/sci/ - Science & Math

Singularity probably ain't gonna happen soon.
It'd be cool if it did, though.

inb4 shitstorm of puritanical /sci/entists

Actually, I've been asked to write a short thing about transhumanism for the Norwegian Humanist magazine, so this thread is very relevant to my interests. Anyone have any suggestions?

>>2754940
How do you feel about the use of chemicals to enhance the human body and mind?

Not 'roids since they have so many adverse effects. I mean like racetams and such.

If you're having code problems, I feel for you son;
I got 99 problems but the compiler ain't one.
*

>>2754946
How about how, since human evolution will happen fluidly (albeit faster than it has in the past) there will be no clear line between human and post-human, and even if we become completely nonbiological, we'll still call ourselves human?

bump

OP here. Not normally a /sci/entist, but I would think this topic would be of more interest to /sci/. Am I wrong?

http://olivetreeradio.com/OTM2011_02_12B.mp3

PREPARE FOR RAGE

>>2755097
dammit

>>2755097

RAAAAAAGE!

>>2755097
>refer to transhumanism as a lie about 11 times in 2 minutes
IMAGINARY SKY BEING DAMMIT

>>2755097
She just called it "nanobit technology."

The natural and logical conclusion of technology IS transhumanism.

The human who augments his natural abilities with a pointed stick is, effectively, transhuman. If we want to play it basic enough, the termites that live in termite mounds are transtermite, though at that scale it possibly ceases to have meaning. Either way, we can agree that the modern human is a transhuman. We augment our natural capacities with technology every second of every day.

Though another meaning is transcending human. Meaning, changing ourselves deliberately in a biological or cybernetic fashion. The ultimate iteration of eyeglasses and heart bypasses, of vaccinations and plastic surgery. This is happening whether we want it or not. It will either be quick and easy, as I imagine it will be, or it will be long and hard, which could happen if one ideology or another tries to regulate what alterations another person can have. They try to limit the definition of human to a narrow band centered on themselves, presumably. We see this already with elements that abhor any orientation but straight, any gender but cis-, and so on. This is where the philosophy of transhumanism could appear, in the form of 'should we let people do this, should we force people to do this, or should we ban people from doing this?'

It could also mean divesting person from human. To transfer human consciousness to a wholly informational form, or into a wholly different physical form at least. There is no reason to suppose this won't happen. The mind is just a set of decision making heuristics and algorithms that runs on a meat computer, after all. But we, as yet, have no idea how or when this will happen.

>>2755133
I like you.

>>2755133
So what you're saying in your last point there is that we can take the human consciousness and use it as computer code?

Neat.

>>2755097
THIS FUCKER IS SAYING TRANSHUMANISTS WANT A BRAINWASHED, HIVE MENTALITY

>>2755133
This. Lemme refrase my first post. I FUCKING WANT THE SINGULARITY TO HAPPEN. Hot cyborg chicks, bro.

In all seriousness though, I think genetic engineering and robotics would increase the speed of advancement in each other. As medicine was forced evolve as more deadly weapons were created, genetics (as an exapmle) will evolve to deal with problems that other fields haven't thus far been able to solve, and those other fields will solve the problems that those solutions create. I believe it is this technological coevolution of disciplines that will usher in the new era of technology.

I've given it a lot of thought and, I don't want the singularity to happen, at least while I'm alive. Sure I would love to have extended life and amazing technology that comes before the singularity, but the change from that life to post singularity life is not something I think I'd be able to handle. I'll probably die before then anyway, so at least there's that.

I love this thread!

I too want the singularity.Can i have an all encompassing diverse singularity though?

bump

>>2755226

With nanomedicine comes the possibility of neurochemical therapy to help you handle it.

>>2755297
HAhaha, yeah I guess you're right.

>>2755226

But living at the start is important. Maybe the most important time of all human existence. Strange things, as they say, happen at the one-two point.

As we gain the science and technology to truly forge ourselves into whatever form we so desire, there will be constricting forces and expanding forces trying to set what we use this to do. Do we use it to make everyone achieve the same arbitrary standards of perfection, or do we use it to free anyone to do as they please and most importantly, BE as they please?

I mean, I have no doubt it will be both. Authority and Anarchy. But depending on who is spinning the singularity at it's very point of release, we can condemn the next few generations to untold and unimaginable oppression, all while a veritable cornucopia of potential will exist in the hands of the Authority, OR, we can allow a great flourishing of thoughts and ideas and art and science, as everyone can share in the wonder of a world where we are truly masters of our own destiny. Either way, we will end up in a world, a universe indeed, where people can go and live in places with rules and restrictions, or they can leave and live as they please, but will we and our children have to suffer squalor or enjoy splendor in the intervening centuries?

>>2755097
fuckfuckfuckfuckfuck

The Singularity can go fuck itself. We need to control technology, not let it control us.

Transhumanism I dig, though. Can't wait to be a cyborg and live forever.

>>2755338
No one will be able to control all of singularity.

>>2755374
>control technology
Would you treat a general AI as a slave or a person?

i watched the transedental man doc and listened to that bible link and i don't understand why they say we can become like gods or why it's even an issue

trans-humanism means we could live a long long time, maybe even billions of years...but haven't scientist theorized that the universe will end(heat death, etc)?
surely we can't escape the fate of death forever

>>2755400
I'm listening to the whole thing now. So much stupid.

