Genecks

Can't say I agree, pioneer. Methylation caused by alcohol consumption may decrease memory retainment.

Decent response. I hadn't considered that. Along with the fact that the land could have large amounts of land and solar input, an android/cyborg society could more than likely live in such an environment. It wouldn't be a bad lands for them.

I tried.

I think reverse torture is more moral than using torture, for torture makes a person fear for losing his/her life.

My half-brother was told that he was my half-brother at around 16, I think. Maybe it was 18. I don't think it benefited him. At least, when he told me the story, he didn't feel as though it benefited him. From what I believe, I don't think that children should be told. My father acted as the father for my half-brother (my oldest brother) for the majority of my half-brother's life. As such, my brother did not know that my dad was not his real father. But my brother believed so. When he was told, his world was crushed. My older brother also thought that my oldest brother was his real, bloodline brother. They would not have known otherwise. My oldest brother is 39ish.. I think or he's 40. So, imagine being told this when there are still a lot of controversy about what really influences a child/adult during development. People still argue that keeping the child with the natural parents mean more than a good parent whom adopts the child. Being 18 in the early part of the 1990s, I guess. But at age 18? Still, I think, despite what generation, I don't think it's proper to tell someone at age 18. A person is going through a lot of life events and stages. A person has the ability to live an independent in life and the world and laws around him/her change. It's a very emotionally unstable time. As such, I don't believe telling someone at age 18. Because I hold some traditionalist views, I think family is important. As such, a person should not be told that he/she was adopted at all. I emphasize that a family member should not feel like an outsider. But if you have to tell someone, don't do it during a time he/she is living an unstable life. I don't think my father really knew what to do about the issue, and as a person of moral character, he probably decided it would be just to tell the truth. Then again, my mother could have told him the truth, too, if my father had died. Eventually, the truth would have came to him. Also the article is bogus. DNA testing becoming common place? Bogus claim. People would at least need to draft me or get a court order.

Fair comment, Leader Bee. From an anthropological outlook, groups of person whom consider themselves to be a "race" would want to have their own values and system of living. Also, you've brought out the thing about the forever-working android. As such, this is why I have commented that there would be laws preventing transhumans from having varying things, such as resources: Otherwise, after 500 years, the transhuman would have a large bank account. It's curious as to what kind of laws would be created. I'm assuming that any transhuman would more than likely desire to either sit around and do nothing or go do some exciting things, such as reach for the stars. If the android race were to come before space colonies, I suspect the androids would be more than likely be game for making such technologies possible. That statement has to be one of the greatest issues with the transhumanist movement: You're immortal, now what? If I remember correctly, many statistical studies say that transhumanists are mostly atheists. I'm not stating I have something against atheism. But I do think serious problems come with being a transhumanist and being an atheist at the same time. That would mean there is no God to ask, "Hey, why did you make this universe? Why does it seem like evil exists? Why did things unfold this way? What happened to my Sega Genesis Lion King video game back in the 1990s? Was it stolen? Is it still in the house? Also, who created you? and... Do you like Mudkips? :3" Yes, waste God's time by asking God trivial, annoying questions. I want my Sega Genesis game, though. I think it's a serious issue when it comes to someone who doesn't want to consider a God. That doesn't mean the atheist can't figure out the beginning of the universe and the meaning to everything. It's still a goal. And, who knows, maybe some omnipotent figure would be at the other end, to many's surprise. But if the atheistic android doesn't want to try to solve these cosmological issues, then I could only suspect the person would live many lives, try to be like Duncan McCloud (Highlander), and be a drifter. I think Theodore Kaczynski is a brilliant person. He did something that allowed him to be noticed for his views and philosophy. He did something very, very bad. In order to cause revolution, you need to do something very, very bad or very, very good, thus forcing people to accept the change in reality. And understand my views of how to incite a revolutionary change in societal views, his actions forced people to accept and consider ideas. In general, technology is bad. And people are perhaps better off not becoming technologically advanced. Because if people were to become technologically advanced, this would lead to destruction, such as destruction of society or of Nature. As I like to sum up from the views I have considered by Mr. Kaczynski is this view: What we think is progress is actually self-destruction. source: Industrial Society and Its Future Can an android appreciate Nature? To accept things at face value and not question them? To learn to live with Nature rather than inquire it? In the discussion of the death of people and androids... I'm not here to say that the death of an android can't occur. Consider that it's attempting to build a plasma shield (window) for a bedroom in a space apartment, and somehow a steel beam falls and shatters the android's neural network components.. Then, that's one less android in the world. Also consider that people commit suicide. Emile Durkheim has a few works about this. But consider that individuals are bound to either get killed or kill themselves. In terms of old age, unless there was a way to constantly repair the mechanics, then the android would break down. It was originally that thesis which made me consider the idea of an android body was not a worthwhile thing, as such I became more of a believer in the idea of keeping a physical body. That along with the memory transference idea. There would be a large hesitation by people to replace their body with mechanics; and more people would support tissue re-genesis techniques rather than a mechanical system.

