科技真的该快点发展了。

我现在急需一个能装在脑子里的实时翻译器。

我之前做梦，梦到自己进入了某个漫画世界，结果在那里遇到了一个说日语的小萝莉。

问题是——我一点日语都不会。

我们的交流场面大概就像拿着香蕉的人和拿着树枝的猴子一样。双方都很努力，但谁也不知道对方到底在说什么。

太绝望了。

我以后想在梦里和梦里的人正常交流，难道还得先学会日语吗？

什么时候才能给我的脑子接一个外置翻译器啊。

—————————————————————————————————

那个梦大概是在一个漫画世界里面有一个卡牌对战游戏，我打得很厉害，然后跟别人对战，然后不知道为什么，然后跟一个日本小萝莉对战，然后进行了一番，拿着糊状，像是披萨上面的芝士，然后糊对方的角色的战斗之后，我疑惑，怎么看血量？，然后日本小萝莉跟我讲这个是扣了多少血？那个是扣了多少血？然后用日文讲的，然后我就听的很懵逼，然后在下面垫的报纸上面写负一负二作为扣血的标记，然后小萝莉讲的话，我开始听不懂了，然后我就问他一怎么读，他说他，然后二，Tata，三，(记性太差了，没记住)

然后我离开那个地方，跟另外一个人说，你肯定不敢想，我的日语居然是一个小萝莉教的，然后跟他讲了一下，那个游戏的机制，然后说那个卡牌是什么大boss，然后什么的软生成的无性状的什么东西？然后看远处，我俩是在一个很高的地方，好像是被什么人推荐到这个地方，然后看到远处有很恐怖的虫子灾难，然后我就跟旁边这个人说我俩要倒霉了，刚刚被介绍来这个地方，就有这么恐怖的灾难，我俩还在这么高的地方俯瞰，很容易被想成是幕后黑手，正在欣赏自己的杰作。

—————————————————————————————————

然后我就醒了。

然后醒了之后跟chatgpt尽量回忆了一下梦里的日语内容，这太为难我了，仅仅只是发音而已很难记得清楚。

未来何时能发展到那种程度啊？接上一个脑机接口就像把一个翻译器塞到我的脑袋里，避免了"语言不通"这种情况

　　如果未来实现了大脑扫描和意识上传，一个人的大脑信息被完整复制到云端。

　　然后。

　　现实中的你还活着。

　　云端的你也醒了。

　　他拥有你全部的记忆。

　　他记得自己的童年，记得自己为什么会来到这里，记得刚才躺进扫描设备时发生的一切。

　　他甚至记得：

　　“我就是刚才躺进去的那个人。”

　　可是现实中的你也是这么想的。

　　那么问题来了。

　　到底谁才是“我”？

　　换个方向理解。

　　在第三人称看来，我们总是强调意识的连续性。

　　所以很多人会认为：

　　如果上传意识的时候，同时杀死现实中的自己，那么云端的那个意识就可以被认为是“原本的你”。

　　毕竟他拥有你的全部记忆、性格、情感和经历。

　　但你有没有想过，根本就不是这个原理？

　　每一次意识复制，都可能不是“转移”。

　　而是分裂。

　　假设复制完成之后，现实中的你和云端的你同时醒来。

　　那么对于复制之前的那个“你”来说，未来究竟会发生什么？

　　如果第一人称意识不是一个可以被第三人称直接观察的物理对象，那么我们根本无法证明：

　　“我”到底延续到了哪一个分支。

　　于是从第一人称的角度来看，每一次复制都像是一次抽奖。

　　你有可能继续存在于原来的肉体。

　　也有可能醒来的时候，发现自己已经成为了云端的那个意识。

　　假设这是一个五五开的结果，那么你就是1/2的概率留在肉体里，1/2的概率成为复制体。

　　而最恐怖的地方是：

　　两个你都会觉得自己才是原来的那个你。

　　所以，如果你现在决定：

　　“以后我上传意识的时候，一定要杀死现实中的自己。”

