/sci/ - Science & Math

When fusing nerves becomes possible and carbon nanotubes go into mass production. Just my thought on it. (a gauess)

You'd still have to account as to how you would conduct through fucking carbon though. Carbon has very high resistivity though. Then you would have to account the area, and length of the tubes to get an accurate estimate of the amount of voltage you'd have to run though it. I guess my idea sounds pretty fucking stupid, but I know shit about anatomy.

Within 200 years, I would think.

Ideally within 70, so that I may have a chance to do it myself.

>>1663767
I would think replacing normal neurons with silicon replacements would work fine. Yes, it's not taking a brain and putting it in a robot body, but more of the opposite, replacing your brain with a silicon copy.

read up on braingate.com, it’s a company that is doing very interesting research right now. deep brain interfaces in the next 20 years, control of artificial limbs soon (actually largely possible now, the technology just need to improve to make it safe for long term implantation).

>>1663777
Maybe I'm just looking at it from a physics major standpoint, but silicon does not seem like an effective replacement. Not everything can be solved by purely synthetic means. The way I see it, the parts that make you who you are, consist of the spinal column and main nervous structure, and the brain. I took two anatomy classes, and from my very limited experience and formal education on the matter, that area looks like a perfect place to "hook into" the brain and the body; And from there into an artificial body. Grown nerve cells out of stem cells looks like the best possible solution to connect the actual shell to the brain though.

Replacing parts of the brain seems to defeat the purpose of life extension though. I am not expecting immortality, simply a life extension where humans will not be limited by the body, but by the biological life span of the brain.

>>1663814
Oh. I was thinking more about biological immortality, by getting rid of our faulty brains and switching them with a synthetic replacement.

>>1663770

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/1BkmQ6/en.vidivodo.com/188787/first-cyborg-of-the-world

sooner than you think

>>1663770
>Ideally within 70, so that I may have a chance to do it myself.
http://www.hplusmagazine.com/articles/forever-young/manhattan-beach-project-end-aging-2029

I plan to enhance my brain when it were proved to be safe, with time more and more artificial parts will be inplanted in my brain and neurons will die of natural causes until I reach the point that my brain will be 100% artificial. Most likely most of my body will be artificial by this point too so all I will need will be get rid of the few organic leftovers.

>>1663826
it wouldn't be a matter of "replace with silicon" but a large number of communicating complex molecular machines that would permeate through the brain and passively monitor, then mimic the function of existing cells, then download their data and relationship to each other into a fully synthetic substrate, and/or maintain their position in the body. They would probably be made mostly of carbon.

>>1663834

If I had an autographed picture of Carl Sagan for every time you post that link...

But don't get me wrong, that would be awesome, but I'm not really holding my breath, otherwise I'll end up all disappoint at the future, just another lobster at the bottom of the tank waving his claws at other lobsters passing by in the accelerating future.

Wow I have to stop reading Accelerando.

>>1663832
Holy. Fuck.

That was. Incredible.

I knew we could do it, but damn!

I want to volunteer to be the first human to do it.

>>1663868

>I want to volunteer to be the first human to do it.

You should think this through man.

Who knows what happens when they press the button.

All those monsters from deep inside the mind, the rapists, the tyrants and the murderers that reside inside us, they might find a escape route through the fragile circuits of silicon-buckminsterfullerene stuck in your head.

>>1663875

BRING
IT
ON

>>1663875
Maybe you will not be yourself anymore. Hormones interfere with our behavior so they are part of our personality, and some of them are produced outside our brain.

Maybe without sexual hormones your brain will be uninterested in sex and become non-aggressive

I seek to give up only half of my humanity--the illogical, ill-tempered, and disordered half.

Have fun on the robot reservation.
We're not gonna honor those bogus treaties.

>>1663859
Picture very related.

>>1663888

Okay, but first sign *here* with your name and *here* with your initials. It's so I don't get sued if something happens.

