Forums of the Megaverse®

I have it on good authority that "full conversion" transfer of intelligence into bionic machines is no more than 20 years away. I can't say anything more. Just wanted to tell you guys because I am pretty excited about this and there is no way posting it here can come back and bite me in the ass.

Would anyone else like to caper madly?

I'm telling everyone so it does come and bite you in the ass so nyah! seriously, I'll believe it when I see it.. double post was due to tablet misbehaving. Depends if you mean taking the brain out and hooking it into a machine or if you mean copying the mind into a computer in a machine or most of organ systems transfer or partial but more extensive conversion than thus far..

Akashic Soldier wrote:I have it on good authority that "full conversion" transfer of intelligence into bionic machines is no more than 20 years away. I can't say anything more. Just wanted to tell you guys because I am pretty excited about this and there is no way posting it here can come back and bite me in the ass.

Would anyone else like to caper madly?

Hehe in 20 years if I make it that long I probably am going to need a box to stick my brain in as my body is not going to be useful for much at that point.

Transhumanism baby!

Methinks, too bad we'll only be able to copy our info -destroying our brains in the process- into a perfect photocopy of ourselves which will continue onwards, while we ourselves die.

Still cool though.

Thats just what they want, an off switch and proprietary parts and fluids you need to survive.
Limbs sure transferred brain probaly gonna back fire

Gryphon wrote:Shortly after that, since i will be like 60-ish, I want a pair of cyber arms so I can dead lift a small car...just because really!

you uhhh.... you may wish to go for a more thorough upgrade procedure including, say... your spinal column and your legs... if you want to pick up cars.

unless by "small car" you're thinking "hot wheels" that is.

Akashic Soldier wrote:"full conversion" transfer of intelligence into bionic machines

What does that even mean?

Are we talking about transplanting brains into machines?
"Copying" your memories and personality into a computer?
Or something else entirely?

--flatline

Akashic Soldier wrote:I have it on good authority that "full conversion" transfer of intelligence into bionic machines is no more than 20 years away. I can't say anything more. Just wanted to tell you guys because I am pretty excited about this and there is no way posting it here can come back and bite me in the ass.

Would anyone else like to caper madly?

LMAO, this is too funny... wait... you are serious?

Let's just say, "I don't think so". We will be lucky if we can come up with "bionic" legs and arms that can replace lost limbs and function as human limbs in 20 years. I doubt we will be able to replace spines and more complicated parts of the body in 20 years. An eyeball would be a fantastic step forward, but once again, I don't see us patching into the nerve center of the brain with an optic input in 20 years. A WHOLE person in a "bionic" body? I really don't think so. But hey, it's fun to talk about.

Yeah, right, you'll live forever.....

BURBANK TRANSFER COMPLETE. MENTAL DOWNLOAD COMPLETE. SAVE FILE?
DELETE SOUL?
Y/N?
*CLICK*
"Oops."
FILE DELETED.
"That wasn't very nice, Missus Burbank."

I'll be going for the Cyber-Humanoid look (Rifts SB-6)

No, better yet something similar to the Triax Red 'Borg

Snake Eyes wrote:I'll be going for the Cyber-Humanoid look (Rifts SB-6)

No, better yet something similar to the Triax Red 'Borg

Going personally for something with backup capacity. Just in case.

taalismn wrote:

Snake Eyes wrote:I'll be going for the Cyber-Humanoid look (Rifts SB-6)

No, better yet something similar to the Triax Red 'Borg

Going personally for something with backup capacity. Just in case.

Well, when a cyborg, two bodies are better than one

Woot mind uploading go! I'm down with this.

I haven't gone checking, but has the estimated date of The Singularity been moved forward? Last I heard it was 2045 or there abouts. 20 years from now makes it 2033, 12 years earlier. That is, if it id possible and happens when predicted.

