Biotechnological Ethics

[wolven7]

Technology advocates in the audience, what are your positions on the following: AI (as a general term encompassing many nuances); "The Singularity;" Cybernetics/Bio-Technological enhancements?

Sub-Question: Where do you draw the line? Where is your demarcation on the spectrum between, say, Reading Glasses, on the one hand, and Uploading Your Brain into a Cybernetic Body, on the other?

At what point do you stop being human? At what point are you no longer You? What makes you who you are? Is it your brain states? Is it being made of a certain combination of meat, fat, proteins, acids and enzymes?

Is the complexity of your identity reducible to Physics? Quantum Physics? String Theory? Chemistry? Where do you want to say that You are? Is the whole somehow greater than the sum of its parts?

I believe that it is. I think that there is a level of process that lends itself to identity, and that each experience of reduction, replication, and re-creation changes the product. This is why The Dixie Flatline was not the completeion of his Self, if you catch my meaning. The processes and materials through which we travel have a hand in making us who we are. This is not to say that those things which emulate those processes are not, then, thinking, knowing machines, but it is to say that they are not us. They are different from Us.

I could go off on a Farscape rant, about what happened when Crichton was doubled, and the ways their choices and behaviours shaped them, together and separately, the further they got from each other, but I won't. Not in the body of this post. I will say, however, that what makes you who and what you are is not limited to, but is heavily informed by what you experience, what you're made of, what you remember.

If I were to make the decision to transfer the only of me to an uploaded state, would that then be me? If my body died? In what ways would it not be me? What if I cloned myself a new body, and transfered, then?

Morbid thoughts, I know, but you need to think about these things. They are coming, whether or not we like them.

If i quick-clone myself, and that clone bears the marks of that process, then that clone is not me. Same name? Sure, same memories? for the most part. Not me. Will have different experiences, different reactions, a different life.

Like a twin brother, yeah?

But what if we could meet up, come back, and share memories, directly, via uplink...

This is kind of rambling, I know, and the possibilities, are dizzying, but mainly I just want to hear your thoughts on these thoughts.

So.

Comments

[unknownbinaries.livejournal.com]

Who's being techno-bigoted?

At what point do you stop being human?
When your genetics no longer declare you part of the species.

At what point are you no longer You?
This is the hard one. 'You' or 'Me' are nebulous. My face is a representation of 'Me', but so are my words, my works. And 'You' change constantly with experiences, biology, chemistry. Also, I'd say after reading Accelerando, being the only 'You' isn't necessarily a key point in this. Stross' cusp-of-Singularity characters upload themselves into other bodies, virtual environs that run them like programs, machine-animals (one becomes a flock of birds for a while), and nanoclouds, transfer experiences like synchronizing a PDA, and decide when to end all of their selves and retire the information that is 'Them'. So...yeah. I don't know that anyone can really answer this before all the possibilities are even thought of.

[nausved.livejournal.com]

To add to your second answer, I think that "you" is just a matter of semantics and evolution. Humans (and all other sentient and semi-sentient species, undoubtedly) naturally categorize ever-changing clusters of molecules (which in themselves are little more than just ever-changing clusters of atoms, which are clusters of ever-changing electrons/protons/etc., and so on) as single objects, and happily ignore the gray areas. Differentiating between soil and tree is easy for us (even though in actuality, there is not much difference between them; they are constantly trading molecules, and they are of similar chemical make-up), but drawing the precise line between the two—the point where a decaying tree suddenly ceases to be a tree and becomes soil—is another matter entirely.

So I'd say that, technically, there never was a you. "You" certainly does not refer to the matter that you're made up of, because that matter is constantly being exchanged when you're alive and we still say you're "you" and that the air you respire is not. And "you" certainly is not the name of your particular organization of matter, because that's in constant flux as well; you're just as much "you" now as you were as a newborn. So "you" is just a meaningless, yet extremely useful (as most of our meaningless concepts are), word for describing one of the many things that give our heavily biased, evolutionarily-derived brains the illusion of some sort of constancy.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

But if it has a use, and a purpose, and a sense of continuance (cause and effect, evolution through time, traceable changes, etc), then can it really be said to be meaningless?

