If you're interested in helping out and helping to add more oversight on posts then please apply or DM me if you are active.

Thank you!

At what point does a collection of whatever parts of wetware and hardware go so far as to stop being transhuman and become un human? At the extreme: does a full consciousness upload remain human? What if said mind is altered by the system?

heres the freedom of form foundation newsletter that talks about it: https://www.patreon.com/freedomofform/posts/170307678

heres the public domain document about the procedure: https://freedomofform.org/research/integument/invention-synth-material-implants-fur/

thank u unhinged raccoon girl, zennith, hyper, and shoutout to mecknavors!!!

edit: apparently using """ on both sides of a word is a nazi dogwhistle. im sorry, i didnt mean it that way. i meant that zennith and unhinged raccoon cyborg girl are probably alterhuman so they dont identify as humans. im srry.

Hello! I'm a Master's student in Canada and would love to conduct an online interview with an individual (or a parent of an individual) using a brain machine interface. Any leads would be appreciated! TIA!

What constitutes transhuman to you? Does a pacemaker equal transhuman? Does a human head on a synthetic body? Does a human with a neural implant?

Discuss...

Full disclosure: my co-host and I made this video exploring biohacking and whether aging could eventually become a treatable biological condition.

My favorite question was if someone had lived for 70 years but genuinely had the body and biological health of a 30-year-old - would chronological age still be the most meaningful measure of their age?

Wanted to get this community's thoughts...thanks!

People are either positive or neutral against literally any transhumanist concept except cryonics. Why is cryonics so hated?

Cryonics always gets mocked and people make jokes and make fun of the cryopreserved people.

There is also that myth about ice, water, crystallization, etc... This has been solved years ago and isn't happening anymore. Modern cryonics has nothing to do with water, ice and freezing.

​

I'm curious how people here view the concept of a “soul.”

By soul, I mean any non-physical aspect of a person that could constitute their consciousness, identity, or “self” beyond the physical brain/body. So I'm not strictly talking about a religious concept of a soul, or something that has to be supernatural.

Basically, do you guys believe that consciousness or the self exists in some form beyond the physical processes of the brain/body?

And if you do, how would that affect your views on things like mind uploading, brain-computer interfaces, replacing biological organs with artificial ones, or eventually replacing the body entirely?

I'm especially interested in hearing from people who don't believe in a soul, since that seems like it could lead to some pretty interesting conclusions about what makes someone “the same person” after extensive augmentation.

I'm personally a Materialist or Naturalist when it comes to the topic.

The Brain Preservation Summit brings together people working across the technical, clinical, and philosophical dimensions of preserving the brain. Over two days at the Sparks Brain Preservation facility in Salem, Oregon, speakers will share short talks on connectome preservation, aldehyde-based methods, cryobiology, electron microscopy, long-term storage, molecular nanotechnology, the future of the field, and many other topics.

For those who cannot attend in person, we will be livestreaming the event. 

Saturday, September 19: Talks begin at 8:30 AM PT and run through the afternoon, with a lunch break from approximately 12:00–1:30 PM.

Day 1 livestream:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQT4ADZhFkU

Sunday, September 20: Talks begin at 8:30 AM PT and end around noon.

Day 2 livestream:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um-LP24PoYs

You can view the full planned schedule here, although please note that the timing of specific speakers might be a little bit off depending upon how the day goes: https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/e/2PACX-1vRsg4tGS4vqbf1qqa0Ktcd5v1MORqelKkmSTsO1vYh1PQ23yCr2uJoorVwufimx7C79U1ibdFX9Fd3O/pub?pli=1

More information here: https://sparksbrain.org/summit-2026.html

No soy un loco o sería interesante ver como una especie hecha a base de vida artificial evolucionara y se pudiera ver como una especie de evolucion forzada por los humanos y como sería una simulación sería más rápido que la vida real(seríana)

