What is meat good for?

[Eulogy]

We've all seen how inferior flesh and blood is compared to metal and circuitry. As shown on various places, there is pretty much no good reason why somebody, given the chance to switch to a perfectly functioning robot body, would remain as meat.

So, once we have such technology, why would we bother keeping flesh around? What is the point of not upgrading, so to speak?

[ArmorPierce]

I don't want to have sex with metal?

[Qwerty 42]

I was expecting this to be a vegetarian topic, truthfully.

Anyway, one good reason I can think of is regenerative abilities. Metal simply doesn't have any. As well, if a robot gets stuck somewhere in the woods without support, it's much more likely to be screwed.

[Shinova]

I don't want to have sex with metal?

It could be purely mental and virtual sex. You wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

[Feil]

Cost. The ability to reproduce, hence the survival of the species. Overpopulation if problem 2 is solved. But mostly cost.

[ArmorPierce]

I don't know, I think that me knowing that it's not real would make it completely different. If it's just accessible whenever without the effort it takes, it takes away half the fun (of course this is for unmarried/single guys).

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Well, in theory, it's possible to simulate a lot of things in the brain with the right bit of chemistry.

[Shinova]

For cost, assuming enough technology and societal infrastructure, that might not be a problem, or simply on the level similar to maintaining today's modern civilization.

[DrMckay]

Barbecue?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

We've all seen how inferior flesh and blood is compared to metal and circuitry. As shown on various places, there is pretty much no good reason why somebody, given the chance to switch to a perfectly functioning robot body, would remain as meat.

So, once we have such technology, why would we bother keeping flesh around? What is the point of not upgrading, so to speak?

Generally speaking I'd rather just keep replacing parts of my flesh body as they wear out and enhancing the critical ones (progressively transferring more and more memories to computer backups installed in my body to deal with senility) until I'm maybe a skeleton encased in metal and flesh grown in tissue culture vats with a tiny remnant of an organic brain left serving to fill in a last few pieces between the computer components that by that point make up the mind which is my existence, say, three or four hundred years from now. I suppose the next step after that would be fully robotic, but there's something more comfortable about a gradual transition than one done by whole cloth.

Call it an irrational Argonaut impulse: It's still the same ship, even if none of the original materials exist, as long as there's been progressive replacement, because each time some new wood is added, it becomes part of the existing ship, and if that wood, 300 years in the future, is all that's left of the old ship, well, everything else has had time to be part of the structure, and when it's replaced to, it's still the same ship. Just like all the cells in my body have replaced themselves completely since I've been born, but I'm still the same person. So if the technology was there, the way I'd do it is progressively cybernetically enhancing myself until there was nothing left but machinery.

[PeZook]

Anyway, one good reason I can think of is regenerative abilities. Metal simply doesn't have any. As well, if a robot gets stuck somewhere in the woods without support, it's much more likely to be screwed.

Could you survive the winter somewhere out there in the woods, all by yourself?

I know I couldn't. Most people today are already so dependent on civilization they'd be unable to survive away from it anyway. "Regenerating" pieces would simply mean replacing them with spares, and you'd be up and walking after a few hours, rather than months + physical therapy (like after getting shot).

As for having sex...

That's a meat desire

[Broomstick]

I don't want to have sex with metal?

It could be purely mental and virtual sex. You wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

I dunno about that.... when I do it sex it is pretty physical....

(yes, yes, I know it's all in your head in the end. I try to make funny. Hard early in morning, probably need more caffeine)

[Broomstick]

Anyway, one good reason I can think of is regenerative abilities. Metal simply doesn't have any. As well, if a robot gets stuck somewhere in the woods without support, it's much more likely to be screwed.

Could you survive the winter somewhere out there in the woods, all by yourself?

Possibly, because I have more survival/camping/wilderness skills than average, but it'd be a longshot.

"Regenerating" pieces would simply mean replacing them with spares, and you'd be up and walking after a few hours, rather than months + physical therapy (like after getting shot).

Unless, of course, something had to be custom fabricated, in which case you're nonfunctional for however long that takes.

[PeZook]

Unless, of course, something had to be custom fabricated, in which case you're nonfunctional for however long that takes.

Well, at least once the widget is installed, you're up and running again. If you get something like a knee replaced in your soft, meaty and squishy body, you may never be able to run again, depending on how your years-long physical therapy goes.

Of course, the cyber-body would still have critical components, the failure of which would mean death. One major problem I see is battery power - it would suck to die because you forgot to recharge overnight, now wouldn't it?

[Enigma]

What about possibilities of a viral attack? Sure we won't be sneezing or coughing but it would be pretty fatal if the virus is programmed to wipe out our memory\functionality. Think of a virtual STD. You link up with a partner (wireless or jacked into each other ) and your partner uploads a virus into you causing you to die and then later disassembled for parts.

What if you can't afford to replace malfunctioning parts?

[PeZook]

What about possibilities of a viral attack? Sure we won't be sneezing or coughing but it would be pretty fatal if the virus is programmed to wipe out our memory\functionality. Think of a virtual STD. You link up with a partner (wireless or jacked into each other ) and your partner uploads a virus into you causing you to die and then later disassembled for parts.

Yeah, I thought of that. Obviously, it would be considered murder, and pursued as such. The problem is that enforcement will be one hell of a problem.

A secure OS could probably elliminate most of the problem, though. Just remember - don't cyber on the root account!

What if you can't afford to replace malfunctioning parts?

Well, what if you can't afford a doctor? You die, probably. Of course, a civilized nation would simply provide a mech-care system for its citizens free of charge

I have another tought question ; What happens to procreation? We'd have problems both if the hypothetical total conversion uses an organic brain, and if it doesn't.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

What about possibilities of a viral attack?