[raidingparty.livejournal.com]

Ditto on this one. Whenever you have a party, every person there leaves with millions of everyone else's cells all over them and inside them, and that's just from breathing; never mind the handshakes, hugs, and so on.

Human? Ditto on what mech_angel said.
Yourself? ... we don't even know what consciousness is. But if it could somehow be translated perfectly to a different body (hesitating here at the digital question, because analog is both more error-prone and simultaneously more likely to collect the actual value rather than the closest-acceptable-approximation) it would still be you, having a different experience.
I rather liked the story about the people with sensors installed that always 'thumped' in the direction of north. External application, but they essentially gained a new sense (and fantastic mental maps, to boot). This translates the same onto people getting internal sensors, or being downloaded into a metal body with a GPS. There's just that line about where the tool is installed.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

But we can start asking the right questions, can't we? At least some of them?

[necrophonic.livejournal.com]

"What are your positions on the following: AI; "The Singularity;" Cybernetics/Bio-Technological enhancements?"

AI isn't so artificial. Cybernetics are sexy.

"Sub-Question: Where do you draw the line?"

The line is wherever I choose to cross it for myself. The line of where the government/corporation/big brother can push it on me is pretty much drawn at "Get the fuck away from me with your nano-bots and your implanted whatchamahoozits!". If the line is drawn by me, as to what I do to/with myself, I don't draw a line really. I have things I would or wouldn't do, but I mean morally I think anything I want to do is up to me. I'd love brain implants and a new cyborg body, or to be hooked into a giant biomechanical network.

"At what point do you stop being human?"

There's no way to define in absolute terms "human". From one human to another our genes are slightly different. From human to ape, they're only slightly more different. From me as a child to me as an adult my Epigenome changes drastically, and viral infections can alter even my DNA. Cellphones emit radiation strong enough to damage DNA in local cells in your body. (yeah, scary, but apparently true)

"At what point are you no longer You? What makes you who you are?"

The concept of self is largely based on archaic notions of self. Long before brain waves and neurons, self was a unit unto itself. A soul. A "something". Me is the combination of my body cells, brain cells, and the connections those neurons have made. The reactions they make, how I act, is who I am. It changes all the time, the atoms change, the nutrients change, and as I am changed by my environment myself is changed. (as mech angel pointed out) But that's my psychological "me" which alters and is usually associated with "me" or my "self". If my neurons were one by one switched out, while I was conscious, and I didn't notice a change WHILE it was happening, In a sense I'd still be me and not be me at all. If I upload my brain to a computer, I'm still me, but the computer is a copy. If I go through a teleporter which melts my body, and reconfigures atoms on the other side to recreate me, "I" am dead (relative to "me") but a NEW me is born, and to everyone else I am alive.

If I am put in a jar with a second brain and we begin to meld into an "us" as neurons connect, eventually "me" is what used to be "us". If I cut my brain in half and both halves survive, I'm now two "me" (of course I'd be two kind of dumb versions of me, but still two me's)

"Is the whole somehow greater than the sum of its parts?"

The answer to that question is largely dependent on the definition of the question. I'm exactly the sum of my parts. The "more" people talk about is just a loaded term. The phrase "I am" is the sum of "I" and "Am" which combines to make "I am". To say it's "More" than I and Am, may be to say that together they have more abstract metaphorical value to our brains than the two individual words, the same way a body and a disembodied mind would be "more" to us because it would represent something IN ADDITION to the single components, but just because it has more abstract metaphorical value to us socially or mentally is a moot point. That's like quantifying whether cabbage is more meaningful than lettuce. In Korea, Cabbage might mean more to the people than lettuce does to Americans, but the third moon of Jupiter doesn't give a shit.

That basically covers your next questions to. I think it's all reducible, but I think the brain is also a kind of "fuzzy" thing. You can remove bits and pieces and never know the difference. Then just a little chunk out of the wrong spot and you're just a vegetable. Add a few random parts and maybe nothing. Maybe your memory is twice the size. Maybe you go completely insane.

