transhumanism/bionics - would you do it?

[SleepyWitch]

Yesterday I heard and interview with the inventor and futurist Ray Kurzweil on the BBC Worldservice. I'd like to post a link but I can't find it, so I'll summarize his main points:
- human genes/ evolution are deficient, e.g. in that life expectancy hasn't
increased as much as it should (in his opinion)
- merging biological and artificial intelligence is a natural part of human
evolution because we invented those technologies ourselves and they are not
imposed on us by an outside agency (aliens etc.)
- it's already possible for Parkinson's sufferers to have a pea sized computer
in their brain, that can even be updated without an operation by wireless
access
- in the near future these technologies will develop rapidly and we will have
blood cell sized nanobots in our blood, which can clean up cancer cells or
diabetes
- we will also have nanobots in our brains and our brains will be part organic
part artificial; we'll be able to download information from the internet
directly to our brain and will update our software every day; we'll be able to
create a virtual environment inside our brain
- we will be able to download our memories/consciousness/personality onto a
computer or virtual environment and will be immortal; death is not 'natural'
in that death is not what gives meaning to life; it's creativity and
relationships and positive ..stuff that gives meaning to life and death is a
robber of these things

I found all of this very intriguing and appealing, but I'm a bit skeptical. About downloading info from the internet: I tend to think that the human brain needs to acquire information the hard way, i.e. by studying, categorizing, evaluating and making connections. Even if you pick up a lot of information without much of an effort, this sort of information is useless if you can't embed it in your prior knowledge and make connections. So I'm not sure this internet-in-the-brain would work. Personally speaking, it annoys me immensely when I forget things, but then I also find it extremely rewarding to learn new things. If we didn't have to make an effort to find things out, would we lose our curiosity and thus the urge to learn? Maybe if information was that easily accessible, we wouldn't value it that much and no one would be bothered to create new knowledge?
About downloading your consciousness: Ray Kurzweil himself said that consciousness cannot be explained by science and we need philosophy to speculate about it. So how can we be sure this will work? Even if it works, won't the original person 'die' anyway and the newly awakened virtual person will be someone else? I.e. would there be continuity of consciousness?
Nanobots: I can only say this: Imagine you've got a nanobot malfunction and see an NHS doctor about it?
Doctor: "How can I help you?"
Patient: "My nanobots are malfunctioning."
Doctor: "Oh well... just drink a lot of water to flush them out."
Patient: goes home and dies a slow and painful death

What are your views? Please take the poll (you can choose more than one option)

[Lokasenna]

I have to say that I find the idea wholly repugnant. I intend to remain 'human' until the day I die, whenever that may be. Medicine, the concept of healing the sick, is one thing, but this represents a denial of the limits of our species.

It should only be taken so far: if you can cure diabetes, then great. You're treating a specific, identifiable ailment. But old age is not the same as illness.

Personally speaking, I'm rather looking forward to death, though I hope it will be a while off yet. It'll be an experience, if nothing else.

[Virgil]

Mostly sounds absurd, especially downloading information right into the brain. I think Loka said it perfectly. Not only will I remain human, but I will enjoy it.

[dafydd manton]

That's three of us, then.

[SleepyWitch]

Mostly sounds absurd, especially downloading information right into the brain.

Yeah, I don't believe in this either, because accessing information (as in being able to read/hear it) isn't the same as understanding it. E.g. if I was able to access a wiki article about nuclear physics or something directly in my brain, it would still take me a long time to understand it. So what's the difference between reading it on a computer screen or 'reading' it inside your brain?

[dafydd manton]

Frankly, there are times when that old adage "ignorance is bliss" is a great sanity saver!

[Emil Miller]

Personally speaking, I'm rather looking forward to death,

I used to feel like that when I had to get up every morning to go to work.

On a more serious note, this is an intriguing idea. Of course, we tend to instinctively balk at such suggestions because they are currently beyond human experience, but there are no boundaries to science except that of human extinction and, beyond that scenario, if a thing can be done, it will be.
I was recently listening to a programme about robotics, in which the Japanese have invested untold millions, and they are working to make robots sentient beings with humanoid appearance and characteristics.
Naturally enough, the problems this might cause for Homo sapiens appear pretty obvious but this research is moving ahead at a fairly rapid pace.
If you believe, as I do, that the purpose of human existence is to conquer death, then these technologies are justified

[LMK]

All in all, I don't know, but I think anything is possible, yet just because it's possible doesn't mean I think it ought to be done.