As for tapping into the optic nerve, we've done that. It's still early days, but people are now able to see basic shades and shapes, and that was a couple years ago. And then there's that inventor who was attacked at McDonalds for wearing a vision enhancing device of his own invention. Cochlear implants for hearing are old news. There's a man, Neil Harbisson, who hears colours due to an implant. There are high tech prosthetic hands and limbs, and they're not far from being permanently fitted last I heard either. I've been looking for a particular one, from a shark attack victim here in Oz. Was a carbon fiber thing, full lower arm from the elbow down. Simply amazing. Or there's Paul de Gelder (warning, graphic content!), Australian Navy diver who got attacked by a shark, who went back to work less than two years after his attack, training the next generation of navy divers. The tech behind prosthetic are increasing at a great rate these days.

I haven't' looked into the area of electronic mind transference for some time. Where they digitize your mind, and then store it in some device, either some computer or in new body, either an organic clone of your own, a completely different body (maybe even someone elses!), or into a cyborg body. I know there has been study into this field, but I have no idea of what advances they've done with it. I did remember that some scientists did apparently implant memories into mice only just last year.

I'm not saying that I believe what AS said. But then, I'm not totally discounting it either. It's certainly plausible, I'm not sure how possible it is it will happen in the next 20 years though.

Though I will say I'd go borg for a Wearman MkII though. ;]

I did a paper and seminar on the impact of cybernetics on human society. The research for it was rather interesting, including that the Australian government already has draft proposals for how to regulate cybernetics and nanotechnology, so you have to say they're thinking ahead.

The most interesting question, I found, was not 'what is a cyborg?', but 'what is a human?'. The line is rather a lot more fuzzy than you think to some people. If you wear glasses, or even clothes, technically you're utilising wearable technology to enhance your life. Therefore, you are a cyborg (by some definitions). Alternately, where do you stop becoming human? If I had some sort of horrible accident and my brain were transferred into a 6 metre tall 8-legged machine, would I still be human? It's an awful lot of perception. In fact, I found that people who identified as 'gamers' were much better adjusted to accept people as cyborgs than people who weren't.

WRT transhumanism and such, I've just finished Accellerando. I'd recommend that to anyone interested in The Singularity, or transhumanism.

Depends also on how the physiology of social feedback mechanisms work. We are wired to perceive faces and so forth in particular ways and we need social stimulation to keep us sane.. will this be catered for in a robot body?

Comrade Corsarius wrote:I did a paper and seminar on the impact of cybernetics on human society. The research for it was rather interesting, including that the Australian government already has draft proposals for how to regulate cybernetics and nanotechnology, so you have to say they're thinking ahead.

The most interesting question, I found, was not 'what is a cyborg?', but 'what is a human?'. The line is rather a lot more fuzzy than you think to some people. If you wear glasses, or even clothes, technically you're utilising wearable technology to enhance your life. Therefore, you are a cyborg (by some definitions). Alternately, where do you stop becoming human? If I had some sort of horrible accident and my brain were transferred into a 6 metre tall 8-legged machine, would I still be human? It's an awful lot of perception. In fact, I found that people who identified as 'gamers' were much better adjusted to accept people as cyborgs than people who weren't.

WRT transhumanism and such, I've just finished Accellerando. I'd recommend that to anyone interested in The Singularity, or transhumanism.

I tend to see things like glasses and hearing aids as just that, aids for those particular senses. Things like the cochlear implant, well, it's an implant and thus, you've started becoming a 'borg. So if it's implanted (pacemaker, knee/hip replacement, etc), then yeah, borg. If it's wearable enhancement, then it's just 'equipment'. Prosthetics blur the line here, until they can permanently attach them to the human body. But I lean towards them being 'borg, at least the modern ones which can read muscle commands.

My gaming mates and I have viewed things like 'going borg' or some apocalypse (zombie/alien invasion/or other), as something that gamers are more mentally ready for than the average Joe out there in 'mundaneland'.

8]

I think 20 years is a very generous estimate.
No-one is sure how much the human brain holds exactly, conservatives estimate as little as 1 Petabyte (1000 Terabytes) others as high as 14 Petabytes.
Either way, memory storage technology hasn't yet reached a point where it can store anywhere near that amount of information in a size small enough to fit in a humanoid head. Sure it is possible that may change in 20 years time but there are too many variables to make an accurate estimate of when the technology to replicate human memory and install it into an Android will be ready.
Generally, when you are still waiting for technology to advance to the point where your own theories can be tested, all bets are out the window.

