Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

[McCoy]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

This is a bit off-topic' date=' but I figure it's okay to ask here: if you don't mind sharing, what spurred the conversion to Buddhism?[/quote']

 

Don't mind sharing. It's really two questions' date=' why I left Christianity and what led me to Buddhism. Long story, seven year pilgrimage in fact. Believe is on these boards somewhere, I'll find the link when I'm more awake.[/quote']

finally found it!

[Ragitsu]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

Wahoo!

[Markdoc]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

I guess I'd probably distinguish things by using the terms "continuous" and "non-continuous". My current consciousness being directly transferred into a new body--continuous. My current consciousness being copied' date=' ceasing to be, and the copy contining on--non-continuous.[/quote']

 

As a matter of interest, how would you tell?

If you go to sleep and wake up the next morning, I assume you think you are the same person? Your memories are all intact, after all (more or less: we all lose memories all the time, but the process is gradual, so we're used to it).

So if you go to sleep and wake up the next morning in a new body what's the difference - on the level of consciousness? If all your memories are still intact, how would you tell the difference between destructive and non-destructive?

 

cheers, Mark

[megaplayboy]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

As a matter of interest, how would you tell?

If you go to sleep and wake up the next morning, I assume you think you are the same person? Your memories are all intact, after all (more or less: we all lose memories all the time, but the process is gradual, so we're used to it).

So if you go to sleep and wake up the next morning in a new body what's the difference - on the level of consciousness? If all your memories are still intact, how would you tell the difference between destructive and non-destructive?

 

cheers, Mark

 

Well, as a matter of clarification: If I go to sleep and don't wake up the next morning, I wouldn't be able to tell, because I'd be dead. If the original me died, but the new me woke up thinking it had experienced the memories and life experiences encoded in its brain, then it probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference unless so informed. The difference between destructive and non-destructive, in that case, would be that, in a non-destructive situation, original me(that is, not my body, but my original consciousness which was contained inside my body and was more or less operating continuously from birth) is still around, albeit in "upgraded" form, whereas in a destructive situation, original me died, and "new me" is essentially a brand new consciousness, operating under the delusion that it's the original.

If I wake up in a new body, but the same consciousness, then there's no difference. But if it's not "me" waking up, then it's "not me", but merely a copy of me.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

Simplest way to explain this: if you create an exact duplicate of me, including my mind, and then kill the original me, original me's mind is not going to wake up inside duplicate me and carry on as usual. It's just going to be deader than disco. Now, to duplicate me and friends and family, there might be no perceptible difference, but a fat lotta good that does poor ol' original me, may I rest in peace.

[Gnaskar]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

Uh' date=' why do the people of the first example have to be "fanatics"?[/quote']

 

To many commas make sentences unclear. The intended point was that both causes of fanaticism used arguments that branded Digital Intelligences* as automatically evil, and hence as something to be destroyed. There is, I suppose, a possibility that a group could exist that would that believe DIs are defacto soulless undead with making the leap to "and hence must be killed". I’d still avoid these people though; I take soulless as an insult.

 

* A term I've used in a post-singularity setting to refer to people who've gone through destructive uploading.

 

Simplest way to explain this: if you create an exact duplicate of me' date=' including my mind, and then kill the original me, original me's mind is not going to wake up inside duplicate me and carry on as usual. It's just going to be deader than disco. Now, to duplicate me and friends and family, there might be no perceptible difference, but a fat lotta good that does poor ol' original me, may I rest in peace. [/quote']

 

Which is why I argue from the standpoint that the duplicate and you are the same person. If that can be proven, or at least believed by all relevant parties, the moral issues fall apart. There’s really no good way to prove it though (or at least I can’t think of a way), so it comes down to opinions.

 

Well' date=' a transition from bio-brain to cyber-brain would remain continuous, so long as my original consciousness didn't die somewhere along the process. Though I'd vastly prefer doing the augment using bio-ware rather than cyber-ware, and vastly prefer that said bio-ware be hereditable. It's actually not demonstrably clear to me which technology will advance to that level first--biotech or cybertech.[/quote']

 

Why? What aspect of bio-ware make it inherently superior to a cybernetic variant? Carbon chauvinism, or something more reasoned?

 

From where I’m sitting, cybertech is winning the race. Partly because of Moore’s Law, but mostly because every cutting edge computing field is highly funded by both government and private sector. Politicians and CEOs can clearly see the advantages of this kind of technology. Bio research is mostly limited to cloning and medicine, thus far, with a lot of human bio research illegal in most countries. We have brain controlled cybernetic arms for people who’ve lost theirs, but nowhere near the technology to regrow an arm reliably.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

To many commas make sentences unclear. The intended point was that both causes of fanaticism used arguments that branded Digital Intelligences* as automatically evil, and hence as something to be destroyed. There is, I suppose, a possibility that a group could exist that would that believe DIs are defacto soulless undead with making the leap to "and hence must be killed". I’d still avoid these people though; I take soulless as an insult.

