WingColors

It's a popular possibility to consider. I think our gravitation towards the virtual is not because it's virtual, but because it gives us opportunities we don't have in real life. They can vary far and wide, but in general you're not constrained by our normal limits... distance.. speed.. hell, physics!

Wow. Talk about loaded -- and I mean by a TON of philosophical issues -- questions.

To be brief about this, yes, I believe that we're moving past the purely biological phase of our existence. Perhaps this will include mind uploading techniques (though the only way I can see this happening without losing continuity is by replacing individual neurons and replicating the existing connections until the biological has been replaced by the mechanical, at which point consciousness and continuity can be downloaded).

The first step, however, is to conquer the aging process.

I think people are quick to assume that our virtual lives are replacing our "real" lives. But technology, throughout history and now, has always had the role of enhancement, not replacement. So our virtual lives will enhance--or, when abused, harm--our lives outside of computers.

As for evolutionary process, I would argue this is no more an evolutionary process than when we began using cars. Yes, virtual things have affected our lives, but they are not making us evolve at this point, and I cannot see them doing that in the future either. Again, they are just enhancing, not replacing.

Even though our virtual lives affect our real lives, they are, at most, just using the brain differently; it didn't require a new way of thinking to have these virtual lives, and it's not going to. We don't have to evolve to function with it, so there is no physical evolution that I can see. Society, however, is evolving, in the same way that it evolved/changed from, say, the Age of Enlightenment to the Industrial Revolution to now, the Information Age.

As Gnorb pointed out, we would have to conquer the aging process to even begin only using our virtual selves, but beyond that, we would have to conquer mankind's desire to physically procreate (or not even breed, but just have a good ole root). I'm guessing that would be impossible, or nearly impossible, to do.

My opinion is that, while society changes, man doesn't change that much. Now, man might change in response to societal changes (e.g., better law enforcement can mean less crime), but the vast majority of the time, the behavior of people will be much the same. We're quite predictable creatures, really, and it's easy to tell if you read history very much, I think.

So if man is not changing, the logical assumption, I think, is that we will try to perfect ourselves through other mediums. The virtual self is still too imperfect, too human--just in another form. My opinion is that we're less likely to adapt to the virtual self than, say, try to make a robot more like we are, but perfect/more efficient/etc.

I hope that all makes sense. As Gnorb said, it's a loaded topic!

I read something recently about how our evolution has actually been speeding up. Something to the extent of more genetical / evolutionary changes occurring in the past 10,000 years than in the millions before.

This appears to be particularly the case for peoples that have to adjust a lot to changing surroundings and conditions.

So while we may not (never?) be able to abandon our physical form, I do see us adapting to the use of technology in a drastic way. Obviously, we haven't been using machines / computers long enough. If we're talking another 1,000 to 10,000 years... who knows?

I do see a possible outcome in the type of humans that appear at the end of Spielberg's A.I. I think we'll remain mortal (since nothing appears to be permanent in the universe) but we will be able to stretch our life spans considerably - aided in part by nano and neuro technology.

Finally, when we do disappear at last, will machines be able to fend for themselves by then, in the true posthuman world, and what will they adopt from our heritage?

I read something recently about how our evolution has actually been speeding up. Something to the extent of more genetical / evolutionary changes occurring in the past 10,000 years than in the millions before.

I'm highly reluctant to believe that, because our recording of such things has only been acceptable in recent years, particularly when it comes to sexual/reproductive health, as well as brain development, two things that are usually core to big changes in our species, it seems. Written languages, and even descriptive pictorials, have only provided detailed information for us in recent centuries and sometimes millennia, so I wonder how we can say that we know so much about the millions of years before. The information about those times is sometimes hazy in the details, especially when it comes to the specifics of genes and understanding the brain. (From what I know, what we can glean about the brain in times past is from our understanding of social history and, physically, the shape of the skull.) It doesn't seem like we know enough about the past to be able to say the future is so drastically different.