Giant2005 wrote:I think 20 years is a very generous estimate.
No-one is sure how much the human brain holds exactly, conservatives estimate as little as 1 Petabyte (1000 Terabytes) others as high as 14 Petabytes.
Either way, memory storage technology hasn't yet reached a point where it can store anywhere near that amount of information in a size small enough to fit in a humanoid head. Sure it is possible that may change in 20 years time but there are too many variables to make an accurate estimate of when the technology to replicate human memory and install it into an Android will be ready.
Generally, when you are still waiting for technology to advance to the point where your own theories can be tested, all bets are out the window.

Whenever I get to this point in a discussion with my wife, the words 'quantum computing' start to be bandied around. I ask 'what's that?', or 'why?', and she begins to get wildly excited about how it's the most important new technology EVER. Shortly thereafter I'm assaulted with a stream of technobabble that I just sort of smile and nod a lot at. Then my head hurts a lot and I go back to more sane things, like mutualism between butterflies and ants.

Take my advice, kids: Never marry a theoretical physicist unless you have a lot of headache tablets.

Comrade Corsarius wrote:

Giant2005 wrote:I think 20 years is a very generous estimate.
No-one is sure how much the human brain holds exactly, conservatives estimate as little as 1 Petabyte (1000 Terabytes) others as high as 14 Petabytes.
Either way, memory storage technology hasn't yet reached a point where it can store anywhere near that amount of information in a size small enough to fit in a humanoid head. Sure it is possible that may change in 20 years time but there are too many variables to make an accurate estimate of when the technology to replicate human memory and install it into an Android will be ready.
Generally, when you are still waiting for technology to advance to the point where your own theories can be tested, all bets are out the window.

Whenever I get to this point in a discussion with my wife, the words 'quantum computing' start to be bandied around. I ask 'what's that?', or 'why?', and she begins to get wildly excited about how it's the most important new technology EVER. Shortly thereafter I'm assaulted with a stream of technobabble that I just sort of smile and nod a lot at. Then my head hurts a lot and I go back to more sane things, like mutualism between butterflies and ants.

Take my advice, kids: Never marry a theoretical physicist unless you have a lot of headache tablets.

Quantum Computers would absolutely solve the memory issue but I wouldn't put much stock into them being ready in 20 years either. They started working on them 30 years ago and have made only minimal progress. I have no doubt such things will occur, I'm just hesitant to put my faith in a 20 year timespan. Still, the nerd in me is hoping desperately - I'd love to have a robotic clone or four (Although by the time the technology became cheap enough for consumer use, I'd probably be long gone).

Giant2005 wrote:

Comrade Corsarius wrote:

Giant2005 wrote:I think 20 years is a very generous estimate.
No-one is sure how much the human brain holds exactly, conservatives estimate as little as 1 Petabyte (1000 Terabytes) others as high as 14 Petabytes.
Either way, memory storage technology hasn't yet reached a point where it can store anywhere near that amount of information in a size small enough to fit in a humanoid head. Sure it is possible that may change in 20 years time but there are too many variables to make an accurate estimate of when the technology to replicate human memory and install it into an Android will be ready.
Generally, when you are still waiting for technology to advance to the point where your own theories can be tested, all bets are out the window.

Whenever I get to this point in a discussion with my wife, the words 'quantum computing' start to be bandied around. I ask 'what's that?', or 'why?', and she begins to get wildly excited about how it's the most important new technology EVER. Shortly thereafter I'm assaulted with a stream of technobabble that I just sort of smile and nod a lot at. Then my head hurts a lot and I go back to more sane things, like mutualism between butterflies and ants.

Take my advice, kids: Never marry a theoretical physicist unless you have a lot of headache tablets.

Quantum Computers would absolutely solve the memory issue but I wouldn't put much stock into them being ready in 20 years either. They started working on them 30 years ago and have made only minimal progress. I have no doubt such things will occur, I'm just hesitant to put my faith in a 20 year timespan. Still, the nerd in me is hoping desperately - I'd love to have a robotic clone or four (Although by the time the technology became cheap enough for consumer use, I'd probably be long gone).