Like shards of diamond sliding into your brain from the Carbon-compound microchips. Oh God fullerene chips would be the shit.

>>1663905
Are you female?

>>1663939
no, would adore any woman who'd quote that though, heh

>>1663925
lets...kill a human

Apparently there's some autism offshoot where the person is disturbed by being hugged by humans, but not but non-human robots, or even sentient machines.

So /sci/: Human/robot relationships anyone? How often will we see Westboro burning and persecuting vecs? And how many lonely fat 4channer virgins would get one?

>>1663972
Just because I have autism doesn't mean that I cannot logically undestand the reasons why we need to go transhuman. I can't stand introlanct people like you who hate on autists because ywe are knowtice more things but are socially awkarrd

It's physically impossible to remove the brain from the body while maintaining it. Plus scarring would occur and cause permanent damage AKA fribosis.

>>1663982

Am I getting trolled or did you not getthe point?

>>1663972
4channers will be screwing home robots when they are still just metal boxes on wheels.
inB4 rule 34 on Roomba.

>>1663997

But... What about robots that can feel love? ;_;

>>1664021
A robot that can "feel love" wouldn't be a robot. Also, that's impossible.

>>1663983
no it's not

>>1664033

Well fuck, at least I can get some sexbots.

Fuck yeah sexbots.

mfw this becomes possible.

The power source is the main problem.

Nanofabrication of brain implants are probably just around the corner, that is how the brain will communicate.

To keep the brain alive I think you'd need glucose and an ECMO, plus some other machinery for blood conditioning.

>>1664033

Could a robot run a simulation of love?

Fuck, as long as it pretends to be Dors Venabili I'm happy.

>>1664040
>>1664040
Yes it is. Scars will be made if it's removed from CSF.

>>1664080

Who said anything about removing the brain? Just gradually move consciousness from one brain to the other!

>>1664088
That's impossible. The brain is your mind. It isn't a box.

>>1663826

immortality?

You'll literally kill your normal human body if you copy yourself to a robot. Can't well have both trying to live the same life without major complications. By the robot's persepective, it believes itself to be you simply because it has your memories. You will in fact kill yourself to allow some automaton to perform a parady of your life.

>>1664103
your mind is data held in the electrochemical meat slurry inside a bony box, with sufficiently high fidelity, copying 'you' into another system won’t be a problem.

>>1664131
But that won't be you that would be a copy.

>>1664146

You could think of it that way, or you could look at it the bright way and think of your new you as a living algorithm, which sounds cool enough.

>>1664146
OH BOY!

>>1662871

>>1664146
a impotent sense of self on your part doesn't mean a problem on my part. If it has my memories, thoughts, feelings and opinions at the time of transfer we are both me. Personally I want to create a network of me and be come a distributed super mind. with killbots.

What if instead of replacing the body, you were kept in a tank, and through digital signal, could control and artificial body?

>>1664172
Watch the movie "Surrogates". That's what they do.

Also: The Matrix. Although it was more of a video game of life instead of controlling something in actuality.

>So, are there any estimates of how long till we have human beings living in robot bodies.
>human beings living in robots
>human beings... robots
They wouldn't be human.

>>1664192

Ever heard "To be more than human is to be human"?

inb4 Conservapedia nuts saying transhumanism is about "disgusting implants".

How long until we can just keep implanting ourselves into new bodies and then make branching bodies until we become some sort of overmind? I don't want to be a robot. I want to be an amalgamation of ten men, three women, and a cat of indeterminable gender, who commune with a giant pulsating brain.

there won't be any of that. this is what the technological singulairty will look like; awesome shit we'll just skip because it's already outdated before it's even possible.

there will never be elective prosthesis, instead we will skip straight to clouds of nanomachines. nanobots will be injected into your bloodstream which will gradually find and replace all neurons (or even all cells). continuity of experience will be maintained, and after the process is completed you will be (functionally) omnipresent and omnipotent, and of course completely immune to mostly all harm.

