@Aki
```the ability to learn languages... is genetic```
I agree. That doesn't mean that the only or even best means will always be through genetics or even the genes we have now. In the same way that vacuum tubes were required for early computers function genes have been required to get us to the stage we're at today. When the equivalent of the silicon chip comes along though do you still need to be using vacuum tubes?

```I see that you aren't really willing to engage with the argument```
what have I been doing aki? what do you consider intellectually honest? help me help you here

```you are supposed to be an atheist```
technically I'm supposed to be agnostic, although recently ive been toying with the idea of more formally considering myself an atheist im ironically pretty on the fence about it. I dont think this requires a metaphysical soul, mind. what makes you think that?

```You dont want to define what a person is```
I would LOVE to have that conversation with you! Its a good question! Where would you like to start off?

what is this convo even about

transhumanism primarily

and im assuming you are pro-transhumanism?

thats right

@CronoSaturn _"I agree. That doesn't mean that the only or even best means will always be through genetics or even the genes we have now. In the same way that vacuum tubes were required for early computers function genes have been required to get us to the stage we're at today. When the equivalent of the silicon chip comes along though do you still need to be using vacuum tubes?"_

And here is where we agree on the state of things and can argue what should be instead of what already is... as we already are below.

_"what have I been doing aki? what do you consider intellectually honest? help me help you here"_

For examples you can start by saying if you are ok with this scenario:
"You can predispose people genetically to spend their whole day/whole week/whole month at work and be happy about it. You can predispose em to show hatred and disdain towards those who do not share their lifestyle. You can make em in a happy go lucky genetically predisposed slaves."
If you are not ok then you can tell if you think that it is possible for it to happen? If you think it is impossible for it to happen then you can tell me why you think it is impossible and if you think that it is possible you can tell me how we can prevent it and how does this scenario fit into your transhumanist philosophy. I have helped you help me and now I want you to help me help you Crono.

_"technically I'm supposed to be agnostic, although recently ive been toying with the idea of more formally considering myself an atheist im ironically pretty on the fence about it. I dont think this requires a metaphysical soul, mind. what makes you think that?"_

Because if there is no metaphysical soul, then there is nothing that can leave the "cradle".

_"I would LOVE to have that conversation with you! Its a good question! Where would you like to start off?"_

Sure... the human is genes + experience in an environment close to the one for which those genes were designed. The genetics component can be viewed as a probability distribution function of each allele. The individual human is the iteration of the above mentioned components whose individuality and personality makes sense only when tied to the natural processes that created him. I think it is a pretty neat general definition taking into account the chaotic nature of evolution. Do you agree? If not, then why and what would you propose instead?

@Aki I think it depends largely on how you frame them but my crack is this.

```predisposing people to spend x time at work and be happy```
Im ok with that so long as its the person's choice to undergo that process. I think this covers off on issues in this bucket which range from should we allow people to function properly without sleep to renting out your body for periods of time.

```predisposing them to show hatred and disdain to those who dont share their lifestyle```
Im not really ok with this and I think that the problem here isnt so much transhuman per se but simply human. Elitism and tribalism will likely carry on as humans progress and even be exacerbated as there is a very real risk this opens up the opportunity for the gap between haves and have nots to become effectively become a difference in kind. I think Bostrom's proposal of a kind of "human insurance and windfall fund" seems a practical measure to mitigate this risk. Essentially he proposes that as the research involved with many of these technologies, such as general artificial intelligence, brain-machine interfaces, etc pose an existential risk to all but also promise unfathomable prosperity it would be reasonable to agree to assign a certain percentage of the windfall beyond a certain value to those not taking part in the initial wave as compensation for the risk that this presents to them. This would also be with the understanding that they contribute to the ethical and moral guidance of such projects and give their support to the continuation of the same through means various, their contributions also likely resulting in their benefiting from the research and development during these projects. This means that projects of this kind would receive support, goodwill as well as the redundancy required to preserve humanity as a broader whole should such projects fail.

```happy go lucky ... predisposed slaves```
I dont know where I fall on this one as I dont see the issue being limited to gm and even from that perspective you could make the argument that we already do this to some extent sans transhumanism. Domesticated animals effectively check this box. AI arguable could and should check this box and the concern is rather that it might not. I believe though that in terms of it being implemented where it shouldn't there'll be no shortage of watchdogs monitoring that kind of thing in the way that we already have similar watchdogs monitoring the way states treat ethnic minorities or curtail the freedom of populations. I believe if anything the bar to attempt to force social conformity will be raised significantly by the technical challenges alone rather than lowered.

```what is people```
I think your description aligns with current experience in alot of ways but is unhelpful in understanding anything outside of that. Im not going to use my own understanding because I dont think thats particularly helpful either but Ill proffer something which hopefully is and we'll work from there. I would view a "person" as almost an algorithm of sorts or an intelligence. A set of relationships between concepts that is adaptable and has a certain kind of signature. For example, we've had a few discussions and while i've never met you in person and I'll need you to buy me dinner before we have any talk about you seeing my body I think its fair to say we both accept eachother as people and recognize a broad pattern of behavior. How intelligent that behavior is i dont know but you get my point. I think that using genes as a defining characteristic of personhood fails to capture things which we might potentially want to include morally as "people" and which act in line with what we would want of that but dont use the same genes in order to do so. I differentiate that from being "human" deliberately as we might wish to retain your definition when talking about the species as we know it but in terms of moral recognition I see personhood as being a set of software, genes just the hardware. You need a certain spec of hardware to run the software, but that achieved it really doesnt matter.

https://twitter.com/purehategraphs/status/1104430926942023680

@CronoSaturn _"Im ok with that so long as its the person's choice to undergo that process."_

What if a zygothe gets modified?