If they can crack the quantum computing/quantum storage all bets are pretty much off. If they can actually use them to the full capacity processing power would go to almost un imaginable levels and storage would near infinity. At that point if you could get the interface between the human mind and the computer working there would be no reason you could not completly backup a persons mind.

For those interested in this kind of stuff an interesting RPG that explores a lot of this area is called eclipse phase.

Yeah it'll take a while longer to work out how to copy the contents of the brain and understand intelligence 'properly'.

kaid wrote:

Giant2005 wrote:[

For those interested in this kind of stuff an interesting RPG that explores a lot of this area is called eclipse phase.

With the transhumans almost immediately turning on the rest of us.....

Athos wrote:Let's just say, "I don't think so". We will be lucky if we can come up with "bionic" legs and arms that can replace lost limbs and function as human limbs in 20 years. I doubt we will be able to replace spines and more complicated parts of the body in 20 years. An eyeball would be a fantastic step forward, but once again, I don't see us patching into the nerve center of the brain with an optic input in 20 years. A WHOLE person in a "bionic" body? I really don't think so. But hey, it's fun to talk about.

While I agree with your initial sentiment, they're actually able to make incredibly basic eyes right now.

http://www.theage.com.au/technology/sci ... 251nu.html

/Sub

Comrade Corsarius wrote:Whenever I get to this point in a discussion with my wife, the words 'quantum computing' start to be bandied around. I ask 'what's that?', or 'why?', and she begins to get wildly excited about how it's the most important new technology EVER. Shortly thereafter I'm assaulted with a stream of technobabble that I just sort of smile and nod a lot at. Then my head hurts a lot and I go back to more sane things, like mutualism between butterflies and ants.

Take my advice, kids: Never marry a theoretical physicist unless you have a lot of headache tablets.

Quantum computing is the holy grail of computing.

To put its effect in mathematical terms, the current rate of computing speed increase could be described as n^2 every 15 years or so (where n is the current state of the art).

If we successfully implement quantum computing on any significant scale, our computing speed increase will be something in the realm of n^2! every 5 years. Quantum computing is so fast it's frickin' creepy. I could be phrasing this poorly, but currently the electronic switches in a CPU hold a state of on or off in certain patterns to perform calculations, with a single clock cycle indicating a full process of switch usage. Well, on a quantum computer, it would function as if each switch occupied every single possible configuration, all at the same time, for every single clock cycle.

Yeah. That.

So if you add a comparatively small half million switches to a quantum computer, you just added the equivalent of a big supercomputer by today's standards.

/Sub

there have been some advances in quantum based binary computing, which uses quantum computing methods to do conventional computing. the ones currently on the market are only 8 and 16 bit, but they can run multiple simultaneous processes off the same hardware, letting them calculate things far faster than regular computers.

Subjugator wrote:To put its effect in mathematical terms, yadda yadda I get enough of this at home yadda yadda you just added the equivalent of a big supercomputer by today's standards.

/Sub

Impressive. *nods*

taalismn wrote:

kaid wrote:

Giant2005 wrote:[

For those interested in this kind of stuff an interesting RPG that explores a lot of this area is called eclipse phase.

With the transhumans almost immediately turning on the rest of us.....

Actually it was more the hypersapient AIs (TITANS) getting infected with an alien virus and turning on everyone else, IIRC.

Comrade Corsarius wrote:The most interesting question, I found, was not 'what is a cyborg?', but 'what is a human?'. The line is rather a lot more fuzzy than you think to some people. If you wear glasses, or even clothes, technically you're utilising wearable technology to enhance your life. Therefore, you are a cyborg (by some definitions).

I'm not sure how technology which if removed from you you feel a bit cold and embaressed somehow gets confused with technology which if removed from you you start bleeding profusely and possibly, depending on the depth of the implant, die instantly? It's like saying a skateboard and a jet airplane are 'a bit fuzzy as to the difference between them'.

The irony is it sounds like the exact sort of things humans do - start playing games with semantics to get/normalise what they want.

Also anyone considered what defines us as human is probably our incapacities, at a mental level. Augment the mind and you essentially create a new species in that former human, you don't just get someone who's human but better?