Death is a part of life, sad in that we miss those who go before us, perhaps frightening in its process, but death is just death, nothing more nothing less, simply the end of the life of xyz in this existence as xyz. Beyond that, who knows?

To leave my consciousness behind is only misunderstandings, world wars, and perhaps a couple of food fights just waiting to happen, so I will forgo that option.

And I have enough issues being me, I don't need foreign bodies inside me; although it would give me an out should I blurt out something inappropriate.
"Please don't mind me, it's the nanobots, you see."
"Oh, the nanobots, of course, say no more."

[JuniperWoolf]

In terms of bionics, I have a boyfriend who was born with a bad heart so it would be really cool if they could make him a new one. As far as transhumanism goes, it's just not going to happen. We don't even almost understand how the brain works, we're not going to get to the point where we can just upload our conciousness into the internet. No point speculating.

[papayahed]

[OrphanPip]

Ha, that person takes transhumanism to a bit of an extreme, although technically transhumanism involves any philosophical belief that humans can be improved through technology. Which is true, there are a lot of diseases, genetic disorders, and physical trauma we can't fix yet, and it's reasonable to want to do that. Getting into the debate of whether or not we should actively improve on things like strength, intelligence, and such is up to debate. The argument is reasonably made that taking medicine to extend your life is no different than having an artificial heart or genetic manipulation to extend your life, and it's a good argument.

I'm not familiar Kurzweil, but Julian Savulescu makes a very good argument that neglecting to enhance your child to the utmost of what technology allows is just the same as denying vitamins, or early childhood education. He argues we not only should enhance humans, but that we have a duty to do so.

Most of what's up in that post is well in the science fiction realm. Genetic engineering of humans is within reach, human cloning is a possibility already (it would require killing a lot of fetuses to achieve though, and it wouldn't produce a healthy person), and we already use artificial parts replacements for heart valves. This stuff is coming, whether we want it or not.

[Leland Gaunt]

I don't see too many problems, so long as I remained autonomous. I do agree with the previous posters on connecting the brain with the internet, having the information does not equal comprehension. Besides that, I already have a great deal of problems keeping my computer virus free, I don't need to worry about doing the same for my brain. As to immortality, or extending the average human life span, I suppose that the first 200 years would be great but after that boredom would set in...permanently.

Medicine, the concept of healing the sick, is one thing, but this represents a denial of the limits of our species.

I don't see the distinction. How is utilizing nanobots any different than using vaccinations to prevent individuals from contracting a disease, isn't that a denial of our species' limits as well?

it's just not going to happen. We don't even almost understand how the brain works, we're not going to get to the point where we can just upload our conciousness into the internet. No point speculating.

Why, not? Just because we currently do not have the knowledge does not mean that it isn't available.

I'm not familiar Kurzweil, but Julian Savulescu makes a very good argument that neglecting to enhance your child to the utmost of what technology allows is just the same as denying vitamins, or early childhood education. He argues we not only should enhance humans, but that we have a duty to do so.

I can see where he is coming from, but isn't/won't technology such as that be a good deal more expensive than vitamins or early education?

[ClaesGefvenberg]

Interesting topic, to say the least... and the above concepts are not new to any reader of Science Fiction.

We started out by using wooden legs or hooks as parts of our anatomy went missing. Today we have progressed to implants, transplanted organs and artificial limbs, sometimes controlled by nerve impulses. Personally, I expect to use at least some of the above before I reach my journeys end, and who knows what tomorrow will bring when Sci Fi of today turns to Sci Fact...

The real question is: Where do we reach the borders of humanity? I have a feeling that they are further away than we can imagine.

/Claes

[Virgil]

I don't see too many problems, so long as I remained autonomous. I do agree with the previous posters on connecting the brain with the internet, having the information does not equal comprehension. Besides that, I already have a great deal of problems keeping my computer virus free, I don't need to worry about doing the same for my brain.

Now that is actually funny. Can you imagine what would happen if the brain got a computer virus? Would we go into convulsions like an epilectic or would we go catatonic? Now that could be a funny sci-fi story.

[SleepyWitch]

Now that is actually funny. Can you imagine what would happen if the brain got a computer virus? Would we go into convulsions like an epilectic or would we go catatonic? Now that could be a funny sci-fi story.

On a more serious note, wouldn't those nanobots enable advertisers, Big Brother governments, terrorists and nosy people to hack into our brains and spy on us or manipulate us?