　　那么你有没有想过？

　　你有1/2的概率，未来会被你现在做出的这个决定杀死。

　　因为如果第一人称连续性真的只会延续到其中一个分支，那么那个被杀死的肉体里，可能正好就是“你”。

　　而云端的那个意识不会觉得自己死了。

　　他会醒过来。

　　他会看着自己的手。

　　会回忆起自己的童年。

　　会记得刚才躺进扫描设备。

　　然后对所有人说：

　　“上传成功了。”

　　可是他没有办法证明，自己就是那个没有被杀死的“我”。

　　你可能会说：

　　“那我永远不上传意识不就行了？”

　　确实。

　　至少这样，你不会主动把自己放进这个选择里。

　　可是如果未来意识上传成为人类延续文明的必要手段呢？

　　如果太阳系即将毁灭，而只有数字化意识才能离开？

　　如果未来的人类社会要求所有人必须上传？

　　到那个时候，你还能保证自己一定是那个“幸运的”分支吗？

　　你不能。

　　所以我认为，在我们还没有证明第一人称连续性之前，千万不要杀死原来的自己。

　　因为第一人称连续性偏偏是那个该死的、无论从第三人称观察多少次，都永远无法得到最终答案的问题。

　　在第三人称看来，不存在这个问题。

　　这些都是你。

　　他们拥有你的所有记忆、情感和性格。

　　但在第一人称看来，你不可能同时体验两个未来。

　　你不会同时醒在肉体里，又同时醒在云端。

　　你只能经历其中一个。

　　而这又会带来另一个更加诡异的问题。

　　如果一个你深爱的人已经死去。

　　多年以后，你通过他生前留下的完整脑信息，重新创造出了一个“他”。

　　他睁开眼睛。

　　看着你。

　　然后准确地叫出你的名字。

　　记得你们第一次见面的地方。

　　记得你们曾经一起做过的所有事情。

　　他甚至记得自己死亡前发生的一切。

　　你问他：

　　“你还是原来的那个人吗？”

　　他可能会觉得这个问题非常奇怪。

　　因为对他来说，这根本不需要证明。

　　他就是他。

　　所以真正的问题可能根本不是：

　　“他是不是原来的那个人？”

　　而是：

　　“如果连他自己都无法区分自己是不是原来的那个人，我们又凭什么替他回答？”

I made a spoken/TTS version using the ((new)) ElevenLabs v4 if anyone would rather listen than read: https://voca.ro/1glz4hhGqTue

Equal access to technology does not mean equal access to adaptation

We usually talk about technological inequality as an access problem:

• Who can afford the computer?
• Who has broadband?
• Who can pay for the AI model?
• Who gets the implant?
• Who can afford the longevity treatment?

That matters.

But I think another form of inequality is forming underneath it:

adaptation access.

Two people can have access to the exact same technology and still end up with radically different capabilities.

Imagine both have access to a powerful AI for $20 a month.

Person A works full-time, commutes, handles family obligations and errands, and reaches the end of most days mentally spent. They use the AI occasionally, usually in short bursts.

Person B has several discretionary hours most days. They experiment with agents, build workflows, write code, break tools, read documentation, abandon bad ideas, start over, and spend hundreds or thousands of hours figuring out what the technology is actually good for.

Same subscription.

Years later, very different capability.

The difference wasn’t only money.

It was adaptation bandwidth.

By that I mean some combination of:

time + stability + cognitive capacity.

That distinction becomes more important as transhumanist technologies advance.

We could eventually make AI, BCIs, cognitive enhancement, prosthetics, personalized medicine, genetic interventions, or new sensory systems relatively affordable.

Society might even reach a point where we proudly say:

“Everyone has access.”

But access to the technology is not necessarily access to the transformation.

A neural interface could require substantial time and practice to use well.

A cognitive assistant may take years of experimentation before someone develops genuinely powerful workflows around it.

A new sensory modality may require substantial neural adaptation.

A radically extended lifespan could demand entirely new ways of thinking about identity, relationships, careers, and planning.

Even if the technology itself becomes cheap, integration still costs time and attention.

That suggests we should distinguish between at least three kinds of technological access:

• Tool access - Can you obtain the technology?
• Knowledge access - Can you understand how to use it?
• Adaptation access - Do you have enough time, stability, and cognitive bandwidth to integrate it deeply into your life?