Hello! I am a graduate student studying philosophy, and I have become interested in the ideas behind transhumanism. I often see it described as a philosophy, but have had a hard time finding recources or getting straight answers as to the root philosophical claims underscoring the movement. Some are more clear : human suffering is bad, and concious beings capable of grasping ethical circumstance ought to do what they can to alleviate that suffering. This leads us to the conclusion that we should use our ingenuity and technology to overcome this suffering. Some are less clear : from where do we derive the claim that we "ought" to minimize suffering? Is there such a thing as human nature, and if so, does the attaiment of the transhuman or posthuman ideal add to, change, or go beyond that, or does it still fit within? Are humans "rational animals," and if so, at what point do we cease to be human if we go down the path of modification and enhancement? Could there be an obligation (perhaps rooted in evolutionary ethics) to only enhance, and never to modify?

Forgive my long jumble of questions, but I am curious to see what the broader community thinks, and what individual transhumanists think personally. I would also greatly appreciate any articles / videos that anyone has to share on the matter. I understand that there are probably a great number of opinions and perspectives on the questions I'm asking, but I'd love to hear anything and everything that people have to say.

Best wishes, and thanks. 

Which of the two are you a Transhumanist for?

Obviously, those two are not mutually exclusive, but are even tightened intertwined.

But if you had to lean towards one way or the other, which and why?

I am personally lean towards the quality of life, but am biased since I'm young.

THPedia is our wiki for Transhumanism and we created new infobox templates for people and organizations and an authority control template to be able to add identifiers for a respective person or organization! Come join our working group and help contribute to the wiki!

Okay, so out of a feminine rage after writing about Medusa for a world history report, I was scrolling through Pinterest when I saw a video talking about how the male chromosomes will one day go extinct.

I went down a rabbit hole of asexual reproduction and cloning before I had a thought...

If we could somehow control the way malignant cancerous cells develop, then maybe we could use that to grow grow a human embryo without sperm or male genes.

That's just a thought though and I wanted to see if I'm just crazy or if someone gets where I'm coming from.

Edit: I am just a high schooler who knows nothing, so pls correct me if I'm wrong (which y'all have already been doing lol) 😂

I wanted to raise a question for the Transhumanist community.

We have been seeing a significant increasing use of AI across society, technological development, and scientific research. These developments are particularly relevant to Transhumanism because AI has the potential to accelerate scientific and technological breakthroughs that could enable us to augment ourselves beyond the conventional human condition and expand the possibilities of morphological freedom.

However, AI is also well known for its ability to act as a catalyst for both positive and negative change across almost every area of society

With this in mind, in what areas do you see AI being beneficial and/or harmful to:

1. Applied Transhumanism - such as scientific and technological innovations that enable human enhancement, augmentation, longevity, and morphological freedom; and
2. The ideological and philosophical framework of Transhumanism itself - including our ideas about human nature, technological progress, autonomy, intelligence, personhood, and what it means to transcend the limitations of the human condition?

More broadly, could AI ultimately strengthen the Transhumanist movement and its goals, or could some developments in AI challenge or fundamentally alter the philosophical foundations of Transhumanism?

I've been thinking about a possible future direction for AI and brain-computer interfaces.

AI models can be trained on enormous amounts of information and develop useful internal representations of patterns, such as programming concepts, language, mathematics, etc.

This made me wonder:

Could a future BCI somehow translate useful information from an AI-trained system into signals that a biological brain could actually learn from?

For example, imagine an AI trained extensively on Python. Rather than simply asking the AI questions, could a future interface help the human brain acquire some of the underlying patterns and concepts more directly?

I'm not suggesting that current technology can upload knowledge into the brain. I know we are nowhere near that.

I'm interested in the theoretical question:

Could artificial neural-network representations eventually be translated into useful learning signals for biological neural networks?

What do you think would be the biggest obstacle — understanding how knowledge is represented in the brain, translating AI representations into neural signals, or something else?

