What will Humans look like 1000 years from now?

In My Humble Opinion
41

Every time you sleep… everytime you have gone under anesthesia, every time you have been knocked unconsious or passed out from alcohol, you have experienced a disconinuity of being.

I am not convinced that my body houses my “essence” or consciousness. It exists as memories and processes that occur because of my body, but if that were transferred over to a machine, I would still be me. My body wouldn’t be me. But who cares. My memories and my processes that make me who I am would be carried over. Idealy fully replicated by the computer system. It would be no different from falling asleep and waking up in a better mood.

You are not your neurons. You are the entire product of the sum of every reaction that takes place in your brain. You are the action potentials, the neurotransmitters. Those are what make up your memories and those are what make up yourself.

Even this is a moot point, even your brain cells aren’t always the same. They change themselves. The sodium and potassium ions aren’t used over and over indefinately. The nutrients that your cells take in replace the current ones, and the atoms and molocules that make up your cell bodies of your neurons are replaced in due time. Why does it matter if there is a continuty? Why do you somehow feel your brain processes are special. And that turning you “off” and then “on” sometime later, or moving you to another container will make you a different person?

Why, all this is great to talk about, and your idea certainly appeals to “common sense,” but not everything works according to our rules of logic. It could be just as well that when a copy of you is made, you will feel a few moments of duality as both processes experience the same thoughts and slowly move away with slightly different memories. It is just as likely, and has just as much proof. None.

Hey, if you want to believe in some magical “essence” that makes your body special, and moving it will kill you and a “mere” copy will live on, go right ahead. I personally see no difference between myself and a copy. Because essentially there is not a difference. Of course we could quibble over that for thousands of years, just like any religion or philosophy. In the end, it hardly matters- there is currently no evidence, and it is fully belief. My belief is not superior to yours, and yours is in no way superior to mine. I am fully comfortable with the idea of a “mere copy” of mine living forever.

42

Our neurons do not stop firing even when we sleep. Merely the pattern of firing changes…even if we aren’t conscious of it, there is no cessation of neural activity from before we are born until we die. A non-firing CNS neuron is a dead neuron. At some low level, we are always on. Parts of our minds are always doing something.

I agree, not everything ( or even most things) work according to our rules of common sense…though I wasn’t aware that I was appealing to or using common sense here. ( common sense is some sorta deux ex machina…I am certainly not saying such a thing exists)I was merely trying to state the fact that we do not understand what our experience of consciousness really is.

This is the exact opposite of what I was saying. In fact nowhere did I mention any such thing. I was saying that there is no magic essense that will move from one body to another…you seem to be saying that our conscious experience of I will move from one place to another smoothly, yet how can it do so without such a non-existant essense? My body simply is me, nothing more, nothing less.

You are arguing that there is nothing that is us that is beyond the flesh, yet also seem to be stating that we are not the flesh…which is it? The "action potentials"are certainly encoded in the flesh.

If the atoms that make up our consciousness do infact get recycled in and out of our bodies, then we probably don’t experience a continuity of being, though I have never seen any proof one way or the other of this.

If a perfect copy of me is made, and I still exist, is the copy also me? No, it is a seperate entity from that time forward. If after some time I die, the copy still wouldn’t be me…it would have its own existance, it’s own sense of I. It’s not possible to make a copy and slay the original without some delay, so even if there was some sort of ‘soul’… a copy would still have its own existance and not be you.

I guess I’m not really happy with the idea of a copy of mine living on forever unless I was there too.

43

What if my new machine body breaks down? Is the operating system Microsoft - and if so, how do I reboot myself after a “general protection fault”? Very few machines last 70-100 years, but a well-tended human body will. It’s hard to buy the “live forever” claim when our junkyards are full of discards mechanical items.

Like what?

Plus all the stuff already mentioned about a copy not being the original.

44

prob F…A…T

45

Ok, bad example. You got me there.

I agree about the common sense thing as well, which is why I made special care to put them in quotes. :wink: I agree about us not understanding what our experienceof conciousness really is as well.

Ok, I made an assumption here, and I must applogize.

No, I am saying that we are the processes of the flesh. The same thing you are saying, actually. I just say that if you mimic those processes in such a way as to make a perfect copy, be it a machine or an exact biological duplicate, you would in fact be, in essence, transferring that identity. That new housing of your consiousness would think it is you, have your memories, and be you in every concievable sense. I see no reason to assume that there would be a difference, and I would certainly have my same sense of self. Just as I seem to have the same sense of self I did as when I was 10 years ago, even though I am now a drastically different person.