Qev wrote:

taalismn wrote:

kaid wrote:

Giant2005 wrote:[

For those interested in this kind of stuff an interesting RPG that explores a lot of this area is called eclipse phase.

With the transhumans almost immediately turning on the rest of us.....

Actually it was more the hypersapient AIs (TITANS) getting infected with an alien virus and turning on everyone else, IIRC.

We don't have gel circuits...yet.

Noon wrote:

Comrade Corsarius wrote:The most interesting question, I found, was not 'what is a cyborg?', but 'what is a human?'. The line is rather a lot more fuzzy than you think to some people. If you wear glasses, or even clothes, technically you're utilising wearable technology to enhance your life. Therefore, you are a cyborg (by some definitions).

I'm not sure how technology which if removed from you you feel a bit cold and embaressed somehow gets confused with technology which if removed from you you start bleeding profusely and possibly, depending on the depth of the implant, die instantly? It's like saying a skateboard and a jet airplane are 'a bit fuzzy as to the difference between them'.

The irony is it sounds like the exact sort of things humans do - start playing games with semantics to get/normalise what they want.

"Cybernetics" is really just the study of feedback-driven systems, how those systems are constructed, and their limitations and potentials. In the colloquial sense, it's the use of technology to enhance the function of the human body (ignoring the regulatory feedback aspect), under which definition things like clothing and eyeglasses, hip replacements, and prosthetic limbs would all fit.

What I see is the Transporter delima.

Is what was transfered really the person or just information about that person? if the body is no more where did the soul go? to the chip or to what wages of life they had coming?

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:What I see is the Transporter delima.

Is what was transfered really the person or just information about that person? if the body is no more where did the soul go? to the chip or to what wages of life they had coming?

There's no dilemma. What ends up in the machine is a copy of the person.

In the case of a transporter, the original is dead.

There's no reason to worry about what happened to the soul since there's no such thing.

--flatline

flatline wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:What I see is the Transporter delima.

Is what was transfered really the person or just information about that person? if the body is no more where did the soul go? to the chip or to what wages of life they had coming?

There's no reason to worry about what happened to the soul since there's no such thing.

--flatline

You really can't speak to whether or not a soul exists with such factual declaration since you can't prove or disprove its existence. The most you can do is state that because it's not provable to exist that you don't believe in its existence. The more appropriate answer would be that whether or not souls exist we couldn't copy one into a machine so even if we could copy everything that makes up a human's mind into a machine the machine wouldn't have a soul.

Qev wrote:

taalismn wrote:

kaid wrote:

Giant2005 wrote:[

For those interested in this kind of stuff an interesting RPG that explores a lot of this area is called eclipse phase.

With the transhumans almost immediately turning on the rest of us.....

Actually it was more the hypersapient AIs (TITANS) getting infected with an alien virus and turning on everyone else, IIRC.

Okay...then there's Ken McLeod's Fall Revolutions series where the post-humans leave the Earth, enslave downloaded human personalities, crash the terrestrial electronic infrastructure, build a civilization on Jupiter, create a wormhole to the end of time, before going mad in accelerated time senility.

Qev wrote:

Noon wrote:

Comrade Corsarius wrote:The most interesting question, I found, was not 'what is a cyborg?', but 'what is a human?'. The line is rather a lot more fuzzy than you think to some people. If you wear glasses, or even clothes, technically you're utilising wearable technology to enhance your life. Therefore, you are a cyborg (by some definitions).

I'm not sure how technology which if removed from you you feel a bit cold and embaressed somehow gets confused with technology which if removed from you you start bleeding profusely and possibly, depending on the depth of the implant, die instantly? It's like saying a skateboard and a jet airplane are 'a bit fuzzy as to the difference between them'.

The irony is it sounds like the exact sort of things humans do - start playing games with semantics to get/normalise what they want.

"Cybernetics" is really just the study of feedback-driven systems, how those systems are constructed, and their limitations and potentials. In the colloquial sense, it's the use of technology to enhance the function of the human body (ignoring the regulatory feedback aspect), under which definition things like clothing and eyeglasses, hip replacements, and prosthetic limbs would all fit.

