**"A Bodiless Future? Any Objection? "**

Post Reply New Topic

There are a number of approaches to such problems, though, Odin. Why must we replace our neurons cell by cell? We could just as easily supplement our memories with cybernetic implants, or we could find ways of enhancing the natural healing processes of our nervous systems. I think that the former strategy would be more interesting, though. Imagine being able to store your memories or, if you want to get really crazy, entire aspects of your personality on off-board data troves.

isn't that called myspace? !

I'm also skeptical of the "uploading" idea. The self needs a self-contained computation device, a physical brain (whether biological or artificial doesn't matter). such a brain-computer can be directly connected to the Internet and can theoretically share information directly to and from another brain-computer, but the self can't just jump from one computer on the network to another IMO.

We can easily supplement out biological brains with cybernetic implants, IMO both are important. cell-by-cell replacement makes the brain immune to the limitations and fallibility of "wet" biological processes and implants let us expand our mental capacity.

The process of merging with our technology has already started. You will be assimilated, resistance is futile!

Replacing the brain neuron-by-neuron? Are you kidding? The brain is never metabolically inactive (before death). The wiring is always changing. And brain-cells are not very robust compared to skin cells.

Is loss of brain cells a general function of maturing from infant through to adult? Better put, do we inevitably lose some of our precious neurons as our brains mature and restructure?

And if I tried to use 100% of my brain, even for a microsecond, I do believe it would cause every neuron in my skull to fail at the same time. And after that I wouldn't even be a drooling vegetable 'cause even carrots and broccoli have some measure of EEG activity.

Those taking steroids would prefer it be all body and no brains, as with many other non-steroid jocks. Much of television today would prefer your brain being turned off, and there is substantial evidence of the same effect in inner-city schools. This is where the pipe dream becomes an unjust nightmare. Bad things will still happen.

In the context of the thread in the "Parents" forum, called "The Internet; Dangerous?" I was thinking about this again.

The fact is that for hundreds/thousands of years now the most successful, most popular, copied and widespread technology has been that which enables/encourages less and less movement by our bodies, from carriages and sailing ships, through books, to factory machines, etc,, trains and cars, radio and television, and now the net.

In the past the rich and privileged had slaves or servants to do things for them; now the rich and privileged of the industrialised nations have machines which relieve them increasingly of any need to move. It is already possible to live one's life in two rooms, ordering food etc to be delivered by satelite piloted vehicule. More and more people move less and less.

Many people have trouble going 500 m without getting into their car. Someone says of the internet, "It's too/so easy". People seem to want to stop moving, reduce their activity to eyes and fingertips. People will use science and technology to reduce the amount of physical "work" they have to do, until their body's only function will be to help create neurone-connections, create their brain in fact.

Even then perhaps people will connect themselves up to machines which make their body move for them. Will that be sufficient, or does the signal have to go both ways in order to create the same growth/neuronal richness? (I read somewhere that just "thinking" you are flexing the muscles in your right arm will increase muscle fitness, if not quite as much as actually "doing" the exercise for real).

The withdrawal from the physical has been happening with every technological "advance" for hundreds of years now. People encouraging exercise and fresh air sound like they're talking about going to church and other religious rituals. Nature and the body will, already do, seem like gods to many people, invisible, forgotten, of little importance.

Do we need them?

I have been in my body for longer than the average person and I enjoy being there. My only cyborg capabilities are reading glasses and some fillings in my teeth. I use my mind to theoretically explore the world and there are always new and unexpected inputs from the world which is the most entertaining thing I have encountered. My various physiological systems give me motivations and pleasures that my mind helps in fulfilling and the only reason I would want cyborgian replacements is if some natural system failed but I would prefer to grow a replacement if that became possible.

The tendency is away from using the body very much, and technology is taking us there faster and faster because so many people seem to want to stop moving, to just look, listen and type.

Should we be alarmed if our children spend more and more time on the net, ( when they are not obliged to sit still in school); should we worry that more and more people transfer between work, home , and shops,( if they do so at all), in cars? And spend increasing amounts of their leisure time sitting in front of screens? "New and unexpected inputs" can come by way of the internet, TV, etc.

I am not proposing artificial implants or attachments as such, though they are arriving and being integrated in our lives all the time now. The car already exists, and so do portables of all sorts, to listen to certain sounds, talk to people not physically present, etc. Is there any reason to be worried or concerned about the sort of human, the kind of brain development, neuronal network, which will result from this increasingly immobile/disembodied life?

I imagine that physically disabled people, aswell as parents and partners of physically disabled, would strenuously reject any suggestion that radically limited use of the body produces unhealthy, or inferior, or fundamentally more destructive mental/cognitive activity, then is there any reason to fear a world in which people's bodies become simple fuel blocks for brains?

Why move? People who exercise praise the psychological benefits, but if most people can adapt to some kind of immobile life, and seem to want to, is there any reason to worry about it? Does it really matter?

Even if it does; even if it does have a profound effect on human psychological state, on cognitive development in childhood, cognitive activity in adulthood, is that any reason to legislate to prevent it, by enforcing exercise for example, abolishing cars, or limiting internet use? If it does not destroy society, if in fact it produces greater complexity, as people become more stuck together by this immobility, then I suppose it is in fact desirable.

I am just very curious about how many people seem to think substantial internet use, etc etc, is bad for you, and that we "should" still be doing lots of other, old fashioned, things like walking, visiting museums, arts and crafts, etc!

Last edited by ouinon on 02 Apr 2008, 10:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

Obviously I enjoy the internet as a resource for information and discussion but I find no interest in the games. Anything can become addictive and exert a destructive influence on other activities. If anything my use of the computer as a source of contact and information enhances my normal capabilities. I also use it in graphics, technical drawing, writing and forming personal archives, but if anything, it gives me more free time away from the computer and permits me vastly improved contacts with music, drawing, photography to get more free time in activities away from the computer. It must be used as a tool and not as a master.

What does that mean though? "as a tool not a master"? Why should healthy use of the internet mean lots of time spent off it? The assumption appears to be, despite the general tendency, that more and more time in front of screen is necessarily a "bad thing"!

If it were possible to timetravel to 2100, and you saw everyone ( in the industrialised/wealthy nations),in front of screens, attached to i-pods etc, 24/7, hardly moving except for the toilet, and cooking for the few still interested in that quaint custom, and that was normal, which it probably will be; would you say that the internet had become their master and it was a dreadful thing, or might you accept that this is the way human society is evolving towards greater interdependence by all units? ( )

Because you cannot put the whole universe into the computer. The huge universe is always coming up with huge surprises which humans may play with once they have been entered into the computer but only abstractions can be placed in a computer just as only abstractions of the universe may be perceived by the human mind since we are limited. We have gradually widened our abstractive capabilities but mysteries probably will always be out there. It is only very recently that humans have discovered that the overwhelming bulk of the matter and energy of the universe has been unperceived.

That is a very interesting observation, because these/most recent discoveries were made by machines, computers and robots, and a few minds. Human bodies played no role at all in perceiving or sensing this about the universe. It was an observation of bodiless humans.

In fact the universe might get more astounding , more complex, "yield up"/"show us" more secrets, the more bodilessly we approach it!

Humans use their new mechanical perceptive capabilities to translate unperceptable phenomena into perceptive modalities. All mechanical aids merely supplement our normal capabilities, they do not replace them.