This was brought up in another thread in GQ, let me find you the link: http://www.ag-shadow.de/Plex/Shadowplex/zr_genes.htm

I don’t know the answer to this. It is quite a dillema though. If a copy of you is made, it will diverge from the you currently, and will become a different person, though only a bit, I would imagine. This might be similar to how twins are.

Personally, I would not be content with a copy of me living forever if I am living as well. Though I guess it would be better than merely having kids. I hope for the gradual change into machine. Implants gradually changing me from biological to not. If I someday reach machine I will weigh these philosophical issues and make a decsion for sure. I am sure I wil thenl have a greater idea of what really makes me… well, me.

If I never accomlish it, then it will be a moot point I guess.

Oh, and to make a comment on your “It’s not possible to make a copy and slay the original without some delay,” well, I would disagree. It might seem impossible now, but if we can make the transfer in two miliseconds or less, there would effectively be no delay. One neuron takes two milliseconds to fire. Your brain would not experience much in that two milliseconds. There would be effectively no time passed. There is probably wiggle room in that too, it might be essentially the same in 10 miliseconds.

Saying what is possible and not possible is silly, IMO. We are talking about something that isn’t possible with todays technology, and we are postulating what our technology will be like in 1000 years? How can you sit there and say that the ability to copy somebody may be possible, but it is not possible to do it nearly instantaniously, or at least fater than our brain processes?

46

Heh. There will be general protection faults and programs designed to fix errors. I seriously doubt that you would be using microsoft. We are talking about some very advanced technology. By that time software will be much more stable and advanced. There will no doubt be plenty of redundancies.

What if your machine body breaks down? What if your biological body breaks down? You go to the doctor right? What is this logic? You get it fixed. DUH!
Junkyards are full of discards of mechanical items, not full of highly advanced technological wonders that can hold a human mind.

As for the things that can be done? How about live in space, on asteroids, on other planets. How about being able to do anything any machine could do. How about being able to do complex caculations in nanoseconds. How about having a subjective liftime of 10 years for every 1 year actually experienced.

Biological forms are limited, fragil and very slow. Our thought processes are sluggish and too dependent upon chemical balances. Our very bodies break down if certain conditions are not exactly perfect. Our relience on oxygen is a bit of a problem as well as our vulnerability to radiation. A mechanical body would get over this.

There may be a way to do this biologically as well, espcially in 1000 years. But the reason the idea of machines being our next bodies is because it is the older one. Biological manipulations to live in space or without oxygen are probably further away. (though not necessarily.) Much of science fiction focuses on the mechanical, rather than biological, newer science fiction, I have noticed, tends to spend more time on biotech and genetics.

47

Epimetheus, if we made a perfect copy of you, it’s experiences would start to diverge from the original’s immediately. If we then killed the original you, that conscious being would cease to exist regardless of what the copy thinks, feels, remembers ect. That is why your “transfer” idea is not a good one for attaining immortality or even life extension.

48

Yeah? Cite?

49

Let me clarify. Since this is all speculation, and you come in here all so confidently stating with fact something that we have been speculating, not to mention you ignore this little fact: The human brain only experiences things so quickly. It is impossible for new memories to form faster than several milliseconds. (2 actually)
If the transfer took place that fast, there would be no divergence.

So, find me a cite showing that a memory could be formed in less than 2 milliseconds.

50

My point is that the divergence would happen as soon as different experiences were experienced, which would be right away (okay 2 milliseconds later). It seems quite obvious to me, as does my second point.

51

Yes, and your post came after my post which showed that I understood that and discussed a way in which those problems could be avoided. Yet you still come in and tell me so confidently that there is no way to do the transfer without incurring new memories. Or so your post sure seemed to say, after the fact of my post.

52

Wel’ll look like this .

53

NO. LIKE THIS.

:eek: :eek:

54

No, No, No, you got it all wrong, we will look like this: So it is written.

55

Epimetheus, I apologize for missing the earlier response to the point which you addressed with this:
“I don’t know the answer to this. It is quite a dilemma though.”
What you are calling transfering, I am calling copying.
You still have not addressed my second point but that is okay because this has been an unnecessary hijack (I hate hijacks and so I am mad at myself for getting involved). I assure you that I was not approaching this dialog with brazenness or arrogance. I am sorry if you got that impression. It is my bday today; I don’t need a stressful argument today, so I will stop. I agree to disagree.

