What is meat good for?

[Kuroneko]

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.

Why would that be a requirement? Most people's sense of self isn't continuous, for example, when they sleep. Still lower forms of both consciousness and brain activity can be found cases of vegetative state patients, some of which do recover. And in a hypothetical world where, say, cryogenic technology has no difficulties it normally does, it would be possible to recover from a state of zero brain activity altogether.

The only way your statement makes sense is if you favor psychological continuity rather than continuity of consciousness or brain activity with respect to time. But then this is clearly achievable in a hypothetical 'mind upload' if no 'mind-cloning' occurs (i.e., if there are never two separate entities psychologically continuous with your original self). Perhaps the possibility of such cloning demonstrates that something is wrong with the psychological continuity view as well (or not), but the point is simply this: either 'mind-uploads' can in some circumstances satisfy the psychological continuity criterion or the criterion itself is faulty--either way, objections on those grounds disappear.

[Gil Hamilton]

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.

Unfortunately, the illustrious Kuroneko beat me to the punch, but he's right. There exist states when your requirement for life don't exist, but the person is still alive.

By argument is that the person, at least the important bits that define a person, continually exist, regardless of their state, even if they happen to exist as information. The difference comes down to a point of philosophy. If the copy is identical in every way, it being a copy is a trivial point. Even you can claim that the original is dead and the copy is a different person, it boils down to the punch line of half the "a mathmatician, a scientist, and an engineer go to heaven" jokes I know. That is "Close enough".

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.

Actually, if they apples were structured identically and all their electrons were in exactly the same position and state, then I would in fact argue that they were the same apple. It would be impossible for them not to be. I'm legally required to beat you with a quantum mechanics textbook for making that argument.

But even going with the spirit of your argument, it's not really good. If you make two of something and then change one, they aren't identical anymore. However, that's a strawman to what I'm talking about in uploading ones mind into a computer. I'm talking about a change from neurons to microchips and saying that they really don't die at the interface when the upload is made, not duplicating someone (though I suppose you could by the same process, by making multiple copies).

[Justforfun000]

Of course this is a silly question in essence because true life only seems to exist in organic matter, no? I mean the true definition of 'alive' could never be applied to something made of metal. No one has ever brought a robot to life. A robot has never procreated and created life. A simulation of life is a possibility, but none of this has that 'spark' of creativity that enables an acorn to become a tremendous oak, or a foetus a baby.

[Gullible Jones]

Of course this is a silly question in essence because true life only seems to exist in organic matter, no? I mean the true definition of 'alive' could never be applied to something made of metal. No one has ever brought a robot to life. A robot has never procreated and created life. A simulation of life is a possibility, but none of this has that 'spark' of creativity that enables an acorn to become a tremendous oak, or a foetus a baby.

Now that is a stupid argument. Vital force, anyone?

[Mobiboros]

<snip>

I was thinking the exact same thing. Gradual replacement over time so each new piece becomes the "original" as it gets assimilated in. WOuld even work for the brain. A part breaks down, replace it. In time that part is "You" now. Eventually the entire brain could become a computer system but done slowly to allow "You" to encompass the new parts.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Seriously. If I'm a skeleton surrounded in metal and wires surrounded by vat-grown flesh with a remnant of my organic brain surrounded by completely integrated computer aided storage and processing devices to keep me from being senile in, like I said, 300 years or so, I'm still going to unquestionably be myself. How could I not be? I'd have the same memories and personality and I'd function in society in the same fashion. We only get into philosophical issues when the last bit of actual brain function is replaced entirely by computer components, and that might be a very gradual process.

[Gil Hamilton]

Seriously. If I'm a skeleton surrounded in metal and wires surrounded by vat-grown flesh with a remnant of my organic brain surrounded by completely integrated computer aided storage and processing devices to keep me from being senile in, like I said, 300 years or so, I'm still going to unquestionably be myself. How could I not be? I'd have the same memories and personality and I'd function in society in the same fashion. We only get into philosophical issues when the last bit of actual brain function is replaced entirely by computer components, and that might be a very gradual process.

I don't really see why you need the remnant of your organic brain since conceivably you'd have all that stuff without it and then you could dispense with your brains life support apparatus.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I don't really see why you need the remnant of your organic brain since conceivably you'd have all that stuff without it and then you could dispense with your brains life support apparatus.