IMO robotics can only go so far. I would put my money into bioengineering.

>>1664211

What about all human minds combined into the GLORIOUS MATRIOSHKA BRAIN?

You guys are fucking stupid. Any university professor would lol at your face with so much force that your eardrums would pop.

Captcha:Genetics clawalts

>>1664214
That wont happen because you can't make money that way.

>>1664224
and by my calculations we are all going to die horribly HAHA!

>Don't replace brain
>500 years from now the world is populated by raging, demented "old-people" robots
>MFW

>>1664215
Bioengineering is just a bastardized subset of nanotech so robotics is the long term winner anyway.

>>1664198

I got a question. If the transhumanists follow that little phrase as a means to validate thier existence, wouldn't they eventually begin to look down upon the average human as they have chosen not to undergo the procedure. I think the transhumanists would feel a great sense of superiority in not only thier new body, but also the "victory" of having fulfilled thier ambition to become "more than human"

It sounds to me that while thier physical and mental processes would be greatly strengthened, they would most likely lose thier ability to empathise with the very same species they were once a member of and indeed still consider themselves to be.

Arguably, that lack of empathy would make them less human than any physical changes they underwent.

Why are smart people so dead set on removing their ability to reproduce?

>>1664248
>I think ...
I think this says way more about YOU than it says about transhumanists.

>>1664214

>omnipresent and omnipotent

This is why I dislike transhumanists. Should even a fraction of thier dreams ever be realised, they will have the most bloated egos the world has ever seen.

If you're so omnipotent, why not go try tackling the sun with your fabulous new robot body.

>>1664248

Huh. Interesting.

Transhumanists 'ascending' and then looking down on people...

>>1664251

this made me lol simply because of how startling true it is

>>1664251
The want to reproduce is partly a want to live forever. One cannot live forever so one settles for allowing his or her genetic code living on in one form or another. If one was actually immortal then that reason for reproducing would be nullified.

>>1664251
If I'm a hyper sapient multinodal entity consuming the solar system to build more processors, I'm pretty sure I've won the reproduction war.

>>1664251
Because its disgusting. I masturbate to get rid of the urges for a little while, but they come back after the refractory period is over. Its more a nuisance really. I understand the value of reproduction, but I could always retain control instead of losing myself to some primal urge.

>>1664263
I share the same goals as the anon you quoted, but I do not see omnipotence as something that should be achieved. To me, that defeats the entire purpose of being a single entity. Humility is a vital trait in the sciences.

>>1664274
It is very ironic that your feeling of disgust is a product of your biology. Getting rid of your body wouldn't simply remove what disgusts you, it would also remove the mechanism of disgust.

>>1664271
>>1664273
>>1664274
So in other words, you want to die out over time, and not even spread your smart genes back into humanity? It's like some inbuilt mechanic to keep humans from getting more intelligent. Maybe it's why other animals can't be like humans.

>>1664248

I agree with this stance

Once the singularity happens and man becomes that omnipotent entity, I, alone, will remain as an unchanged human.

I will then dedicate my life to not believing in a single one of you and attempting to prove you don't exist.

>>1664287
Why should I care about your inferiority complex?

>>1664198
>to be a teacup means to not be a teacup
You are wrong, and not just the normal kind of wrong. You outright defined yourself to be wrong.

>>1664274

everytime you go to fap, think of Rosie O'Donnell Naked, doing goatse.

>>1664286
I will reproduce if I find a mate who has a great genetic standing, and also has the intelligence to engender an upbringing of another being who could further advance the specie.

I do want to be very precise here. The last thing I want is to create something that will remain at a constant.

>>1663925
>Robot Reservations
I'd be more worried about you, for being forced to live on a Savage Reservation, by the Robots that control the Internet and Earth's Nuclear Arsenal

>>1664299

Not the guy but its just a saying that pretty much means that the desire to improve both ourselves and our place in life is what truly makes us human.