56

No problem, wasn’t trying to make it stressful. If I came off as harsh please forgive me. Happy birthday!

I also wouldn’t really call it a hijack. The ability to transfer or copy plays an important role in what we may look like in 1000 years. If tranferance is impossible, we would probably remain biological. I think if this form of transferrence became acceptable, and was possible, we would have a wide variety of forms. Those living on different planets would look vastly different from those living in space feeding off the solar energies, wouldn’t you think? But I do agree, we can agree to disagree. It isn’t fact we are talking about, but speculation, and either one of us may be right, or both of us may be wrong. Who knows. I for one hope to be around to find out. :wink:

57

My human body has some nice redundancies as a product of four billion years of evolution. We’ll have to do better than the natural world before I’d even consider doing such a thing.

Big difference is that imperfect body can nonetheless self-repair many environmentally induced faults. Not all, certainly, but many. Do we have self-repairing machinery? If I cut my finger or scratch my leg it heals on its own without needing a doctor - if I scratch the paint on my car it stays scratched.

We do have machinery that can do limited self-diagnosis - but nothing that repairs itself the way an organic body does.

Well, of course not because such things don’t exist yet and, in fact, may never exist.

Haven’t humans walked on the moon? Lived in space stations for months at a time? We don’t have to turn into machines to do these things.

Hmm… but would I still be able to do all the human things I enjoy, like eating and sleeping and sex and making a really good, satisfying crap just after breakfast? Anything less would just be trading one set of limitations for another. Why should I bother?

I have zero interest in this. How boring. I don’t enjoy math, I don’t see where doing math really fast would make it more enjoyable. Besides, isn’t that why we invented calculators, so we wouldn’t have to exert ourselves doing sums?

Of what use is that?

Sure, humans need to eat, sleep, breathe air and so forth – but machines need power, on-going maintenance, replacement parts… Again, you’re trading one set of maintenance issues for another set. I don’t see a net gain anywhere.

Compared to what? Will this computer I’m typing on survive a brief immersion in water? I can do so with ease, multiple times.

I can walk up and down stairs - how many machines can do that?

Not necessarially. So far, most of our computerized devices require more protection from radiation than humans do. A lot of our mechanical devices would not survive exposure to vaccum, or the sunlight in outer space, or the cold in un-lit areas of outerspace.

Machines break down if certain conditions are not met - as I said, you trade one set of limitations for another. I don’t accept that this is automatically a net gain.

You mean the entire space program, Spacelab, Mir, and the current International Space Station were faked or something? People can live in space. They can’t live unaided in space, technology is required. For that matter, we require technology to live near the Artic circle - but people have done so for thousands of years.

Personally, I think it more likely we’d be cyborgs rather than full machines. Heck, we already have people who 50 years ago would have been considered SF cyborgs - anyone with a cochlear implant, for example. Artificial heart valves. Titatnium and steel to replace or reinforce damaged bones. Insulin pumps. And so on. But the trend so far has been to replace only things that can’t heal any other way, not replace healthy parts with mechanical ones.

58

Well, your error (IMO) is that you project your 20th century bias into your imagination. This can be considered a lack of imagination. We are merely speculating, right? You can’t see the future, I cannot see the future.

I am not talking about todays technology, I am talking about technology in 100 or 1000 years. You cannot compare todays computers with the computers of the future. That is short sighted. That is lacking in imagination.

Now, take this same argument in GD, and sure, you have some points. In IMHO, your merely showing a lack in imagination.

59

The thing is, having been born in the 20th Century I will always have that bias with me. If you downloaded (or whatever) my personality into one of these magic machines tomorrow you’d be dealing with a 20th Century mind and all its hangups inside a machine.

Lack of imagination? Nonsense. I have different priorities and values, that’s all. If you feel such a change would be good for you then bravo - but it’s also lack of imagination for you to think that everyone would feel the same as you do. Maybe in the future some of us will do just as you say — and another bunch will stay organic and devise simple and elegant means of allowing organic life forms to live in harsh environments and do all the thiings their machine-converted counterparts do. I see no reason the human race needs to move in lockstep.

60

Touché.