So broad as to be useless - a guy who makes shoes is a cyberneticist, sure.

This broad categorisation is like putting toy potato guns and actual bullet firing guns under the same category, because 'they all fire projectiles'.

It's irresponsible. And I know, it all sounds so reasonable. But you've no sense of any potential downside to the matter, so of course it's going to seem reasonable to you.

flatline wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:What I see is the Transporter delima.

Is what was transfered really the person or just information about that person? if the body is no more where did the soul go? to the chip or to what wages of life they had coming?

There's no dilemma. What ends up in the machine is a copy of the person.

In the case of a transporter, the original is dead.

It depends on the method of transport.

If I cut off one of your fingers and then physically carry you and it to a new location in seperate boxes, then sew it back onto you (and lets say it takes), are you dead? Just a copy?

So what if I tear you apart molecule by molecule, move your molecules, then reassemble you?

Or what if I modify your atomic adherance and stretch you like an elastic band over thousands of miles, then unstretch you back to your regular pattern, but unstretch towards the target location, so you become normal sized there?

I'm not sure why the 'transporter dilemma' has gravitated around being a 'Replicator', as if that's the only option? They have replicators in the setting - why isn't the transporter room called a replicator room then, if it is such?

Noon wrote:[So what if I tear you apart molecule by molecule, move your molecules, then reassemble you?

Or what if I modify your atomic adherance and stretch you like an elastic band over thousands of miles, then unstretch you back to your regular pattern, but unstretch towards the target location, so you become normal sized there?

I'm not sure why the 'transporter dilemma' has gravitated around being a 'Replicator', as if that's the only option? They have replicators in the setting - why isn't the transporter room called a replicator room then, if it is such?

I prefer to keep my molecules in a contiguous package, thank you.

And the 'Transporter Room' is yet another piece of cover-up propoganda concealing the real darkness behind Star Trek's utopian civilization . Refer to the sci-fi story 'Think Like a Dinosaur' where teleporter protocols call for the elimination of the original once the scanned data has been sent to the far source to be assembled, thus preventing the spacefaring civilizations from being swamped by multiple copies of the same people.

flatline wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:What I see is the Transporter delima.

Is what was transfered really the person or just information about that person? if the body is no more where did the soul go? to the chip or to what wages of life they had coming?

There's no dilemma. What ends up in the machine is a copy of the person.

In the case of a transporter, the original is dead.

What about the case where a person's individual cells have all been replaced over time, as per natural aging?

Killer Cyborg wrote:

flatline wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:What I see is the Transporter delima.

Is what was transfered really the person or just information about that person? if the body is no more where did the soul go? to the chip or to what wages of life they had coming?

There's no dilemma. What ends up in the machine is a copy of the person.

In the case of a transporter, the original is dead.

What about the case where a person's individual cells have all been replaced over time, as per natural aging?

"Son, I've replaced the handle a couple of times and put a new head on it, but this ax is the same ax your grandfather used to build our barn..." Google for "grandfather's axe" for lots of discussion on this very topic.

Identity is strangely tied to history. Even so, you are not the same person you were X years ago when you had different cells, yet you consider yourself the same person because you can account for how that person became you in the present. It is a lucky coincidence that the person who was me made the decisions that he did so that I could be who I am today. I feel a great kinship with him and clearly our histories merge, but I am a different person than who "I" was in college, or grade school.

If there were a machine that could scan you and copy you exactly, the copy would be a copy, but if that same machine made a copy of you some place else and killed you in a way that left no body, you would be dead even if the copy was "legally" you.

--flatline

Sounds like the Me from seven years ago is likewise dead.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Sounds like the Me from seven years ago is likewise dead.

I wouldn't say "dead". I would say "replaced" or "no longer existent".

--flatline

flatline wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Sounds like the Me from seven years ago is likewise dead.

I wouldn't say "dead". I would say "replaced" or "no longer existent".

--flatline

But you would (did) say "dead" in the case of a transporter.
Why the difference/distinction?

Killer Cyborg wrote:

flatline wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Sounds like the Me from seven years ago is likewise dead.