That said, I am trying to become like God. Problem, fundies?

>>2755380

No sir, I don't disagree. But the kind of people who tip it over the edge, they have great influence on what it will be used for. And that will set the tone for the first few centuries that follow.

If you think 1984 or Brave New World or Gattaca were bad, just wait until you see what singularity tech will be able to do. It will be overcome, you can't keep that genie in the bottle, but it will suck for a lot of people for a long time.

>>2755422
It MIGHT.

Or it could be pure win.

>>2755382
Depends how intelligent it is. If it's just another machine or computer program, I'd treat it as such. If it's capable of thought, I guess I'd have no choice but to treat it as a person.

Preferably, nobody would make it at all or we would destroy it on sight. We can already make intelligent beings as is. They're called kids. We don't need another form of life on this world, especially one that could potentially destroy us so easily.

>>2755442
And that could potentially solve our problems in a fraction of the time we could.

>>2755438

It's up to us. To what is, I hope, the generation that will spin that singularity up. It's up to us to make sure that when that top starts to spin by itself, it's not going to be used to oppress and destroy, but to enrich and emancipate.

>>2755455
/brofist

This thread is good and you should all feel good.

>>2755452
Or it could lead to yet another apocalyptic scenario by robot rebellion. We have enough of those, I think.

We should focus our energy on improving our mental, physical, and societal health. Eventually we won't have any need for AIs. Especially if (or when) we can upload or augment our own brains to operate at the same speeds computers can.

>>2755499
But...

I have an AI fetish. ;_;

(I wish I were joking...)

>>2755461

>brofist

Just to give an example of what I mean, though. I normally use the example of a 'gay gene', though feel free to use whatever example you like, a 'god gene' that determines propensity towards faith, or a 'lefty gene' that determines propensity towards left handedness, and so on.

It will be in our capacity to switch the gay gene on or off when the singularity hits. Of this, I have no doubt. We could turn it on, or off. The question is, will people want to enforce this on their kids, or on everyones kids, or on adults, or feel pressured to do it as an adult, OR, will we simply accept it as part of the range of the human cline?

Eventually, nobody will care. But for a few hundred years, we will be able to sharpen humanity to a boring, perfect, narrow band, OR, we will be able to expand ourselves to a dazzling and terrific spectrum.

>>2755518
Genetic variation is good for a species. Narrowing ourselves down to be homogenous like that could be potentially hazardous if something caught us off guard.

And I think the ability to genetically modify ourselves to that degree will come before singularity.

>>2755518
actually, the capacity of narrow our childs could develope a whole new level of art.
i think we would be extremly heterogenous, much more than now.

>>2755535

Without a doubt, in nature, genetic variation IS important. In a world with arbitrarily powerful computing, instant genetic scanning and engineering, an ability to map a creatures genetics to it's final form and life cycle, and so on, well, then it's not important in terms of survival of the species.

It's just an example, as well. The singularity is not really one invention that instantly changes everything, though self-improving AI would be a good test, I imagine, it's the point in time past which technological development will accelerate so rapidly that we won't be able to predict in detail what will happen after. This is why I try to paint it in broad strokes.

I am referring to variation of the mind, of thought, of ideas. Will people try to correct themselves, and I firmly believe we will be able to alter ourselves arbitrarily, to conform, or to excel, or to stand out, or what? If the conformists set the tone, well, we are more likely to be screwed, at least for a while.

>>2755593
>If the conformists set the tone, well, we are more likely to be screwed, at least for a while.
I'm not sure I completely understand what you're saying, but I don't think that in particular is likely to happen. At all.

pic unrelated (or is it!?)

>>2755627

I hope not, and I have to say I don't see it going that way, but man it would suck so bad if it did.

What I mean is, imagine the same people who want to pray out the gay get a hold of the handlebars of this singularity. Or the people who think women are inferior, and now they can actually engineer disobedience or even independent thought right out of them.

>>2755499
Post-apocalyptic senarios mean nothing. Most have been concocted by writers or directors or what have you in an attempt to entertain and scare people (like the bible sermons of old). The problem is, people take these interpretations of things not fully understood to be prophecies of a dystopian future. For an example such retardation, see:>>2755097

>>2755593
I think you're thinking of this too much in terms of current society. Would any group of people be able to "set the tone" for something like this? Will society be set up in the form of one main culture and a few countercultures, or with the onset of new modes of expression will we, like we moved forward from theocracy and puritanism, move forward from homogeny into a society where not only are there hundreds of subcultures but there are many unique ways to express yourself within them? Think of how the Internet has changed the world and you'll realize there's no way you can imagine how it will be 5 years from now.

In a sense, singularity has happened/is happening. It's not a moment, in my mind. It's a continually accelerating process. The Renaissance, the industrial revolution, the space age, the Internet. Each closer than the last. And with each, people are becoming more and more open about who they are. 200 years ago there wouldn't be a debate about gay marriage. Hell, in most places there wouldn't be a debate about whether or not to kill them.