Basically, it claims that ambition is the defining characteristic of humanity.

>>1664248
The rich already feel this way and will be the first will access to these modifications.

No doubt this will only lead to good.

>>1664248
The rich already feel this way and will be the first to adopt these modifications.

No doubt this will only lead to good.

>>1664251
Because it's primitive and disgusting. Also, Brave New World. The only opposition to the World State I'd have is the suppression of new technology.

OP you're talking about cyborg technology

just remember that any maximally minimalist cyborg would need at a minimum:
1- brain, appropriate housing biofluids
2- blood (for feeding oxygen to all of the brain)
3a- respiratory system (RBCs would simply be the most efficient way of accomplishing 2)
3b- probably lungs (relapsing collapsed RBCs and reoxygenating the blood)
4- some bones and bone marrow (new blood)
5- constant renewal of biomaterial of all these systems (in other words they would all need to "eat" new fresh material and expunge the old decay)

ssso... any cyborg that is JUST a brain transplant is basically bullshit, sorry. These systems can't be artificially emulated, now or probably ever. A cyborg would probably need a lot of other basic systems. How long until this would be achived? Dunno.

Cyborgs would also have extremely short lives.

>>1664317

Transhuman wouldn't be human, they'd be Homo Superior.

>>1664308
>the desire to improve both ourselves and our place in life is what truly makes us human.
Being human makes us human.

I don't give a shit about what OP's talking about. how long before I can remove an arm and have it replaced with an Inspector Gadget arm, or a claw, or a hand that transforms into a gun?

>>1664323
Who needs words with an image like that.

It wouldn't surprise me if they could figure all that shit out someday. Some kind of artificial blood and the appropriate ancillary "organs" for it. I would rather die at thirty than live like that though

>>1664325
What about Homo neo?

>>1664326
If becoming something not human allows me to achieve my goals and be happy, why should I care about not being human?

>>1664341
Fuck off with your sci-fi shit.

loling at all the idiots in here that think an emulation of their brain will actually be the same person

>a impotent sense of self on your part doesn't mean a problem on my part

way to blow-off the obviously sensitive nature of transferring consciousness with bullshit rhetoric


What the fuck is it with your Kurzweilians? It seems like everyone that I have ever met that has read "The Singularity is Near" has an acute lack of bullshit detection faculties. I want to live as long as possible, too, and consider myself a part of the relatively small movement to defeat aging - but, honestly, the movement is marginalized every time one of you Kurzweilian crackpots open your mouth.

Guess what? We have very real problems to figure out right now if we're going to defeat aging and the last thing we need is people like you shitting everything up with your talk of immortality and mind uploading. So do the movement a favor and shut your mouth and stay out of the way; but don't do it for me, do it because you'll need to eventually pull your head out of the clouds and face aging just the same as everyone else.

>>1664347
Neo means "new".

Hopefully the technology won't exist before we have the ability to populate other planets.

Otherwise, our species would be completely fucked due to overpopulation.

>>1664344
You tell me.

Keep in mind though, as one of our robot overlords you would have no mechanism to feel happiness.

>>1664358

Why not? Surely some sort of positive feedback loop would be neccecary for are sort of algorithm with capability for learning?

>>1664353
It's still going to be retarded once we somehow evolve past that.

>>1664351
I dont care about life extension, I just want to not be human for a while, even if it means I cut ten or fifteen years out of my lifespan.

>>1664351
>way to blow-off the obviously sensitive nature of transferring consciousness with bullshit rhetoric
no, it’s a perfectly legitimate response to your inane philosophical masturbation.

>>1664363

Then it'll be Homo Post Neo

>>1664362
>positive feedback loop

>>1664370
So what would the transitional form Homo neo look like?