I wouldn't say "dead". I would say "replaced" or "no longer existent".

--flatline

But you would (did) say "dead" in the case of a transporter.
Why the difference/distinction?

History connects your current body with your past body. You can draw a continuous line through time that uniquely ties you and past versions of you back to conception.

In the case of a transporter, no such line can be drawn that ties the copy of your body with the body that was torn apart molecule by molecule. Being disintegrated meets most definitions of "dead" that I'm aware of regardless of whether or not a copy of you happens to come into existence somewhere else at the same time.

--flatline

flatline wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

flatline wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Sounds like the Me from seven years ago is likewise dead.

I wouldn't say "dead". I would say "replaced" or "no longer existent".

--flatline

But you would (did) say "dead" in the case of a transporter.
Why the difference/distinction?

History connects your current body with your past body. You can draw a continuous line through time that uniquely ties you and past versions of you back to conception.

In the case of a transporter, no such line can be drawn that ties the copy of your body with the body that was torn apart molecule by molecule. Being disintegrated meets most definitions of "dead" that I'm aware of regardless of whether or not a copy of you happens to come into existence somewhere else at the same time.

--flatline

Well if you go by the episode where Barkley is showing his (justified) fear of Transporters they're more like extradimensional spaces that they're traveling through, since they could actually grab people 'stuck' in Transporter space and pull them out. Just as they can detect a firing phaser and disable it, can't do that if they're broken down molecules that you're just learning a pattern to that you then reassemble elsewhere. Transporter accidents end up then being a failure of the transporter to understand how to pull you out of that space properly.

Unfortunately Star Trek's been somewhat inconsistent in the depictions of how transporters work though, although the gate network for Stargate was explicitly noted to actually do what Star Trek Transporters do, break down matter that enters the gate and send a data stream of that person through the wormhole to the other end where you're reassembled, so it's more explicit there that you have the question of whether or not the original is being destroyed/killed and replaced with a copy.

Noon wrote:So broad as to be useless - a guy who makes shoes is a cyberneticist, sure.

This broad categorisation is like putting toy potato guns and actual bullet firing guns under the same category, because 'they all fire projectiles'.

It's irresponsible. And I know, it all sounds so reasonable. But you've no sense of any potential downside to the matter, so of course it's going to seem reasonable to you.

Well no, a person who makes shoes wouldn't really be a cyberneticist, because that usage is referring to the actual definition of 'cybernetics' and not the colloquial one. A cyberneticist would be someone who studies systems that are feedback driven, and applications of said systems. I mean, I suppose you could use the colloquial sense in that way, I probably wouldn't argue.

Potato guns and firearms are in the same category. They both fire projectiles, typically using explosive power. Firearms are defined more specifically as firing projectiles over a certain speed for use as a weapon.

(annoyingly, even 'bionics' doesn't really have anything to do with replacement body parts; it's the study and application of organic structures, where 'organic' is meant in the sense of structure and not chemistry)

Killer Cyborg wrote:Sounds like the Me from seven years ago is likewise dead.

Those discussions always seem to fail to include that you cease growing new brain cells at about age 20. Thus you should be dead at 27, no? Anyway, it varies in what organs are affected - it's a not completely true fact.

Qev wrote:Potato guns and firearms are in the same category. They both fire projectiles, typically using explosive power. Firearms are defined more specifically as firing projectiles over a certain speed for use as a weapon.

And as much you've no problem with me firing one of these of the same category devices at your heart, without getting into any further specifics of the device with you. After all, they're all in the same category, so it doesn't really matter, right?

Until it actually comes down to clearly harming you, you'll keep putting glasses and brain implants in the same category. Not because it makes practical sense to do so, but because you found a definition that supports the direction you desire to drift toward.

flatline wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

flatline wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Sounds like the Me from seven years ago is likewise dead.

I wouldn't say "dead". I would say "replaced" or "no longer existent".

--flatline

But you would (did) say "dead" in the case of a transporter.
Why the difference/distinction?

History connects your current body with your past body. You can draw a continuous line through time that uniquely ties you and past versions of you back to conception.

I'd tend to think that you could draw a continuous line through time that uniquely ties anything to anything.