you personally, because this entire argument is remarkably abstract. We as a species aren't yet capable of even building something resembling an intelligent A.I. It's going to be far longer than you or I will spend on this planet before what you're proposing becomes feasible, if it ever does.
But that's the thing, Death is synonymous with our being biological creatures, the difficult part is to keep the emotive argument and the logical argument seperate, there are many reasons why people might resist the idea of losing their organic body, I can understand that, but most of those arguments are emotive, it involves things like 'the nobility of human nature' and the 'fragility of the soul' and 'the essence of love', absolutely none of which are quantifiable values.I would argue that the emotive argument cannot be removed from the logical argument without making the whole argument moot in the first place. There's far more to life than mucking around with quantifiable values. If that makes me a flawed being, then so be it.
particularly if you're going to reduce the concept of love to an "end state."
That's what I mean by seperating the Emotive and the Logical, emotionally, it's difficult to accept, but logic suggests its inevitability, oddly enough, like Death, it's something we all have to come to terms with in our own way.Heh, that's a good point. Even on the off chance this does come to pass before I die, so long as no one's trying to force me into a robotic body, it's not going to phase me personally either way. I'll let my (potential) grandkids deal with it.
I embrace the fact that, some day, I won't be walking around here anymore. I do believe that there is something afterwards, but even if it winds up that there isn't, it won't phase me, since I won't be around to be upset over it anyway.
in that case I wouldn't use the transporter, unless *someone* needed me alive becuase I had vital information or something.Im not worried about an accident, Im worried that the one who got teleported is not me.
let me put it this way, I believe what you are saying, but I wouldn't take the chance.
No chance in it. 100% certainty the transporter kills you.QuoteIn that case, I would take the transporter. becuase the odds of the teleporter not killing me are better than the odds of me finding a shuttle in time. and even if the teleporter does kill me, at least my copy will get to go on and have a full life.
Yeah but we're arguing that it's agreed that the transporter 100% does kill you. It simply makes a copy of you at the other end which has no reason not to believe it's you apart from the fact that you were just transported. So the odds of finding a shuttle are higher. They are always going to be higher. Trillion to one chances are better than 100% certainty of death.
So would you still use the transporter? Cause from what he says, Trashman presumably wouldn't.
Mate, if you think the transporter kills you, then you have already died a hundred times.I don't, but I won't take the risk. what you say makes sense, but there is always a chance you are wrong.
A transporter does nothing that does not happen to you every day. It just does it faster.
Basically, every cell in your body is replaced on a regular basis, this is doing the exact same thing, only much faster.
Science-wise, I'm not sure about the feasibility of teleportation in the first place, but if being taken apart and reassembled somehow took something away from us, then we are all empty, soul-less shells several times over.
Basically, every cell in your body is replaced on a regular basis, this is doing the exact same thing, only much faster.I know, which is why I believe consciousness exists in the processes of the brain cells (what the cells do) and not in the cells themselves.
Science-wise, I'm not sure about the feasibility of teleportation in the first place, but if being taken apart and reassembled somehow took something away from us, then we are all empty, soul-less shells several times over.
I love you, man.
*hug*
I know, which is why I believe consciousness exists in the processes of the brain cells (what the cells do) and not in the cells themselves.
again, though, I can't be sure.
then chances are I am just a copy of who I was yesterday with a different POV
becuase... I D O N 'T K N O WQuotethen chances are I am just a copy of who I was yesterday with a different POV
Well, um, I hope you have the same POV.
See, if it happens to you every day, why are you worried about being a copy? Clearly there's nothing bad about it! It's the only way things have ever worked!
EDIT: Holy crap! SIX TIMES I had to hit the post button.You're lucky you didn't accidentally sextuple post.
Despite the best efforts of this thread and all involved, I still must disagree with the concept that a copy will still be me. I can't quite nail down why, though the prime contender is that I can't shake the thought that even if the hypothetical teleporter rearranged me in the exact likeness of who and what I am now, it still wouldn't be me.
That possibly the sudden and complete sessation of life, even for an infinitesmal amount of time, is somehow different from simple unconsciousness. At no point in my life until death will my body be completely destroyed, actually disassembled down to the smallest particle of matter, in an instant. My bodily functions will not cease in everyday living, unlike using this teleporter would entail, but instead continue to function even as the component parts are replaced ever so slowly.
becuase... I D O N 'T K N O W
this is ALL speculation, I am not going to take the risk when there is an alternative.
I believe that, after I go through the transporter, everything will be the same, same POV, same me, everything, just as if I walked though a door.
but I don't know for sure, and I don't think its worth the risk.
It's not the teleportation itself that I wrestle with. It's the concept of dying, even for an infinitesmal amount of time (which, even if you consider the "copy" and original to be alive after, during the atom-by-atom relocation of oneself, life can obviously not function) that really unnerves me.
I'm not making myself very clear here. It has nothing to do with the speed of the teleportation, and everything to do with the concept of dying, even for an infinitesmal amount of time (how do you spell that word anyway? :P).