I'm not too worried about waking up one day to flying cars and robots trying to kill us all.

>obligatory

>>2755627
I hope with all my might that your image is very much related to my future.

Only replace the cigar with e-cigs because they're kind of scifi-ish.

>>2755693

Make no mistake, I don't think the robots will be trying to kill us. Maybe people though.

It will be either a few people, or a few ideologies, able to more effectively enforce arbitrary rules on everyone else for a long time, OR, it will be a dizzying array of ways of life, all of them with free and open access to one another and to the sum of human knowledge. I don't doubt that we will end up at the latter over a long enough timescale. I just don't want anyone, or me in particular to have to suffer through the former while the latter is possible.

>>2755675
Okay, I guess it's safe to say that the chances of a genetically-engineered supervirus, robotic uprising, or nanobot-induced gray goo catastrophe are pretty slim. But to say that dystopias or dystopian futures are impossible is just pure naivete.

All it takes is one major catastrophe to gain everyone's attention, and the wrong person in power to swing it his way. Look at what Bush got away with because of 9/11 (I hate to bring this up but I'm a bit high and can't think of a better example).

Northpaw
sensebridge.net/projects/northpaw/
>With a regular compass the owner only knows the direction when he or she checks it. With this compass, the information enters the wearer’s brain at a subconscious level, giving the wearer a true feeling of absolute direction, rather than an intellectual knowledge as with a regular compass.

On-topic and awesome.

>>2755789
I likey.

>>2755788
That's true, but no different from what social catastrophes could happen now. For instance, the US could go Republic of Gilead at any time, all it would take is an assassination and some christian fundamentalists. Is this likely to happen? Probably not.

I never stated that "movie-like" dystopian futures are impossible, I said they mean nothing (read: they are dramatized and unlikely)

>>2755338
There's too much propaganda within our present society for it to not be painful.

Look at how many people will willingly argue for longer working hours, less pay, no healthcare, no welfare or benefits, less [or no] taxes for the rich, more power for the corporations, and so on.

We have a population full of people who have been essentially brainwashed simply because they've never had the other side told to them.

For example: Communism/Socialism is bad. You ask almost anyone in the US if either are bad, the response will be "Yes! They're bad!"

But if you ask "WHY?" You won't get a response like "Well, Communism is bad because in practice, the workers end up being exploited anyways" You'll be lucky if they can even tell you that Communism is based upon the common ownership of production and the end of wage labor.

And as far as your argument regarding gays, you need only look as far as 4chan or the internet in general to see that bigotry will remain. The people and ideas that bigotry is directed towards today is simply different. In our generation, gays are less and less of a big deal, but god help you if you're a disgusting, filthy, furry. We're little different today than people were 50 years ago. I'd like to think the people of mine and future generations have learned from the mistakes of the past, but it simply isn't happening.

>>2755822
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-fen-y-Q0U

bumpity

>>2755830
>you need only look as far as 4chan or the internet in general to see that bigotry will remain
From what I've seen of 4chan, half of its users are closet furries, but they enjoy the bashing anyway. The Internet is SERIOUS BUSINESS, after all.

And I don't know what third-world slavic country you're from, but the U. S. of fuckin A. has made a lot of progress in the past 50 years. You have any idea how much trouble those niggers were giving us back then?


Maybe I'm just being overly optimistic. But I think we're doing pretty good, all things considered.

>>2755830
We haven't changed but our focus has. Instead of restricting ourselves to a narrow spectrum of what is allowed, that is being stretched over time. We may bash furries or other fetishes but those before us would of done the same and more. We act with the same intolerance, but in reality are more tolerant than those before us.

Hell, people hate furries but look at the attention traps and /d/ get. We are intolerant but to different things.

>>2755840
Well, shit...that's frightening. Those conservative fuckers want a fight. That's exactly the kind of holy war that won't be a problem in a technology rich future. As science progresses, so does secularism, and as secularism progresses, religion declines. There is, of course, always the threat of a religious revolution to counter increasing secularism, but as long as we either: 1) Prove to people God does not exist, 2) Prove to them that it doesn't matter/tempt them, 3) Provide them with a viable alternative outlet for their religious ecstasies (get closer to God through virtual reality?) we should be safe from their threat.

Right now, though, I don't see these people organizing into a pseudo-christian version of the Mujahideen. As long as we start comparing them to the Mujahideen.

Also, at 1:34, that's a Roman sword. Stupid christians apparently don't know 'bout dem Romans killin' jeebus.

I ♥ TRANSHUMANISM

>>2755830

I do think the general trend is towards a greater understanding of what actually matters, what deserves tolerance even if one is not partial to it, and what deserves intolerance because it is intrinsically harmful and coercive.

We just have to make sure that we're past a certain point of enlightenment of this sort by the time we have the technology to forge ourselves into whatever we desire.

>>2755789
Hot damn that's cool.

Here, have a cyborg girl.

>>2756077
Thanks.

I hate how religion threads get 70 posts within an hour but any thread that is loosely related to science might die out sooner. Fuck that shit. I refuse to let this glorious thread die.

Does a pacemaker make one a cyborg? What kind of implants does one need to be considered a cyborg? Where's the line?

