Transhumanism "bullshit" is hindering legit neurotech research, experts warn

Alfonso Maruccia

Posts: 2,720   +1,039
Staff
De-Assimilation: While neurotechnology is making progress in treating chronic diseases and severe medical conditions, some billionaires are still focused on the idea of becoming everlasting cyborgs. In the long run, such "distracted" or impractical pursuits could potentially hinder genuine medical advancements.

Today's wealthiest technology corporations are chasing transhumanist fantasies under the guidance of science-illiterate leaders, instead of investing more in practical technological solutions. Neurotech experts warn against the "distracted" ideas promoted by Elon Musk, Sam Altman, and other billionaires seeking a transhumanist workaround to nature's planned obsolescence of the human body.

Transhumanism is a philosophical movement advocating for the "enhancement" of the human condition through computer technology or nanotechnology. Ray Kurzweil has turned this ideology into a business and continues to claim that humans will ascend to a digital "heaven" – achieving the singularity – by 2045.

According to Marcello Ienca, professor of neuroethics at the Technical University of Munich, these transhumanist approaches to neurotechnology are distorting genuine scientific debate. Investors like Musk and Altman seem more concerned with uploading the contents of their brains to computers than with advancing real breakthroughs in medical devices.

Michael Hendricks, a professor of neurobiology at McGill University, said that wealthy individuals are fascinated by "these dumb transhumanist ideas." "Neuralink is doing legitimate technology development for neuroscience, and then Elon Musk comes along and starts talking about telepathy and stuff," Hendricks said.

In recent months and years, neurotechnology ventures have achieved significant progress. Prototype brain implants can now translate neural signals into natural speech, while retinal implants can restore functional vision for people affected by macular degeneration. Even Neuralink, the neurotech venture co-founded with Elon Musk's funding and staffed by a team of scientists, is developing innovative tools aimed at improving people's lives.

These advancements, Hendricks and others emphasize, have nothing to do with transhumanism or the augmentation of healthy human bodies. Yet Musk continues to suggest that Neuralink might one day upload someone's memories into a robotic body – a notion that Ienca and Hendricks consider impossible. "Biology doesn't work like a computer," Hendricks said, despite Musk's persistent, speculative claims.

Kristen Mathews, a lawyer focusing on neurotech-related privacy issues, warns against the constant sci-fi hype pushed by tech moguls. While transhumanism remains entirely unrealistic, she notes that a brain implant malfunction or accident could prompt legislators to implement harsh restrictions on legitimate neurotechnology research and experimentation.

Hendricks added that ideas about brain uploading or other cyberpunk-style concepts are propagated by people who think too much about computers but know very little about actual science. A significant majority of non-techy people still have an instinctive understanding that trying to live forever in a metal box is nonsense, he suggested.

Permalink to story:

 
Ehhhhhh.

Video Games kinda sorta helped finance all sorts of insane **** that GPUs would eventually be capable of, including the current AI boom (bubble). All the while my parents kept telling me gaming was a waste of time, etc.

If some billionaire clown wants to throw tons of their money at cheating death and the world accidentally gets a ton of weird/neat tech out of it, I say have at it.

Better than these clowns just sitting on their pile of gold like some dragon hording its wealth.
 
Selling immorality? Who would want to pay to live in this world anymore longer than they have to?
This may come as a shock to you, but many people have lives they actually enjoy living; there are so many interesting things to do in the world and really ~80-100 years just isn't enough to do them, especially with all the health issues that kick in as you age.
 

This may come as a shock to you, but many people have lives they actually enjoy living; there are so many interesting things to do in the world and really ~80-100 years just isn't enough to do them, especially with all the health issues that kick in as you age.

While I agree with the sentiment, he never mentioned immortality. He stated immorality. And that’s a whole new angle of deeds to be done 😀
 
This may come as a shock to you, but many people have lives they actually enjoy living; there are so many interesting things to do in the world and really ~80-100 years just isn't enough to do them, especially with all the health issues that kick in as you age.
This may come as a shock to you but nobody enjoys living beyond certain point.
 
Imagine the world being troubled by these billionaires long after they should be in the coffin.

I think Hendricks is too narrow-minded though. The brain is largely a computer in a biological substrate. If we had its specification and the technology, it could be virtualised. In essence, mind-uploading is virtualising a physical brain, not only copying memories.

However, if mind has a quantum basis, which is very speculative, the no-cloning and no-teleportation theorems could spell trouble for mind-uploading.
 
Last edited:
Imagine the world being troubled by these billionaires long after they should be in the coffin.

I think Hendricks is too narrow-minded though. The brain is largely a computer in a biological substrate. If we had its specification and the technology, it could be virtualised. In essence, mind-uploading is virtualising a physical brain, not only copying memories.

However, if mind has a quantum basis, which is very speculative, the no-cloning and no-teleportation theorems could spell trouble for mind-uploading.
Your brain is affected by your body though… you think differently when in pain, or hungry, or aroused, etc…
If you upload your brain into a robotic body, you will be a very different person - even if they manage to perfectly replicate the brain.
 
