StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I'd start with enhancing and later go to uploading.

Shroom, you should be a screenwriter, your movies would be awesome.

I'd imagine the PostOlympics would be pretty much like Formula One or rally racing. Imagine Hussein Bolt or Fred Phelps, with Bolt having Ferrari or McLaren advertisements all over his skin because his heart is actually a Ferarri engine or his ENERGY LEGS muscles are built by McLaren or something. Fred Phelps can have his skin manufactured by Speedo, also perhaps the nictatating membranes that slide over his eyes so he can see while swimming, and perhaps his lungs can be manufactured by some German U-Boat company. Guys like Micheal Jordan can have Nike or Addidas sponsoring the soles of their feet with high-traction rubber, or whatever. You can imagine athletes advertising Red Bull or Gatorade as being the post-plasma that is being infused into their bloodstream to power their mighty organ systems. Man.

I mean, at some point, it's not really going to be individual people competing to win out. It's going to be no different from Formula One, with various automobile/posthuman companies advertising their products and with each athlete becoming a blend of both individual sportsman AND precision advertised corporate product!

Imagine when Fred Phelps wins, EVERYONE will want to get their skin made by Speedo so they can swim superfast! Or all those wannabe basketball stars playing in the middle of traffic will start buying Nike post-feet or other Nike-branded organs! If Micheal Jordan's shooting accuracy is boosted by 100% because his iBrain's brainware plays NBA Live 2029 game simulations, then EVERYONE will try to buy NBA Live 2029 to download to their brain so they can develop mad shooting skills!

God, this is gonna be so awesome! You can invest in your organ company NOW! You'll be rich when we reach the posthuman future! Filthy rich! Get your feet replaced with Nike hooves, and your skin with Speedo rubber!

Tiger Woods' post-testicles can have dimples on them, like actual-factual golf balls! For added aerodynamics! But when he is caught in an extra-marital affair, man, his sponsors will lose out in all sorts of monies because nobody wants to buy post-organs that're the same as those used by a man who cheated on his hot European wife for some New York hookers.

Imagine actors and actresses! Their sexy looks can totally be sponsored by... well, all sorts of companies. Then people would be going out to XYZ-cosmetics company to get the same post-noses as Micheal Jackson or something. Man. All sorts of crappy teenagers can grovel and beg and whine at their parents to let them have their organs and physical features remodelled to look like those faces on TV!

The future is gonna be awesome!

EDIT:

I think the best thing is that mein ridiculoid Randome Altarnate Realty Senareo is actually one million times more realistic than the presuppositions of those posthuman post-scarcity whatevers people like going on about as their ideal utopian super-awesome future! Haha! Post-breast implants for your post-bleeding post-breast post-tits, post-mangoes!

I'm gonna get myself a nose job that will enhance my olfactory senses to the level of that of a Turkey Vulture... or a Tyrannosaurus Rex! Police officers and EOD technicians can get nose jobs so they can smell chemical explosives! Woah!

If practical, I'd go all the way to full uploading. I'd prefer my mind to be housed on a space vessel; one with among other things the ability to manufacture human scale customizable avatars as desired. My ship-body would be as close to self sufficient as possible, with onboard self repair/resource extraction/manufacturing capability.

Formless wrote:If we cannot imagine what it would be like, why the fuck should we care?

Because although we don't know what it will /feel/ like, we can project the capabilities you would have. Being much more intelligent firstly makes you vastly more effective at any task or endeavor that involves abstract thought (that would be most of them). Secondly, intelligence makes life richer. Intelligence (both formal and intuitive) lets you perceive more of the world, and understand more of the world. It is in fact a terrible waste to have transhuman sensory inputs, but only human intelligence to make sense of them.

There is no objective reason to think that a different cognitive architecture is desirable to everyone.

Of course it won't be desirable to everyone. In fact, to start with only a tiny group of early adopters will be prepared to take the plunge. Once everyone else sees the benefits though, it will rapidly become popular (circumstances permitting). I would fully expect all the older, born-before-transhumanism people refusing to get the more radical upgrades while the younger generation embraces them.