 

* A term I've used in a post-singularity setting to refer to people who've gone through destructive uploading.

 

 

 

Which is why I argue from the standpoint that the duplicate and you are the same person. If that can be proven, or at least believed by all relevant parties, the moral issues fall apart. There’s really no good way to prove it though (or at least I can’t think of a way), so it comes down to opinions.

 

 

 

Why? What aspect of bio-ware make it inherently superior to a cybernetic variant? Carbon chauvinism, or something more reasoned?

 

From where I’m sitting, cybertech is winning the race. Partly because of Moore’s Law, but mostly because every cutting edge computing field is highly funded by both government and private sector. Politicians and CEOs can clearly see the advantages of this kind of technology. Bio research is mostly limited to cloning and medicine, thus far, with a lot of human bio research illegal in most countries. We have brain controlled cybernetic arms for people who’ve lost theirs, but nowhere near the technology to regrow an arm reliably.

 

Way too early to draw that conclusion. Biotech can do organ transplants, hand transplants, face transplants, can even reattach severed genitalia and fingers. It has a proven track record of success. We've mapped the human genome, have just begun to explore the value of stem cells, and even have anti-viral therapies in development.

Meanwhile, the average dog is smarter than most personal computers, androids can barely walk, and the ability to "translate" brain signals into specific, useful electronic signals is still in its infancy.

In terms of the actual breakthroughs necessary to, for example, transfer a human consciousness into a cybernetic brain, inside an artificial body capable of matching or exceeding the capabilities of a human body, compared to the breakthroughs necessary to slow or halt the aging process, it's not clear to me that the cyber-enhancement progression is noticeably advanced beyond what biotech is looking into and accomplishing.

In terms of "carbon chauvinism", hey, look at it as 200,000 years of proven technology, versus a bunch of stuff that hasn't yet stood the test of time, or even a bloody field test at this point. And you can't inherit a cyber-brain. But maybe you could inherit a built in DNA computer.

[McCoy]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

Though I'd vastly prefer doing the augment using bio-ware rather than cyber-ware' date=' and vastly prefer that said bio-ware be hereditable. [/quote']

 

And you can't inherit a cyber-brain. But maybe you could inherit a built in DNA computer.

Obviously that is important to you, may I ask why?

[megaplayboy]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

Obviously that is important to you' date=' may I ask why?[/quote']

 

A parent wants to be able to pass on any natural advantages/favorable traits they have to their kids. If everybody can get bio-boosted, and then simply pass those boosts on to their kids, it's cheaper and more efficient than cybering up one generation after another. If there are upgrades, those can be implemented and inherited as well.

 

That said, bio and cybertech aren't necessarily mutually exclusive--a small transmitter/receiver that allowed one to communicate one's (edited) thoughts to another remotely, outside of hearing range and/or without being "overheard"(effectively a "telepathy chip") would be an extremely useful adjunct to bio-boosted people. You might even create a "Bio-Net", consisting of massive DNA computers that people could log into and interact with each other on.

[McCoy]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

By the way' date=' to avoid confusion, i'll state right now that i'm not trying to attach biological clones to The Uncanny Valley, but bringing it up as a topic related to growing technologies. It is mentioned often in regards to [i']androids[/i].

Would also depend on what "level" our cyber-selves were interacting with the meatbags. "Living" mostly on the net, interacting with the carbon-based individuals mostly through text, other cyber-citizens via virtual reality, probably a pretty high acceptance.

 

Probably pretty high acceptance for audio-visual of the same quality as, say, Skype.

 

Interacting with biologicals through an obviously mechanical tele-presence probe, like upgrade Mars Rovers (only with hands), Maybe somewhat less, don't anticipate problems.

 

Trying to "pass" with a fully human-appearing self contained android? Social challenges as well as technological ones.

[Ragitsu]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

"Undead" does not necessarily mean "evil".

[McCoy]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

"Undead" does not necessarily mean "evil".

Before the current vampire fascination, I think most people would have believed there was considerable overlap.

[Ragitsu]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

Before the current vampire fascination' date=' I think most people would have believed there was considerable overlap.[/quote']

 

It's not that. There have been tales over the centuries of "undead" that were neutral to humanity or even helpful, such as ghosts or revenants (such as those that came back to right a wrong). Certain mummies, anyone? The term itself could refer to something or someone good, evil, or neutral.