>>2756170
>>2756170
>>2756170

>>2756186

Like I said up-thread, on one level, using a pointed stick makes you something of a cyborg.

I would put it at, using a technology that directly interfaces with your nervous system for it's control. Or possibly replacing a working body part with an artificial component.

For example, the first person to deliberately amputate legs to have those springy carbon fibre legs installed, so they can run faster, is without a doubt a cyborg. Everything between that and running shoes is up for debate.

>>2756186
As a matter of technicality, any sort of artificial device or other such material that is integrated into your body, by definition makes you a "cyborg" although it's most definitely not in the traditional sense of what that might be ("the Borg," etc.).

>>2756186
You'll get ten different answers for that one.

On a similar note, I remember that asking whether or not the Terminator was a Cyborg or an Android in /k/ made for a good troll thread.

Okay, so at this point in time, 2011, we have

discovered free energy forever and ever,
>cold fusion
ever-accelerating computational power,
>graphene
increasingly immersive virtual entertainment,
>everyone's promoting 3D and Kinect "be in the game" bullshit
and militaries heavily investing in tech of all kinds...
>navy researching micro robot swarms
>DARPA researching... well, fucking everything

Forgive my lazy examples and no citations, but what else do we need? I think we're pretty much on track for a pretty crazy future. Hopefully something a bit cyberpunk :)

>>2756230
What's the least invasive procedure I could have where I could tell my friends, "I'm a cyborg?"

>>2756258
I'm sure that once immersive virtual reality hits the media, shit will really start to hit the fan.

>>2756262
Probably lens replacement for your eyes.

>>2756258

god damn I love non-porn star women in latex outfits.

probly a pacemaker

>>2756262

Tough one. Once we have unambiguous cyborgs, we'll just know. For now, it's all on the pre-cyborg scale. Eyeglasses? Pacemaker? Hearing aids? Automobiles? By a loose definition, these would make you a cyborg. By a stricter definition, you'd have to have something that interfaces directly with your nervous system, or replace a functioning body part with an equally or more functional artificial part, either of which we can't really do today.

But if you want to be a smart-ass, do what I do and use eyeglasses as your definition of cyborg.

>>2756230

No using a stick doesn't make you a cyborg. It means you can implement a tool. The stick is no more a part of your body than the tree it came from.

In order for you to be a cyborg you must make some permanent technological change to your body. Running shoes don't make you a cyborg either because once you're done running you take them off.

To the person who asked about the least invasive change, I would say the implantation of a chip in the hand containing your medical information.

>>2756262
http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mods/news/2006/06/71087

>What if, seconds before your laptop began stalling, you could feel the hard drive spin up under the load? Or you could tell if an electrical cord was live before you touched it? For the few people who have rare earth magnets implanted in their fingers, these are among the reported effects -- a finger that feels electromagnetic fields along with the normal sense of touch.

>It's been described as a buzzing sensation, a tingling, an oscillation, movement, pure stimulation and, in the case of body-modification expert Shannon Larrett's encounter with a too-powerful antitheft gateway at a retail store, "Like sticking your hand in an ultrasonic cleaner."

electric field-sense

>>2756262

>least invasive

>cyborg

Choose one.

>>2756326
But the point of such posts is that the term "cyborg" is ambiguous since we make use of technology every single day to better the qualities of our lives even though most of it probably isn't inside of us. Does using a phone with internet capabilities, the ability to find information on pretty much anything, potentially make you a cyborg? Until we've advanced in augmentation and augmentation implementation technologies, the term "cyborg" will be up for individual definition.

>>2756326
Hmm. Might do that.

Anything more fun? I know some guy had magnets implanted in his hands and he could feel magnetic fields. I also wonder if someone could design something like northpaw but that would be internal and permanent, and with faintly stimulating the nerves as opposed to vibration.

>>2756355
This.

>>2756326

I was trying to set the absolute unambiguous lower limit for cyborg-ness, which is the use of technology. It was somewhat flippant.

But yeah, a chip would probably count.

I disagree fundamentally with the assertion that a cyborg needs to have permanent modifications.

So some tribesman who has a lip-plate installed is a cyborg, but someone who is constantly tapping away at their smart phone reading reddit in class, then being alerted via vibration alarm of their after-school commitments which are being arranged with their friends on a website they were told about by email; they're not a cyborg because their mobile phone isn't implanted.

I call bullshit.

http://www.darpa.mil/

look to these guys for the bulk of the research for these technologies. they have so much cool shit going on. It's a shame that they don't get as much notice/funding

>>2756392
why hasn't /sci/ looked at DARPA more?

their fucking awesome

bumping
FOR SCIENCE

>>2756258

>cold fusion

did this actually happen?

>>2756392 DARPA
>>2756392 Lack of funding

lool

>>2756429
No.

>>2756425
And they have the best acronyms. I found SURFCAT, STOMP, FATHM, and MANTRA on one page.

Seriously, though, I love 'em. They work for the military, sure, but they also do awesome shit for their country and the world too. I like the sound of their Education Dominance program: http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/DSO/Programs/Education_Dominance.aspx.. Schools these days are shit and the sooner we get our kids out of those prisons, the better.