(I am ignoring the consequences of having seed AI around since I don't want to hijack the thread)

In fact, I would argue that to tinker with the way my mind processes information effectively makes me no longer me, even if we assume the resulting entity retains my memories.

Yes, well, your quaint personal identity issues are not my problem. It's not like the process isn't reversible anyway, once uploaded you are just software.

I like the form of "uploading" wherein your neurons are replaced one by one over a long time by artificial counterparts, it appeals to me since it is not a discontinuous process, could take decades to accomplish. Once free of the limitations of organics one can slowly grow and evolve over decades or centuries even in order to take advantage of what such a mind could offer. This method to me nicely sidesteps the "dying and having a copy of you uploaded" fear that many people have, including me, instead it is a gradual change, much like how your body replaces the components that make up itself over it's lifespan.

So I assume my choice it's a variation of #1, possibly a combo of 1 and 2.

Peak Humanity/Immortality for me. I like being fleshy.

Immortality obviously. The world should not be deprived of my greatness.

Starglider wrote: Because although we don't know what it will /feel/ like, we can project the capabilities you would have.

Why would you map something that is clearly beyond the bounds of human ability to the human emotional spectrum? Or are you referring to how a human would experience a radical upgrade in cognitive ability? If so, there are a fair amount of people around with experience in that field. Myself, for one. Transitioning from severe ADD to the ability to concentrate may not look impressive on the paper, but I assure you, it is quite a radical difference, and it affects just about everything you do. I imagine it's much like getting a prosthetic arm after being used to doing everything one-handed, except in some ways it's probably a bot dramatic.

Yes, it still is scratching at the surface. But we can still imagine. Imagination is by necessity imperfect. We can imagine what it would be like to fly a starship despite none of us having been beyond the stratosphere.

Being much more intelligent firstly makes you vastly more effective at any task or endeavor that involves abstract thought (that would be most of them). Secondly, intelligence makes life richer. Intelligence (both formal and intuitive) lets you perceive more of the world, and understand more of the world. It is in fact a terrible waste to have transhuman sensory inputs, but only human intelligence to make sense of them.

Without the ability to sort the impulses and impressions, you'd go varying levels of insane. Again, see ADHD and related issues.

(Just a quick note to everyone; I'm not making a habit of using my ADD as an opportunity to thread-jack discussions. This time, however, I thought it was a relevant observation.)

Starglider wrote:Because although we don't know what it will /feel/ like, we can project the capabilities you would have. Being much more intelligent firstly makes you vastly more effective at any task or endeavor that involves abstract thought (that would be most of them). Secondly, intelligence makes life richer. Intelligence (both formal and intuitive) lets you perceive more of the world, and understand more of the world. It is in fact a terrible waste to have transhuman sensory inputs, but only human intelligence to make sense of them.

Then I upgrade my brain. Seriously, why do you treat this like an either/or situation? I don't have to upload my brain onto a computer chip to get benefits like these. I know because like Eleas I have ADD and have experienced this kind of change using medications (which I can no longer take-- but that's another story). And who said I wanted to upgrade my senses anyway? Stop trying to project what you want onto everyone else, and maybe you will understand why not everyone wants the same level of enhancement as you do.

Of course it won't be desirable to everyone. In fact, to start with only a tiny group of early adopters will be prepared to take the plunge. Once everyone else sees the benefits though, it will rapidly become popular (circumstances permitting). I would fully expect all the older, born-before-transhumanism people refusing to get the more radical upgrades while the younger generation embraces them.

Just like the internet?

In fact, as I see it, the internet is a good analogy to what the transhumanist singularity will be like. When the internet started no one predicted the rise Youtube, facebook, torrents, or any number of the things that took off (web 2.0 and so forth). Similarly, how can you say for sure what kinds of things will be popular when these enhancements become possible, if they even will? Not everyone on the planet adopted facebook, not everyone uses the iphone, not everyone thinks youtube is awesome. Your predictions are insufficiently nuanced, because you seem to think everyone will want the same things as you do just as soon as they see how much you enjoy it-- even though its literally beyond their comprehension, as you admit upfront.

