[ExI] Future Bodies

[Kelly Anderson]

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Ben <bbenzai at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> asked:
>
>
> >Just to be clear here, are you
> >talking about changing the whole thing, or just swapping out for
> artificial
> >hearts and such? Or is it still too fuzzy?
> >
> >I would like something that I could take on or off as easily as I get into
> >or out of a car. That would allow me to be uploaded most of the time, and
> >embodied only when I really needed to be.
>


> This is pre-uploading ability, of course.  Hell, if uploading were
> available, I'd probably ditch this and go straight for machine-phase.
>

I think there are advantages to being embodied even after uploading is
possible. What you are talking about might be more complex than going
straight to machines. Or maybe not.


> Download/remotely control robotic bodies, yes, great, but until then we
> have squishy biological brains, and they need to be kept alive, which means
> all sorts of other biological stuff (which I think a lot of people forget
> when they talk of 'brains in jars' or 'let's put a brain in a robotic
> body').
>

Nobody who's thought about it longer than 5 minutes thinks that way. A lot
of what happens in the brain comes from other parts of the body. Oxygen and
nutrients through the blood, signals through neuronal connections, input
from the senses (at least 5, possibly more like proprioperception are at
least partially outside of the brain), hormonal systems, and probably other
things that we may or may not understand well enough to reproduce.


>  I see this Human Body Mk2 thing as being an interim solution.  Keeps the
> brain alive and doing stuff in the world, while extending your life
> considerably, and it should make eventual uploading easier (not least
> because it will involve a lot of neural interfaces, which should come in
> handy for at least some uploading paths).
>

All neural interface technology is important. Heck, even something as
simple sounding as implanting something in the body without triggering the
immune/repair response takes many people to figure out. I have a family
member who is making really super significant progress on that one, so it
always pops to mind quickly for me.


> I am talking about changing the whole thing, as in 'refactoring' all the
> organs and systems into a more easily maintainable, less vulnerable, more
> controllable configuration.
>

At least nature created organs. It could have just been one big squishy
mess with lots of distributed smaller interacting organs. What we have is
less complex than it could have been.


> Many body parts are biological that don't really need to be, and I reckon
> it would be a good idea to compartmentalise various organs and systems so
> that they're easy to get to when needed, without damaging other parts of
> the body.
>

And yet with all our technology, we still can't produce a simple pump that
is as good as the heart. Yet anyway. The Jarvik 7 was first installed  in
Barney Frank less than two miles from where I am sitting. It was used for a
long time, and had many successful uses. But the device required an
external power supply. That's a long ways from an artificial heart that
lives in your chest.


> As I said, my thinking is still in an early stage here, but I have in mind
> things like a kidney cartridge, that contains biological material plus
> synthetic parts, does the main job of our natural kidneys, but not all of
> the jobs they do - refactoring, remember? - and is easy to detach, remove
> and replace if and when needed.  For the other jobs (blood pressure
> management, pH balance, for instance), there would be other parts, new
> synthetic organs, and so-on.  This would all be packaged in a mostly
> non-living framework, with a covering that looks pretty much any way you
> want.
>

Again, integrating biological machinery with non biological machinery is
very difficult, but the problems are beginning to be solved.


> The skeleton would be non-living, for example, and the job of calcium and
> phosphate storage/release would be taken over by another organ.
>

Adamantium? Yes, I see where you would be going with that.


> If you broke your arm doing something fun but stupid (as we do), instead
> of taking weeks of pain and inconvenience to heal, and the possibility of
> it healing wrong and having a wonky arm for the rest of your life, it would
> be a matter of calling in to the body-clinic or whatever, and spending 15
> minutes in a chair while some biomechanic opened your arm up (painlessly),
> took the damaged arm 'bone' out, fitted a new one, and sealed you up again.
>  Then off you go, good as new, immediately ready for more high-jinks.
>

Until you damaged your brain anyway. Feeling indestructible would probably
lead to a lot of brain injury. Just saying.


> So, basically, all the parts that need to be biological would be (although
> they wouldn't necessarily be the same as the original, evolved versions),
> but the parts that don't, wouldn't.  And you'd be able to access failing
> parts and replace them as easily as we can change the spark plugs in a car.
>

Maybe. The first thing you would have to fix to get that part right is the
skin organ. The largest organ of the body, the skin is vitally important.
If you can't get that one right, then you still have traditional surgery to
get stuff in and out.


> Lots of challenges, I'm fully aware, but as a concept, I think it's
> feasible and worth working toward.
>

When you say "work toward", do you have any specific plan? Getting a
particular degree? Getting a job at a particular place? Or just talking
about it? Talking about this stuff is easy, getting it done is f'ing
difficult.

-Kelly
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140117/13617f2d/attachment.html>