Looking through historical views on psychology and self, it's a pretty obvious transition from the early spiritual views, to the psychological views, to the newer neurological insights, and as you study more and more, the neurological side just becomes the obvious winner (to me anyway)

And I'd love to be a cyborg. That'd be fucking sweet.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Interesting. I agree in some points, disagree in others.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

The more I think about it, the more I think the nebulous "self" rests most heavily in the subjective experience of the process that is "me."

And it's that Process that i mean, when I use the old W>P+P saw. The synergy that, in the act of becoming and processing, give us something more than simply placing them together; the act of Being, through experience, which may be different, or may have been different.

It is, among other things, a question of determinism, free will, compatiblism, or what have you.

[cailement.livejournal.com]

I seriously like your Big Brother point. I totally agree that no body modification should be done without prior knowledge and agreement.

[onetusk.livejournal.com]

Can I just get replacement livers on demand and we call it good?

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Absolutely. I think we should hold them in little jars, then we can grow them like starfish, as needed.

[pir8m1k3y.livejournal.com]

exactly why i watch Battlestar Galactica.. and all things GITS

(i don't want to spoiler anyone, but seriously - the bit in the latest BSG ep, re: memory transfer and Identity.. i was all Whooa.. like Neo and shit)

also, if we *had* mind-uploads, i could dig out the sketch of a novel that's been floating around in my head for a while.. (alright, it's more of a Story Idea right now.. but, it has KungFu!).. instead, you're going to have to wait for the slow version of mind transfer :(

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that memory bit hit pretty close to home. You could tell it fucked Him up, pretty bad, too.

I think I'd have the Story Idea, the sketch, which would still kick ass, because it'd be a fairly faithful representation of what it means to you, and why, if done right...

TL, DR.

[momentai.livejournal.com]

It's late so I'm formulating thoughts, but in general, it seems as if I may be agreeing with you on the "what makes us Us" point. In the sense that an answer to that would be dependent on what one means by his identity. I think our identities, the psychological aspect of it, go a long way to defining 'you', but also that the body is important.

More like the combination of certain factors would determine the 'you' and any other combinations tend to lead to a similar, but not the same 'you' which then begs the question of what does the individual WANT to use to define himself as opposoed to what an acceptable generalization could be.

Re: Fuck You.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Very good question, in and of itself. Worth pondering.

[amazingmrparker.livejournal.com]

I've always been a fan of Jurassic Park, simply because the message that I walked away with is "Just because we CAN does not mean that we SHOULD." Ultimate freedom REQUIRES ultimate responsibility. CAN we fuck around with things like artificial intelligence, artificial life, cloning, or time travel? Sure. Is it a good idea? ...maybe not so much.

Speaking as someone in the body modification business, I would have to say that there is no universal "line" to be drawn, that each of us decides for ourselves where "Me" ends and "Everything Else" begins - and to what degrees. Making the choice to never be tattooed or going as far as, say, the Cat Man is still a choice reflecting your self-perception. I would never install horns on my forehead or have my own name tattooed anywhere on my body, but if that's what someone feels they have to do to be the best them that they can be, more power to 'em - it's just not a decision I'd make (personally, I rather like being made primarily of meat and proteins and whatnot - sure, there are some added bits of metal and ink on the surface - but I'm feeling pretty good not being a cyborg). Just because we CAN do crazy implants and facial tattoos doesn't mean that we SHOULD - there are a number of tattoos (faces, for instance) that I won't do, but I wouldn't do anything to prevent someone from getting those body mods elsewhere.

"You" stop being "you" all the time. I don't define or perceive myself the same way I did seven years ago. I've grown, evolved, and changed since then, and while I have memories and experiences in common with the guy-I-was-seven-years-ago, I'm not that guy anymore. "You" is a constant evolution. "You" is constantly changing as cells die and are replaced, and eventually the whole biological operation shuts down, and who knows what happens after that, but all of that has to go somewhere - and even if it doesn't, if there really is nothing after this life, would that be such a bad thing? Things come, they have their time for a while, and then they're gone - this applies not only to Me, but my definition and perception of Me as well.