(I am ignoring the consequences of having seed AI around since I don't want to hijack the thread)

If you didn't want to hijack the thread, why did you feel the need to editorialize about the benefits of uploading again? We've heard it all already, and as you can see, not all of us are impressed.

Yes, well, your quaint personal identity issues are not my problem. It's not like the process isn't reversible anyway, once uploaded you are just software.

Its not a matter of identity, you shitwit. If it changes the way you think, it changes who you are. Its a simple concept. Anyone can dismiss someone else's concerns as mere insecurities, but that doesn't really answer the point. If you think its "quaint," you can go fuck yourself, you self righteous prick.

I think I would just limit myself to replacing a few things that are currently broken. I'm not particularly interested in living forever and if my kids opt to pass on this, I don't want to outlive them.

Havok wrote:Immortality obviously. The world should not be deprived of my greatness.

Now you can ride your motorcycle on wet train tracks every day and not worry about falling.


I think I'll go for 3 with a little bit of 2. Just a memory chip or something so I can remember almost everything and a language chip so I can instantly understand and speak any language.

Start with minor enhancements to overcome some minor neurological/physiological defects, and work my way up to a totally virtual existence.

1) A cranial implant with a wireless broadband internet, GPS, cell phone, difference engine, sense recorder, couple terabytes of memory, and independent electronic brainstem. Includes privacy and antiviral mode.

2) Artificial nerve grafts to improve response-time and fine motor control.

3) Direct Oxygen/CO2 transfer system to improve endurance independent of red blood cells.

4) Immune system upgrade to fight diseases without causing side effects. Directed antibody generator to create own immunizations as needed.

5) Full body transfer.

I'll upgrade the hell out of my body (I'm not amazingly attached to the Humanoid form) and maybe get some nice brain implants to go along with them and such, but I'll stay away from fully replacing my brain or even touching a mind upload until philosophy both solves the Mind/Body Problem and someone refutes the Chinese Room Experiment.

Though I'd probably take the upload if I was about to die, because hey, what could really go wrong?

Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba wrote:I'll upgrade the hell out of my body (I'm not amazingly attached to the Humanoid form) and maybe get some nice brain implants to go along with them and such, but I'll stay away from fully replacing my brain or even touching a mind upload until philosophy both solves the Mind/Body Problem and someone refutes the Chinese Room Experiment.

Afraid you'll lose your citizenship over a philosophical argument?

If it's your identity you're worried about, even if you replace every scrape of wood on the Ship of Theseus with a new one, it still floats

eion wrote:

Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba wrote:I'll upgrade the hell out of my body (I'm not amazingly attached to the Humanoid form) and maybe get some nice brain implants to go along with them and such, but I'll stay away from fully replacing my brain or even touching a mind upload until philosophy both solves the Mind/Body Problem and someone refutes the Chinese Room Experiment.

Afraid you'll lose your citizenship over a philosophical argument?

If it's your identity you're worried about, even if you replace every scrape of wood on the Ship of Theseus with a new one, it still floats

No, more "afraid of being killed by a mind upload".

I pick whichever options provide me the means to vastly improve my intellectual capabilities as the primary goal. Things like analytical capabilities, perfect memory storage, enormously faster memory access speeds and storage capacities, options to disable things like emotional responses and influences, etc.

Essentially my goal would be to upgrade my brain into the most powerful computing system possible while still maintaining the majority of my core personality traits.

As for the body, I'd pick something pretty much humanoid, but every system is either greatly simplified and/or vastly improved in durability, strength, speed, etc. Some systems, like reproductive organs and the need to consume food and expel waste in the usual manner would ideally be removed entirely.