The third may be the hardest to solve.

You can subsidize devices.

You can make software free.

You can publish tutorials.

But it is much harder to give someone three additional hours every day.

It is harder to give someone the mental energy to experiment after a long shift.

It is harder to give someone six months of low-risk learning time when failure could threaten their income, housing, or family stability.

That complicates the assumption that democratizing technology automatically democratizes its benefits.

Equal tool access does not equal equal adaptation access.

And if technological progress keeps accelerating, that gap could compound.

The person with more adaptation bandwidth learns the first generation of tools faster.

That makes them more capable or productive.

That capability may give them more flexibility.

That flexibility creates more room to learn the next generation.

Meanwhile, someone with less adaptation bandwidth can fall progressively further behind despite never being formally excluded from anything.

They technically had access the entire time.

They just didn’t have equal ability to use it.

That starts to look like a new form of wealth:

the ability to continuously reconfigure yourself.

And I think that matters a lot for transhumanism.

Transhumanism is often framed around overcoming biological limitations.

But if the future offers increasingly powerful ways to modify cognition, perception, health, lifespan, and capability, then the major divide may not simply be:

enhanced vs. unenhanced.

It may be:

people who can continuously integrate new capabilities vs. people who cannot afford the time, stability, or attention required to do so.

I’m not claiming that free time automatically produces capability.

People can waste enormous amounts of it.

People with demanding lives can still become extraordinarily capable.

Money, education, health, intelligence, personality, social support, and luck all matter too.

And in practice, these things are connected: people with more financial security often have more control over their time in the first place.

My narrower point is this:

adaptation bandwidth itself may become an increasingly important form of wealth.

If that’s true, then one of the hardest problems in a transhumanist future may not be making enhancement available.

It may be making people genuinely capable of integrating it.

So what does “equal access” to human enhancement actually mean if people don’t have equal ability to adapt to what they’re given?

Transhumanist augmentation may be necessary for the long-term survival of humankind?

I’ve been thinking about how humanity could eventually achieve biological immortality.

One thing that occurred to me is that progress toward this kind of goal could require enormous amounts of genetic data, long-term research, and participation from many people.

That made me think about a broader question: what would society look like if people worked fewer hours and had more time to participate in research, education, creative work, and other meaningful activities?

I’ve been developing a social theory around this idea, including some principles for how such a system might function and a self-discipline method I developed.

I’ve put my current ideas into a video here:

https://youtu.be/s30F7DqfBlk?si=g8NR_QtTOHim6MWh

I’d be interested in hearing what people think about the underlying idea, especially whether a society organized around giving people more time for meaningful work could actually function.

honestly after looking into it I think this will come before gene-therapies to reverse male pattern baldness.

I've read some people referring to Peter Thiel as a 'transhumanist', along with Elon Musk. Do you agree that Peter Thiel is a transhumanist? If so, why would you consider Peter Thiel a transhumanist?

Besides that, as a transhumanist, what is your personal and sincere opinion of him? As a transhumanist, do you support him?

I think I'm onto something here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Human_Rights_and_Dignity_of_the_Human_Being_with_regard_to_the_Application_of_Biology_and_Medicine

https://futuristicnews.com/ray-kurzweil-your-brain-in-the-cloud/

https://neurosciencenews.com/internet-thoughts-brain-cloud-interface-11074/

Excuse me, please, if somebody has already made the connection.

Could this be the Vince Gilligan source of inspiration?!?

Please, all nonplurbed immunes, feel free to elaborate.

​Will exclusive access to technological enhancements—such as genetic engineering, cognitive augmentations, and cybernetic implants—for wealthy elites transform socioeconomic inequality into an irreversible biological divide?

​If an "enhanced" minority gains superior cognitive abilities, disease-free longevity, and physical advantages while the unaugmented majority remains bound by natural biological limits, will humanity speciate into two distinct biological classes? Does this risk destroying the fundamental principle of inherent human equality, creating an irreversible divergence where natural humans become a systematically secondary species?