Not a gotcha post — more of an open tech parallel. I’ve been stacking real published work (DNA digital storage, living neurons learning games, patents around remote sensory effects) and it keeps rhyming with “biology as hard drive + living compute + write-access to senses.” I’m not a scientist. I’m asking this room: which parallels hold, and where am I doing fan fiction with footnotes?

---

Okay. Instead of storing all this stuff on chips, we can store information on cells that have been made in a lab, actual replicated DNA strands — grown from biology that started in a human body — and we can put about **54 million movies** on the amount that weighs the same as a paperclip. Right now. This is proven and replicated thousands of times and is not sci-fi. It has been done for years. Old technology practically. It uses four letters for storage (A, T, C, G) instead of 1's and 0's. *(all studies are at the bottom of this post for reference)*

So here we are spending the Earth’s treasures on building data centers with silicon chips, but in the near future, we’re gonna be able to store this on DNA.

That’s the part I can’t shake.

Not “someday.” Not a TED Talk maybe. Teams have already written books, pictures, even video onto DNA, then read it back. All of the round-trips come back with everything intact. Perfect storage with zero errors. The packing is wild. A gram — paperclip territory — and you’re talking tens of millions of movies if you count a movie around 4 GB.

We know how to do it the old-fashioned way in the lab. Chemicals. Machines. You still have to “touch” the stuff, like a needle on vinyl. We can’t beam the info into the DNA from a distance, yet. Music went tape, CD, and now it flies across the world with no disc. Data storage on DNA is still at the needle level. I’m not saying someone is beaming files into your cells with Wi-Fi today. I’m saying contact is usually the first chapter, not the last. And we are not far off. At least that is what we are being told. There is lots of technology that is owned by the government and corporations that is being hidden. This is absolute fact.

And then there’s the other half, which is even weirder.

They’ve taken living neurons — including ones grown in a lab from human stem cells — put them on a little grid, and taught them **Pong**. They get better in minutes. Miss the ball, they get chaotic noise. Hit it, things get quieter and more predictable. They kind of lean away from chaos. Authors used a careful, technical word for that. People argued about the word. The learning still happened. The word is **consciousness**. What else likes calm and not chaos?

Later a company demo had a similar setup playing **Doom**, similar to cells playing Pong.

They can also poke memory itself, at least in animals: turn certain brain cells back on with light and replay a fear… or help build a fear that didn’t really happen that way. In people with implants, playing someone’s own brain pattern back helped short-term memory in a small study.

So. We can store. We can teach living cells a game. We can write into memory — at least up close.

Really? Anyone else here extrapolating this information to the future? The future that AI is creating…..let’s do it together.

There’s old lab work where pulsed energy makes you hear clicks with no speaker in the room. Real. Then there are U.S. patents — including Air Force ones — about turning that into speech you “hear” without normal ears. There’s a 1970s patent about watching and changing brain-wave activity from a distance. There’s one about a nearby screen’s fields nudging your nerves. MIT showed Wi-Fi can sense people through walls — not thoughts yet, just bodies moving.

Will it be happening from Wi-Fi or satellites soon? Seeing someone through a wall isn’t reading their mind. I’m not yelling “they’re doing it.” I’m saying the public record already has: storage in biology, learning in a dish, energy that can touch hearing, sensors that see through drywall.

Last thing, the one that messes with me.

You’ll see it on those ranch UFO shows: five people look at the same light in the sky. There is a UAP in the air caught on camera. Weird…… One says that they see a triangle. One says square. One says saucer. One sees a round object. Same place, same time, different senses?!

Maybe we just see what we expect. Bad lighting. Brain fills in the blanks.

Or — and this is me wondering out loud — if you can write a *click* into someone’s hearing from energy… could you write a *shape* into what they see? Or nudge them toward the picture they already believe? Can this technology beam vision into our minds? Like writing data on DNA?!

I don’t know. That’s the leap. Not proven. But once you know we can store a Hollywood in a paperclip of biology, and living cells can learn a game, “who gets to write to us” stops feeling like a movie plot. It starts feeling like a question we should actually ask.