 

It is, however, reinforced in popular culture that undead must be evil. Even so, you can still find good undead in RPGs (such as the Baelnorn of the Forgotten Realms, or Deathless from Eberron).

 

Do I think Gnaskar meant it negatively? Yes, but in and of itself...belief in the undead doesn't mean someone is a fanatic.

[Gnaskar]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

Do I think Gnaskar meant it negatively? Yes' date=' but in and of itself...belief in the undead doesn't mean someone is a fanatic.[/quote']

 

First of all, the focus was on the soulless part, not the undead part. Some of my best friends are undead (at least, we've never seen them in daylight). I meant only that the fanatics meant it negatively.

 

Belief in the undead does make someone a fanatic. Murdering someone for being what they are does. Whether that “what” is a religious affiliation, sexual orientation, political view, or undeathness is immaterial.

 

 

 

Meanwhile' date=' the average dog is smarter than most personal computers, androids can barely walk, and the ability to "translate" brain signals into specific, useful electronic signals is still in its infancy. [/quote']

 

None of this has been true for the last decade. The computer I’m writing this on is using more computing power to display the screen than can generated by all of humanity working together (even under the assumption that a trained human could perform around 10 bit operations per second). As for “smart”, the latest in self learning systems caps out at about the equivalent to a human six year old in behavior. Two legged robots can do about 10km/h on a flat strait, or navigate arbitrary terrain some what slower. We’ve also got working cybernetic limbs controlled by implanted brain chips, cybernetic eyes and ears, all of which translate brain signals.

 

 

 

I’m probably biased though, as I am currently studying Artificial Intelligence.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

Think of it this way...are we closer to finding a medical cure for Alzheimers, or to replacing the defective tissue with functioning cybernetic analogues?

[McCoy]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

Think of it this way...are we closer to finding a medical cure for Alzheimers' date=' or to replacing the defective tissue with functioning cybernetic analogues?[/quote']

At this point I'd say 0=0, they seem equally distant.

[Ragitsu]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

Belief in the undead does make someone a fanatic.

 

But talking snakes, people floating, alchemy, and people coming back from the dead don't?

[McCoy]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

Belief in the undead does make someone a fanatic.

 

But talking snakes, people floating, alchemy, and people coming back from the dead don't?

In context I believe there was an unfortunate typo there.

 

Belief in the undead does make someone a fanatic. Murdering someone for being what they are does. Whether that “what” is a religious affiliation' date=' sexual orientation, political view, or undeathness is immaterial. [/quote']

Makes more sense if the intent was "Belief in the undead doesn't make someone a fanatic. Murdering someone for being what they are does." To which I would add, or wanting to murder them.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

At this point I'd say 0=0' date=' they seem equally distant.[/quote']

 

AIUI that's not the case. There are at least medical therapies being tested, researched and in development--and some hold at least the potential for a cure or at least mitigation. There's not even a drawing board design, or a breakthrough of theory for that matter, permitting computer memory to replace or supplement human memory.

[McCoy]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

AIUI that's not the case. There are at least medical therapies being tested' date=' researched and in development--and some hold at least the potential for a cure or at least mitigation. There's not even a drawing board design, or a breakthrough of theory for that matter, permitting computer memory to replace or supplement human memory.[/quote']

How close are they to a pre-mortum diagnostic test?

[Christopher]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

Think of it this way...are we closer to finding a medical cure for Alzheimers' date=' or to replacing the defective tissue with functioning cybernetic analogues?[/quote']

Scientist have recently made advantages with the cyberntik part by taking "shortcuts". They were able to make a arm controllable by contractions of the chest-muskles. Or a 16 pixel "Eye" that can only detect strenght of light and transmitt it as electrical current to your tongue (a very high sensory density).

And then there is the recent development of electronic Tatoos: http://www.webmd.com/news/20110815/electronic-tattoo-may-help-monitor-patients

 

Sure, not what we have in our SciFi but these are the practical alternatives untill a complete mind-machine interface can be done.

[Ragitsu]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

I’m probably biased though' date=' as I am currently studying Artificial Intelligence.[/quote']

 

Make sure the first one is based on something actually intelligent.

[Sociotard]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

My line between "upgrade above baseline" and "fix problem": "baseline" is the standard to which designers make products that people in civilization use. They make a qwerty keyboard because they assume you have hands. They make gloves with four fingers and a thumb because they assume you don't have an extra digit.

