• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Substrate-independent minds

Free episodes:

Oh so sorry mr. moderator. So, you beleive in this bunch of crap and think Richard Dawkins is troll bait? Funny, how that works. You come off as some great skeptic but you are actually one of the cool kids around here is that it? This particular poster can post links and call names and spout the most unbeleivable crap and yet other people are troll? Unreal! Well, just ban me then since that seems to be the intent here and you are now baiting me. But, it's plain to see that you are afraid to call out the transhumanism trash with the rest of cults and conspiracys. Is it because you and this guy spout the same b.s.? Anyway, I'm not a troll. You are just not comfortable with mirrors. I'm out and you can continue this little conversation with the religious zealot when he gets back on.
 
No, I happen to really like that clip of Dawkins (i'm a fan of his). That's not the issue. I don't necessarily agree with any of this stuff, but I try not to be a jerk about it. Sometimes I'm unsuccessful at that and people let me know. I'm just letting you know.
It looks to me like you're trying to get Mike angry just for the fun of it - that's pretty much the definition of a troll. I'm not banning you, but try to put your point across without being so antagonistic.

Thanks
 
It looks to me like you're trying to get Mike angry

Well, it doens't look like it takes much to make him angry. He seems to have a pattern of cursing and linking and being a jerk himself. I guess I just don't like bullies. Still, I do get the point and I will stay off him. I won't even go where I was going to go with some of the other woo believers. I did note that Kim is long winded and I think he and Mike should get a room and tyder talks alot and seems to be all touchy feely. Trained Observer is trying to have it both ways and others on this thread just seem to follow along with the crowd spouting words like scientific with no real knowledge of what that means. I am well experienced in this particular subject and I guess I let it get the better of my judgment. Still, you need to be objective with some of the crap that has been spouted here. Also, the intimidation because that is what got me started on this particular poster and thread. So, I guess he can post all the junk he wants and you can't call him on it. Or if you do then you had better use kid gloves. But, still there I go again. Let me close by saying transhumanism is a cult and nothing more. All the b.s. will not make it good science because it isn't.
 
The whole point of the forum is to have discussions about this stuff. We just need to keep them as civil as possible although that doesn't always happen.
 
Hmmm, well I have read through this thread and some are civil. The most uncivil is the biggest beleiver in this junk. So, how do you propose to be a moderator when you treat him as a serious poster and the other woo tossers with derision? But, the reason I got on this thread is my personal experience with transhumanism and the really dishonest way it presents itself. I think the stoneheart dude is trying to be a little objective. But, he at times seems to be a sock puppet for Mikey. It's hard to tell. Anyway, I'm mad about transhumanism and I admit that. But, you are not impartial sir. some of the mods are but you seem to get really involved when it comes to certain people here. Why is that? Oh well, again I am being uncivil so I will stop.
 
No, you're not being uncivil. You're asking valid questions. However, that has nothing to do with this thread, so if you have any issues, please PM me.

Thanks.
 
And then a troll appeared!

Yeah troll and so very original.. could be a sock account but I am going with right out troll..

Oh I am no sock danny.. I just tend to think long the same lines as Mike and we get on very well... But we do not always agree.

With this thread I am more on the side of this technology being developed than it not but I see the flaws etc in it.
 
? Wow, devastating. I can see now why it's the Gold Standard. ROFLMAO!


I just tend to think long the same lines as Mike .



Hmmm. I'm sure he will be here soon with mutiple links to more bull shit.

Mikey is that you?
 
You and the girl friend mikey or just you precious?

no I like the name danny .. you sound yummy :-))))

129156.jpeg
 
I am well experienced in this particular subject and I guess I let it get the better of my judgment .

LOL How can you be "well experienced" with this subject, its still in its experimental infancy, I imagine the only biologicals "well experienced" in this subject at this point in the time line would be lab rats etc..........

Its a pretty silly claim, compounded with no evidence or links to back it, "im well experienced because........"

Still i take the point about not being in control of your judgement, that one at least is self evident.

I was gratified to hear Richard Dolan assert in the recent podcast we will be talking to sentient machines in a few generations.


Transhumanists are in the business of speculating about the degree to which we can and will refine the human species. A central assumption among us is that there's significant potential for the re-engineering of humanity; in modern practice we have scarcely begun to scratch the surface, but our visions of what may be possible in terms of modification and enhancement is startlingly vast.

