Brain Transfer

Really, how would we know right now?

Once we're to do it I would assume that would be one of its main components.
Yet, how could you really prove it?

Yes, brain is everything that is YOU -- the rest of the body is just a vessel for the brain to reside in. the one reading this is a brain, and all of your life you've been nothing but a brain.

>>17962875
Add to this, I would think we would learn how to replicate a consciousness before we'd be able to transfer it. To transfer, the main body would have to essentially die so that's something you'd have to refine.
How would it be proved that you've really been transferred and aren't just another replica who thinks he's been transferred?

>>17962884
But the brain is everything that you are; you are just a brain reading this who drivers a body.

>>17962887
My bad, I read it as a transfer of consciousness, not the brain.
Then yeah, it would be you, why wouldn't it?

To answer OP, I'd say as long as you retain your complete consciousness, then yes. This is all just speculation and science fiction now, but I can foresee some disasters happening in the early years if we ever start trying this for real.

To the people saying the brain "is you" and that it's all that you are, I was tempted to agree at first, but think about how much people are also defined by their bodies and give our "vessels" some more credit. I'm not just talking about shallow things, like looks, although that can obviously play a role too. How much different would your life be and how would you act if you went from a fat disgusting slob to a chiseled muscle man? Or model-esque, voluptuous woman? Think about the things you experience through your body that make you unique to your friends. Maybe you have better eyesight or hearing. Maybe one of your friends is less sensitive to pain than the rest of you. Maybe you're super-flexible and can turn yourself into a pretzel and have aspiring dreams of becoming an acrobat some day.

Just a few random examples that popped into my head. I imagine that, ideally, android or artificial bodies would be made "perfect" or "super-human", but how would that change our society? Would we really need events like the Olympics if everyone's body is Superhero-tier? Would we care about how attractive others are if everyone was suddenly hot? Would we all look like clones or would there still be room for diversity? Just things to think about.

File: 5452661+_e6ab75d215318ab38b0822aa61a28650.jpg (14KB, 267x200px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 267x200px

>>17962913

You make a good point!
Although, I would imagine that all humans have a Superiority complex to them, and that will never change. People always like to be better than others, some even better than themselves.

Like if we were all superhuman androids, I'm sure there will still be some people that believe their model body is better or "newer" than yours.

Just like this old fairly odd parents episode.

>>17962854
>human avatars within my lifetime
>they cost as much as a 5 bedroom house off the coast of costa rica

fml senpai

>>17962931
That could very well be, at least in the early years. But what happens once human society becomes more artificial than organic? We might become used to being surrounded by perfect super-beings. The grey blob thing is funny, but picture instead a world of nothing but models. Of course, everyone has different standards of beauty, but as those with the ability to create and market the artificial bodies start imposing their own ideals, it will quickly become the norm throughout the rest of the world.

Once everyone is "beautiful", we might lose our shallowness and superiority as a result, which isn't really a bad thing, but in the process we might also lose our uniqueness.

File: image.jpg (77KB, 704x396px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 704x396px

>>17962913
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and the definition of beauty is incredibly vast with infinite possible variables to a "beautiful" face. Not everyone is going to want to look the same, but they would want to be beautiful and the definition of beautiful isn't solidified by one representative.

The Olympics may not be necessary anymore, sure, but imagine the other opportunities that could arise. Those who are well off and contribute much to society and technological research would propel even more advents in space travel and everything would snowball quicker than ever before given their extended life.
The Olympic Games, but with other alien antromorphic species. While we learn from them and they learn from us. I'd like to think big even if this is all just conceptual, but the concept of a car wasn't even idealized for a long time and look at how abundant they are now.

Who's to say that these Avatars aren't simply to B to Z? We're limiting ourselves by looking at the negatives when our focus of improvement is always on the positive. Sure, there are negatives, but everything becomes refined and everything serves a greater purpose.

>>17962978
>Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and the definition of beauty is incredibly vast with infinite possible variables to a "beautiful" face.

I know that, but please read the post above yours. Maybe they won't all look like carbon copies, but we already have the media and wealthy society defining what "beauty" is, and a large chunk of the consumerist population buys into it. I also imagine that if these things become real, the first people to own them will have to be wealthy, much like those who first owned cars or televisions or computers, or anything else we take for granted now. Bodies will be tailored and marketed to their interests. As they become more affordable and widespread, certain "standards" of beauty will have already been set.

>We're limiting ourselves by looking at the negatives when our focus of improvement is always on the positive.

I understand where you're coming from, but I can't help but be a huge pessimist these days. For every technological development we've come up with that could better humanity, there are abuses and wastes of its potential. I'm not a person who thinks all technology is bad, but we as a people have yet to mature before we see technology as more than just weapons or mere toys. And far too often, people never seem to think about negative or far-reaching consequences, they look at everything starry-eyed and ignore potential problems.

Did you know that there's an ever-growing ring of space debris around our planet? Chunks of it have already hit and endangered the ISS. We have so many satellites and other things out there, but how well can we manage them? Where is our "space recycling" or cleanup program? This is just one of many examples of humans using technology short-sightedly.

>>17963174
P.S.

Forgive my ramblings in this thread, I've just been thinking a lot about these things lately and I guess this topic touched a nerve. I don't want us to junk up space like we've junked up our planet, and I don't want to see humans lose their identities if android/artificial bodies become a reality some day. Science fiction has already given us warnings about such things, but when fiction becomes reality, will anyone remember? Or care?

>>17962948
Don't be too disappointed. You're going to die no matter what, tech would just put it off.
At most you'd be gaining a few hundred years of something resembling you existing, possibly with reduced quality of life. There's going to be a Luddite uprising, or a nuke war, or you'll get so bored you delete yourself, or your cyber-self will have changed so unimaginably that it's no longer meaningfully you.

>>17962854
Well if your identity is your memories and everything that resides in the brain, a brain transfer shouldnt affect your identity, nor your new body. Most likely it would feel like a change of suits.