I suppose, if pressed for an exact point, I would say the point at which the amount teleported exceeds the amount that could possibly be survived were it to be removed.
This vague feeling of unease is not a rational expression. Were it rational, those logical breakdowns would help. As it is, a rational, well-thought out reservation is found somewhat lacking here. Looking at Dekker's reply, that looks to be a fairly analogous example (even if it's missing a couple things).
Huge post, I'll just pick out the factually wrong part and hit up some key differences. I really am not interested in a philosophical debate, only in what can be empirically verified.
1. Right now, today, the human species is actually evolving faster than it has at any point in the past. This makes your assertion that we have reached a 'balanced design' observably wrong.
2. It appears your objection is simply to genetic alteration of the human germ line. I'll deal with this later if I feel like it; if you accept technological augmentation then that's close enough. Of course, you do accept alteration of the germ line in some cases, so see #3...
3. I would have no problem bringing all humans up to the 'human standard'. Of course, that standard would be defined by the most exemplary humans in all fields...after all, most humans can't drink milk, but I can't imagine you'd object to making everyone lactose tolerant. Once we're there, we can decide what to do next.
4. Sure, you don't want to be immortal. Do you have a problem with extending the human lifespan by thirty years? Fifty, a hundred? I don't deny there would be enormous social implications, but there were enormous social implications of the shift from nomadicism to agriculture, and we did okay.
That honestly is the greatest failing of science. The need of science for proof. Need a child put their hand in a fire to know that it's a bad idea? Says the scientist "I don't know that fundamentally altering the structure of the human body will be a bad idea, I must first do it, and then test to see how bad of an idea it was."
Evolving? In what form? Are we evolving or are we reaching our full potential.
Are you saying that babies in Asia drink water instead of breast milk? Most humans can't drink milk because they don't drink milk beyond infancy. That's just an immunity deficiency born of their environment and upbringing. It has nothing to do with any human standard. I'm talking about 20/20 vision, 120/80 BP, average hearing, etcetera.
That honestly is the greatest failing of science. The need of science for proof. Need a child put their hand in a fire to know that it's a bad idea? Says the scientist "I don't know that fundamentally altering the structure of the human body will be a bad idea, I must first do it, and then test to see how bad of an idea it was."
And blindly accepting something because someone else says so is somehow better?
QuoteEvolving? In what form? Are we evolving or are we reaching our full potential.
Still believing that Evolution has a goal, are we? Learn some science, and learn the difference between religion and science.
Do some research, please. Lactose intolerance refers to intolerance to lactose in cow milk. And since Lactose intolerance is as much a genetic as an environmental issue, it definitely has to do with your "Human Standard".
That honestly is the greatest failing of science. The need of science for proof. Need a child put their hand in a fire to know that it's a bad idea? Says the scientist "I don't know that fundamentally altering the structure of the human body will be a bad idea, I must first do it, and then test to see how bad of an idea it was."No offense, but without striving for proof, "science" would be an utterly meaningless word. I'm not even talking about this specific instance, but in general. The entire scientific method is founded on coming up with an idea that explains something or other, then testing it to see if it holds up. Without that, you don't have anything left.
If every trait of each particle was perfectly preserved through the teleportation, then there's no physical reason I am aware of that timescale should matter.I suppose the specific aspect I'm wondering about is the time scale over which certain mental processes occur, which is admittedly something I don't really know anything about. Under this purely-structural model, if you could theoretically preserve the precise quantum state of every single atom in the body (which I'm sure you'd agree is a mind-bogglingly complex computational problem, at least by our modern standards) and near-instantaneously transfer it to the destination, I suppose that even the fastest mental process would presumably be preserved. But that raises the question of acceptable error level: if you can't do all of that with 100% accuracy, does there come some sort of upper limit where you wind up essentially derailing the brain's thought patterns in-progress? And what does that mean for you on the other end?
I'm not talking about blind faith I'm talking about considering the consequences of one's actions. Hypothesizing potential problems made with desired advances. All you scientists in this thread who talk about improving the human body seem to have no idea that those changes will have negative consequences. Or at least none of them seem to consider the idea within your discussions.
Take Flipside's example of Medieval Knights wearing armour. Yes, they add armour and now they're better survived on the battlefield. But, in doing so they lose mobility, they lose buoyancy, they limit their senses (depending on the helm being worn), etcetera. The change comes with a lot of negatives, or as he described it tradeoffs. Now let's enhance humans but instead let's give them natural biological armour, armour they're born with, armour they can't take off. And you have most of those same problems but now they're problems for life.
No I'm asking GB for examples of human evolution. He provided none.
That honestly is the greatest failing of science. The need of science for proof. Need a child put their hand in a fire to know that it's a bad idea? Says the scientist "I don't know that fundamentally altering the structure of the human body will be a bad idea, I must first do it, and then test to see how bad of an idea it was."No offense, but without striving for proof, "science" would be an utterly meaningless word. I'm not even talking about this specific instance, but in general. The entire scientific method is founded on coming up with an idea that explains something or other, then testing it to see if it holds up. Without that, you don't have anything left.