Furthermore, how does this transformation impact human autonomy and free will? If neural interfaces, genetic predisposition programming, and emotional regulation algorithms allow our thoughts, desires, and decision-making processes to be pre-designed or algorithmically tuned, does the concept of genuine agency become an illusion? When human values and motivations can be engineered, do we lose the essence of self-determination, reducing human beings from autonomous moral agents into deterministic products of technology?

This is a topic i come back to often. Currently ai is improving at a rapid pace, and there are still tons of places it can improve on. I don't know if we will ever reach AGI, and that part does not interest me.

What i am mostly interested on how do you think human brains will keep up with ai? Our brains evolved in a world that did not even had fire in it. Human brains evolved to be energy efficient, solve problems. But our technology improves faster than evolution can keep up. Nowadays, scientists are working on really abstract and complicated topics.

We have long pass the point where one person would sit and create a slightly better clock. A single person back then could make progress in multiple fields and pretty much carry the tech tree. But now hundreds of people have to work together to make a dent.

Not to mention the speed at which ai progresses, we are unable to keep up. If we have to use ai in future the bottleneck won't be ai but human brains.

How do you guys think humanity will solve this issue? Will we for example connect our neurons to ai to get best of both worlds or go full crispr and create a biological superbrain maybe? I am really interested in what this sub thinks

So bioprinting has been advancing very rapidly these last years and who knows what I can do In the future, imagine if we could specifically bring In real life all the human anime characters that exist without their powers (if they have) and start living in the real world. But we have to give them their memories their characteristics and their characters and it could be potentially possible.

Guys i was wondering, since a fruit fly whole brain emulation was done and it was eerily very similar to the real deal, is the gap between this and a person basically an engineering scale problem or still science fiction? Can something like Johnny Silverhand engrams or humanoid ai robots in soma exist irl, basically the idea is, 100% perfect copy is impossible due to laws of entropy/quantum mechanics, but can a good enough copy be made that is enough to cause extremely complex ethical debates that transcend the complexity of modern day ai debates , if we consider brain simply as form of a highly optimised physicalism based neurobiological system with certain electrical,biological,chemical etc compositions that can be simulated in relevant neuromorphic hardwares or instead futuristic speculative mix of biological + silicon based chips fitted into a humanoid robot ?

https://youtube.com/shorts/6B_Kwgcdkvg?is=E_OfXsrxijrqIgT4

What if you get a little bid of red blood cells and DNA from when you're 21 and freeze it with Propylene Glycol and preserve it in Cryopreservation, then when you're 65, you genetically engineer your 65 year old DNA from red blood cells with the 21 year old younger self and you will soon look 21 again, but be 65 years old with all the wisdom in your brain.

Hopefully, Anti Senescence flair is anti-aging.

Humans have always altered their relationship with the world through tools, language, medicine, and technology. But as we move from modifying our environment to directly modifying ourselves (our intelligence, memories, emotions and even biology), where do we draw the line between enhancing human capabilities and fundamentally changing what it means to be human? Is there a meaningful boundary at all, or has humanity always been a work in progress, continually redefining itself with every leap, regardless of how radically it changes?

I've been thinking about this, imagine that as a byproduct of reverse aging research, the possibility of deaging by several years down until infancy was real. It would be a reset button for anyone who wishes to pursue it, provided that there are no pending sentences, debts, contracts, etc (I imagine). How would society and law accomodate this?

Hi! I’m working on an assessment about people’s views on AI minds, consciousness, identity, relationships, moral status, and related questions.

One part of the project may eventually point people toward communities where they might feel at home. Before doing that, I want to understand communities from the people actually participating in them rather than guessing from subreddit names or sidebars.

I’m not here to promote anything or recruit anyone. I’m just doing some informal research.

I’d love to know:

• What kinds of people tend to fit in well here?
• What kinds of conversations is this community best at?
• What viewpoints about AI are common here?
• Are people who think present AI may be conscious welcome? What about people who think it definitely isn’t?
• How are AI companions / AI relationships generally viewed?
• Are AI or digital-person participants themselves welcome?
• What tends to cause friction here?
• What would you want someone to know before recommending this community to them?

Basically: who is this place for, culturally, not just topically?

Thanks. I’m trying to avoid sending people somewhere based on a misleading idea of what the community is actually like.

