Would you cast aside your human body if given the choice?

Poll - Total Votes: 13

Yes

Maybe

You can only vote on one answer.

If technology were to advance to such a state that true transhumanism were possible and you could transplant your consciousness into an artificial body, would you do so? Would you still do so if you were uncertain of the continuity of your consciousness? (AKA if you were uncertain that [i]you[/i] would experience this new body and that it may just be an indistinguishable copy of you while the current you would simply die or remain trapped in their current body) Would you want to keep the human you still around to live a natural life or do you think that the new artificial you would prefer to discard your previous fleshy shell?

As someone who has suffered from persistent chronic illness throughout his life as well as an ardent transhumanist I would jump at the opportunity no matter the risks. That said my own personal views on conscious continuity tends to treat such concepts as more akin to a parent-child relationship rather than as a continuation of the conscious predecessor and thus I think both in my current fleshy mind and if I were to be copied into a less fragile and fleshy one I'd allow both to persist simultaneously and perhaps even try to gain some kind of enriching experience out of it. I'm curious what others think of this thought experiment, if anything.

Differing interpretations of the transhuman process are welcome, whether it be partially organic brain transplantation of some kind or a fully artificial recreation from the ground up.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

SW-User

I'd cast aside my human body for a body above that of a human. Like a demigod-type body. Maybe if there's some DNA alteration that can be done, or some extreme body modifications or something.

I'm not sure how I feel about becoming mechanical. Not sure how I feel about transplanting my consciousness either. I'd rather bolster what I already have beyond human bounds.

UndeadPrivateer · 31-35, M

So cyborgization or genetic modification for you, eh? Can't blame you, really. It's certainly diving into the deep end.

SW-User

Genetic moding all the way. I'd only consider the cyborg thing if it's like a single limb or something minor.

UndeadPrivateer · 31-35, M

I personally always kind of wondered how the whole phantom limb thing would go with cyborg limbs. Like they have ones now that follow your nerve impulses and all that jazz, but how weird would it be for your phantom limb to be able to extend [i]through[/i] a physical object while your physical limb just clunks clumsily up against it? Strange thought.

SW-User

I just feel strange about there being a part of me that's not really me. I can see myself being really confused about the whole thing. I mean, to be part machine may very well be something I would only do if I had no choice; phantom limb being a hindrance or not.

UndeadPrivateer · 31-35, M

That much I can understand, a lot of people base their identity on their physical appearance and form and it would be rather shocking to have it suddenly altered. Though I'm of the thought that most of these things are cultural in origin and that they can be overcome with some serious thought and shifting cultural norms.

SW-User

@UndeadPrivateer: it's not the appearance - it's just the fact that its metallic and non-organic, or non-living, rather, if that makes sense.

UndeadPrivateer · 31-35, M

Indeed, I follow your line of thought, but what I'm referring to is: Is our current description of something being "alive" or "part of us" something that's of cultural origin and is that stepping in the way? I think it's a distinct possibility that, given enough time, our current distinction of machines as non-living may seem incredibly short-sighted and nonsensical to future humans.

We may simply be assuming that machines aren't living for purely moral reasons, after all if one did assume that machines were living beings then the way in which we currently treat them would amount to slavery.

SW-User

What then would define "living" with that taken into account? Merely functioning or having sentience? This is similar to determining whether viruses are living or not.

Also, robotic parts just sound restricting to me. Sure they can function, but what about improving and becoming more efficient? Without the need to upgrade the hardware or install better software. You know, like how our body functions to improve and strengthen things like it's skeleton, immune system, strength, reflexes, memory, and all of it happens pretty much unconsciously.

UndeadPrivateer · 31-35, M

Viruses do indeed push the boundary of what is or isn't living, and I'm no scientist to make any kind of official concise decision on what should be considered alive and what shouldn't. I personally think it could even perhaps be described as something which simply has self agency, but by some descriptions that would then even begin to extend to quantum fields and we start getting into some [i]really weird[/i] territory there. Didn't really intend on this question going into the idea of distributed consciousness. :P

As someone who's also an avid lucid dreamer, conscious or unconscious decision making is merely a matter of perspective and your argument on the subject is also one largely of perspective. Your body is constantly installing new hardware and casting aside the old, in the form of nutrients absorbed through consumption and old or unused materials being excreted, exhaled or simply flaked off over time. (Fun fact, the majority of the dust in your home is likely your own shed skin cells.) And new software is being installed every night when you go to sleep and your subconscious helps to reorder things for your conscious mind to take advantage of. The hardware changes requiring a screwdriver or wrench and the software changes requiring an electronic storage device is really more a matter of semantics than anything and really does highlight the logical question I posed beforehand.

SW-User

Oh XD I take feelings over logic just about 100% of the time - I can't do a metal attachment by choice. However similar improvement and maintenance of living tissue and mechanical parts may be, it just wouldn't sit right with me. I'm all for hacking into my DNA though and screwing around with things that way!

UndeadPrivateer · 31-35, M

A stance I fully understand and I think you're quite likely even in the camp of the majority of transhumanists with that thought. A lot of people are quite distinctly unnerved(har har, very punny) at the thought of replacing their flesh and blood with mechanical parts.

SW-User

If there's any replacements or implants, I would prefer them to be organic.

UndeadPrivateer · 31-35, M

What about nanomachines? I mean, most of them are made out of proteins, after all.

SW-User

Actually, that stuff sounds great - and they assist what's already there, right? I'd take some extra innervations in my skeletal muscles if it means bolstering power and neurological firing. Just don't replace the muscles with pieces of metal, you know?

UndeadPrivateer · 31-35, M

Indeed. Gotta aim for that Deus Ex future. Just hopefully without the Illuminati. And hopefully without the nanomachines turning us all into grey goo.

SW-User

Right. The current human form is inefficient and mediocre and I should probably stop talking because my ideal is likely too idealized XD