Depending upon the limitations of available resources and technology, I wouldn't object to simply having a much larger and protected structure as my brain, and a humanoid android body as a remote controlled avatar to interact in a humanoid fashion with the rest of the world.

PS: And reading Starglider's points, using technology to vastly increase my ability to perceive the world would also be a primary goal.

Formless wrote:Then I upgrade my brain. Seriously, why do you treat this like an either/or situation?

Strictly, it isn't, but there is a very limited amount you can do if you are going to stick to human neurology and cognitive design. Accepting a different design of neuron (e.g. using electronic conduction instead of ionic/chemical) and doing global rewiring allows for a lot more possibilities, but at that point, exactly why are you sticking with biology at all? You can interface a brain to a computer, but if you use that to enhance intelligence much beyond human norm, you have basically created an upload with a marginally functional blob of goo attached to it for no good reason.

I know because like Eleas I have ADD and have experienced this kind of change using medications (which I can no longer take-- but that's another story).

Correction of biological misfunction (relatively minor misfunction at that) is nothing like structural enhancement beyond biological norms.

Stop trying to project what you want onto everyone else

Contradicted by the very next thing you quote.

and maybe you will understand why not everyone wants the same level of enhancement as you do.

So obviously you failed to even read my post before spouting off your fear-driven diatribe.

Similarly, how can you say for sure what kinds of things will be popular when these enhancements become possible, if they even will?

I can't, that's what 'Singularity' means (although I can of course guess). All I can say for sure, which is in fact exactly what I did say, is that modifications to mental capabilities will have vastly more impact than modifications to physical capabilities (yes, even moreso than effective immortality).

Your predictions are insufficiently nuanced, because you seem to think everyone will want the same things as you do just as soon as they see how much you enjoy it-- even though its literally beyond their comprehension, as you admit upfront.

It is not a question of enjoyment - actually it is, but that's a minor aspect. It's a question of capability. Cognitive enhancement will touch off an arms race with far greater scope than that caused by physical enhancements, because significantly enhanced people will way outclass unenhanced people in any endeavour involving actual thought. If you want to be at the top of any field, or (given widespread enhancement) even competitive in any field, you will need to be enhanced.

(I am ignoring the consequences of having seed AI around since I don't want to hijack the thread)

If you didn't want to hijack the thread, why did you feel the need to editorialize about the benefits of uploading again?

Completely different things. The thread is explicitly about uploading. Seed AI is not uploading (although that is one possible way to create one) and the consequences are quite different.

Yes, well, your quaint personal identity issues are not my problem. It's not like the process isn't reversible anyway, once uploaded you are just software.

Its not a matter of identity, you shitwit. If it changes the way you think, it changes who you are.

Of course, but identity is not a binary concept. People change continuously through life - they change discontinously whenever they have brain surgery, but we don't consider that death and for good reason. A radically transhuman version of someone basically uses the current version as a skeleton, and fills in a huge amount of additional detail beneath the relatively coarse strokes that a human personality is composed of.

Anyone can dismiss someone else's concerns as mere insecurities, but that doesn't really answer the point. If you think its "quaint," you can go fuck yourself, you self righteous prick.

You don't have a point other than 'this makes me feel scared'. Which is fine, no one is forcing you to do anything. You want to miss out on Infinite Fun Space, that's your decision.

Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba wrote:someone refutes the Chinese Room Experiment.

It's a nonsensical argument that has been refuted by every decent cognitive scientist who has cared to comment on it, starting as soon as it was published. Daniel Dennett did a particularly good job of ridiculing it. The claim that 'something that acts exactly like a human is actually a soulless zombie because it's brain isn't squishy' is not refutable by any logical argument or empirical experiment, because it is essentially a religious belief.

Uploading seems like the best option for maximising intelligence, capabilities and resilience (we get backups right?). Fuck this biological existence nonsense.

Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba wrote:I'll upgrade the hell out of my body (I'm not amazingly attached to the Humanoid form) and maybe get some nice brain implants to go along with them and such, but I'll stay away from fully replacing my brain or even touching a mind upload until philosophy both solves the Mind/Body Problem and someone refutes the Chinese Room Experiment.

