"Resistance is NOT futile.... I am Hugh".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRc8E...

gaining some notoriety sure gives some people a swelled head. they think they can say anything and people will agree with them.
the mad scientist!

If anyone wants to find out more about human/electronic interfaces, the person to check out is Charles Lieber. I teach about him in 2 weeks. If interested, e-mail me at jbrenner@fit.edu, and I will send you info on bio/nano electronics.

Back in the 1970s, in The Libertarian Connection someone offered a discussion on the economics of replicators. As I recall, the first reply was that the Xerox photocopier opened that door already. So, too, do we have to consider the simple walking stick, eye glasses, hearing aids,... even clothing... Stop and think about how UnderArmor works.

A work with a guy whose hearing aid is bluetoothed to his cellphone. It is a mundane example and that underscores the reality of the future of humaniform mechatronics.

This idea raises all kinds of interesting questions about individuality and consciousness. In principle a person’s organs and other body parts could be replaced by machines one at a time, until no biological components remain. Would that person still retain his or her consciousness, and if so would that person be a “conscious machine”? Assuming the answer is yes, would a physically identical machine built from scratch also be conscious? We need some meaningful advances in philosophy to keep up with advances in technology.

All such ideas and activities are driven by life's prime directive: to survive. And what is to survive? The consciousness at the heart of every individual. The body is just a machine for carrying around the brain and its associated nervous system and thought-processing functions. We know so little about how the human software controls our actions for its own benefit and expansion and yes, its own survival.

From perceptions to concept formation, from assigning values and serving them by emotional reactions, by rationalizing the most horrid acts of destruction of those whose values are sensed to be different, humans are the battlefield of conflicting ideas even onto engaging in genocide. Where is rationality? Where is mutual collaboration for mutual benefit? How can we differentiate "rational self-interest" from pure narcissism (today's most fashionable accusation) and demands for enforced redistribution?

Stephen Hawking is the posterchild for the success of technological enhancements to give the mind the means to continue performing, and influencing, when most of the body's own biological operations have failed.

Wars of every stripe are not just for the physical destruction of fellow humans; its aim is the elimination of minds whose ideas (belief systems, values) are seen as different, hence inimical. Acquisition of resources to enhance physical survival would not require killing the inhabitants of places where those resources can be gotten. Designating them as enemies so as to wipe out their ideas, to preserve and dominate with one's own, is the driving force. Ayn Rand wrote, "There is no conflict of interest among rational men." Where do we jump to justifying the killing of those we adjudge not to be rational by our definition? How can we reprogram the conceptual and emotional software to eliminate mutual destruction from human relations?

A recent news item reported on gorillas using mob violence against one of their own members. Dolphins go on murderous raids against their own kind. Are they all tools of emerging intelligence leading to emerging hate and violence? Will heightened technological prowess be able to keep some alive and evolve even greater murderous force against the disapproved ones? Who will make the decisions of who shall live and who shall die?

Sounds good to me. Whatever works that I agree to. All too happy to have more capability and live longer. Even better to argue with people that don't cry.
Why not have the next stage of evolution be managed rather than a huge game of statistics. Won't be too many people arguing a deit-ity did it this time.

Musk's ideas on how to cope with advancing AI should not be news. I follow Musk, and he's talked about these ideas in public for at least a year.

The basic idea is that if we can make ourselves able to connect mentally to digital resources, we can have AI-like access to data and information, and still be the free-willed, conscious beings with awesomely powerful brains we have always been.. This would allow humans to stay connected and in control of advancing computer technology.

It's a serious, long-term research agenda idea from a thoughtful person who wants a brighter future for humans.

I was reading about cyborgs in comic books all the way back during the 60s.
By the 70s? The Million Dollar Man and Darth Vader.
It's gonna happen.

"Many elites today are in the throes of the 'precautionary principle.'"
The suggests an option of not merging people with machines. I don't think that's realistic. We already have assist devices that physical help weak hearts push blood out of the ventricle. There are already prosthetic limbs with multiple microprocessors guiding motion. There will be technology to patch broken spinal cords and eventually to make up for areas of the break destroyed by stroke. I do not imagine people outlawing these treatments. If they want to outlaw merging people with machines, they'll have to draw a line as to how good these treatments can be. "Gentlemen we can rebuilding him... better, stronger, faster." I think it's coming. As the technology develops, people will have to think ahead to repercussions. I don't think simply not developing the technology is an option.

I have heard plenty of these predictions of "the Singularity" and am unimpressed. Truly self-aware machines will be simulated (faked) long before they are built by man -- if that ever happens -- and treating them as human beings would only enable the people creating the fakes to rule the world. A very bad idea.

Musk is either on some serious prescription drugs or he Hates Humanity...our survival does NOT depend on merging with machines.
You will not be able to recreate a mind and it's many possible or probable connections to existence not to mention our identity, the "I"; we are much more than the sum of our DNA programing.
The parasitical biological Humanoids just want digital Humanoids to keep them company and give them a status higher than the population.
As it stands now...they are lower than snakes in the grass.

I think I'll just sit up on a ridge with my rifle and a spotting glass and elk hunt.

How could even human beings build something comparable to themselves in information handling, and aware of self? No system can comprehend a system more complex than itself. The human central nervous system vastly exceeds the processing power of even the most powerful computer designs we know today.

But the worst part would be transplanting a human central nervous system into a machine that didn't look remotely human. Such a machine would have no concept of humanity other than the memories the brain carried. I shudder to think of the motives, the morals, and the attitudes of such a brain, imprisoned as it would be in a "body" not even remotely human.

Isn't that the definition of a cyborg?