Finally, when we do disappear at last, will machines be able to fend for themselves by then, in the true posthuman world...

What do you think will take us out? Lots of fun things come to mind for me.

Edited to make more sense. :D

I'm highly reluctant to believe that

Reluctant to believe I read it, or that it's true? :-) Well that's what it said in the article but unfortunately I already tossed it so I can't look for a source or something.

I suppose a lot can be learnt from genetics, though. One example was about how lactose intolerance in adults disappeared soon after we domesticated farm animals. Another had to do with skin pigmentation following suit faster after ice ages or resettlements than before.

So, the study never said we simply started evolving more quickly, but that with an increase of external influences and changes, our genetics follow suit in a similar pace.

What genes will be favoured when we spend ages watching screens? That will have to have an effect on what we look like soon enough. Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy) didn't change a bit for a million years. I bet evolving into "Computer Man" will take less time.

Well that's what it said in the article but unfortunately I already tossed it so I can't look for a source or something.

Sources:

= Reuters coverage. (Courtesy of Gnorb)

= Abstract of the paper "Recent acceleration of human adaptive evolution" by John Hawks, Eric T. Wang, Gregory Cochran, Henry C. Harpending, and Robert K. Moyzis

Methodology (from the abstract): "Genomic surveys in humans identify a large amount of recent positive selection. Using the 3.9-million HapMap SNP dataset, we found that selection has accelerated greatly during the last 40,000 years. We tested the null hypothesis that the observed age distribution of recent positively selected linkage blocks is consistent with a constant rate of adaptive substitution during human evolution."

I read something recently about how our evolution has actually been speeding up.

Ahem. (Edit: hthth got it in a few seconds before me.)

the type of humans that appear at the end of Spielberg's A.I.

I don't think they were humans. I think the point was that humanity passed away, and all that was left were the androids.

Regarding evolution, I still believe that because of our minds we have reached a point where biological evolution may be second to mechanical evolution. Call it the age of the cyborg if you want. The point is that looking at evolution as a strictly biological process, especially in the context of large groups (instead of just the individual) may not be the clearest indicator of what's really happening.

The thing about biology and nature is that it shows us what can be done, but at the minimum level. For example, nature showed us that things can fly. Technology broke the sound barrier. Nature showed us that we could swim. Technology took our species to the depths of the oceans. Nature gave us a place to live. We're now starting to consider the possibility of leaving the safe enclosure -- the planet that gave us birth -- and creating worlds of our own, even so far as to make them in our own image. This is by no means classical evolution. However, it is a form of evolution, where the mind speeds ahead of biology faster than biology is designed to do anything about it.

And maybe this was the point all along. "Post human" is a bit of a quirky name to use, since technically -- though not genetically or biologically -- those of us who have technological enhancements within us -- an artificial heart or knee, an insulin pump, artificial limbs -- are only human because our DNA says so, not because the sum of all our parts does. (Not being entirely biological sort of does that to a person.) If DNA is the defining standard, then until we begin to make changes which replicate -- such as alterations to our DNA so that we can work well in space instead of at 1G, for example -- we will not have yet reached a "post human" era. Otherwise, we have in a sense already reached it.

Now if you'll excuse me, I've got now to go read some Jean Auel. Or Ray Kurzweil, whatever I find first.

Now if you'll excuse me, I've got now to go read some Jean Auel. Or Ray Kurzweil, whatever I find first.

Just a sidenote since Kurzweil's been mentioned, he's preparing a documentary based on his book on Singularity. Look forward to that.

Excellent. I'll re-read "The Singularity is Near" before I see it.

... the 3.9-million HapMap SNP dataset ...

Yeah, how could I forget about that! Leave it to Hrafn and Norbert to dig it up. Kudos guys.

Otherwise, great points that I for one needn't go into further. Especially the distinction Gnorb makes, about what is in fact "post" human is great.

As for the humans / aliens in AI, I believe that's one of the bigger discussions about that film. I do think they're still humans. Or at least they're organic machines that have incorporated some of our heritage. Something like Google all of a sudden growing fur and whiskers. Humanity encompassed in a world wide LOLcat. Wow.

