[Mongoose]

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.  If you take the "yesterday's self died to get to today's self" view (and I'm not saying I'm necessarily agree with it, but let's run with it), you're still talking about replacement on a relatively long-term scale.  Like I mentioned in some far-flung post earlier, the brain's neurons don't normally divide past adulthood, and they're not exactly swapping out their entire atomic composition every millisecond.  Now obviously, this process at normal speed doesn't affect our continuity of identity/POV; if it did, we wouldn't still be ourselves.  Double or triple it, and you're still in the same ballpark.  But what happens when you expand it to every atom in the entire body over the course of a second?  A millisecond?  Whatever infinitesimal (there you go, Scotty) time-frame a hypothetical Star Trek-esque teleporter would involve?  Do we overstep some as-yet-unrecognized time limit, to the point where our POV after the process flat-out isn't continuous with that before it?  I think it's an interesting question.

And we're not really on the exact topic anymore, but part of me really wanted to bring up the universe of Ghost in the Shell a day or so back, since it's all about delving into the issues surrounding cyberbrains, prostheses, and human identity.  I don't think I feel like doing that much writing at this point, though.

(Okay, screw the in-between posts; this is going up anyway. )

[Akalabeth Angel]

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.

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."

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.

Evolving? In what form? Are we evolving or are we reaching our full potential.

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...

No my objection is to people believing whimsical flights of fancy somehow apply to reality. The notion that the human body can be changed in a biological manner to achieve a result which is only possible through technology.

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.

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.

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.

Honestly would it make much difference? Is a person lives to be a thousand years instead of a hundred will they still spend their life working at Walmart? I would venture yes. Of course I'm scared of dying and of course I would like to live longer but those are all selfish ideas and even if Immortality is a nice concept I don't think it would necessarily be a good thing.

[General Battuta]

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.

Akalabeth, I'm not going to get into a religious or spiritual debate. I'm only concerned with the realities here, not people's inner lives. The child does put his hand in the fire to learn whether it's a bad idea - we've all done it.

The fundamental advantage of the human species is our ability to take control of environmental factors. Genetic engineering and cyborg augmentation are tools to meet specific tasks, like the knight's armor Flipside cited earlier. They are no different from your computer keyboard or your mother's instructions to you - both of which do not exist in animals, and both of which fundamentally change the human condition.

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.

The human body has changed in a biological manner to accomplish things. It has been done before, it will be done again.

You are eager to bring all humans up to minimum specifications, but not to expand the maximum. Yet the reason we are able to do things like talk to each other on the Internet is due to a sudden explosion in our maximum cognitive specifications that only occurred very recently.

I would not dare to say immortality is necessarily a good thing either, but as a species, we must explore. Stasis is death.

[The E]

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?

Evolving? 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.

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.

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".

[SpardaSon21]

I would love to see immortality for humans.  Of course, if we do achieve that, hard decisions are going to need to be made about reproduction so we don't overrun the Earth.  Also, if humanity isn't unified by that time getting the various nations to voluntarily impose population restrictions is going to be hard as they will see outnumbering everyone else as their way to gain supremacy. Restrictions only work if everyone imposes them, otherwise those that do impose get overrun by those that don't in a rush for space and resources.

Genetic alteration is problematic for me, at least serious genetic alterations are.  The problem with something like that is the potential for serious problems to result from mis-altered DNA or unaccounted-for mutation.  I see no issues with small-scale embryonic alterations such as removing minor genetic defects, but once you delve into serious genetic manipulation of adults or embryos, the chances of something major going wrong greatly increase.  Cyberization is less problematic for me, since the traits can't be passed to offspring.  I'm not concerned about people altering their bodies in a major manner, I just don't want any traits they added to be passed to their offspring.  There is a large potential for Murphy's Law to take effect in germ-cell alteration and the meiosis process, and I am concerned both about the embryo developing traits they didn't want as well as some hideous abomination being born.

So hypothetically speaking, how serious of genetic alteration are we talking?  Culture-style species swaps, or just genetic defect removal and augmentation of natural traits?  We are just talking about genetic alterations in general without a specific degree of alteration, so the argument lacks a bit of focus.

[Akalabeth Angel]

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?

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.

Evolving? 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.

No I'm asking GB for examples of human evolution. He provided none.

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".

Er, humans produce lactose in their milk as well. It has nothing to do with COW milk. In fact humans have MORE lactose in their milk than cows do. Also people drink goat milk and other forms of milk too.

[TrashMan]

The most common depiction of cyborgs always makes me laugh. You know - artificial arm and leg, with massive strength and built-in things and weapons. Since it's not realistic.

[Mongoose]

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?