Let us consider that the reason(s) we have not decided to colonize Mars or some other neighboring planet is based on ethical reasons. Would it be ethical to colonize a neighboring planet? I will set forth a hypothesis I have. If a neighboring planet has the potential to be colonized and has microorganisms on it, it will not be colonized. It will not be colonized, because we would be destroying the ecosystem of those life-forms. To destroy its ecosystem would be bad.

Well, now that all of the threads are together, I believe I can clearly state something. Humans. I want off this planet.

More than likely, the change in physical physiology and appearance will definitely relate to you, how people view you, and your reality. When I lost a lot of weight, girls thought I was super cute. I actually got approached by a lot of women. It was a whole new world. Then again, because I knew of the inherent shallow characteristics of Homo sapiens, I pushed off the women in a misogynic like fashion. That was an earlier me, and then those were younger women (probably not so naive/rude/immature/shallow now). I think women eventually either grow up, stop being shallow, or just give up being immature/naive. I can't tell if it's a physical reproductive thing or not. In a lot of ways, people continue to go through "adolescence" in how they want to live out their life, sexuality, and gender until they are past their 30s. That's my take on it. I suggest you start socializing with people. Maybe join a few clubs, LAN parties, etc.. Go to a few bars, start talking to some women (ALWAYS be a gentleman), and then you'll find yourself with a woman. As many guys report, after spending enough time with women they like, they eventually want to further develop the relationship and get married/have kids: Well, the ones who might have a feel for some traditionalist views and lifestyles rather than being DINKs (double-income no kids). At best, I'd say that if you stay in shape, stay physically active, and do your best at things in life, you'll eventually find that you want to settle down. Some people don't, but many people do. It might be a biological clock thing. In general, I have considered that despite the social influences society and culture has put upon human reproduction, there is still an innate desire to have children. And you will find yourself wanting to have kids, even if you want to stay a kid yourself. I think many people rationalize it as having a "mini-me." Of course, the process does seem quite grown up, and the responsibility is immense.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCsUe_z1-H4&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCsUe_z1-H4&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object> I am past that stage of life, unlike other weirdos. I'm still not sure what serious cognitive effects X-inactivation has on the female psyche, though.

:B Because it's a crooked letter....

Personally, I'm not a big fan of America. As such, I've often considered leaving the U.S. and taking up residence as an academic elsewhere in the world. At the graduate level, when seeking graduate programs, how feasible is this? Is it practical to seek a foreign graduate school? Do foreign academic institutions often pay their graduate students to do research and teach? Do they waive tuition? I've often questioned what it would be like to do neuroscience in Spain, but I'm not too familiar with foreign lands and how their academic institutions work.

I classify it based on the ground of neural network transference. An A.I. may have a similar infrastructure, but it would not have originated from a human. I base the difference on a virtual neural network that can undergo biological functions, such as fictional cell-cell signalling and so forth. It all would be virtual, but it would be enough to sustain the person's transference. An A.I. would more than likely be started from a ground-zero state. Otherwise, you would have to say that you simply copied a person's existence to another device. Under metaphysical and logical grounds, we could attempt to say that's not the same person, for no two things can be the same. Nothing can have the same level of intelligence in a quantitative sense, perhaps even in a qualitative sense: Nothing is the same. Yes, both can be considered people. That's a possibility. Assimilate! Resistance is futile! Any other Qs? *rimshot*

Response: I do not need to consider the definition of cellular life in order to consider something a person. Response: The original idea of applying the word "life" to an organism is to fulfill people's subjective and emotional experiences as humans. I consider those criteria archaic and part of religious legacy.