Anyways, I suppose it won't take long before someone digs up a quote by Spiel himself, explaining what he (or Aldiss or Kubrick) intended.

Humanity encompassed in a world wide LOLcat. Wow.

Aaaaaannnd... I have my new tagline.

You made me snort Coke over my own comment. LOL indeed.

Good luck with the tag!

I can't hold my girlfriend in a digital form.
Nor can I love or laugh or kiss or cry.
Our bodies are still very vital and relevant to the here and now.
I'm not taking this any deeper than that.

im interested how, the topic has evolved from a virtual simulation of oneself, to a post human (cyborg).

By definition, a post human is someone that used to be human but is now artificially enhanced. However my initial question was talking about how we are the creators of a new digital existence.

Because "Posthuman", insofar as the movement is concerned, encompasses more than just virtual reality. It encompasses things like radical life extension, cryopreservation, biomechanical modifications, and as mentioned here, consciousness uploading.

thanks, good answer. Are there any good books regarding concsiousness uploading that you can think of?

On the topic specifically? No, none that I can think of. (Other than Sci-Fi. For that I recommend "The First Immortal" by James Halperin. (You can download it for free here.)

There are a number of books on the concepts surrounding all of this, for example:

• "The Singularity is Near" by Kurzweil,
• "Fantastic Voyage: Live Long Enough to Live Forever" by Kurzweil,
• "The Scientific Conquest of Death" by the Immortality Institute,
• "More Than Human: Embracing the Promise of Biological Enhancement" by Ramez Naam,
• "Designer Evolution: A Transhumanist Manifesto" by Simon Young
• "Ending Aging: The Rejuvenation Breakthroughs That Could Reverse Human Aging in Our Lifetime" by Aubrey de Grey

(Note that these are just some that I either own or that I have on my Amazon wish list.)

For fiction, you can read "Immortality", by Kevin Bohacz, or a number of the books by Iain M. Banks.

You can also check out a lot of the content on the site Better Humans.

I'll run this from the top of my head because it's something I've always thought about at the back of my head.

When you look at it this way, our entire perception is based around the ability for us to process the information gathered from our senses into a series of bioelectric pulses and biochemical memory. Our sense of self is basically an amalgamation of biological imprints and environmental pressure.

The concept to that is similar to the way computers operate. Process the information, store it for later use. The difference is that we're complex enough that we can't even begin to understand how information and biology interacts to give rise to our sense of awareness and ultimately our sentience.

Now I'm not going into the philosophical arguments of what's real and what's not. At this point, I'm explaining in a scope that most people will take to be real, which is the physical experience they perceive and the subjective memories that proceed after that.

Until machines can process that amount of information while at the same time cross-reference and interact with previously information while simultaneously being able to physically react to the environment at the same time the information is received, there is no way human beings can move on from our state of body to a state of pure data.

At the same time, until we can survive independent of what keeps us biologically alive while forming a sense of self based on experience we perceive as real, there is no way we have the ability to be pure data or even come close to it.

Don't forget, everything you know and are now is attributed to how you interacted with the physically real world upon growing up. To transcend our human bodies isn't just a matter of shedding the physical. It's about redefining everything that you know and take for granted to be human. Whether we can ultimately do that.

That's a different story.

Will we one day be soley made up of binary data?

And then at what point will our biological bodies be totally redundant?"

Questions that bring about question such as:

Are we already made up of soley binary data? Perhaps we're a simulation of what a planet, say 'earth' can support of humans like ourselves. Can't be proven similar to that of we can't prove God exists or doesn't. I'd read somewhere that there's something like a 20% chance we're living in a matrix-like world (still haven't figured out how they came up with 20%), and the simulation argument which i have not read but is related to this note.

And until sex can be replaced, biological bodies won't be redundant (and yet if sex is merely a feeling the brain notices via nerves and electricity than why can't sex be performed online).

... who knows.