What about it? Baseline humans can be killed by a wide variety of biological viruses, such as the flu. Or Ebola. Or viral meningitis. And there have been biological weapons labs out there researching these sorts of things.

What if you can't afford to replace malfunctioning parts?

And what if your liver begins to fail and you can't afford a liver transplant, or you die while waiting your turn on the transplant list? I imagine if a cybernetic human, or a full-consciousness-upload android needs a replacement and they can't afford to pay, it'll be just like health care nowadays, since, presumably, civilization would've already sorted out the legal definition of a what entities can be "human being" entitled to "human rights" before people adopt cyberization or virtualization en-masse.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I have another tought question ; What happens to procreation? We'd have problems both if the hypothetical total conversion uses an organic brain, and if it doesn't.

Presumably, if you wished to procreate, you'd have your reproductive bits extracted and frozen before you engaged in total conversion. Or else, they'd throw in such a service as part of the conversion package, just in case you found some man, woman, or wholly synthetic AI you wanted to shack up with some centuries down the line. Or, with sufficiently advanced fabrication and data storage techniques, you could simply have your DNA digitized and fabricate gametes (or with sufficiently advanced processing power simply simulate the whole process on the computer and fabricate the resulting fertilized egg.)

[Aaron]

We've all seen how inferior flesh and blood is compared to metal and circuitry. As shown on various places, there is pretty much no good reason why somebody, given the chance to switch to a perfectly functioning robot body, would remain as meat.

So, once we have such technology, why would we bother keeping flesh around? What is the point of not upgrading, so to speak?

For those of us with children, if we decide to "upgrade" and our children don't then we have to watch them die, that is a pretty shitty prospect.

[Admiral Valdemar]

If you're going to compare a machine and human, then at least let the machine have a suitably organic system that allows regeneration like a Transformer. A human, or any biologic for that matter, has the advantage of regeneration and utilising abundant organic molecules around, but a sufficiently advanced robot should be able to compete.

[Adrian Laguna]

Just like all the cells in my body have replaced themselves completely since I've been born, but I'm still the same person. So if the technology was there, the way I'd do it is progressively cybernetically enhancing myself until there was nothing left but machinery.

Slight problem there, the cells that make you you, your neurons, have not been replaced. They are the same, and that is why you are the same person.

[Sea Skimmer]

I fail to see a way that you could transfer a human mind into a computer that would not in fact be the death of the original mind. Everyone else would never notice, because hey this new cloned mind is exactly the same as the first one, but you the owner of that mind would be fucking dead.

Putting my still functioning brain into some kind of armored robotic exoskeleton would be a different story. Heck if we can hypothetically build computers that can replicate the functions of a brain, then we’ll probably also have nanobots which can keep repairing my fleshy brain on a molecular level until the end of time.

[Gil Hamilton]

I fail to see a way that you could transfer a human mind into a computer that would not in fact be the death of the original mind. Everyone else would never notice, because hey this new cloned mind is exactly the same as the first one, but you the owner of that mind would be fucking dead.

I still don't see this. That the original neurons don't exist anymore doesn't change that. If a person is the sum of their experiences and personality et al, then the person still exists, even if their mind was transfered to computer. It's in a different state, as in it's microcircuitry rather than neurons, but it is still your mind. If all the information is there and in the right order and no one (not even yourself) could tell the difference, then that counts as alive.

After all, in logic and philosophy, one of the basic principles is that something is equivalent to itself. That is, if the something before the transfer is completely the same in all characteristics, then it is the same something.

[Gullible Jones]

I fail to see a way that you could transfer a human mind into a computer that would not in fact be the death of the original mind. Everyone else would never notice, because hey this new cloned mind is exactly the same as the first one, but you the owner of that mind would be fucking dead.

You'd have create a simulated neural network one neuron at a time, cutting off the I/O from each neuron as it was mapped and swapping it for the simulated neuron's. The swap would have to be done very very fast so that delay wouldn't scramble things, and the neural network would have to be run *slow* while the upload was happening.

Yes, I know that's disgustingly impractical, hideously dangerous, and in general is never going to happen outside of an SF story. But there it is.

Putting my still functioning brain into some kind of armored robotic exoskeleton would be a different story. Heck if we can hypothetically build computers that can replicate the functions of a brain, then we’ll probably also have nanobots which can keep repairing my fleshy brain on a molecular level until the end of time.

Computers and nanobots are different beasties.

Also keep in mind that your cells are basically bags of nanotech. Anything we make on that scale will probably be at least as prone to failure; nanotech won't make us immortal.

(That is, of course, ignoring the stupidity of general-purpose molecular machinery. Manipulatory appendages do not work on the nanometer scale. This is why the recent talk among scientists has been about synthetic microorganisms rather than magical Drexlerian nanorobots.)

[Gullible Jones]

I still don't see this. That the original neurons don't exist anymore doesn't change that. If a person is the sum of their experiences and personality et al, then the person still exists, even if their mind was transfered to computer. It's in a different state, as in it's microcircuitry rather than neurons, but it is still your mind. If all the information is there and in the right order and no one (not even yourself) could tell the difference, then that counts as alive.

You've still got a different copy of said person, if their sense of self wasn't continous during the upload. If at any point their mind switches off during the process, they're dead.

After all, in logic and philosophy, one of the basic principles is that something is equivalent to itself. That is, if the something before the transfer is completely the same in all characteristics, then it is the same something.

Think about it this way:

You have two objects - let's say apples. These apples are structured in an identical manner, down to the state of each electron. But they're still two separate apples. An action applied to one apple is not simultaneously applied to the other. If an electron's energy level changes in one apple, the corresponding electron in the other apple may not undergo any change.

Now think of "personalities" instead of "apples" and see where you get.