The atoms that make up the cells and molecules of our bodies are constantly changing, so humans will still be humans if they are gradually switched over to robotic bodies. That's how I see it anyway.

>>1664371
i love this image (and you) with all of mine heart dudebromanguyfriend

>>1664367
feel free to say something meaningful on the topic whenever you're ready

>>1664351
>judging something by its 4chan critics and proponents.

>>1664353

>>1664378
you first

Anyone who wants to live longer than 80 has never lived a single day

>>1664375
Pure Energy Beings.

>>1664373

It's generalized terminology. My dad uses it, but he's a neuropsychologist, but a programmer. The cybernetics lingo for the same thing in an intelligent algorithm may be different, and the same word may mean something else there, for all I know.

>>1664357

I got a question, is it objectively "fair" if the entire human population becomes immortal and powerful beings with either no or a very limited use for reproduction.

By fair I mean, is it fair to all the different people who would have been born and gotten to live thier own life. I know its kinda dumb to argue about the "what might have beens" but it seems that transumanism would indirectly cause a sort of selfish behavior among the human race to refuse any new life from developing and stifling and new identities from coming into existence.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think it may be arrogant on the part of the transhumanists to believe themselves to be above procreation and instead opting to cause a mass stagnation of the human race simply because they don't want to accept an end to thier existence.

Its like everybody gets a turn up to bat in the game of "life" but the transhumanists never get off the field and never let anybody else have a turn.

I know this is pretty subjective and sounds suspiciously identical to an anti-abortion debate, but I just wanna hear /sci/'s opinion on the matter.

>>1664394

Have you read The City and the Stars by Arthur C Clarke? You might find the immortal city of Diaspar interesting.

>>1664394
No one is preventing them from reproducing. You could father a child and then opt for trans.

>>1664394
Why apply such logic to transhumanism when you could apply it to any couple not interested in having kids today?

Would you accuse them of transgressions on their unborn children simply for not having them?

By that logic, we might as well include any woman that chose to stop having babies at some point in their life.

I don't think you thought this through.

>>1664402

No, never heard of it but I think I might look into it. If its anything like what I'm imagining it to be, I'm sure it'll be an interesting read.

Were you recommending it or are you merely asking if thats what inspired the question?

You guys are thinking about this way too personally. When one not only expect something as wanted as immortality but also that it will come in your lifetime one is very prone to act illogically. If you want it bad enough logic won't factor in at all. You guys have to stop thinking it will happen your life times.

>>1664418

Both, I suppose.

>>1664408

No, I really didn't. I'm more or less wondering that if such a wide scale abstinence would hinder the overall advancement of the human race. I know that there would be no actual victims, but such a large scale stagnation of the populace sounds to me to be boring at the least and suicidal as a species at worst

>>1664431

Again, check out The City and The Stars. Diaspar sort of found a way around that.

I can see cyborg body parts starting to become commonplace fairly soon, maybe 20 years?

The brain on the other hand will doubtless take a fair bit longer to understand in enough detail.

Still, it's amazing what we've already achieved in this field.
For example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X85Lpuczy3E

Link shows a Swedish fellow with a robotic hand linked to his nervous system which can actually feel.

>>1664538
I WANT THAT!!! WHERE CAN I GET ONE?

>>1664541

Move to Sweden and get your hand amputated I guess.

>>1664538
How long till they can make one that's BETTER than a human hand? I'll take 2 of those.

>>1664548

Thats my question, I bet there will be a huge shitstorm amongst religious conservatives when large numbers of people want to amputate healthy limbs in favour of robotic ones.

>>1664548

I want so see them combine the technology in >>1664538
with
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fQhfJNA4Mc

>>1664554
Why would that matter? Do any of the holy books mention anything about improving your limbs through robotics? I mean, if a robotic arm is so bad, how is a wheelchair or prosthetic foot kosher?

>>1664559

Someone will have a problem with it, I bet you any money. Made in the image of God and all that.