>>2756466
That is pretty fucking awesome.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8fotfUEUCE

>BLACK DIAMOND
>ULTRABEAM
>NEOVISION2
>HIGH FREQUENCY INTEGRATED VACCUM ELECTRONICS (HIFIVE)
>NANOSCALE ARCHITECTURE FOR COHERENT HYPER-OPTIC SOURCES (NACHOS)
>SHORT-RANGE, WIDE FIELD-OF-VIEW EXTREMELY AGILE, ELECTRONICALLY STEERED PHOTONIC EMITTER (SWEEPER)

Really, DARPA? I mean, really? That last one's a bit of a stretch.

>>2756541
>SHORT-RANGE, WIDE FIELD-OF-VIEW EXTREMELY AGILE, ELECTRONICALLY STEERED PHOTONIC EMITTER (SWEEPER)
They misspelled SRWFOVEAESPE.

don't you die on me, thread

I think it would be a great idea if it involved increasing people's intelligence. Otherwise... I dunno. Maybe if we use it to sterilize people under a certain IQ. Oops... bye bye 90% of the mexican, indian etc. races..

Maybe we can use images and sounds generated from the same fractals to hypnotize people and streamline their brains for recognizing patterns in their enviornment (IQ)... Some research suggest that playing complex music like classical music for fetuses can increase the resulting child's IQ.

>>2756439

knew it

>>2756732
Okay, hold on a sec. We don't know for sure either way. They claim that the reason they won't release any details on how it's done is because they're waiting for the patent, which the office refuses to offer it up because of the "lol cold fusion" attitude everyone has.

Regardless of whether or not it's real, the generators are being manufactured right now. The inventors plan to prove everyone wrong by going straight to production.

Yeah sorry I need to hit the hay. Sorry your thread's died or whatever.

Here's one last image from me. She could be an alien or a cyborg with a star on her face, I don't know. I liked it because I think the legs look more like a suit than prosthetics. I don't know what kind of advantage having chicken legs would give in combat, but the Tau do it so I'm down. Anyway apparently the human brain's pretty good at remapping its senses, so I thought that would be interesting if that was what the artist intended, since having chicken legs would be pretty weird.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/02/scientists-create-illusion-of-having.html

>mfw only the super-rich can transcend human form
>mfw only the rich can afford augmentation

The only hope for non-rich people is that some already uplifted person decides to help the trillions of people out. Like a Bill Gates of Human 2.0 and conscienceness uploading.

Also, just because there's no reason to doubt we can transmit consciousness doesn't mean we will be able to. Crossed fingers though.

If so, I hope I can live long enough to transfer into a ship computer with an avatar of 200kg or so nanite swarm.

>>2756850
Or we move to a society where working for a living doesn't matter because there's enough resources to go around and robots that are able to do all the jobs for us as slave labor [without the ethical concerns]

In which case - why not augment everyone? It's not like you need to keep the working class down in order to exploit them.

Of course, those in power will still do their whole "suppress the plebes!" thing. It's all they know how to do in order to respond the the economic and political changes that will inevitably take place, but they may as well try and fight the laws of physics.

Once things like artificial general intelligence, strong AI, and widescale adoption of automated labor take place, that's it. That's the end of wage slavery and slave labor. Sooner or later. It's also the end of our current form of capitalism too.

The only way to prevent it is to hold back technology, become luddites, transform entire nations into totalitarian regimes and clamp down on everything.

And even that will only stall progress.

>>2756541
The whole point behind DARPA is to fund those really stupid crazy wacky ideas that will probably never work out.

Who knows how many silly thing have gone through DARPA and utterly failed, but we only hear the success stories.

It's good though. Having the internet to its name [partially] at least gives DARPA some protection against the claws of congress and politicians.

>>2757692

Pic related it's a concept for one of DARPAs current projects

>>2757710
Haha, yeah. That is one of those projects that I just go "Really? They really got funding for that!?"

But... well, that's what DARPA's for. If it turns out that it works, I will be eating my socks, that's for sure.

>>2756850

Wealth ceases to be meaningful in a world where personal or community prototypers can make you almost anything physical you want, where they can make you something automated to get you anything they can't make, whether it's too big to make in one go, or it's located somewhere awkward, and where information, whether content or blueprints or code, cannot be effectively encrypted or copyrighted.

The worst-case scenario only occurs if the current top-down, centralised, oligarchic system is able to hold on to power through the singularity. If they do, they will be able to keep a lid on the spread of these technologies to the general public, and maintain islands of prosperity, impose arbitrary rulesets, and so on.

>>2757710

That wouldn't be so weird if they didn't make it look like a humvee. Nothing wrong with a next generation light helicopter. Something wrong with the idea that it could do what a humvee can do and what a light helicopter is supposed to do, with a reasonable overlap of spare parts.

I've done work on DARPA funded research. You must continuously show advancement on your research (monthly reports) or your project is canceled. It can be a bit intense.

I don't want to live forever if it means becoming some half-human half-robot half-alien freak. I very much like my body, even with all its weaknesses. By the way, I suggest you all come to terms with the concept of IRL perma-death, because in 100 years from now at most none of us will still be alive.

Just so you know, this is what this thread sounds like.