That would be the next seamless step after that point.

Since your skeleton can last centuries longer than the other parts of your body there's no reason to dispense with it, either. And we can easily grow tissue in cultures, so there's no reason why you can't just have real life flesh grafted on. Definitely makes sex more viable...

[PeZook]

Since your skeleton can last centuries longer than the other parts of your body there's no reason to dispense with it, either. And we can easily grow tissue in cultures, so there's no reason why you can't just have real life flesh grafted on. Definitely makes sex more viable...

To be honest, by the time we let go of the squishy organic parts and chemical stimulants that run out brains, it's entirely possible we won't desire sex at all. After all, it's just an instinct wired into our fleshy brains by evolution, and steered by chemicals secreted by various squishy thingies.

The new full-conversion society will probably not resemble our own. And I mean - it will be something absolutely alien to today's humans - probably to the point where a baseline human would go insane after living in it for some time.

[Adrian Laguna]

Seriously. If I'm a skeleton surrounded in metal and wires surrounded by vat-grown flesh with a remnant of my organic brain surrounded by completely integrated computer aided storage and processing devices to keep me from being senile in, like I said, 300 years or so, I'm still going to unquestionably be myself. How could I not be? I'd have the same memories and personality and I'd function in society in the same fashion. We only get into philosophical issues when the last bit of actual brain function is replaced entirely by computer components, and that might be a very gradual process.

The depends entirely on what you consider the self to be. I prefer the concrete definition that relies upon the hardware. If you replace a sufficient number of your neurons, then you have died and been replaced by an exact copy. At this point it's a matter of personality. Your copy may consider itself to still be Marina, mine will assume a different name because Adrian died.

[Ford Prefect]

Since your skeleton can last centuries longer than the other parts of your body there's no reason to dispense with it, either.

I don't know about you, but I don't want to keep snapping my bones like twigs everytime I try to do something with my shiny new electrically-active carbon polymer myscles.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Since your skeleton can last centuries longer than the other parts of your body there's no reason to dispense with it, either.

I don't know about you, but I don't want to keep snapping my bones like twigs everytime I try to do something with my shiny new electrically-active carbon polymer myscles.

I'm not particularly interested in having more muscle strength than I do now, so that would be a design flaw.

P.S. PeZook, I don't believe so, since nobody would consent to have this done to them unless it precisely duplicated their prior biological influences. I mean, seriously, how hard will it be to simulate the effects of a couple lame bio-chemicals like estrogen and so on to a society which accomplish the other engineering and computing feats we've just described here? It will be a weird person indeed who would volunteer to have their whole emotional experience changed like that. Me, I would most certainly not do so, and be quite comfortable with that. Unideal? Perhaps, but I will like it more, and personal desire happens to be the main reason for people to keep on living in the first place.

[PeZook]

P.S. PeZook, I don't believe so, since nobody would consent to have this done to them unless it precisely duplicated their prior biological influences. I mean, seriously, how hard will it be to simulate the effects of a couple lame bio-chemicals like estrogen and so on to a society which accomplish the other engineering and computing feats we've just described here?

It's more than a couple bio-chemicals ; Some human behavior is the direct result of physical imperfections of the brain (which is a mess). Even if emotional states and sexual desire is replicated, it's almost guaranteed that one's perception of the world and even thinking patterns would change fundamentally upon transition to a mechanical body.

Things like, say, ellimination of art are probably far-fetched, but the way we reason about problems or make purchasing decisions would most definitely become completely alien.

Not to mention things like perfect recollection of memories, or the ability to delete, edit and share those memories at will over the Internet. Or direct brain-marketing, or things like Second Life becoming literally part of your experiences. It's entirely possible that just the simple ability to manage your memory-files would make this new society unbearable for a baseline, non-cybernetized human.

Other examples include ubiquous virtual sex, the necessity to upgrade your brain-firewall regularly, and the fact most people would no longer have any real meals. We could expect most "traditional" social activity like drinking, eating, sex, movies, arts, etc. to be done in the virtual world, untill people got bored with it and they shrivelled away some 4-5 centuries into the post-human future.

Procreation is an interesting problem in and of itself ; Do we create new infants out of stored DNA and then upload them? Or perhaps prospecting parents would just order a new mech-body and raise it as you would a child?