I suspect two full androids wouldn't be undergoing biological reproduction. Perhaps they could have a virtual simulation would what the developmental offspring of a child would be, if both parents has development proteins and gametic DNA preserved before their full conversions. It could be possible that people choose to have clone children, too. Then again, perhaps the full androids wouldn't want to reproduce. Maybe they would rather not have children. Supposedly, with some animals that live a long time, they have a few children if but one child. Given that a full android has the possibility of easily living beyond 100 years, there is the stark possibility that he/she would decide not to have children. Again, this would be quite a controversial point.

It's too dark.

I would like to set forth the idea that many people whom have undergone euthanasia more than likely were physically capable of living out their lives to further extents given that their brains had not undergone massive neural decay, neural toxicity, Alzeheimer plagues, tangles, and loss of brain areas relating to involuntary actions, such as breathing. Now consider that people are of old age or in a vegetative state, then I would say that "pulling the plug" is wrong. Nonetheless, it would appear that modern science is often incapable of extending life in an ethical fashion (for what it considers ethical, and would hope an ignorant America has no advanced medical knowledge to consider/argue otherwise) and will suggest euthanasia rather than extending the lifespan of a person. Consider the man who "dies" at 103. Quite an old-timer. Nonetheless, his heart stopped, and people have been artificially keeping him alive for a while. He hasn't undergone massive neural decay, but people say he is "dead." Is he dead? Well, probably not... But it's not like the medical world is going to keep him alive, because I suspect a decent portion would say that's extremely hubristic and not economically worthwhile. As such, he would undergo euthanasia, and the life support would be taken away. From there, he would undergo neural death, etc.. etc.. As said before "...I would say that "pulling the plug" is wrong." But what are you going to do? Unless that person put himself up for scientific research of the "dead," then that person is more than not likely going to be kept alive. But consider the person allows himself to undergo various organogenesis treatments, bone restructuring, and more... Maybe there is the chance that people could kickstart his heart. Nonetheless, given that a person isn't going to be given that opportunity to have an extended life, it would appear to be somewhat a noble and generous thing to end the suffering. Perhaps my argument is too futurist.

Sure. I think we're coming to the point in technology where we will consider people whom were formerly human and now cognitive, thinking androids to be persons. I think it's still a person. However, I'm thinking such people will have fewer rights, perhaps a lesser ability to own possessions, property, and monetary goods. Otherwise, the person could live for 500 years and collect a large wealth. I don't think it would be too different. Nonetheless, I like the idea of there being a cyborg more than an android. Nature has evolved for millions of years to give humans the brain they have, and I suspect keeping a decent, plastic portion of it will give a cyborg the ability to adapt where androids cannot. Keywords: Neural darwinism and epigenetics. I think I wouldn't mind replacing parts of my visual cortex and other hippocampal areas. I think people could start replacing nerves with wires and certain areas with hardware. I am thinking these specific parts of the brain are not TOO drastically important for personhood. I say that in the sense that they simply acting as routing areas for information rather than storage and recall. Then again, I suspect my choice would more than likely depend on anecdotal stories from people whom have undergone the process. If people complain about feeling "outside of their body" and the such, I could consider that these people no longer feel "sentient." As such, maybe they feel as they are no longer "real" people. As such, the "human experience" is gone. These people no longer feel human, and they question their own existence as living beings. I think the transition process from organic brain to hardware would progress in steps. I think that people will ultimately choose to be cyborgs rather than full-fledged androids. That would give them the greater ability to remain human. Still, there may be people whom choose to become full androids. I think the real break point is where a person undergoes the progressive transition, and is constantly asked, "Do you feel like the same person?" If the person can constantly say, "Yes, I feel as though I am the same person," then I'm going to assume that a decent portion of the personhood is still intact. I like to take into consideration various concepts of Buddhism that relate to the transference of personhood. According to various mystical texts, such as the Bardo Thodol, a person should be able to--in a sense--die and yet remain active within a reality in a different form upon active training and transmission of personhood. I don't speak of these concepts too lightly, as these texts bring forth extremely dangerous knowledge which has been hidden for long times. I don't know if it's even ethical to discuss such texts. Nonetheless, these texts were suppose to be found upon when it would be right for them to be found. The conversion process would be a scientific baptism. There is the odd possibility that during transfer of a person to a machine that the "person" on the other side is no longer the same person. I think this is something that's brilliantly touched in Ghost in the Shell: Motoko Kusanagi beings to doubt her own existence and believes the real her died long ago; as such, the memories and personality are hers, but the "existence," the person that was, is no longer there. And she attaches greatly to memories, people, and things before her conversion to an android body (I think she's full android), and greatly fights an internal struggle of deciding whether or not she is truly a real person.