Your brain is affected by your body though… you think differently when in pain, or hungry, or aroused, etc…
If you upload your brain into a robotic body, you will be a very different person - even if they manage to perfectly replicate the brain.
We are subject to biological state. Perhaps the system running the replica could emulate this. A blood sugar proxy, estrogen proxy, etc. In any case, the replica being translated, parallels to biological state might crop up. Similarly, a computer throttles owing to power or heat.
 
It might be possible to copy the contents of your brain into a computer, but it would be a copy, rather than a transfer. When you die, you are dead; even if your cyborg continues to emulate your behavior. It will never be you.:cool:
 
This article is fascinating but fundamentally flawed. Its most prominent mistake appears in the line, “While transhumanism remains entirely unrealistic…” This reveals a basic misunderstanding. Transhumanism is a philosophy—not an event, not a gadget, not a prediction with a clock attached to it. Like any serious philosophical tradition, it offers a framework for understanding human existence and for imagining how human potential might be extended through knowledge, ethics, and scientific progress. Too many journalists misinterpret it as a consumer product or a technological novelty, and in doing so they miss the point entirely.

Consider what philosophy actually means: the disciplined inquiry into how we live, what we value, and how we might shape a better future. Transhumanism stands squarely within that lineage. It is a set of concepts about human flourishing, grounded in evidence, ethics, and reasoned argument—not a promise of any single technology. Its vision is not a prediction of what will happen tomorrow, but an exploration of what could be possible if we apply scientific understanding responsibly, ethically, and with long-term foresight.

To call transhumanism “unrealistic” is to misread philosophy itself. A philosophy is not measured by whether it already exists in full form, but by whether its ideas illuminate human potential, challenge our assumptions, and guide thoughtful action. Transhumanism does precisely that. It asks us to think deeply about longevity, cognition, ethics, and the trajectory of technological advancement—questions that are increasingly central to modern life.

In this sense, transhumanism is not a fantasy; it is a philosophical lens for interpreting the present and shaping the future with clarity and intention.
 
This article is fascinating but fundamentally flawed. Its most prominent mistake appears in the line, “While transhumanism remains entirely unrealistic…” This reveals a basic misunderstanding. Transhumanism is a philosophy—not an event, not a gadget, not a prediction with a clock attached to it. Like any serious philosophical tradition, it offers a framework for understanding human existence and for imagining how human potential might be extended through knowledge, ethics, and scientific progress. Too many journalists misinterpret it as a consumer product or a technological novelty, and in doing so they miss the point entirely.

Consider what philosophy actually means: the disciplined inquiry into how we live, what we value, and how we might shape a better future. Transhumanism stands squarely within that lineage. It is a set of concepts about human flourishing, grounded in evidence, ethics, and reasoned argument—not a promise of any single technology. Its vision is not a prediction of what will happen tomorrow, but an exploration of what could be possible if we apply scientific understanding responsibly, ethically, and with long-term foresight.

To call transhumanism “unrealistic” is to misread philosophy itself. A philosophy is not measured by whether it already exists in full form, but by whether its ideas illuminate human potential, challenge our assumptions, and guide thoughtful action. Transhumanism does precisely that. It asks us to think deeply about longevity, cognition, ethics, and the trajectory of technological advancement—questions that are increasingly central to modern life.

In this sense, transhumanism is not a fantasy; it is a philosophical lens for interpreting the present and shaping the future with clarity and intention.
Except the article was pretty clear about defining it as humans becoming cyborgs/robots for the sake of the story…
 
This article is fascinating but fundamentally flawed. Its most prominent mistake appears in the line, “While transhumanism remains entirely unrealistic…” This reveals a basic misunderstanding. Transhumanism is a philosophy—not an event, not a gadget, not a prediction with a clock attached to it. Like any serious philosophical tradition, it offers a framework for understanding human existence and for imagining how human potential might be extended through knowledge, ethics, and scientific progress. Too many journalists misinterpret it as a consumer product or a technological novelty, and in doing so they miss the point entirely.

Consider what philosophy actually means: the disciplined inquiry into how we live, what we value, and how we might shape a better future. Transhumanism stands squarely within that lineage. It is a set of concepts about human flourishing, grounded in evidence, ethics, and reasoned argument—not a promise of any single technology. Its vision is not a prediction of what will happen tomorrow, but an exploration of what could be possible if we apply scientific understanding responsibly, ethically, and with long-term foresight.

To call transhumanism “unrealistic” is to misread philosophy itself. A philosophy is not measured by whether it already exists in full form, but by whether its ideas illuminate human potential, challenge our assumptions, and guide thoughtful action. Transhumanism does precisely that. It asks us to think deeply about longevity, cognition, ethics, and the trajectory of technological advancement—questions that are increasingly central to modern life.

In this sense, transhumanism is not a fantasy; it is a philosophical lens for interpreting the present and shaping the future with clarity and intention.
The only problem is that some people with wayyyyyyyyyyyy too much spare cash think that their cash has the magical capability to turn philosophy into reality.

All I see is that their magical cash is really really good at causing them to miss the point, and they double down on the missingness by calling themselves visionaries. Filthy rich, yet bankrupt.
 
Back