Would you even need parents? Why couldn't children be raised in the virtual reality by AI-parents, to be released into the world upon maturing. Who would know the difference between AI and "real" people, anyway?

You can already envision giant child-factories, with millions of electronic brains lining the walls, being fed information and shaped by the mother-computer. And behind the wall, a production line works, loading the CPUs into their own custom-made cyber bodies, in a new ritual of passage of the XXXth century.

Hell, you won't even need homes, just docking stations to recharge the body. Need to rest? Jack into the station while walking down the street, and relax in your virtual home.

Provided you can create good enough virtual simulations, that is. But, move far enough into the future, and it becomes a non-issue.

It will be a weird person indeed who would volunteer to have their whole emotional experience changed like that. Me, I would most certainly not do so, and be quite comfortable with that. Unideal? Perhaps, but I will like it more, and personal desire happens to be the main reason for people to keep on living in the first place.

You know, when we're talking about uploading yourself into a mechanical body and the cultural differences it would spawn, "weird" doesn't even begin to cover it

[Oskuro]

I think the concept of organic life being special is a fairly common type of brainbug.

I mean, we've been improving (or trying to improve) ourselves since the dawn of time, and the ability to redesign our bodies and eliminate inherent evolutionary flaws would actually be the next step in our path to take control of our own evolution.

Now, substitution of flesh for artificial components is already taking place, and if technologies improve to the point of replacing even our nervous systems, it probably won't come as such a shocking procedure (specially if it is a procedure that can save people from Alzheimer's, or even correct Dawn's Syndrome).

Now, society will certainly change, as it has already changed.

One of the major issues presented on the previous posts is reproduction... Now, in the hypothetical situation in wich we can become full biotechnological constructs, and virtually immortal... The question is, do we really want to reproduce ourselves?

It wouldn't just be a matter of overcrowding, but also a matter of actual need for reproduction. If we can upgrade both our minds and bodies, what need is there to spawn a new generation? That would be the most alien concept of such a society, total independence from biological needs, specially reproduction and all that is associated with it.

Now, would I do it? Well, not now of course, even if our biological needs are a mere addiction, I like said addictions , but as a society, I see such an evolution, gradual as it must be, a necessity, and completely desirable. Of course, there would be a point where we could no longer be considered "homo sapiens", or even human.


Oh, and another concept. If I could choose to become fully technological while living in a mixed society (where reproduction is still an option), I would probably choose to eventually lose my reproductive ability... I'm no specialist on the subject but... Wouldn't the insertion of several-centuries-old genetic material have adverse effects on the gene pool? Not that I care about the gene pool specifically, but I wouldn't risk having a baby suffer the lack of a certain trait that has surfaced during my (artificial) lifetime. After all, adoption is as good an option.


In retrospect, this thread is more about how we define what makes us human than the use of meat, don't you think?

[PeZook]

One of the major issues presented on the previous posts is reproduction... Now, in the hypothetical situation in wich we can become full biotechnological constructs, and virtually immortal... The question is, do we really want to reproduce ourselves?

I suppose this can also be chalked up to meat-desires, but some expansion will be necessary unless the future society decides to just wither away and die off slowly because of lack of energy input.

Thinking about it some more, if we lost the will and need to reproduce, would a post-human society be able to find a reason to continue existing, or degenerate into pleasure-seeking Internet junkies, with no actual ambition, curiosity or desire to improve themselves?

In retrospect, this thread is more about how we define what makes us human than the use of meat, don't you think?

Pretty much, yeah. I would add another question: "Is 'being human' essential for you to retain your identity?" - you could argue that it is, since an artificial body without chemically-stirred impulses and emotions would have a totally different personality from the initial mind-donor.

On the other hand, there's things about "being human" that just plain suck, like hate, false memories, negative instincts and Pavlov's conditioning.

[Natorgator]

Pretty much, yeah. I would add another question: "Is 'being human' essential for you to retain your identity?" - you could argue that it is, since an artificial body without chemically-stirred impulses and emotions would have a totally different personality from the initial mind-donor.

I think that in converting to artificial organisms we'd lose more of our humanity than we think: we could possibly lose our sexual desires, our ability to love, the emotional highs and lows that are an integral part of our lives. A lot of those baser desires and traits are intrinsically entwined with various "squishy parts," to borrow a term that someone else used.

