Isn't that the definition of a cyborg?

All such ideas and activities are driven by life's prime directive: to survive. And what is to survive? The consciousness at the heart of every individual. The body is just a machine for carrying around the brain and its associated nervous system and thought-processing functions. We know so little about how the human software controls our actions for its own benefit and expansion and yes, its own survival.

From perceptions to concept formation, from assigning values and serving them by emotional reactions, by rationalizing the most horrid acts of destruction of those whose values are sensed to be different, humans are the battlefield of conflicting ideas even onto engaging in genocide. Where is rationality? Where is mutual collaboration for mutual benefit? How can we differentiate "rational self-interest" from pure narcissism (today's most fashionable accusation) and demands for enforced redistribution?

Stephen Hawking is the posterchild for the success of technological enhancements to give the mind the means to continue performing, and influencing, when most of the body's own biological operations have failed.

Wars of every stripe are not just for the physical destruction of fellow humans; its aim is the elimination of minds whose ideas (belief systems, values) are seen as different, hence inimical. Acquisition of resources to enhance physical survival would not require killing the inhabitants of places where those resources can be gotten. Designating them as enemies so as to wipe out their ideas, to preserve and dominate with one's own, is the driving force. Ayn Rand wrote, "There is no conflict of interest among rational men." Where do we jump to justifying the killing of those we adjudge not to be rational by our definition? How can we reprogram the conceptual and emotional software to eliminate mutual destruction from human relations?

A recent news item reported on gorillas using mob violence against one of their own members. Dolphins go on murderous raids against their own kind. Are they all tools of emerging intelligence leading to emerging hate and violence? Will heightened technological prowess be able to keep some alive and evolve even greater murderous force against the disapproved ones? Who will make the decisions of who shall live and who shall die?

Sounds good to me. Whatever works that I agree to. All too happy to have more capability and live longer. Even better to argue with people that don't cry.
Why not have the next stage of evolution be managed rather than a huge game of statistics. Won't be too many people arguing a deit-ity did it this time.

The 9th circuit judges don't even qualify.;^)

It is no vice to lack knowledgeable on some particular matter. It is morally disgraceful to declare your ignorance, declare you have no intention to seek knowledge about some matter, and then make sweeping pronouncement based on your declared ignorance. It is doubly disgraceful to do so on an Objectivist discussion page. At least you’ve declared to others on this page that they should take you as a fool and, thus, not take you seriously.

No arguments on helping the impaired...but to do it for ha ha's, to replace humans or to fit some illusion of creating a singularity to rule over all...I say, emphatically...NO, period.

It won't if government gets involved!

I remember the original version.

https://futurism.com/u-s-scientists-h...

I have heard plenty of these predictions of "the Singularity" and am unimpressed. Truly self-aware machines will be simulated (faked) long before they are built by man -- if that ever happens -- and treating them as human beings would only enable the people creating the fakes to rule the world. A very bad idea.

no I am not familiar with singularity u and do not anticipate researching it. all I know is that this is scifi and fits into the same realm as flying to mars, anit gona happen! our WORLD not just the usa has a problem with people not working because of governments all over the world which includes the usa. so now some fools want to have humans/robot combos. just ridiculous thinking. do you think people will want to work to build these creatures, not likely. of course it is so far into the future like space travel beyond the moon if any one gets there again. who knows maybe the doubters who say we never got there in the first place are right. anyway all I see in the future is more and more humans not getting an education so how can the uneducated create anything. time to move on to more important things like how to right the ship we are presently on? of course I have no hope of that happening when I actually see what IS going on in our land.

They are ignorant in what it is to be human...they don't care. It's a progressive mindless set, do For instead of With. They no better but the truth is, they know nothing at all. They have no mind nor conscience inwhich to integrate.
None of these groups value life...I am not even sure the value their own.
I get the impression that they think Life is insignificant, nevermind Conscious Life.
They have no appreciation for anything at all.

These are, indeed, important questions. I argue that with the advance of exponential technologies in information and computing, biotech, nanotech, robotics and AI, the time for people from our perspective to address them is now. Exponential tech will define our world in the decades to come and most of today's controversies will seem trivial by comparison.

I will!

Are you familiar with the work of Singularity U and the actual work in labs across the world on human-brain interfaces? It's not scifi anymore.

I cannot make such categorical statements. And the private parties who are putting billions of their own $$$s into such efforts certainly think differently. I would note also that the cost of sequencing a human genome went from $100 million in 2001 to $10 million in 2007 to just over $1,000 today. The point is that biohacking is at a takeoff point. We have tools--e.g., CRISPR cas9--that allows us to alter our own DNA. So be open-minded about these possibilities!

Musk's ideas on how to cope with advancing AI should not be news. I follow Musk, and he's talked about these ideas in public for at least a year.

The basic idea is that if we can make ourselves able to connect mentally to digital resources, we can have AI-like access to data and information, and still be the free-willed, conscious beings with awesomely powerful brains we have always been.. This would allow humans to stay connected and in control of advancing computer technology.

It's a serious, long-term research agenda idea from a thoughtful person who wants a brighter future for humans.

Musk is either on some serious prescription drugs or he Hates Humanity...our survival does NOT depend on merging with machines.
You will not be able to recreate a mind and it's many possible or probable connections to existence not to mention our identity, the "I"; we are much more than the sum of our DNA programing.
The parasitical biological Humanoids just want digital Humanoids to keep them company and give them a status higher than the population.
As it stands now...they are lower than snakes in the grass.

Take care, then, that such a machine would have motives, morals, and attitudes consistent with respect for individual rights.

gaining some notoriety sure gives some people a swelled head. they think they can say anything and people will agree with them.
the mad scientist!

Designing a human-equivalent brain from scratch is beyond our capabilities today, but in the foreseeable future it might be possible to reverse-engineer one.

"I prefer a little less connection and maintain some of my freedom"
You might enjoy the reimagined Battlestar Galactica miniseries. I did.

Make that information system. That's why I defy any team of human beings to design an artificial "brain" that can think and act rationally, as a human can.

Re: “No system can comprehend a system more complex than itself.” Humans (at least some of them) are doing a decent job of increasing their comprehension of the universe and the entities within it. Just because our comprehension is incomplete does not mean it is incorrect. If you modify your statement to say “fully comprehend” then I agree with you.

I think I'll just sit up on a ridge with my rifle and a spotting glass and elk hunt.