Indeed, for most transhumanists, the notion that the human species is forever destined to remain a purely biological entity is both absurd and facile. Taking a step back, can we seriously argue that the apex of intelligent life is the state at which it was last crafted by the processes of natural selection? Given the current developmental state of biotechnology, cybernetics and information technologies, combined with the potential for molecular nanotechnology, can we reasonably refrain from suggesting that humanity is poised to under go a transformation that will be nothing short of radical and profound?

And this isn't some airy-fairy gee-whiz futurism talking, either. Rather, it's a fair assessment of where we are at as self-modifying species that has yet to meaningfully integrate technology with biology.
Sentient Developments: Transhumanism and the 'Intelligence Principle'

Take a step back and look at the big picture

For the dissenters and skeptics, what often gets lost in the discussion is the '40 foot perspective.' Discussions often regress to cultural/ethical/moral inhibitions, yuck factor ethics, and sheer incredulousness; it's hard for many of us to imagine anything other than our current state of being.

But this isn't good enough. We need to start thinking more philosophically and broadly about the potential for intelligent life and the impacts that will come through steady technological progress.

To assume, for example, that our current social, scientific, technological and biological condition is at or near an end-state is in its own way a violation of the Copernican Principle; it would be folly to assume that we observe ourselves at a particularly special point in history -- especially when it appears that our rate of progress is accelerating. Instead, we should apply a developmental view to our situation and acknowledge the fact that we still have a huge space of possibilities to work within.

And it's important to note that the timelines don't matter (well, they do matter, but let's set that aside for the moment). A significant number of people dismiss transhumanists on account of our overly optimistic time frames. For the sake of argument let's assume that technological progress continues to plod along at a linear rate. Well, that's still progress: given enough time, incentive and access to resources, there's no reason to believe that humanity cannot come to realize many of the futuristic visions espoused by the transhumanists. As long as something is scientifically viable, and there's a perceived need for it, it will be developed.

This the crux of the intelligence principle: "...to the extent intelligence can be improved, it will be improved."

And overcoming the limitations of human biology would certain seem to be on the agenda. Among other things, the transhumanist 'to do list' typically includes the eradication of infirmity, aging, and suffering. We don't imply that solving these problems is going to be easy, but we do suggest that these problems are not intractable.

There is a will, and there will be a way.
 
Well now how about that, seems i'm not the first to posit we might live in a predominatly post biological universe

The Biological Universe (Dick 1996) analysed the history of the extraterrestrial life debate, documenting how scientists have assessed the chances of life beyond Earth during the 20th century. Here I propose another option – that we may in fact live in a postbiological universe, one that has evolved beyond flesh and blood intelligence to artificial intelligence that is a product of cultural rather than biological evolution. MacGowan & Ordway (1966), Davies (1995) and Shostak (1998), among others, have broached the subject, but the argument has not been given the attention it is due, nor has it been carried to its logical conclusion. This paper argues for the necessity of long-term thinking when contemplating the problem of intelligence in the universe. It provides arguments for a postbiological universe, based on the likely age and lifetimes of technological civilizations and the overriding importance of cultural evolution as an element of cosmic evolution. And it describes the general nature of a postbiological universe and its implications for the search for extraterrestrial intelligence.











Cambridge Journals Online - Abstract








Published in the Cambridge university's International Journal of Astrobiology.

Seems im in good company where these ideas are concerned.
 
Picked this up off the Daily Grail today (which I know a number of you here probably read)