No I'm asking GB for examples of human evolution. He provided none.
I'm not talking about blind faith I'm talking about considering the consequences of one's actions. Hypothesizing potential problems made with desired advances. All you scientists in this thread who talk about improving the human body seem to have no idea that those changes will have negative consequences. Or at least none of them seem to consider the idea within your discussions.
Where did you get that idea? We know there will be sideeffects, but we also know that with an appropriate amount of design work, these things can be avoided. You seem to go on and on about difficulties and how they make stuff impossible, while we see those as challenges to be overcome.
QuoteTake Flipside's example of Medieval Knights wearing armour. Yes, they add armour and now they're better survived on the battlefield. But, in doing so they lose mobility, they lose buoyancy, they limit their senses (depending on the helm being worn), etcetera. The change comes with a lot of negatives, or as he described it tradeoffs. Now let's enhance humans but instead let's give them natural biological armour, armour they're born with, armour they can't take off. And you have most of those same problems but now they're problems for life.
Again, you see problems that are simply engineering challenges to be worked around. Also note that the armored Knight are very well adapted to their environment (which has a distinct lack of water to swim in, and where not getting a Sword or Lance in your face has positive efects on your survival).
Does Evolution in terms of Sociology count? Probably not, from your POV. But isn't it amazing how Humans have managed to become the controlling species on this planet in a matter of millennia?
Transhumanism posits that Homo Sapiens + Technology is a different species from Homo Sapiens himself. Sounds silly at first, but where would we be if we subtracted Technology from the equation? And yes, even the sharpened Stones on sticks that were all the rage 10000 years ago count as technology.
Well no, I'm sorry but if those tribesmen were born today and ate the same food and learned the same knowledge they'd be just capable as anyone living today. Take an orphan from some tribe in the rainforest, nurture them and put them to school in London and are they going to be less capable than a Londoner who was born there and whose family has lived there for 5 generations? No.
That's why external technology will always be superior to any biological enhancement. Because you can use whatever you need depending on the circumstance, you can take those drawbacks for a short period of time rather than having to live with them for the rest of your life.
Somewhat related to what Scotty's saying, I do have to wonder if the time scale in this model can really be treated as continuous without introducing problems.
What the heck did you miss? I said it explicitly:
The rate of allele flow in the human population is statistically higher than it has been at any point in the past.
Evolution is designed as a change in allele frequency over time.
We are therefore evolving faster than we ever have.
If you want an example of a recent massive evolutionary change, the development of human cognition.
And btw you see this as evolution, I see this as humans better reaching their potential. Humans are better fed, better informed, better lived than in the past so is it any wonder we're superior? If you could take a person out of the past and grow them in this world would the be the same or inferior? That's the real question. Are our advances a product of environment or a product of genetics? If two short parents from Asia move to the Western world and have children that turn out to be taller than them did their children evolve? Or did they eat a different diet?
There is no such thing as 'potential' in evolution. It is a spiritual term. Evolution is measured by the rate of allele flow and that is higher than it has ever been. Thus, we are evolving faster than we ever have. Evolution is non-directional.
I'll say it again: humping a straw man gets you nothing but weird looks.
Hibernation as it exists in nature is a involuntary part of an animal's life cycle which is dictated by the seasons. So how is it that humans or any creature will be able to biologically hibernate at will.
I did? :nervous:
That's my shopping list! Some of them are easy fixes, some would be hellishly tricky, but I'm sure the same human ingenuity that built the space shuttle can figure it out.Those were all very fascinating items (damn, you've done your homework), but I feel like sticking thermal tiles onto a rocket glider required just slightly less ingenuity than most of them will. :p
16. Prevent chordoma and gill-type birth defects; they're a product of old evolutionary structures that grow and then vanish during fetal development, for no real reason.You can't do that with significantly altering the fundamentals of embryonic and fetal development. Good luck. Everything else looks reasonable.
That's my shopping list! Some of them are easy fixes, some would be hellishly tricky, but I'm sure the same human ingenuity that built the space shuttle can figure it out.Those were all very fascinating items (damn, you've done your homework), but I feel like sticking thermal tiles onto a rocket glider required just slightly less ingenuity than most of them will. :p
Quote16. Prevent chordoma and gill-type birth defects; they're a product of old evolutionary structures that grow and then vanish during fetal development, for no real reason.You can't do that with significantly altering the fundamentals of embryonic and fetal development. Good luck. Everything else looks reasonable.
I concur. The thing about 'general enhancements', though, is that it's hard to know how to engineer them specifically, and what tradeoffs might be involved. As Akalabeth pointed out, a better sense of smell could be a curse in some situations, and stronger muscles or tougher bones could come at the price of a more demanding diet.we do have waay too much food though.