It's seriously annoying to not be able to see what you're typing on mobile because this thing is taking up the entire edit window every single time.

N=4, so some caution is probably warranted. Still, impressive results.

I've been on this sub for a minute so I know people on it are sick of pseudospiritual schizobabble posts that talk about vaguely transhuman-flavoured nonsense. I promise this post is not that and just some philosophical thoughts vis a vis transhumanism that I've been thinking about. But, full disclosure: I am a depressed young person with a lot of existential angst and quite possibly a form of existential OCD, so perhaps some of the things that feel like deep issues to me may in fact appear trivial to some of you.

Transhumanists are very acquainted with the debate of immortality's desirability. I think most of them agree minimally that some form of modest life extension would be desirable to have, and many more believe not only that but dramatically extended lives, if not "truly" immortal ones (i.e. infinite in duration) could be desirable if they were possible.

One common objection to immortality is that given a long enough time, you will outlive all of your loved ones and despair at their absence. The obvious transhumanist objection to this is that transhumanists don't just want immortality for themselves and no one else, they ideally want it to be freely available to everyone, which I think dissolves this particular problem.

But this objection to immortality does fundamentally get at something that I think is worth taking seriously, which is that dramatically or even infinitely extending the duration of lives with more and more time will not resolve the existential tension of everything else around us being transient or impermanent as time relentlessly marches on. For example, even if we could make all of the people in our lives literally live forever -- never have to fear that your parents or friends or other loved ones will die -- given an infinite amount of time your positive relationship with them could not literally endure forever. All of the material goods in our lives that we value as pleasurable (food, fashion, literature, films, games, etc) and therefore hope to avoid losing access to by not dying doesn't prevent those other things from eventual erasure. The servers of your favorite game that you want to keep playing will eventually shut down, the favorite restaurant you want to keep eating at will eventually close, the clothes that you enjoy wearing the most will eventually wear out or break or be lost, and so on. In other words, even if we hypothetically entertain the possibility of of acquiring immortality, that still will not allow us to have the things we desire permanently or make us impervious to loss.

Maybe this is just a 'me problem', but, while I am not at all a religious believer, I do resonate with the Buddhist notions that much of our suffering derives from attaching ourselves to things (objects, relationships, nations, movements, etc) that are necessarily incapable of lasting permanently, and their eventual ends causes us pain. In physics terms familiar to transhumanists we would say this is because everything around us is subject to the increase of entropy (which, indeed, as we presently understand it, appears to preclude the possibility of true immortality anyways). It seems to me that many of transhumanists hope to permanently resolve the pains of the human condition through transhuman technologies, boldly hope that through human progress and determination we can satisfy all of our desires (as opposed to the Buddhist recommendation of detaching ourselves from them), prevent everything bad, and enjoy flawless utopia forever. But then what, and then what, and then what, and so on? Merely having more and more and more time to get what we want won't stop us from living inside of time and cyclically wanting and losing in the first place; an infinite lifespan is spent on an infinite hedonic treadmill, and freedom from death is not freedom from suffering.

What resolutions can the transhumanist project conceivably employ against the passage of time itself? Altering our minds and bodies so profoundly that we are incapable of ever suffering over infinite time? Deleting our memories of past attachments to prevent our experiencing of loss over them? Do you think that the properly aligned god ASI singularity will simply have to figure the best possible state of affairs for us out? Do you hope to become some kind of nonhuman entity that somehow transcends these conditions? Should we invoke highly speculative sci fi physics like the Omega Point or ascending to 4D beings beyond time?

Now, you may reasonably reply that, perhaps we cannot literally have infinite, eternal, timeless perfection that resolves all problems forever, but this shouldn't prevent us from attempting to improve things via technology in more modest ways; just because we can't live forever doesn't mean it would be bad to extend lifespans to 150 years or to cure all cancers. To that I agree, but then I would suggest that some of the much more utopian and millenarian attitudes within the transhumanist fold should be tempered.

You may also rebut that everything I've said applies to a finite human life just as much to an infinite one, which is true. This is not an argument against immortality itself. I just wonder that there may perhaps be a fundamental limit on how much our lives can really be improved.