Thanks for your response. For a perspective on engineering transhumanism, I can only refer you to the Wilson Center's objectives for an Internet of Living Things/Bodies/People. There are various reputable sources for Humanity 2.0, the Vatican being one of them.
“It is too soon to tell” — the real story China fact of the day https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/06/it-is-too-soon-to-tell-the-real-story.html Point being, one person's foolishness is another's wisdom. Only time will tell. Take care On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 8:35 PM WriterOfMinds <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thursday, August 19, 2021, at 10:11 AM, Quan Tesla wrote: > > ... would you consider your intelligence to be committed to a rapid > evolutionary process with purpose to eventually assume network-interactive > cyborgian functionality? > > > Nope. > > I might describe myself as transhumanism-curious. I am definitely not > transhumanism-committed. Whether I would accept implants, internal > nanobots, or genetic modification (which mRNA vaccines are not equipped to > perform, by the way) would depend heavily on the circumstances. > *Artificial General Intelligence List <https://agi.topicbox.com/latest>* > / AGI / see discussions <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi> + > participants <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/members> + > delivery options <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription> > Permalink > <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Tace3f9aea35af378-M491c112396e39cb20523194d> > ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Tace3f9aea35af378-M5df88ee76ff9d8ea492338d4 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
