And with direct connection to the internet can come "hacking" or government interference with your life and systems.
The more "connected" you are, the less freedom and individual control you may have.
I prefer a little less connection and maintain some of my freedom.

If anyone wants to find out more about human/electronic interfaces, the person to check out is Charles Lieber. I teach about him in 2 weeks. If interested, e-mail me at jbrenner@fit.edu, and I will send you info on bio/nano electronics.

"Resistance is NOT futile.... I am Hugh".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRc8E...

How could even human beings build something comparable to themselves in information handling, and aware of self? No system can comprehend a system more complex than itself. The human central nervous system vastly exceeds the processing power of even the most powerful computer designs we know today.

But the worst part would be transplanting a human central nervous system into a machine that didn't look remotely human. Such a machine would have no concept of humanity other than the memories the brain carried. I shudder to think of the motives, the morals, and the attitudes of such a brain, imprisoned as it would be in a "body" not even remotely human.

"Would that person still retain his or her consciousness"
People have been looking for the seat of the soul since ancient times. I suspect we may be coming close to understanding it.

Back in the 1970s, in The Libertarian Connection someone offered a discussion on the economics of replicators. As I recall, the first reply was that the Xerox photocopier opened that door already. So, too, do we have to consider the simple walking stick, eye glasses, hearing aids,... even clothing... Stop and think about how UnderArmor works.

A work with a guy whose hearing aid is bluetoothed to his cellphone. It is a mundane example and that underscores the reality of the future of humaniform mechatronics.

This idea raises all kinds of interesting questions about individuality and consciousness. In principle a person’s organs and other body parts could be replaced by machines one at a time, until no biological components remain. Would that person still retain his or her consciousness, and if so would that person be a “conscious machine”? Assuming the answer is yes, would a physically identical machine built from scratch also be conscious? We need some meaningful advances in philosophy to keep up with advances in technology.

Yes, it is happening now. The most exciting part is the brain-machine interfaces, which are the key to so much. The basics have been developed, but the integration necessary of a full bionic person is still a few years out.

Yes, the technology is coming. And many researchers, especially transhumanist-focused ones, will push to the limits. There is already pushback from left and right, See my piece linked below. But if governments don't get in the way, then how far human-machine merger will go will be determined by what works and by economics. So if technology is developed to allow an bionic eye to input visual information to the brain so that a blind person can see,why wouldn't a person who can see use that technology to access the internet directly, just by thinking about it? There is already a lot of good thinking along these lines. But, of course, the technology must be developed, perfected and commercialized first! https://atlassociety.org/commentary/c...

I was reading about cyborgs in comic books all the way back during the 60s.
By the 70s? The Million Dollar Man and Darth Vader.
It's gonna happen.

"Many elites today are in the throes of the 'precautionary principle.'"
The suggests an option of not merging people with machines. I don't think that's realistic. We already have assist devices that physical help weak hearts push blood out of the ventricle. There are already prosthetic limbs with multiple microprocessors guiding motion. There will be technology to patch broken spinal cords and eventually to make up for areas of the break destroyed by stroke. I do not imagine people outlawing these treatments. If they want to outlaw merging people with machines, they'll have to draw a line as to how good these treatments can be. "Gentlemen we can rebuilding him... better, stronger, faster." I think it's coming. As the technology develops, people will have to think ahead to repercussions. I don't think simply not developing the technology is an option.