I don’t think I have heard of a computer (or complex machine) last more than a century. Why do we assume that replacing our biological parts with cybernetics would make us live longer?

#ArtificialIntelligence: I don’t think I have heard of a computer (or complex machine) last more than a century. Why do we assume that replacing our biological parts with cybernetics would make us live longer?

Some time ago, I played a choose your own adventure game called I, Cyborg, by Tracy Canfield.

I, Cyborg is a 300,000-word interactive science-fiction novel by Tracy Canfield. It’s entirely text-based, without graphics or sound effects, and fueled by the vast, unstoppable power of your imagination.

Being a cyborg copy of the famous outlaw Ypsilanti Rowe comes with plenty of advantages. But when your cybernetic brain begins to fail only a rare and obsolete part can make your systems function again. Journey across the galaxy as you hunt down the missing piece.

If you want to play it here is the link

Machines are still subject to erosion, wear and tear, harmful accumulation and blockages which can lead to non-functionality in highly differentiated, highly integrated subsystems.

And from experience, there is hardly any reason to think that machines are more robust or resilient in the long term than biological systems.

Sure, you can replace machine parts, but we can also replace biological parts. Sure they might be some limitation to replace neurons and nerves, but it is unclear that artificial neurons would not have the same constraints, perhaps nerves and neurons in general have common constraints.

submitted by /u/–Aeo– to r/transhumanism
[link] [comments]

top scoring links : multi

Related posts

Leave a Comment