I'll be back to Trivia again as soon as my definition of Me includes "Less Broke", hopefully next week if business is good this weekend. :)

[amazingmrparker.livejournal.com]

Something else just occurred to me: Scott McCloud points out in "Understanding Comics" an interesting observation on this point. If we are in our car, and are involved in a Vehicular Exterior Interaction, we don't say "His car hit my car!" we say "He hit me!"

Yes, sure, we Are All Connected - but simultaneously, we Are Not. There is a point where our stuff - or our family, or our friends - becomes part of our definition of Me as well.

Crüxshadows - [Flame]

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Do you stop being you? If you are the thing that remembers and continues the train of experience that you then call You?

"I don't define or perceive myself the same way I did seven years ago. I've grown, evolved, and changed since then, and while I have memories and experiences in common with the guy-I-was-seven-years-ago, I'm not that guy anymore."

What is that I, then? Isn't there still some sense of Identity, there?

I think you're absolutely right on the distinction between what we can do, and what we Should do. But how do we draw that line? How do we move forward as a species, if we don't test, push, strive forward? How do we make the decision that it's tested enough, planned enough, safe enough to go on?

Who tests it and plans it, to make it safe?

More questions...

[mendori.livejournal.com]

One of the fundamental flaws in the questions you are asking is they assume a very post Enlightenment western conception of species and self. I much prefer to approach these from a Buddhist and Confucian approach, primarily because they give much more satisfying answers. Also, im going to have a discussion about this, im going to invoke my CS background to talk about reality. It's cleaner, I think.

What defines an individual is only in part their self identify. However, that self identity exists only as an extension of the self identify of everyone else you interact with. What defines us is not just our own perceptions of ourself, but of the perceptions of all others around us who interact with us. What this gives us is what we would call in CS/CIS as a pointer reference to the instance of the class human which is ourself. These pointers define where we are by referencing us. We stop being US when no pointers refer to us as that instance of the human class. By extension, we stop being human when we extend the bounds of our class so far that we no longer fit the parameters of the class.

Now what happens when our social references and network no longer call us us. Well, we are redefined by new references, new attachments. Or, we can take the Buddhist approach, and CUT all references to ourself, all attachments going from us to the outside world, and become a closed instance. And this is supposedly the means of reaching enlightenment.

On the other hand, what happens when the class Human no longer properly works to deal with the content that is an individual. Well, we make a new object, and build up from other objects we already have, to define a new class. It can inherit all things that are human, but not use all of them, and inherit all things machine, and not use all of them. Its a new thing, it needs a new name, and the instances of it, while in some aspects behave as the previous classes, it has its own unique parameters as well.

This of course brings me to the question of speciation. Its a major debate in biology today as to what constitutes a species, and what defines a speciation event. When is the dinosaur a bird, when is the finch a new finch, what the hell do we do with species that breed with one another and produce hybrids that breed true? Humans have not had a real speciation event since well before the last ice age - how the fuck will we deal with humans who look human, or act human, who arent genetically human. At what point is it no longer human genetic variation, or hybridization, but rather, a new species of genus Homo? Or stranger, something so different it needs its own new genus from us?

I look towards the baboons, a relative of ours who deal with this on a regular basis. There are hundreds of species of baboons, and many species overlap in range with many other species. Along those overlaps, hybrids occur, and they integrate with the various bands along the hybrid zones fairly easily. But in some places, a group of hybrids will form a band of their own, and breed true... and a new species is born.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Those references are good markers, but would you consent to your identity being directed by your reference points? Or would you say that You direct it, in a call-and-response relationship With them?

And, again, where do we draw the line? What generation gets labeled "post-human." Where is our new Genus and Species? There is a question of individual identity, even there, and I think it's one that needs addressing, in more than just a macro-level sense.

What of those who choose to become the new species (transhumanists)? What about those who are forced into it?