In short, I'd be all for a robot body (I am reminded of that Sealab episode every time this discussion comes up) if nothing in my personality changed. However, I don't think that it's really possible.

[Turin]

I think that in converting to artificial organisms we'd lose more of our humanity than we think: we could possibly lose our sexual desires, our ability to love, the emotional highs and lows that are an integral part of our lives. A lot of those baser desires and traits are intrinsically entwined with various "squishy parts," to borrow a term that someone else used.

And if our personality is tied up in software, why exactly is it that we can't still have software versions of our "squishy parts"?

Of course, whether we'd really want all of them after a long enough time is another matter... I assume the first few generations to be "born" into such a society would have a lot of sentimental attachment to their old bodies, but as time goes on you can have entities that have only ever existed as software.

[PeZook]

And if our personality is tied up in software, why exactly is it that we can't still have software versions of our "squishy parts"?

Of course, whether we'd really want all of them after a long enough time is another matter... I assume the first few generations to be "born" into such a society would have a lot of sentimental attachment to their old bodies, but as time goes on you can have entities that have only ever existed as software.

If your base desires are tied up in software, and you try an experiment and disable this software for a bit, and then change completely - enough that you think emotions and sexual desire are ridiculous, are you still you?

A machine body with a mchine mind can essentially change the way it thinks and perceives at will, with a software update. Makes for some really weird philospohical questions, doesn't it?

Thinking about possible post-human futures is a little bit scary, I have to admit that.

[Turin]

And if our personality is tied up in software, why exactly is it that we can't still have software versions of our "squishy parts"?

Of course, whether we'd really want all of them after a long enough time is another matter... I assume the first few generations to be "born" into such a society would have a lot of sentimental attachment to their old bodies, but as time goes on you can have entities that have only ever existed as software.

If your base desires are tied up in software, and you try an experiment and disable this software for a bit, and then change completely - enough that you think emotions and sexual desire are ridiculous, are you still you?

This is really a matter of degree. Our mental state is in a continuous state of change anyway. The degree to which you are "still you" compared to the you of two minutes ago is just a much lesser change than a software upgrade.

A machine body with a mchine mind can essentially change the way it thinks and perceives at will, with a software update. Makes for some really weird philospohical questions, doesn't it?

If I argue this point with you until you've changed your mind on it, haven't you changed the way you think "at will"? Again, it's a matter of degree (assuming that any "upgrades" are voluntary, of course).

[PeZook]

This is really a matter of degree. Our mental state is in a continuous state of change anyway. The degree to which you are "still you" compared to the you of two minutes ago is just a much lesser change than a software upgrade.

You know what? I agree with you. I could probably make a case that "me" at 14 years of age is not really "me" today. Of course, that leads to the conclusion that the only really continuous identity trait are memories.

If I argue this point with you until you've changed your mind on it, haven't you changed the way you think "at will"? Again, it's a matter of degree (assuming that any "upgrades" are voluntary, of course).

What I mean is that a mechanized mind will be able to change dramatically with the flip of a button. I agree it is a matter of degrees, and I don't think this is necessarily bad, just that you'd be able to instantly reprogram yourself given the right resources.

However, I wonder...without emotions as we understand them (driven by instinct and/or chemicals) would social conditioning even work? We could replace it with literal programming, of course - but what of people who install software patches that remove such programming?

This future society could literally reprogram its soldiers to be obedient killers. I don't think our current notions of "the self" and "identity" would be relevant in any way in this case.

[Turin]

What I mean is that a mechanized mind will be able to change dramatically with the flip of a button. I agree it is a matter of degrees, and I don't think this is necessarily bad, just that you'd be able to instantly reprogram yourself given the right resources.

However, I wonder...without emotions as we understand them (driven by instinct and/or chemicals) would social conditioning even work? We could replace it with literal programming, of course - but what of people who install software patches that remove such programming?

This future society could literally reprogram its soldiers to be obedient killers. I don't think our current notions of "the self" and "identity" would be relevant in any way in this case.