Though I'd probably take the upload if I was about to die, because hey, what could really go wrong?

In the case of uploading, as I understand it the Chinese Room Experiment doesn't apply, since Searle's classical proposal allows for the simulation of minds while forbidding the construction of minds, and uploading would be essentially simulation rather than construction. Of course, your leeriness is one that I share, to a certain extent.

I feel the Chinese Room Experiment is flawed, since it is unable to demonstrate any difference between humans and computers, and therefore takes human intentionality as axiomatic. However, let us suppose we are in a hallway with two rooms leading off, with a door and a machine attached to the door that allows us to input Chinese characters. Happily, we are fluent in Mandarin, and we know that behind one of the doors is a Searle room where the individual does not understand Chinese, and behind the other is a Searle room where the inhabitant does understand Chinese. The two individuals' understanding is equal and flawless. How do we distinguish between the two, then? His experiment only shows the problem with searching for consciousness; as a subjective experience, how do we demonstrate it to others? I may be the only conscious human in a land of philosophical zombies, but how can I tell? Even if we go by inducing that if I am conscious, then the other humans are most likely conscious, within the bounds of Searle's experiment, there is no discernible difference between Turing-compliant computers and humans. His experiment appears to make intentionality a useless concept, and so I believe it to be flawed.

Starglider wrote:

Formless wrote:Then I upgrade my brain. Seriously, why do you treat this like an either/or situation?

Strictly, it isn't, but there is a very limited amount you can do if you are going to stick to human neurology and cognitive design. Accepting a different design of neuron (e.g. using electronic conduction instead of ionic/chemical) and doing global rewiring allows for a lot more possibilities, but at that point, exactly why are you sticking with biology at all? You can interface a brain to a computer, but if you use that to enhance intelligence much beyond human norm, you have basically created an upload with a marginally functional blob of goo attached to it for no good reason.

And explain to me why this is necessary to fulfill my stated goals. Oh, right, it isn't.

I know because like Eleas I have ADD and have experienced this kind of change using medications (which I can no longer take-- but that's another story).

Correction of biological misfunction (relatively minor misfunction at that) is nothing like structural enhancement beyond biological norms.

How does that refute the point? You are doing fundamentally the same thing, only using a different mechanism and stopping at a different amount of cognitive improvement.

Stop trying to project what you want onto everyone else

Contradicted by the very next thing you quote.

and maybe you will understand why not everyone wants the same level of enhancement as you do.

So obviously you failed to even read my post before spouting off your fear-driven diatribe.

Fear driven? Methinks someone should cut the armchair psychology before he looks any more hopelessly arrogant. How does uploading my brain into a computer help me attain my stated goal, Starglider? Stop acting like you know why I chose the things I chose.

Similarly, how can you say for sure what kinds of things will be popular when these enhancements become possible, if they even will?

I can't, that's what 'Singularity' means. All I can say, which is in fact exactly what I did say, is that modifications to mental capabilities will have vastly more impact than modifications to physical capabilities (yes, even moreso than effective immortality).

Only if a majority of the population adopts them. I'm questioning that assumption.

It is not a question of enjoyment - actually it is, but that's a minor aspect. It's a question of capability. Cognitive enhancement will touch off an arms race with far greater scope than that caused by physical enhancements, because significantly enhanced people will way outclass unenhanced people in any endeavour involving actual thought. If you want to be at the top of any field, or (given widespread enhancement) even competitive in any field, you will need to be enhanced.

The OP postulated a post-scarcity world where the problems of today have already been solved. If I'm already living a life of luxury, I don't think I care so much about staying competitive with the uploaded folk as I am just enjoying myself and attaining my goals (which I have already stated-- "experience new things")

Completely different things. The thread is explicitly about uploading. Seed AI is not uploading (although that is one possible way to create one) and the consequences are quite different.