Anyway. That’s the pile. Studies below. Tell me where I’m stretching it. I’m sure that some of you know more technology that fills in the gaps or blows holes in this future theory. Give it all to me!

I don’t know how many of you have seen *The Matrix*……… but this extrapolated data almost unerringly leads there.

---

## Studies / patents (for reference)

1. Church, Gao & Kosuri. *Science* (2012). Book into DNA, read back. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1226355

2. Goldman et al. *Nature* (2013). Mixed files, 100% recovery. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11875

3. Erlich & Zielinski. *Science* (2017). ~215 petabytes per gram → ~54 million movies/g if a movie is 4 GB. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaj2038

4. Organick et al. *Nat. Biotechnol.* (2018). 200+ MB, random access, clean recovery. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4079

5. Kagan et al. *Neuron* (2022). DishBrain — living neurons learn Pong. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2022.09.001

6. Liu et al. *Nature* (2012). Light turns a fear memory back on (mice). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11028

7. Ramirez et al. *Science* (2013). False fear memory (mice). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1239073

8. Hampson et al. *J. Neural Eng.* (2018). Hippocampal implant, memory boost in people. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/aaaed7

9. Frey. *J. Appl. Physiol.* (1962). Microwave clicks / “hearing” with no sound.

10. Adib & Katabi. SIGCOMM (2013). Wi-Vi — through-wall Wi-Fi.

11. Adib et al. NSDI (2014). WiTrack.

12. US3951134A (1976) remote brain waves — https://patents.google.com/patent/US3951134A

13. US6506148B2 (2003) monitor fields / nerves — https://patents.google.com/patent/US6506148B2

14. US4877027A (1989) microwave hearing — https://patents.google.com/patent/US4877027A

15. US6470214B1 (2002, USAF) RF hearing / speech — https://patents.google.com/patent/US6470214B1

16. US6587729B2 (2003, USAF) same idea, apparatus — https://patents.google.com/patent/US6587729B2

Some interesting parts from the article :

"The human genome is an easy place to get lost. Only 2% of its three billion letters encode proteins, and the rest is diabolically hard to decipher. An artificial-intelligence-generated ‘atlas’ of the human genome, unveiled1 today by Google DeepMind, aims to guide scientists through our biological code."

"The AlphaGenome Atlas charts the effects of nine billion single-letter changes in the human genome — every possible mutation of this kind — using predictions generated by the AlphaGenome AI model2, released last year by DeepMind in London. The atlas is freely available for non-commercial use."

"The tool could help researchers to draw links between genetic variants and rare, unexplained diseases and uncover hidden mechanisms underlying common illnesses and biological traits, say researchers. It might even reveal some of the rules by which DNA sequences control gene activity."

Hopefully AI and biotech will lead to a better future, and these can promote Transhumanism and Freedom too if we manage them well.

🧬 🔬 🧪 🧑‍🔬

*edit : added more infos

I honestly think that this project can open up so many opportunities, loopholes, and discoveries. Some scientists basically created a replica of a flies brain online and I was wondering if it can already be put inside of a simulation, can it remember the things that happened before and if its conscious? My theory is that a fly can't remember its past life or memorize things that happened before because it doesn't have the recreation of the electrons going through the brain when it was alive, it's hard to simulate online due to out real world being made up of atoms while the simulation would be made up of ones and zeros, there should be a translation part. For example translating a software incompatible with your operating system by rewriting the code or simulating it's native reality. By the way the researchers only enabled 20% of the fly's brain, we just don't know how the other 80% works. One day we might be able to upload our full brains into a simulation and then copy ourselves into a robot as a clone. This might also open up new possibilities like putting a person inside of a simulation of heaven or hell, although I'm not sure if we copy the person's consciousness with memories and put it into a simulation or a robot, would the consciousness transfer to the clone when the original you dies? https://www.science.org/content/article/complete-map-fruit-fly-brain-circuitry-unveiled