/sci/ - Science & Math

What is your opinion on go back to /v/?

I never asked for it.

>human augmentation

I seriously hope you don't ask for this.

Back in my day, we called human augmentation 'transhumanism'!

>>3756308
>>3756318
What they said

I was having this discussion with my friend last night.
We determined that if I could replace my limbs with better mechanical counterparts, and still be able to experience all of the same sensations, I still wouldn't because I am sentimentally attached to my own arms.

>>3756330
What about in terms of people who lose their ability to use their arms or lose their arms altogether such as war veterans or handicapped people?

And, this is just my opinion, but if I had the choice to have my normal legs or bio-mechanical legs with no draw backs I would choose the metal legs.

(1) massive cock please
chainsaw arms
anger powered jetpacks
CUNT SMASHER (tm) CUNT PUNTER (tm) boots

>>3756343

I wouldn't not allow other people to augment themselves, and I certainly wouldn't be in favor of hindering the R&D on such things. I just personally would never choose to utilize them so long as my arms work and are attached. I would also hope that I would not be discriminated against because I would not choose to if the majority of the population were to choose to.

>>3756361

>if the majority of the population were to choose to.

Probably not going to happen.

Why are you attached to your natural arms?

>>3756330
Fuck sentimentality. I want to be a human tank.

>>3756375

After half an hour of debate, I just am.
It's not that I think it would make me less human.
It's not that I think it's morally or ethically wrong.
I just am. The shittiest of all reasons, but that is what it is.
Kind of like a phobia. It might be irrational, not based in fact, etc. but it still is.

>>3756393
Do you wear glasses or use contacts?

>>3756393

I get it. About a year ago I winced at the idea of consuming the entire universe into stars and Dyson Spheres. Power supplies and computers. The 'scientific' argument was that variety is favored in ecosystems, because once you settle down into a particular niche and conquer it, consuming everything in the system, it's over. But I guess I just denied the possibilities of the information ecologies that could be housed in such structures, preferring a real plant over the trillions of permutations of impossible plants using impossible chemistries that you could fit if the mass of a plant was turned into rod logic computers and circuits and robots.

I guess I just killed every last bit of sentimentality. Of course, that was to be expected. For people like me, who give up their humanity a bit at a time, there is no hope :)

>>3756425

Yes. But my eyes are retardedly broken. Your argument is invalid.
>-5.75 contact prescription in both eyes

Interestingly enough, my eyes have always required the same prescription strength as each other. My right eye was never better or worse than my left eye.

>>3756446
>consuming the entire universe into stars and dyson spheres
It's not really consuming it. I mean, the star was going to release that energy regardless of whether or not you were capturing it. But maybe I am not understanding the entire picture based off reading the first paragraph on Wikipedia about dyson spheres.

>>3756491
But what if you had the opportunity to get artificial eyes that would never have any issues and would always give you perfect vision?

>>3756491

>It's not really consuming it. I mean, the star was going to release that energy regardless of whether or not you were capturing it. But maybe I am not understanding the entire picture based off reading the first paragraph on Wikipedia about dyson spheres.

Take a factory that builds factories that build factories. Build spacecraft. Make them hierarchical: Some take care of surface-to-orbit, others of orbit-to-orbit, stuff like that. Reach the whole solar systemConsume mass into factories -- as needed -- and into computers, solar sails, vernier thrusters, photovoltaics, that kinda shit. The Sun remains untouched and all the energy goes into the cloud of orbiting computers. Waste heat radiates away into the other layer, and into the other, etc, until the outermost layer is as cold as liquid Helium.

You could do some megaengineering with high-temperature superconductors to mine the Sun and keep the Hydrogen somewhere else, to make it last longer.

>>3756306
Oh boy here we go. Sage and move on people.

>>3756510

Still invalid, because my eyes are still retardedly broken.
If I could replace my really crappy eyes, of course I am going to replace them with the best thing on the market (assuming eye color is retained. Aesthetic appeal should not be sacrificed for functionality.) But if I had 20/20 vision, I wouldn't.

>>3756519

Hey, at least it isn't about AI and the Singularity yet.

>>3756518

But the star will still go nova eventually, right? So long as that keeps happening, I don't think it matters much, also as long as we never harvest from stars which have planets that could ever support new life.

>>3756562

It would go nova but with proper care you can delay that.

>also as long as we never harvest from stars which have planets that could ever support new life.

Life is cool too, but imagine the possibilities for life in computers. Alife, that's the word. And for people.

One thousand human brains per cubic centimeter. Can you imagine that?

>>3756579

Point being that alife could be infinitely more complex, interesting and valuable than its real-life counterpart.

We could evolve entire ecosystems from scratch. We could write our own chemistry, our own physics, and run entire toy universes while we play with our toy atoms and toy stars and pretend we're Gods.

>>3756579

Life in computers is interesting to consider as well, but the discovery of alien life will be HUGE, while AI (or the ability to store/transfer human 'consciousness') would be big.

Maybe my opinion is skewed because
>biology

>>3756599

Well it's not like the factories are blind. I'm sure someone'll write a function to stop self-replication and disassembly in the event that they actually find life.

>>3756585

I find beauty in life creating itself.
The idea of life by a creator, whether human, supernatural, or otherwise, seems less beautiful to me. It would be cool and amazing, no doubt.
An interesting thought to consider:
Is our universe one such toy to a different species?
And would it matter?

>>3756621

>I find beauty in life creating itself.

Then simulate a primordial soup.

>Is our universe one such toy to a different species?
http://www.simulation-argument.com/

I like this part: "Therefore, if we don’t think that we are currently living in a computer simulation, we are not entitled to believe that we will have descendants who will run lots of such simulations of their forebears. That is the basic idea."

>>3756625

Bookmarked. But wouldn't the propensity to run such simulations be culturally dependent?
Also, say you run a simulation that produces conscious, self-aware life. Is it ethical to ever stop running the simulation? If not, then resources do become an issue, and you end up gobbling up suns with your dyson spheres to keep this simulated life alive, while simultaneously providing for the current human population's energy needs in other areas. And so, if these are personal simulations, then what happens when the person running them dies and their offspring don't want an inherited simulation; they want their own. But it is unethical to stop providing for the simulation. What happens then?

Also, isn't that a bit of circular reasoning? If we could ever run such simulations, we are in a simulation, but if we couldn't, then we're not.
I could imagine a scenario where a simulation was run, which did not produce simulations of its own.

>>3756654

Beats me. Ethics for Dyson Sphere civilizations is something I, as a humble baseline, can't really ponder. But pretty much every previous model breaks down in such a, for lack of a better word, surreal system. But anyways, that's already far enough into the future, so back on topic? Super robo limbs yay or nay?