>>2758745

Nobody would force you to live forever, even if it were possible.

>>2758774

There is a difference between 'the world is getting better, and there is no reason to think that it won't keep getting better' and 'do this for me when you're alive and you get cool stuff after you die'.

transhumanism

Before you make maximum use of technolagies to solve your problems, you should probably make better use of your 'in built' technolagy.
Also, most ergonomics makes the idea of placing technolagy under the skin less practical and more risky. pic related.

http://www.emotiv.com/
http://zedomax.com/blog/2009/10/21/arduino-hack-how-to-make-a-brain-controlled-device/

>>2758811
Your definition of a "better" world may differ from mine. Also the world will never really get "better" until people get better, and that's never going to happen. We're not any better today than we were 2000, or 10000 years ago. We have cooler gadgets, that's all. Will this silly belief that sacred science will save us all ever die?
Also
>implying religion is about doing things for the church
I was raised as a catholic until 9, then evangelical, left church for good at 15. Never was I asked to do anything for anyone in exchange for anything. The constant fear mongering usually associated with religion could very well be a lie as far as I'm concerned.

>>2758904

I tried to tell them that science can't give us a moral code or inspire us.

Man has better technology than in caveman days, but he still has the same emotions, fears, death, sickness, and loneliness. Science can make our lives a little easier and more comfortable, but it can't overcome human nature.

>>2758904

My definition of better is in two parts.

Our ability to exploit the laws of nature through technology is constantly improving. This is unambiguously getting better every moment.

Our rules for dealing with one another are more just than they used to be. This IS more ambiguous, I freely admit, since some people place an absolute moral pinnacle at some arbitrary point and place in the past, and so any deviation from this is an obvious, to them, decline. But by any reasonable metric, we are nicer people than we used to be, and we extend this treatment to more people (and even to animals) than we ever have. That there are isolated pockets of violence and injustice, and that they deviate more from the norm than they ever have, and that we care more about correcting them than we ever have, and that we are more aware of them than we ever have been, does not mean we are not better overall.

>>2758969
>Our ability to exploit the laws of nature through technology is constantly improving.

I fail to see how this translates to saying that we're living in a better world, but OKAY.

>But by any reasonable metric, we are nicer people than we used to be, and we extend this treatment to more people (and even to animals) than we ever have.

I was tempted to say "citation needed", but really, that's entirely your opinion. I wasn't aware "niceness" could even be measured (...until now).

>That there are isolated pockets of violence and injustice, and that they deviate more from the norm than they ever have, and that we care more about correcting them than we ever have, and that we are more aware of them than we ever have been

"Isolated pockets of violence and injustice"?

>my face when

>>2759054
Are you seriously implying that people treated others better in the past?
The wast majority of injustice and violence is located in the third world shitholes, and even there situation is slowly getting better.
If you live in the first world countries, you have best possible health and change of survival in human history.

>>2755097

Again with "thou be playing god" shit!
Holy fuck these people are dense.

Fearmongering ludite retards, trying to enforce their fucked up religious ideology to others.
This mentality is fucking discusting.
If they don't want to become gods, they are free to just sit back and wach the rest of us progres, but no. No, they have to stop us, because "there are thing man is not supposed to know" ect. FUCK THEM!
They think they have some magical knowledge that tells them how to "save" us from ourselves. Unfortanately if they manage to "save" us from this "lie" of transhumanism, they will also doom us to die. Their ideology advocates for our extinction, because what they propose for our future, is stagnation, and to us stagnation=death. If we reufse to adapt and merge with our technology, our species will die on this planet, and that is what these people advocate.
They seek to confine us to a future, where we are doomed to go extinct. They are enemies of humanity, and I have nothing but bitter hatred for them.
Our only hope for ultimate survival, is to become gods and rebuild the cosmos in our vision.

>>2759054

Regarding technology. We have a greater capacity to do what we want. Assuming we want things that are actually good for us and for humanity at large, this is a good thing.

Regarding being better people, nicer, that is. People don't beat and rape their kids as much as they did at any point in history before now, they don't try to settle personal matters with physical violence or intimidation as much as they used to, and people don't take pleasure or satisfaction in inflicting pain on members of the out-group.

People are better, but the outliers who are worse than the norm are more obvious.

>>2759067
>Are you seriously implying that people treated others better in the past?

If you read my posts... I said that we're still the same, basically. Not better nor worse. I don't even know how you could prove that kind of thing either way. From talking to the old people in my family and listening to their stories, I actually get the feeling they used to respect each other more back then, but I wouldn't bring that as evidence that the world is getting worse.

>The wast majority of injustice and violence is located in the third world shitholes, and even there situation is slowly getting better.

How can you say that? We have murderers, rapists, and child molesters too, you know. Plus a hell of a lot more thieves, and a judicial system that can easily make even an innocent man's life a real nightmare. I don't see this utopia you're talking about.

>If you live in the first world countries, you have best possible health and change of survival in human history.

Sure, but I also have the best (?) possible chance of getting cancer or getting run over by some drunkard on his bmw.
Also last time I checked, about 11% of the population in my country currently lives under the threshold of poverty, and the number has been increasing lately. But yeah, let's not let that get in the way of our musings.