Sure. But I suspect that by the time we're to the point where this is possible, we're looking at a society controlled transhuman intelligences of some sort or another that are completely non-meat, with machines doing all the real physical labor to maintain that society. Whether these entities are completely artificial or human "uploads" is irrelevant, because once a human is uploaded to software it can expand considerably (much like what you're concerned about, actually).

Because all or most the thinking beings are software-only, you're talking about a nearly post-scarcity society, which eliminates a lot of the need for the sort of violent conflict you're talking about. (Although you might have conflict over energy resources, I suppose.)

[Oskuro]

I suppose this can also be chalked up to meat-desires, but some expansion will be necessary unless the future society decides to just wither away and die off slowly because of lack of energy input.

I agree that expansion, or development, is necessary, but my point was that, since with the aforementioned artificial bodies we can freely upgrade ourselves, there's no need for reproduction to achieve said development. We could incorporate new technologies that upgrade our minds and bodies without having to spawn a new creature to take our place.

Thinking about it some more, if we lost the will and need to reproduce, would a post-human society be able to find a reason to continue existing, or degenerate into pleasure-seeking Internet junkies, with no actual ambition, curiosity or desire to improve themselves?

...

This future society could literally reprogram its soldiers to be obedient killers. I don't think our current notions of "the self" and "identity" would be relevant in any way in this case.

That's a probable outcome, seeing as how our instinctive individuality is (I think) a result of the need to compete with others to propagate our genetic information. Without the need for competitive behavior, individuality would probably fade, leading to a hive-mind sort of thing.

Still, it is possible that in this state of faded individuality, we would still strive to better ourselves as a whole, specially considering that every new advancement can instantly be applied throughout the entire species... And who knows what new challenges we could face given our new situation (challenges we cannot endure in our current form, I mean).

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You're ascribing to much to genetics and brain functions as though they require a continuous input rather than have lasting consequences to the personality simply from existing in the first place. As people get older, for example, their bodies change dramatically in how much input of different kinds of hormones they have. This doesn't stop older women from wanting to have sex, however, and definitely not older men, nor does it stop older men from being selfish, arrogant bastards who would send millions of young boys to their deaths on the field of battle for their private ambitions.

Everything you say would be true about sentient robotic lifeforms that we create from whole cloth, but we're going to have the legacy, our personalities, all the information data in our heads, has already been influenced by the squishy "meat", and that means that we're not going to magically upgrade those behaviours out of existence; we would have to actively erase the knowledge of our prior existence to do so, and nobody would do that because it would defeat the whole purpose of the transfer, which is obviously immortality.

Think about it for a moment. All of your memories and experience and your worldview, everything that makes you who you are, has already been influenced by those chemicals and processes for decades. The legacy of that will have an impact on the sort of mental functions reproduced in a robotic body because they'll all still be the same data as they were before. This is one of the fundamental errors of transhumanism; it assumes that just because you get rid of what creates certain behaviours means you can eliminate the behaviours. To use an analogy, just because I stop shooting the flamethrower at a pile of logs doesn't mean that the fire I started in them is going to go out.

[NeoGoomba]

Just slap an "orgasm" command in my new HUD right next to my "eye laser" and "turbo boost" commands, and I'll be happy to take part in the glorious robot revolution.

[Darth Ruinus]

Thinking about it some more, if we lost the will and need to reproduce, would a post-human society be able to find a reason to continue existing, or degenerate into pleasure-seeking Internet junkies, with no actual ambition, curiosity or desire to improve themselves?

Well, why not? If we can get to the level where all we do is have fun, pleasure seeking, then whats so wrong with that? Isn't that the whole point?

I always pictured it to be like old age, at some point, you retire, and you live off of the hard work you have done in all your life, you go buy a nice house somewhere. Isnt that what happens here? You, and humanity as a whole is "retiring" you get to live off of the hard work of all of human history that has led up to this robo-society.

You want to learn? Fine, I am guessing you could put yourself into a supercomputer and learn at a super fast rate about the universe. Improve yourself? Yeah, get some AIs to work on upgrades for yourself.

Seriously, when your entire race can just kick back and have fun, that seems like ultimate win for me.

This future society could literally reprogram its soldiers to be obedient killers. I don't think our current notions of "the self" and "identity" would be relevant in any way in this case.

Why would conflict even be necessary at this point? Unless thats what you like, and you just program lots of robot droids to fight for your amusement.