Abstract

The emerging science of evolutionary developmental (“evo devo”) biology can aid us in thinking about our universe as both an evolutionary system, where most processes are unpredictable and creative, and a developmental system, where a special few processes are predictable and constrained to produce far-future-specific emergent order, just as we see in the common developmental processes in two stars of an identical population type, or in two genetically identical twins in biology. The transcension hypothesis proposes that a universal process of evolutionary development guides all sufficiently advanced civilizations into what may be called "inner space," a computationally optimal domain of increasingly dense, productive, miniaturized, and efficient scales of space, time, energy, and matter, and eventually, to a black-hole-like destination. Transcension as a developmental destiny might also contribute to the solution to the Fermi paradox, the question of why we have not seen evidence of or received beacons from intelligent civilizations. A few potential evolutionary, developmental, and information theoretic reasons, mechanisms, and models for constrained transcension of advanced intelligence are briefly considered. In particular, we introduce arguments that black holes may be a developmental destiny and standard attractor for all higher intelligence, as they appear to some to be ideal computing, learning, forward time travel, energy harvesting, civilization merger, natural selection, and universe replication devices. In the transcension hypothesis, simpler civilizations that succeed in resisting transcension by staying in outer (normal) space would be developmental failures, which are statistically very rare late in the life cycle of any biological developing system. If transcension is a developmental process, we may expect brief broadcasts or subtle forms of galactic engineering to occur in small portions of a few galaxies, the handiwork of young and immature civilizations, but constrained transcension should be by far the norm for all mature civilizations.
The transcension hypothesis has significant and testable implications for our current and future METI and SETI agendas. If all universal intelligence eventually transcends to black-hole-like environments, after which some form of merger and selection occurs, and if two-way messaging (a send–receive cycle) is severely limited by the great distances between neighboring and rapidly transcending civilizations, then sending one-way METI or probes prior to transcension becomes the only real communication option. But one-way messaging or probes may provably reduce the evolutionary diversity in all civilizations receiving the message, as they would then arrive at their local transcensions in a much more homogenous fashion. If true, an ethical injunction against one-way messaging or probes might emerge in the morality and sustainability systems of all sufficiently advanced civilizations, an argument known as the Zoo hypothesis in Fermi paradox literature, if all higher intelligences are subject to an evolutionary attractor to maximize their local diversity, and a developmental attractor to merge and advance universal intelligence. In any such environment, the evolutionary value of sending any interstellar message or probe may simply not be worth the cost, if transcension is an inevitable, accelerative, and testable developmental process, one that eventually will be discovered and quantitatively described by future physics. Fortunately, transcension processes may be measurable today even without good physical theory, and radio and optical SETI may each provide empirical tests. If transcension is a universal developmental constraint, then without exception all early and low-power electromagnetic leakage signals (radar, radio, television), and later, optical evidence of the exoplanets and their atmospheres should reliably cease as each civilization enters its own technological singularities (emergence of postbiological intelligence and life forms) and recognizes that they are on an optimal and accelerating path to a black-hole-like environment. Furthermore, optical SETI may soon allow us to map an expanding area of the galactic habitable zone we may call the galactic transcension zone, an inner ring that contains older transcended civilizations, and a missing planets problem as we discover that planets with life signatures occur at a much lower frequencies in this inner ring than in the remainder of the habitable zone.

ScienceDirect.com - Acta Astronautica - The transcension hypothesis: Sufficiently advanced civilizations invariably leave our universe, and implications for METI and SETI


As it says abstract..... yes abstract indeed.
 
I firmly believe the transhuman Biological hypothesis is an entirely valid one to consider when asking the question what is ET ?

Its nice to see other sources confirming this
 
Nick Bostrom thinks it's a possibility that we are already living in a computer simulation, I've always thought it was a pretty interesting theory. He wrote a paper that argues : at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. A number of other consequences of this result are also discussed.

Interesting stuff for lovers of science fiction like myself, you can read more about it here Are You Living in a Simulation?
 
Faulty parts of living brains have been replaced by electronic chips, in an astonishing and controversial scientific breakthrough.

'Imagine there's a small area in the brain that is malfunctioning, and imagine that we understand the architecture of this damaged area,' said Professor Matti Mintz, a psychobiologist, speaking to the BBC.
'So we try to replicate this part of the brain with electronics.'
Mintz has already successfully implanted a robotic cerebellum into the skull of a rodent with brain damage, restoring its capacity for movement.

When wired to the brain, his 'robo-cerebellum' receives, interprets, and transmits sensory information from the brain stem, facilitating communication between the brain and the body.
According to the researcher, the chip is designed to mimic natural neuronal activity.
'It's a proof of the concept that we can record information from the brain, analyze it in a way similar to the biological network, and then return it to the brain,' says Prof. Mintz, who recently presented his research at the Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence meeting in Cambridge, UK.

In the future, this robo-cerebellum could lead to electronic implants that replace damaged tissues in the human brain.

Living cyborg brains created in laboratory - with electrical chips 'replacing' missing parts | Mail Online
 
Back
Top