>>2759129
>Assuming we want things that are actually good for us and for humanity at large, this is a good thing.

That's the point. We really don't.

>People don't beat and rape their kids as much as they did at any point in history before now

Okay, sorry, that's just plain wrong. We don't have data to compare the incidence of child abuse in the 18th century with the current situation. Even the statistics for the past 50 years are pretty much inconclusive, and much of it is speculation. Things that would be considered abuse today might not even have been yesterday.

>they don't try to settle personal matters with physical violence or intimidation as much as they used to, and people don't take pleasure or satisfaction in inflicting pain on members of the out-group.

That's weird, I see many of my peers do just that. I wasn't here 50 or 500 years ago so I can't really make a fair comparison, but then again, neither were you... hmm. Bah.

>>2759143

>We have murderers, rapists, and child molesters too

Yes, but their ammount in the past was most certainly greater than it's now.

>Plus a hell of a lot more thieves, and a judicial system that can easily make even an innocent man's life a real nightmare. I don't see this utopia you're talking about.

Thieves have always existed, but atleast now people don't have to steal food to survive. Also, that judicial shit isn't as common as it is made out to be.
Also, where did I mention utopia, or imply that we live in one. I only stated that you live in the best time of human history that has jet existed.

>Sure, but I also have the best (?) possible chance of getting cancer or getting run over by some drunkard on his bmw.

You know why people in the western world get cancer? It is because other diseaces don't kill them first and unhealthy lifestyles such as smoking. In third world countries, people die from other shit that could be easily cured in more developed countries, before they get the chance to get cancer. Also the ammount of cancer victims isn't recorded as well in the third world countries than it is in first world countries, making it apear that we got an elevated change to get cancer.
Also, you should cross streets carefully, always.

>Also last time I checked, about 11% of the population in my country currently lives under the threshold of poverty, and the number has been increasing lately. But yeah, let's not let that get in the way of our musings.

May I ask were you live?
Also, people who live in poverty in first world countries STILL have better life quality than avarage person in some third world countries.

You seem to be overly pessimistic.

>>2759169

You should check this out; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk

It's only fifteen minutes, and it will say it better than I ever could. People are better than they used to be. We have a better idea of how to live together and what rules are best to give everyone fair treatment.

If things are now considered child abuse, such as physical beatings, use as sex objects, denial of an education, and so on, were not considered child abuse at that time, then that shows how far we have come.

>>2759183
>Yes, but their ammount in the past was most certainly greater than it's now.

Key word being "certainly". And you know this because... time traveler? Immortal? I'm dying to know.

>Thieves have always existed, but atleast now people don't have to steal food to survive. Also, that judicial shit isn't as common as it is made out to be.

I know thieves aren't a recent discovery, but they seem to be getting more and more powerful as time goes by. When talking about thieves I'm including bankers and corrupt politicians, too. I never had any problems with the law, I hope you never do either. Are you aware that in the USA, they're charging 5-6 year old kids for sexual assault and registering them as sexual offenders, thus effectively scarring them for life? I could be wrong, but I doubt this kind on judicial shit happens in "third world shitholes", or happened in the western world at all until recently.

>You know why people in the western world get cancer?

From what I hear, it has something to do with first/second hand smoke and smog. There's too much propaganda about this anyway, so I'm not really sure. I'm pretty sure the % of cases of cancer went up during the second half of last century though.

>Also, you should cross streets carefully, always.

Not gonna be of much help, unless you also have Spiderman-level reflexes and agility.

>May I ask were you live?

Italy.

>Also, people who live in poverty in first world countries STILL have better life quality than avarage person in some third world countries.

Do they really? They're both starving and lacking access to adequate health care. Sure, electricity is nice, if you can afford it. Ostracism is... less nice, I guess?

>You seem to be overly pessimistic.

Weird, because I'm actually rather satisfied with my life.

I'm just here to post this.

>>2759186

Sorry, I gave up on it after 6 minutes. That's not science. He's openly admitting we don't have data from the middle ages and citing the bible as evidence (after saying that genocides can and do still happen today). I'm not gonna waste another 15 minutes of my life on that.

>People are better than they used to be. We have a better idea of how to live together and what rules are best to give everyone fair treatment.

Did I ever tell you about how I started dating Powergirl?

>If things are now considered child abuse, such as physical beatings, use as sex objects, denial of an education, and so on, were not considered child abuse at that time, then that shows how far we have come.

Careful where you go with that logic. Raising your voice or slamming a door might be considered abuse tomorrow. (In fact, it already is, at least when it comes to cases of interspousal domestic violence.)

>>2759186
thanks for posting this.

>>2759410

I'm not saying it's perfect now. I don't subscribe to the idea of a perfect platonic ideal of morality, just like in science, the best we can do is try to be better than the last generation. And we are, on almost every generation. I think there are notable exceptions, the fascists in europe and south america for example, communism in east asia and indochina, the drug war, and so on.

If any of us were sent back to live with our ancestors from a hundred years ago, or a thousand years ago, we would be horrified at how awfully they treat their children, how badly they treat women, how much they dislike anyone not from their culture and their creed, and in fact any arbitrary difference of any sort.