[Colonol Dekker]

This is safer by far...

[The E]

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.

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.

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).

No I'm asking GB for examples of human evolution. He provided none.

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.

[Akalabeth Angel]

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.

Well yes I realize that, in truth I probably communicated my ideas in an inefficient manner. My real problem is that a fundamental part of the scientific method is also the hypothesis. And no scientist that I've talked to in this thread with the exception of Flipside is using any real hypothesis that looks at the full picture. The ideas are instead one-sided and irresponsible. They talk about the benefits of things without apparently considering the potential problems. And they also talk about the effects of things without examining the causes.

So, enhanced hearing will allow me to hear better and . . . what else? Will it give me continual headaches like listening to loud music for too long will? Because the entire world will essentially become one cranked up Rammstein track? Will I have problems sleeping without a sound proof room like a certain superhero from a recent movie.

Or on the other hand we have the idea of humans who can hibernate at will. This a marvellous effect but what is the cause? What bodily function works like this? What precedence or EVIDENCE in nature is there that it can even be done? What consistent evidence is there to the contrary that hibernation is in fact an involuntary act dominate by the seasons?


Cause and Effect, Action and Consequence.

One without the other is Fantasy not science.

So

[Nuke]

figure most star systems are too radioactive or binary systems which seem like it would cause a lot of orbital instability. i wouldnt even bother looking for life in the core of the galaxy. just too much **** that can kill you there.

[General Battuta]

I don't think anybody's advanced any formal scientific hypotheses in this thread. A hypothesis has to be tested with evidence.

On the other hand, plenty of people have advanced suggestions which can be refuted with existing evidence.

No I'm asking GB for examples of human evolution. He provided none.

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.

[Akalabeth Angel]

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.

Because none of you have actually listed anything in that regard? Not to my recollection.
And I don't think that anything can be fully avoided. In science there will always be blowback.

When was the last time you took a prescription drug which didn't include side effects?

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.

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).

No I see consequence to changing the human form. I realize that technology has drawbacks, and I would rather be able to discard technology and those drawbacks than to be born with it or become surgically altered and live it with my entire life. That's why humans are adaptable. Oh, I need to breath under water? I'll grab a scuba tank. I need to fight in a joust? I'll take off my scuba tank, and put on medieval armour, oh I need to run fast? I'll take off my armour and put on shorts. I need to see in the dark? I'll use night vision goggles? I need to shade my eyes at noon? I'll put on sunglasses and take off those goggles before I go blind.

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.

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.

Transhumanism should buy a dictionary and look up the word "species".

Honestly that theory strikes me as someone trying to make themselves feel important. And by someone I do not mean you, I mean the theory's author. Something to the effect of "look at those tribesmen, running around with sticks and stones? I could waste them with this .50 cal". 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.

[General Battuta]

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.

Ah, I think you're finally coming towards the light!

The introduction of culture, which includes technology, represented a fundamental shift in human development. Natural selection became largely obsolete. We now undergo technological selection: those with the best tech, survive. Agriculture is a great example.

This is why the transhumanist movement does not largely feel the need to 'advocate' anything, as you seem to suggest. Nor is it afraid of side effects - because, indeed, you are correct, drugs have side effects. So will any modification to the human condition. Many of the side effects will be awful, even atrocious.

You apparently have something against genetic modification of the human germ line, except in conditions where you approve of it. *shrug* That's fine. You won't have to avail yourself of it.

Genetic modification of that sort is certainly full of extraordinary ramifications. And yet it is only a natural extension of what we already do.

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.

Er, right, but in no way is that an argument against genetic engineering.

For example, right now you lack a cognitive trait called 'calibration' - you cannot perform basic judgments of probability reliably. If that was genetically corrected, say by the elimination of base rate neglect, what do you feel the drawbacks would be?

Ahem. Now, for a different matter.

You are being shockingly rude. You have stated that you believe people in this thread are being 'one-sided and irresponsible.' Yet I don't think that either The_E or myself (or any other educated individual) believes that genetic engineering is not staggeringly complex, extremely finicky, and full of dangerous social implications.

Why you would believe that we've all got a hard-on for genemodding is beyond me. From left field a few pages back you said that I thought genetic engineering was the solution to all problems, and from then on forward you've been on some kind of mad crusade against a problem that doesn't exist.

I'll say it again: humping a straw man gets you nothing but weird looks.

Let me restate my position: I believe that genetic engineering will, at some point in the future, be a useful tool for improving the human condition, and I believe that with work (and, inevitably, through failures) its risks will be understood and avoided.

[Kosh]

I thought this thread was locked?

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.