>>1664554

I wonder if human hans will become a delecasy.

>>1664566
I wonder how the fuck people are going to protect our fragile electronic bodies from shit like man made emps and the sun's EMP and magnetic weather,
I've never seen anyone in all my times asking this question give a reasonable answer to this. actually i scarcely get any answer.

dont machines and computers have very low shelf lives? wouldn't it be easier to make new biological limbs that rely on significantly more abundant resources than things like metals and plastics?

>>1664564
but if God can do anything, can't HE have a robotic hand?

>>1664566
>Delicacy

Why would people want to eat their own hands?

>>1664564
Just looking at this thread I suspect self described humanists will be a problem, ugh high chance of Ghost in the Shell’s 'Human Liberation Front' types becoming a problem..

>>1664571

Not their own hands, obviously. Other people's hands.

>>1664569

EMP-shielding has been around since the cold war, it's not particularly difficult to manufacture.

Although most electronic systems made after the cold war don't have it, it's because it's seen as unnecessary.

>>1664573

Since when do arms and legs make you human? Does being an amputee make you less than human? Would I still be human if I didn't lose an arm first, and just added extra robotic limbs like Doctor Octopus?

>>1664576

The question remains, why would you want to eat an amputated human hand?

>>1664584

It's tasty. There's just been a very limited supply of how much has been availible for consumption ethically.

>>1664584
Might make a tasty sandwich. You ever tasted human flesh? Could be the most delicious meat in the world for all we know.

>>1664589
fake "finger food" just doesn't compare to the real thing.

>>1664579

There are probably quite a few bioconservatives that think so.

The big reaction will come when many people are deliberately replacing healthy limbs with artificial ones.

>>1664595

Exactly! And don't get my started on roast baby.

>>1664606
MMMmmmm long veal!

The human brain is badly understood and will probably remain so for a good number of decades. Good artificial organ and limb replacements are however a whole lot closer, but they're not going to be very fancy and possibly not be awesome at all. Follow this healthy advice, don't count on it happening at all and you won't be disappointed like the people who expected to see moonbases by the eighties back in the sixties.

>>1664608
>implying we don't have moonbases
You just can't see them because you're vaccinated.

>>1664608

There are several links in this thread that show working cybernetic limbs that look pretty awesome right now.

It's a bit late to 'not count on it happening at all'.

>>1664198
Even if you like to ignore it, it is stated in The Bible that God placed us on the Earth complete, and that we were made in his image. Surely, then, trying to 'improve' ourselves with disgusting implants in the brain and such is a violation of God's work and only moves us away from him, resulting in the exact opposite of what the movement intends.

>>1664614
stop pointing that out, can't you see how smart and mature he is by telling everyone how silly we are for looking forward to technological progress?

>>1664615

>Implying transhumanism tries to move us closer to the Abrahamic god.

>>1664615
Surely, then, trying to 'improve' ourselves with disgusting contact lenses and such is a violation of God's work and only moves us away from him, resulting in the exact opposite of what the movement intends.

Surely, then, trying to 'improve' ourselves with disgusting clothes and such is a violation of God's work and only moves us away from him, resulting in the exact opposite of what the movement intends.

Surely, then, trying to 'improve' ourselves with disgusting weapons and tools and such is a violation of God's work and only moves us away from him, resulting in the exact opposite of what the movement intends.

Does someone here understand exctly the mechanisms of aging of the brain?
Genetic decay and accumulations of scoria are the ones I remember (english is not my mother tongue so cut me some slack).

>>1664614
Your definition of awesome is underwhelming. Proper cybernetic interfacing between artificial limbs and the brain is not going to happen soon. They'll serve the function, but not to the extent that they'll perfectly mimic it or surpass it in all areas of importance.

Artificial organs will put a few decades onto your life if your lucky and can afford it, artificial limbs will help those that have been disabled.