I'm remembering an arc in Ultimate Fantastic Four, where everyone in the world got super-powers, to the point where children basically HAD to, to keep up. We Have to learn to read, and we Have to pay attention, so we don't get hit by cars, crossing the street...

But we also have the Amish. And we have Luddites.

We are defined in relation to several external factors, to an extent, but we are also the tendency to react against, with, or to those factors, in the first place.

[momentai.livejournal.com]

1.At what point do you stop being human?
--This one is turning out to be more difficult than I first thought. I would like to simply agree with mech_angel and leave it at that, but I'm not sure if that's accurate. Robo Cop still had his brain and eventually unlocked his memories so that he again had a mind and soul, but for every other respect he was a robot. Darth Vader was accused of being more machine than man, but that begs the point of him still in fact being a man. So, are we to say that those 2 are no longer human just because they can no longer procreate and have an overabundance of cybernetic parts?

Personally, I'm not sure where I would vote, but I think for that specific type of question than yes, Kirsten is right. Just leave that sort of definition to the biologists and doctors and move on. Human is an important, but very technical term, so it's definition can be very narrow and arbitrary and that's okay. The more important question for me is what makes us "people"?

2.At what point are you no longer You? What makes you who you are?
--This is the real problematic part of the questioning. When it comes to this type of metaphysical question, I don't really think there should be a goal of a common denominator. One's personal identity plays into the answer far too much. Yes, brain states and a body do all play into it. As do my experiences and memories. However, they all have to be considered together. Each is a truth and those truths are important to me when analyzed together. Ye, they can be separated and parsed down, but that lessens their meaning.

For instance, to say that just b/c I am organic and am constantly releasing bits of my molecular structure thru breathing and shedding and the like cheapens what I am as a sentient human. Sure, I am exchanging particles with other organic matter on a molecular/atomic level, there is a cycle of reclamation, re creation, condensation, whatever, but that in and of itself is irrelevant. That process of the natural world is not what defines me or any other animal, at least not on the level we are discussing. SO, I go back to my identity.

If I am uploaded to a computer than my essence may be lost. Lt Cmdr Data feared this and refused to submit to an experiment where his brain would be transferred to a computer mainframe and studied. He could not be sure if the effaciacy of his memories would survive. That is important. My mind and soul are the sum total of my thoughts and memories and actions and experiences, so what happens if the ineffable quality of them is somehow lost upon such a transfer? If I forget the nature of my identity and simply remember my name, am I still "Me"? I would guess no. I would like to beelive that I can lose this body and gain a new one, but this body has defined my interaction with other people and has defined their experience with me and memory of me. If these others decide they can no longer interact with me than I think that goes a long way to determining if I remain "me" after being uploaded.

I could ask them to respect me and try to accept this new form since what was inside the old body is now apart of the experience train as you put it, but is that fair to them? Whose rights are more important and is that even the question? On one hand I can say that as long as I keep my original form, I ams till me. Regardless of how I enhance this body, I am still me. Of course my mind evolves as I learn and grow as a person, but just b/c I have reached new levels of understanding from where I was 7 years ago does not negate me or my sense of self. Each identity we project to society is true in it's own circumstances. To remove the circumstances does not make that truth a lie, but it does lessen the truth. All of my identities are me; we constitute a whole that is me. Separately, they are nothing, so no matter how much I grow and what I leave behind, it will always be apart of me. The Was, Am, and Will Be are all mine and therefore all me.

So many questions are opened up, so yes, it is good to start now, but the fact that the lack of concrete experimentation and information makes this a very dizzying hypothetical situation and therefore taxing on my brain, moreso than others would be.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

An interesting position. Lots to consider. The more I think about it, the more I think the nebulous "self" rests most heavily in the subjective experience of the process that is "me."

I've been holding off until I could actually give this the thought it deserves

[cailement.livejournal.com]

Question, by question :)

Technology advocates in the audience, what are your positions on the following: AI (as a general term encompassing many nuances); "The Singularity;" Cybernetics/Bio-Technological enhancements?