Everything always introduces problems. In our current state, the biggest problem at this moment is death. By solving this problem it is true that it would cause other problems, however those problems do have solutions that can be found. Solving new problems is the nature of tech advance.

There are some who suggested that we would not have any need to continue our advancement. This isn't true because there would still be new problems. For example, electronics are more sensitive to radiation. There will always be a need to push the boundries.

[Flipside]

It's also partly to do with self-definition, I think, the world 'culture' has a lot to answer for in some ways.

There are a couple of things that do occur to me, however, one is that whatever special abilities there may be in some sort of technological device that contains a human consciousness, our minds will adapt to utilise those abilities, in that respect, I can accept that transferring to a mechanical device would change what it means to be human, but, as I've said before, 'human' is a thought, not a being, we are, in essence, what we define ourselves to be, it wasn't that long ago that dark-skinned people were not considered 'human' by light skinned people, there are already concerns about the rights of clones because the technology is within reach (we're talking non-simulcrum copies here, physical clones, not mental ones), our definition of human is constantly in flux.

Secondly, is the definition of 'alive', is life a physical process, a chemical process or a mental process, or a combination of the three, and if life can be maintained without a Biological container, then does the definition of life change? Nature has already come up with organisms that can be boiled, irradited and frozen and bounce back again without a problem, so maybe rather than identifying ourselves by our weaknesses, or even our strengths, we should consider the simple phrase of 'Life just is', that it doesn't matter what form that life takes, or what challenges that lifeform surmounts, life is defined by its own existence and nothing else.

That's quite a difficult thought to put into writing, so I hope it makes sense

[Akalabeth Angel]

What the heck did you miss? I said it explicitly:

By said explicitly you mean in an edit after the original post.

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.

Yes but none of this style of evolution has any comparison to the laboratory optional enhancements people are suggesting in this thread.

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?

Of course people are constantly evolving in subtle ways and our bodies are constantly reproducing itself through cell death and division but is the human being a fundamentally different species than a few thousand years ago?


Regardless this is a discussion about scientifically manufactured evolutionary leaps, not subtle improvements or the fulfilling of potential on the basic homo sapien model (or is it sapien sapien, whichever). And there have been no evolutionary leaps in the human population.

[General Battuta]

And just to shoot down a point of Akalabeth's I'd passed over earlier, voluntary hibernation is believable. If you can engineer an organism with a hibernation system and with conscious control of HIT release, you have a voluntary hibernator.

Obviously, this is speculative, so saying 'that's not possible' is rather missing the point: it's not, yet. However, it provides an obvious model by which a transgenic human might try to ease the rigors of space travel.

Akalabeth has been rather hung up on the issue of 'tradeoffs', and indeed, he is correct to say that any modification has tradeoffs. Nonetheless, some tradeoffs are worth it in some situations: the knight's armor, the bear's heavy coat, the human being's incredibly large brain.

The fact that some tradeoffs are worth it is why evolution proceeds, and why genetic modification might be a viable approach to some problems of space flight. (For instance, bone density issues, or the prevention of oncogenesis.)

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?

That's exactly the point. We don't have to rely on evolution for humans to reach 'their potential' - which is whatever we want.

I see this as humans better reaching their potential too.

And please don't make this personal. This statement was present:

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.

Before you posted. I did not edit it in after the fact.

[Akalabeth Angel]

I'll say it again: humping a straw man gets you nothing but weird looks.

Spare me the strawman bull****, your whole argumentative style is strawman. You consistently avoid points and come up with small irrelevances which avoid the question. For example, let's take your starting question.

What is better?
1. A ship which requires full lifesupport for a human crew.
2. A ship which requires minimal lifesupport for a human crew capable of biological hibernation.

This question is essentially a loaded question because the only logical answer within such limited information is 2. And when I fail to tell you "oh gee GB, you're right" and instead I expand those guidelines to actually have some basis in reality you go off on some other tangent about how I'm somehow odd for introducing FTL into the equation and on the other hand ignore my main question is:

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?

Essentially you give me a limited, loaded question and I being aware of that fact expand upon and you proceed to ignore. That's pretty much the whole trend of this argument in a nutshell.


EDIT - regarding Strawman for example.
We're talking about humans+1. Ie humans which incorporate an evolutionary leap. I say that there's a human base model, ie homo sapien which has worked just fine, you respond by saying "we're evolving all the time" (paraphrased). Well, I'm sorry, but we're talking about evolutionary leaps not increased genetic variety. That is strawman, you take my post as a singular thing instead of part of the whole discussion and go off on tangents to try and disprove the post rather than addressing that post within the great discussion. Should I quote 5-10 messages to get my full point across?? To keep people in perspective. And whoever made up this dumbass "strawman" term anyway.