Update (04-12-2010): Problem solved, I think. I decided to go with the second professor I mentioned in this thread. His research seems more relevant to me pursuing graduate school and me putting done psychobio research on an application. And I could bounce ideas off of him, which should be fun. I'm seriously impressed by all labs, though. It's unfortunate that I don't have a Time-Turner necklace.

I think once a person reaches a level of intelligence, he/she becomes so smart that emotions, such as happiness, are not of great importance. Also, as I become more intelligent, I start to see the world and reality for what it really is and is not. I'm skeptical about a lot of things, but I appreciate that I can be skeptical. Enhanced knowledge of the world (brought forth via wisdom/experience or academic learnings, such as studying sociology) can help bring stability to a person's life. I think a lot of Buddhists will push the idea that being stable is more important than being happy.

books: 1) Chemistry: The Central Science 2) Organic Chemistry: Francis A. Carey Be willing to sacrifice all of your time. Practice recall. Work is never over.

As an update, I talked to the second professor whom I listed. I read about a lot of the cognitive/psychology/neuropsychology professors after I created this thread Repeat of discussed person: http://ccm.psych.uic.edu/People/Investigators/ragozzino.aspx Supposedly, he is on sabbatical. He was in his office, so maybe I lucked out. He was willing to talk to me. I discussed with him my interests, and he said that he might be able to get me into a lab sometime in the fall. I think that would be awesome. Interestingly, he suggested I also seek out another professor. I was thinking, "What is with professors referring me to people higher on the food chain?" = more impressive CV So, I was referred to look into this professor: http://www.psych.uic.edu/faculty/larson.htm That professor has quite the serious background and CV. I'm not too sure I would want to join his group, though. If he's focusing on Alzheimer's research, I can't say I'm too interested. The "aged" part of looking into "aged mice" is what makes me think he's looking into Alzheimer's research. I'm more interested in cognitive aspects rather than turning back the clock on an aging mind. I'm truthfully interested in both, but I'm not sure there is going to be too much active research. It's another thing I'll look into. I'm surprised these professors are telling me they "will have" or "do have" openings yet are referring me to other professors. I don't know how to read that. Are they telling me that I should look for something better and more confined to my interests, or are they telling me there wouldn't be much for me to get involved with? What do some of you think they are telling me? I try emailing these professors and asking about openings, but sometimes they don't reply to their emails. As such, I have to go and meet them in person. Sometimes they don't even respond to me asking to meet them in person/office/etc.. It's so silly. Thus, I have to basically visit without getting an OK from them. I find it quite difficult to even derive a "I have no spots open" from them. I somewhat feel like I'm getting into issues and problems, because I still have that appointment with Dr. Wiley (first mentioned professor) and this Dr. Larson person to look into. I'm not sure if I'm standing in a filling pool with a glass wall.

Are you saying that it is difficult for conscious organisms, such as Homo sapiens, to copy thought processes?

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science#Levels_of_analysis If you're interested in become a serious cognitive scientist, you will go through varying levels of schooling, research, and article reading. I suggest you start looking around on university websites (perhaps nearby universities), start looking at the professors whom do cognitive science research, and then reading their research. If you don't have a background in understanding statistics, you're going to have some difficulty.

A God would be omnipotent, as such could not be overpowered. I think anything else to that would make things a little too Eastern. But in reference to Western theology, I would say that for Metatron to exist as the voice of God seems nonsensical, because under that situation God, the Christian God (for which there is a Metatron-actin character) is not omnipotent... Quite the issue... Angels, demons, etc... tend to focus on the omnibenovelence/free-will issues. But to consider simply acting as a voice? Is that to say it's unethical for God to speak for itself to mere mortals rather than through a medium such as Metatron? Curious...