AI is scary. I truly believe that if a logical alien entity took a good look about how we run our lives and our planet, we'd be found wanting indeed and I worry that they'd kill us all, for the universe's sake. Or Earth's sake. Whatever. I like the idea behind it, all of the good technological uses, but I've read too much sci-fi to be comfortable with the idea.

The Singularity is a new concept to me, so I don't really have much of an opinion on it. From what I've looked up, just now, it doesn't seem worth commenting on. It'll happen or it won't, not really anything to do about it or not.

Cyber-were and biotech. WANT. At the same time, I'm kinda worried about it, but not to the extent that I am about AI. I think just about everything in your body should be replaceable (think Bicentennial Man with Robin Williams). Seriously, I see no reason to not be able to replace a blind man's eyes, or a cancer survivor's breasts. Be this with bio or cyber, although I'd really want both tech to take off so that one could choose.

Sub-Question: Where do you draw the line? Where is your demarcation on the spectrum between, say, Reading Glasses, on the one hand, and Uploading Your Brain into a Cybernetic Body, on the other?

I think my only issue is the idea of a human consciousness in a cybernetic brain. I don't have a problem with directly interfacing a computer, but for some reason, the brain tissue has to remain just that, tissue, for me to consider it a human. It's like that queesy feeling I got while watching Arnold's Junior. Some things are just Not Meant To Happen. I can't explain why, really. Just a sick feeling in my stomach. Everything replacing up until the brain? I'm totally okay with.

At what point do you stop being human? At what point are you no longer You? What makes you who you are? Is it your brain states? Is it being made of a certain combination of meat, fat, proteins, acids and enzymes?

I think the consciousness, the soul, (and this is going away from tech, here) is not actually a part of the human body, so having it not in a human body is not necessarily a bad thing. What makes us human, I think, though, is our irrationality. The thought of "he's looking at my girl so I'm gonna go start shit." This is not necessarily a good thing, but I think without these irrationalities (for another example, the man who stays on the sinking battle cruiser while his men get to safety, taking out the final enemy ships, even though he will certainly die. The mother taking the bullet in the dark alley for her son. Irrational, but intrinsically human) make us human. I worry that if we went total cyber, that we'd loose a bit of this irrationality, and would therefore cease to be human.

(cut into several, for length)

Re: I've been holding off until I could actually give this the thought it deserves

[cailement.livejournal.com]

Is the complexity of your identity reducible to Physics? Quantum Physics? String Theory? Chemistry? Where do you want to say that You are? Is the whole somehow greater than the sum of its parts?

At this point, I would like to ask, have you read Orson Scott Card's Ender Saga? I like the ideas of the philoats, of a thing that is called out of Outside to reside in a living thing (or a rock, or a chair) that intertwine with each other to make the connections between atoms and atoms to make molecules and people, people and people, people and the planet, etc. His sci-fi delved very deeply into physics, and I liked the thought that at the sub-sub atomic level, our soul resides. I also like how sub-atomic particles don't yet make sense to anyone. But that goes on into Belief again.

I will say, however, that what makes you who and what you are is not limited to, but is heavily informed by what you experience, what you're made of, what you remember.

I agree with this a Lot. It's a part of the nature vs nurture psycology argument, which I believe the resolution to the argument is "a bit of both." At the same time (some of this is taken from that survey), I think that people are capable of literally anything, not necessarily bound by their upbringing, but definatly influenced by it. Some of who you are and what you'll do is based on the genetic level, some is based on how you were raised. And then there's a third level, one not mentioned in that survey, I don't think, that is made up of Possibility--the ability of anyone, for any reason, to choose to do something different. I think that this third side of the argument is left out of the argument a bunch, and shouldn't be. God (or some other deity :P) may know our fates, but we're the ones who make them.

Re: I've been holding off until I could actually give this the thought it deserves

[wolven.livejournal.com]

I think a lot of people have the meat-brain issue that you mention, but what if we can build systems with sufficient fuzziness and uncertainty to allow for rationality?

Another reason everyone should be watching BSG. They deal with these questions, very handily.