_"Im not really ok with this and I think that the problem here isnt so much transhuman per se but simply human. Elitism and tribalism will likely carry on as humans progress and even be exacerbated as there is a very real risk this opens up the opportunity for the gap between haves and have nots to become effectively become a difference in kind..."_

I am not sure how what are you saying is related to what I wrote. You can design a slave that will be more effective at the work it is doing and be more happy and loyal to the employer. As such you won't have to pay him as much as a normal worker. Wait... you mean that you want to mitigate the income gap between the owners of the slaves and the unemployed unmodified?

_"I believe though that in terms of it being implemented where it shouldn't there'll be no shortage of watchdogs monitoring that kind of thing in the way that we already have similar watchdogs monitoring the way states treat ethnic minorities or curtail the freedom of populations. I believe if anything the bar to attempt to force social conformity will be raised significantly by the technical challenges alone rather than lowered."_

So you want goverments to put a muzzle on such proceder or not? If you want to then what sort of proceder do you want to exactly be delegalized?

_" I would view a "person" as almost an algorithm of sorts or an intelligence. A set of relationships between concepts that is adaptable and has a certain kind of signature."_

That won't do... an algorithm is a mathematical concept. It doesn't exists in the way a .... for a example in a way a brick does. Intelligence is merely an ability of the subject as such it is not a subject itself. Finally the last sentence is an abstraction that conveys no information.

_"For example, we've had a few discussions and while i've never met you in person and I'll need you to buy me dinner before we have any talk about you seeing my body I think its fair to say we both accept eachother as people and recognize a broad pattern of behavior."_

I recognize you as a person because it is natural for me to do so and interact in a way that is natural to me. I don't know anything about patterns of bahaviour that constitute you as a person.

_"I think that using genes as a defining characteristic of personhood fails to capture things which we might potentially want to include morally as "people" and which act in line with what we would want of that but dont use the same genes in order to do so."_

That is intended on my part... regardless if you think you can make a better definition that satisfies your requirements and doesn't use abstraction then I would like to hear it.

_"I differentiate that from being "human" deliberately as we might wish to retain your definition when talking about the species as we know it but in terms of moral recognition I see personhood as being a set of software, genes just the hardware. You need a certain spec of hardware to run the software, but that achieved it really doesnt matter."_

Softwere doesn't exists in a material sense. It is just a concept.

Also... will you tell me what you think is supposed to leave the "cradle"?

Tldr

lul same

@CronoSaturn soooo, if we are talking about trans-humanism, how do you get around the whole, "you can't transfer someones consciousness problem"? and how could you tell if you managed it? Anyway, i think a more interesting conversation to have is about the action of copying someones brain to begin with. imagine having a digital copy of Albert Eisenstein you could talk to

you wouldn't have to write a book to have your ideas move forward in time without you anymore

So basically create an AI that has a thought process similar to yours so when you die it will live on and people can engage with it and get a response that you would've said if you were there? @Scipio Americanus

Moral is totally linked with logics, the problem is that its hard to find the X and the Y of an equation if you dont have any values to start with, and this is why cultures are different.

@snakeeater ya basically. Can you imagine what this would do to culture? The morality debates would be horrible too, is this just a program? or should we consider it [the program] like a person? If the person is still alive, is it really a copy of the person? Or a new individual entirely? the amount of questions this prompts is quite extensive.

if you delete this program, is it murder?

what if you copy and paste it?

Reminds me of the plot of a Metal Gear video game, Peace Walker

@Scipio Americanus well, it doesn't have to be "a real person" as long as it can react to what people say in a way that mimics how the original person would react to things

yes, but what do we consider a person?

thats what the question revolves around

Indeed, and even if you consider the copycat to be a real person, are they the SAME person as the original?

hmmm, you know what, i would actually say no

the second you turn on the program, it just received a different experience

and is therefore, similar, but not quite the same

Well, in that video game I mentioned, the protagonist wrestles with that question, because the AI is a copy of his former ally who died, so from his perspective that person lives on via the AI

oh wow, and who said video games weren't art

He knows its an AI that was programmed to act like his ally, but he can't help but feel like its the same person

we can talk in the chat text channel if slow mode is making it hard for you to reply

thats kinda the beauty of it from a practical standpoint. However, now that you mention it, there is one thing i think that should be withheld: The AI should be forced to wait until loved ones are either gone or can handle it

uh no tbh

that's even more surreal, what if they made an AI to copy YOU while you're still alive, and the AI views you as a copy

Maybe the AI is a better friend to your friends then you are, like you snap at them or forget their birthday, but the AI is nicer, and your friends prefer it

thats messed up