Right, but Junghalli stated in the OP that he wanted to avoid discussions about what is transhumanism or debates about the merits of this that or the other. He just wants to know about our preferences.

Of course, but identity is not a binary concept. People change continuously through life - they change discontinously whenever they have brain surgery, but we don't consider that death and for good reason. A radically transhuman version of someone basically uses the current version as a skeleton, and fills in a huge amount of additional detail beneath the relatively coarse strokes that a human personality is composed of.

Can you say "non-sequitor"? Of course people change throughout life, I know that. I don't consider the "me" of five years ago to be the "me" I am now because of how much I have learned since then. But that does not mean that I cannot empathize, identify with, or understand that person I once was. However uploading my mind and radically changing it means I won't even comprehend the way the resulting person thinks-- that's a far greater change than simply growing as a person. And you think I should find this radical change somehow desirable simply because all the cool kids are doing it?

You don't have a point other than 'this makes me feel scared'. Which is fine, no one is forcing you to do anything. You want to miss out on Infinite Fun Space, that's your decision.

Stop strawmanning. How is uploading my mind necessary towards achieving my stated goal of experiencing new things? Simple answer-- its not. Also, it seems you have consistently ignored my point about not wanting to alienate my friends and family who I know will not go through with uploading. Its NOT because I'm afraid, although for someone with a superiority complex like you I'm not surprised this went over your head.

See? Two can play the armchair psychobabble game. It doesn't prove anything, Starglider, except that you are a self righteous prick.

Bakustra wrote:Happily, we are fluent in Mandarin, and we know that behind one of the doors is a Searle room where the individual does not understand Chinese, and behind the other is a Searle room where the inhabitant does understand Chinese.

The Chinese Room experiment is actually several layers of misdirection carefully calculated to exploit human intuitive reasoning flaws. Again, read Dennett or indeed any of several papers by noted AI researchers for details. Specifically, the inclusion of a human at all in the experiment is a canard, designed to create an intentional confusion of the human's understanding with the system as a whole's understanding. 'Understanding' is on one hand a slippery, fuzzy thing for philosophers to argue about, but on the other hand it is quite concrete and demonstrable thing when linked to specific capabilities. Understanding is a property of functional (causal) systems, and the question of whether a specific subcomponent of a system has 'understanding' is usually irrelevant (when it is relevant, it relies on a vastly greater understanding of the functional decomposition of intelligence than Searle ever possessed).

His experiment only shows the problem with searching for consciousness; as a subjective experience, how do we demonstrate it to others?

Strictly, understanding Chinese does not require consciousness. Answering tricky Turing-test questions in Chinese does, but really that capability is quite distinct from dealing with any given language.

In actual fact consciousness is a fairly concrete property of intelligent systems. You basically need the ability for a system to perceive and understand its own cognitive state (through appropriate feedback loops), and an understanding of how it as an entity fits into the universe. Existing AI implementations are rather crude, but validate the concept; for example in the systems I work with, an understanding of the different between the mental model of reality and external reality is necessary for the AI to avoid destructively rewriting its goal system. The perceptual structures associated with human conscious experience are still being identified, but there is no reason to believe that they are any less tangible than the well-understood components of the visual processing chain, just less clearly laid out. Certainly in AGI design many researchers have independently come up with the concept of a 'reflective modality' comparable to any other sensory modality (Metacat is perhaps the prototypical example, along with some early work on recurrent NNs e.g. Edelman).

Personally I think transhuman AIs (de novo and upload-derrived) will consider humans to be barely conscious, because our reflective capability is such a hopeless crock. It barely works at all, and it confabulates more than it reveals.

I may be the only conscious human in a land of philosophical zombies, but how can I tell?

High-resolution brain scans; then you can trace the neural circuitry implementing every last bit of your sense of self. Should only take a few more decades. Really though, all you need is Occam's Razor. By far the simplest and easiest way to generate the apperance of a conscious human is to... implement a conscious human.