 

Why the "baseline" won't change: Sure, in theory if everyone had brain implants that all did close to the same thing, that would change the baseline. That won't happen unless changing implants and gene splices or whatever becomes as easy as changing the oil filter in your car, because otherwise baseline won't change. After 10,000 years of humans performing surgury, it is not easy. It is safer, yes, but even routine surgery like wisdom tooth removal still has risks, even risks of death. Surgery will continue to improve, yes, but I don't see any advances 'just around the corner' that will make it trivial.

 

Surgical difficulty + Moores Law = No internal upgrades above baseline: Most people have to get surgery at least once anyway, for wisdom teeth. It wouldn't seem too far fetched to say people would get upgrades if they could be guaranteed for a long time. That said, nobody would want their implants to last forever, because that would stop you from upgrading. Imagine they'd figured out a way to do direct brain-machine hookups 25 years ago. People ran out and got them. Now people laugh at those early adopters with their phone jacks, because everyone else has cell phone service.

 

So, upgrades-to-baseline can be internal, but upgrades-beyond-baseline should be external: A deaf person might be able to get a Cochlear implant and acheive baseline. They will then be able to use the same cell phones as everybody else, and they'll upgrade cell phones along with everybody else. Assuming their implant took them all the way to baseline (not just almost-kinda-good-enough-for-government-work) they won't bother upgrading that. After all, surgery is hard.

 

McCoy's sons would benefit from implants/gene grafts/whatever to let them become well-adjusted members of society. Assuming they were taken all the way to baseline (although that line is blurrier, here) I doubt they'd ever upgrade it. I can't even imagine what "superhumanly well-adjusted psychological profile" would look like. Probably not good.

 

We are all cyborgs now I like how Scott Adams put it:

Technically, you're already a cyborg. If you keep your cell phone with you most of the time, especially if the earpiece is in place, I think we can call that arrangement an exobrain. Don't protest that your cellphone isn't part of your body just because you can leave it in your other pants. If a cyborg can remove its digital eye and leave it on a shelf as a surveillance device, and I think we all agree that it can, then your cellphone qualifies as part of your body. In fact, one of the benefits of being a cyborg is that you can remove and upgrade parts easily. So don't give me that "It's not attached to me" argument. You're already a cyborg. Deal with it.

 

Your regular brain uses your exobrain to outsource part of its memory, and perform other functions, such as GPS navigation, or searching the Internet. If you're anything like me, your exobrain is with you 24-hours a day. It's my only telephone device, and I even sleep next to it because it's my alarm clock.

 

In short, because of the 'upgrades' issue, I want all my cybernetic augments to be external to me. I don't want to be the guy with the equivalent of a VHS slot in his abdomen, and I don't think surgical tech will improve to the point upgrades are trivial. As my body deteriorates below baseline, I won't mind implants to return me to baseline.

 

Oh, and for what it is worth, I doubt that any implants, even the merely 'return to baseline' ones, will be guaranteed to last very long in the warm, saline environment that is the human body. My sister-in-law has a cybernetic implant that continuously injects poison to her spinal column to stop her from randomly punching people. She has to go into surgery once or twice a year to get it adjusted and fixed and whatnot.

 

The robobrain exception: I might not mind moving my conciousness to a robot brain if it could last centuries and it still thought the way my brain does. That's tricky though. I think we're only barely beginning to understand what concepts like "free will", "conciousness", and "understanding" really mean. I think that we will create silicon sophonts, but (to paraphrase Spock) they will be "intelligent Jim, but not as we know it."

 

Furthermore, I'm also skeptical of the 'super-long-lasting computer' trope. My brain is 30 years old, and that isn't even especially old for a working brain. Our computers don't last anywhere near that long. I'm impressed when I see computers more than 5 years old that are still in perfect working order. Even if then, you have the upgrades issue.

 

You can't run a modern, off-the-shelf computer with Windows 95. Not very well, anyway. What happens five years after they make the 'brain scan computers' that can upload human minds? What happens when human mind software is no longer sufficiently advanced for existing hardware?

[Ragitsu]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

Yeah, but, then you could make the same argument for someone toting an axe compared to, say, someone with an axe-blade that can swing out of a mechanical arm. In effect, the term "cyborg" would lose a bit of it's meaning.

[Sociotard]

Re: Cybernetics and Bioengineering: what are YOUR limits?

 

Exactly. The human arm with an axe is superior to the ax-arm because of the ease with which the human arm can port in different tools. Maybe the axe-arm is stronger. Maybe. But then, why not have powered exo-armor over your arm? Then you can upgrade it in five years!

 

The only way actual implants are going to be advantageous is if tech change slows way down. I doubt this. Even if we hit a bunch of walls and stop really advancing, the tech itself will change for the same reason fashion does.