>>2759410

The bible is perfectly serviceable as a historical document. If it says people killed each other in whatever amount for whatever reason, and if it subscribes whatever punishment for whatever crime, it's fine to take it at it's word. And it describes an abominable society, worse than any society on the earth today save possibly North Korea.

>>2759515
Yeah! Fucking North Korea, did you know they hold public orgies in the market places every New Years?

>>2759526

Did you know they are starving to death, have no freedom of speech and no freedom of movement?

Orgies are an example of freedom and liberty.

>>2757710

HOLY SHIT A FUCKING HELICOPTER WITH BIGGER WHEELS ARE DARPA FUCKING INSANE?!?!?!

>>2759183
>people who live in poverty in first world countries STILL have better life quality than avarage person in some third world countries.

Do you realize that it's your relative welath that determines your happiness. Telling your local homeless person that it would be ten times worse if he was a homeless black guy in africa wouldn't cheer him up by any means.

The "it's okay as long as it's not the worst" comparison is bullshit.

>>2759548

It wouldn't make him happy if you were shouting it from your limo.

Income disparity will always exist. But the homeless person today in the west genuinely is better off (and a rarer animal) than the one in africa or a hundred years ago.

I, personally, would rather be myself right now, with medical technology, food from all corners of the earth, access to the library of human knowledge in the internet, and so on, than the King of England from fifty years ago. Some people are more interested in hanging out and doing cool stuff than exercising power over others. Most people, I would say.

OP here. This thread is still here? AWESOME.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hKG5l_TDU8

>>2759559

wise choice. the king of england 50 years ago had been dead for 9 years.

>>2759780

Droll. You know what I mean. I'd rather be me, now, than Alexander the Great, or Creasus, or Cleopatra, or the Kaiser, or Rockefeller, or even someone as recent as the Prince of Wales.

Why? Because some people care about being on top of the heap, no matter how low the heap is.

>>2759559
>Income disparity will always exist.
[citation needed]

>>2759902

Okay, that's a little bit of a stretch. Post-scarcity, we will still have the have-mores and the have-lesses. Wealth and worth will be measured in terms of social networks and personal achievements, not in terms of material possessions, which anyone can have to almost any degree.

The most socially deprived, friendless man in the future will be considered poor by some standards. He won't be able to get information on cool places to hang out and things to do from people he trusts, he won't be able to chill with friends, stay in a friends house when he's in a strange city, and so on. But he will not be in danger of starving to death, and he will have far more opportunity to improve his station than the poorest man today. Just as the poorest man today is better off than the poorest man a hundred years ago.

And I use the term poorest man as meaning 'in the poorest percent', not the literal man with nothing of any sort. Obviously you can't get poorer than absolutely zero worth.

>>2759949
All of that sounds as superficial, if not more, than materialism.

>>2759111

you sound a little bit upset

>>2759979

It's all superficial AND profound, it's just how humans interact with each other, and it's based on arbitrary standards determined by evolution.

What system would be suitable by your lights? Judging people based on how much stuff they can accumulate, or on how entertaining and satisfying is your time spent hanging with them? Or something else entirely?

didn't read the whole thread.
But goddman.
You guys are so narrow minded in some aspects of it.

The whole "AI will dominate us" is so ridiculous.

Let me give you an example.

For example, you hypothetically go back in time and tell people there that in the future we will fly using devices we make.
A man of that time would imagine it like this: a horse and a carriage with wings.

Its lack of knowledge, flat prediction.

As a programmer i assure there is no such as evil AI that wants to dominate the world, *UNLESS* we actually program it to be "EVIL AND WANT TO DOMINATE THE WORLD" otherwise it wont happen.

"But what about accidents, blah blah"

I could write books about the whole how stupid is the whole "evil singularity" or how "our lives wont be humane baww" or "who wants to live forever" or "i will get bored after thousands of years" etc etc etc.

Its common misconceptions of how actually things would work if they became a reality.
And Hollywood is responsible for this, with their silly movies.

You can have a singularity, immortality, etc without getting fucked.

Ya'll
inb4 "i stopped reading there"

people bitchin about singularity all day but do you even know what it is?

What are the limits of singularity?
Where does it stop?
What are the actual limits of intelligence, what is intelligence?
etc.

You know the invention of written language was one of the first steps towards transhumanism. Information could be written down and stored outside the brain. Obviously it isnt exactly high tech, but it was definately an important step. When you learn to read you gain massive access to knowledge. All the information contained in books becomes available to you as a kind of extended storage system. hell once you learn to write you can even record to these external memory devices. Of course this has only increased as we created computer to store this information on.
And think about this. 500 years ago, how many people could read? only the rich and fortunate, the upper classes. Woman were rarely educated and the knowledge of how to read was controlled. Slowly its progressed and now many countries have a 99% literacy rate, allowing large amounts of people to get access to this external information. Yet there are still places where the literacy rates are low. However its being raised. This is likely how transhumanism will progress, slowly but surely. It probably will be controversial to begin with though.
Sorry is this sounds like a load of horeshit, im not the most eloquent man.

>>2760118
Who knows what your limits our? But only in the act of trying to go beyond them will we realise our full potential.