Is it possible to reduce the Chinese Room thought experiment ad absurdum by pointing to any number of 'conscious' superhuman entities. Does any individual employer of, say, Exxon have understanding of everything Exxon does? And yet it does it, and if the Exxon corporation were somehow agglomerated into tentacles of a single entity (the corporation's members are removed to a remote box, and all of its operations become robotic, etc.) it would have the appearance of a conscious individual with goals and models that no individual member exhibits.

My point is simplistic because I am by no means familiar with cognition beyond a semester of Cognitive Psychology. My point was that consciousness, or intentionality, as presented by Searle's experiment, is either nonexistent or a fundamental property of a Turing-compliant system, since we cannot distinguish between conscious and unconscious systems using his experiment. Granted, it may be possible to isolate the two, using a defined form of consciousness (which I was unaware had been potentially identified. Shows how familiar I am with the subject) that can exist in a Turing-incompliant machine. I suppose that this is similar to the question of systematic understanding versus component understanding that you mentioned, just in a clumsier fashion.

I probably, if such capabilities became common, play around with the concept, depending on whether it is possible to store duplicate brain-states electronically without having them active, and try to reproduce a Face Dancer or other "muscular shapeshifter" and then move on to determining how the human brain would perceive radio waves, or ultraviolet, or infrasonics. Essentially, playing around with sensory organs. If such a capacity is impossible for whatever reason, then I suppose I would settle for repairing things like Vitamin C production, my poor eyesight, and maybe more radical things like altering the shape of the spinal cord. I think that I would prefer, assuming that it is practical, to upload myself for extended journeys (hibernation is far more practical for electronics than organics), such as any long-range space exploration.

I'm somewhat surprised at how popular transhumanism seems to be going by the poll. I expected the uploading option to be less popular and the immortal peak human option to be more popular.

Then again, it's hard to extrapolate from this to the population as a whole. This board's population is heavily self-selected for enjoying science fiction (and being relatively frequently exposed to transhumanist concepts), and more generally I imagine for general technophilia. I wonder what sort of results I'd get out of asking the same question to a representative sample of the population? I imagine that enthusiasm for all transhumanist options would go down and enthusiasm for the higher-end ones would go way down, and "I don't want to be enhanced in any way" would become less tiny a percentage. Then again, I'm wary of drawing conclusions from gut feelings, for what I think would be obvious reasons.

I see the biological/cyborg enhancement option being very popular. I kind of wish I'd made the poll more specific now as that encompasses such a huge range. I'm especially interested to hear details from the people picking this option. I'd really like to get a feel for what sort of abilities people want most of all. Greater memory? Faster thinking/problem solving ability? Ability to connect to things outside your body (internet, robot surrogates etc.)? Greater multi-tasking (i.e. can split off multiple versions of yourself a la Accelerando)? Fundamental cognitive restructuring? Greater physical powers?

adam_grif wrote:What kind of range do you think you could pull off if you had to create a "shapeshifter face" using technological means? So a face with as many variable geometry and color things as possible. I'm thinking you'd need all sorts of tiny muscles all over to pull and stretch things in different directions, and some kind of artificial pigment that changes color when you need it to.

I imagine the best way to go about it would probably be to use a utility fog. A good utility fog could probably give you abilities comparable to Odo (Star Trek DS9). It could even approximate his ability to change apparent size drastically if the foglets have extendable arms like in the proposal I linked to; it could vary between being solid and mostly air by volume, and in doing so dramatically change its volume.

As far as improvements go, first of all I would like my memory improved and my attention problems fixed. After that, the ability to connect my brain to the net from anywhere I can find wireless would be awesome, especially if you can combine that with an augmented reality scheme. This would probably only work in cities, of course, but that's okay, I'd plan to do a lot of traveling and having google maps up at will is going to be useful. As for physical improvements, increasing my reaction speed would likely do a lot of good in the most situations I can think of; trying to improve my physical strength has a lot of problems of the "your arm is stronger than your back" sort, so that's a bit of a non-starter.