>>1664627
No one does. Once we know this, we can truly begin stretching the human life span.

Wait till professional sports leagues start banning cybernetic enhancements. It will be fucking awesome.

>>1664628

What definition of 'awesome' do you subscribe to?

I'd call linking a robotic hand to a human nervous system so that it can be controlled by thought alone awesome, I'd call that it can send limited sensory input back to the brain even more awesome.

>>1664638

This has already happened.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/sports/othersports/15runner.html

>>1664638

As soon as an article on gene therapy appeared on Science, the author was assailed by phone calls by coaches from professional and semi professional teams.

...jesus christ...

>>1664649
Awesome would be near-perfect mimicry in senses and significant advantage over the original. Anything else and it's only so awesome that it will help people who are disabled and not awesome in the way that you'll want to amputate something to replace it.

>>1664653
>Already, Pistorius is fast enough that his marks would have won gold medals in equivalent women’s races at the 2004 Athens Olympics.

Damn, feminists getting told.

>>1664665

Way to trivialize revolutionary technology bro.

>>1664673
How so? We're talking about full body prosthesis and body enhancement here, not about helping the disabled.

>>1664665

Imagining something better does not belittle what has been accomplished in any practical way.

>>1664679

Because it's a huge step toward the ability to do that.

>>1664684
It's a small step down a very long road. Just because some blind people can be made to see a couple pixels that vaguely differentiate the environment doesn't mean you'll want to fuck up your eyes and get that instead. Same goes for arms and legs, it's in its infancy and will remain so for a long time.

Question to anyone who can answer. Theoretically with great advancements in technology if they could have an exact replica of your brain atom by atom instantly would your conscious remain the same in the new brain. It becomes more mindfucking the more you think about it. If both brains were alive you would be independent of the other. So if a clone was made and the current brain killed would it be a completely different person or would it feel as though you have just shifted bodies?

>>1664690
>and will remain so for a long time.

What makes you say that?

Robotic replacements that actually surpass biological systems is way off though, but improving or replacing biological systems is actually not that far off.

The biological bypass is nearing, meaning you can replace a complex surgical procedure with a few injections and pills. Growing organs in vitro is a developing science, but we can also use stuff like humanized (20% human 80% sheep cell chimeras) sheep to harvest organs from.

Life extension will be possible with all the tech and biotech thats coming, but making a true transhuman is waaay off, we lack materials, understanding, techniques etc. to make a superior, partly synthetic, human.

>>1664733
>>1664690

This is just the same as the whole 'The Internet will take 50 years to be affordable' argument we heard in the 80's.

Technology advances faster than most people expect.

>>1664753

>Implying the internet will become affordable within the next twenty years.

>>1664771

wtfamireading?

>>1664780

What do you think you're reading?

>>1664794

The truth is they will probably just transplant your brain into a blender or microwave and then you will just have to do that forever. HA

>>1664733
>>
Life extension will be possible with all the tech and biotech thats coming, but making a true transhuman is waaay off, we lack materials, understanding, techniques etc. to make a superior, partly synthetic, human.

Let's just work on intelligience augmentation. The rest will follow.
Thinking caps, for example, are already close.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727733.900-skull-electrodes-give-memory-a-boost.html

Pic unrelated.

>>1664317
BEHOLD!
RESPIROCYTES!!!
http://www.foresight.org/nanomedicine/respirocytes.html

There's something about being a normal human that is infinitely more satisfying than the thought of being an immortal transhuman.

If I was a nano-machine robot of myself, I wouldn't need to eat, or have sex, or hang out with friends, or play video games, or earn money, or sense in the same way. I wouldn't even need to learn properly, I would just absorb information.
The thrill of life would be completely destroyed.

>>1665475
I do a lot of stuff I don't need to. I do them because it is fun!

>>1664833

Do you think it'd be possible to make genetic and early environmental differences in intelligence negligible due to the profound effect of cognitive enhancement technology?