A lot of research is going into integrating brains with computers. Here are a couple examples.

http://hplusmagazine.com/articles/ne...ked-“speak-out
http://hplusmagazine.com/articles/ne...digital-memory

Is this good, bad, or both? Why? Intrinsically or consequentially?
Is integrating with machines a different type of tool use than say, using a hammer? Is it unnatural? Does it threaten human nature? Dignity?


On a related note, Obama's Bioethics Commission recently had a conference about synthetic biology, and one of my professors spoke at it. Here's the vid: http://www.tvworldwide.com/events/bioethics/100708/

Aaron Diaz's (earth's mightiest mortal) "A Thinking Ape’s Critique of Trans-Simianism" still holds the place of my favourite writing on this subject:
http://dresdencodak.com/2009/05/15/a...ianism-repost/

it is ridiculous of so many people to state that the modification of the human mind is somehow "inhuman"; such things are the only defining feature of the human race. nearly everything we do; whether it be writing a journal, labeling a box of cheese-nips, or even tying a string around a finger; is done to intentionally and artificially improve the efficiency of the human mind. the only difference between a pen and paper and a brain augmentation is the method of input and output, and, seeing as the second method is more efficient, it is obviously the superior of the two.

As far as the integration of machines threatening to change human nature to something "unnatural" by today's standards, a quote from Eliezer S. Yudkowsky applies:
"If you offered Gandhi a pill that made him want to kill people, he would refuse to take it, because he knows that then he would kill people, and the current Gandhi doesn’t want to kill people."
Changes in the fundamental way people see the world around them are bound to occur in the future, but these changes will never be allowed to occur at a pace which makes the humans themselves uncomfortable with it, and it will be bound by the same principals which have governed human development so far: preservation of species and improvement of the personal lifestyle. furthermore, such changes should be welcomed whole-heartedly in our current situation especially. at present the development of external devices which allow a single being to influence the world around him(namely the internet and the atom bomb) have skyrocketed while in comparison the device deciding how to use these external devices(the brain) has developed very slowly(which is why we have people like stalin or justin bieber). we are at a critical point where the imbalance between power and the management of that power could at any time lead to genocides or stupid internet memes being repeated for years on end, and the longer we go without upgrading our management devices the more likely we are to be extinguished by irradiation or disgust.

the only possible downside i can think of is this: if anyone can have the brain power i posses readily available i wont have any stupid people left to troll or make fun of =P

EDIT: which of those vids is your professor? now im interested...

Well, you are already well aware of my views on the subject ;)
I'm all for it.

Emotiv Epoc get!

I wish I was USA so I could get one.

Same here. As long as we steer clear of Skynet I'm fine with technological progress of this type.

Yea, I think all the arguments that technological enhancement is intrinsically bad fail miserably. I think the use of tools is natural to humanity, and this is simply the modern manifestation of tool use - the natural extension of the human mind and body in to the world. Even if it we agree that this type of tool use is unnatural, it's not as though we are currently still resting in the comfort of the natural, and transhumanism will represent a sudden descent into the unnatural - the arguments that this type of tool use is unnatural generally also apply to all other technological advancements in the history of humanity, and it adds nothing to the debate when following this logic merely leads to the conclusion that all technology, from the use of fire to agriculture to machines has always been unnatural. This is typically countered by the position that this new type of tool use as different in kind, not degree just degree - that now tool use is about modifying the self, not the environment - and that accordingly it should be treated differently in kind. But the work of bioethicist Robin Zebrowski draws on recent research in neuronal plasticity, and shows that, at least neurologically, modifying the environment is the modification of the self. So tool use has always been about changing the self. In fact, in response to the repeated use of a tool, like a cane to aid walking, the brain allots neuronal space for the cane's presence and perceives it as an extension of the body.

However, the stronger arguments against this stuff comes from the consequentialist perspective. As new biotechnological enhancements emerge to perfect our biological limitations via nanotechnology, genetic enhancement, computer-brain interfaces, etc., these things will likely be expensive enough to significantly limit their use to people in 1st world nations. This problem of financially restricted unequal access could lead to a widening of socioeconomic gaps, in which the enhanced have a totally insurmountable advantage over those who choose not to use, or cannot access, the new enhancements. This could be bad for various reasons, like enabling the further sociopolitical domination of the have-notes by the haves.

I don't think merely enhancing brain power will correct this, as in these interfaces. Much of the neuro-enhancement is about memory and cognitive speed, not the development of ethics. We can already see today that people enhance their intelligence with drugs like Ritalin, which only works on alertness the speed of rational processing, in order to get a positional advantage over others. So yea, these cbi interfaces are cool, but are there ways to model enhancement that do not simply benefit the individuals that can afford it?


I'm not sure about this, as many transhumanists await the impending singularity, which by definition, entails development occurring at a faster rate than we can possibly be comfortable with - the infinite. Preservation of the species? This is interesting, because many posit that this rapid rate of development will actually cause humanity to fracture into many species, which is not necessarily bad, but it could exacerbate political inequality. And exactly whose personal lifestyles will be preserved? The well-off who already enjoy the use of technology in their lives and can afford to add more, not those who cannot.

Despite all this, I am all for enhancement and transhumanism, because i think beginning to discuss these issues now will enable us to handle these issues as they arise.

btw schmibs my biomedical research ethics professor is nancy king, she was in part three of the synthetic biology conference.

so far in life i've learned three things about people
1. people are stupid
2. people are dicks to each other
3. people make up excuses to justify being dicks to one another and then are stupid enough to believe in them

yeah, people will most likely keep acting like this for quite some time. i guess i'm just hoping that if stupid is taken out of the picture the cycle will break down and we can move on to more important things like not being trapped here http://meador.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/pbd.jpg
for all eternity

I dont know if they could make it safe enough for me to try it, sounds kind of dangerous, if something is invented, it will be modified to hurt people ;x

Makes since. But sound kind of dangerous. atleast i wouldnt do it.

I wouldn't mind something like this it'd make life easier for me.