The Instigator
debaterTater123
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
MrGr3y
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should we integrate ourselves with technology?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/9/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 507 times Debate No: 68049
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

debaterTater123

Pro

As human beings, we have outgrown the pace of evolution. How have we outgrown the pace of evolution? Technology. Technological advances have allowed us to conquer other animals and extend our lifespans far beyond of what evolution is capable. We must further embrace the accelerated evolution of Homo Sapiens by integrating ourselves further with technology. Imagine replacing the eyeball with a machine that works perfectly. Imagine being able to communicate with others via brain implants and brain "networks." Eventually, through technology, I believe virtual immortality (the avoidance of death from preventable events) can be achieved.
MrGr3y

Con

Sure, technology in many ways has already surpassed humans natural abilities and will continue to do so for a very long time. Improving the quality of life for many across the entire globe. But not all that glitters is gold, we must be wary of losing what is truly valuable. I say this loosely as value is quite the abstract concept it will vary for many. Before "integration" ESPECIALLY with the brain, we must must dive much deeper in such categories as neuroscience,AI studies etc. If we begin to tear apart a puzzle we don't fully understand, we may lose a piece and the solution may forever elude us!

"We are all so small and weak. Imagine how easy life would be if we had an owl who could help us build our nests!"
Only Scronkfinkle, a one-eyed sparrow with a fretful temperament, was unconvinced of the wisdom of the endeavor. Quoth he: "This will surely be our undoing. Should we not give some thought to the art of owl-domestication and owl-taming first, before we bring such a creature?
Debate Round No. 1
debaterTater123

Pro

The definition of "value," as you yourself admit, is not clear. What do you mean by value?

I agree that tearing apart a puzzle we do not yet fully understand is certainly a bad situation. However, having the ability to integrate technology with out minds implies that we already understand the brain. Nowhere in my argument did I say we should immediately integrate technology as it is today. We should start with small steps. Giving robotic legs to the paralyzed for example. Then, the creation of a mechanical eyeball to give vision to those who cannot see. Only after humanity transcends small technological milestones will we aim for larger goals of neural integration. Going off of your owl analogy, nowhere did I say we would create a nest building owl before learning about domesticating and taming owls. I will clarify my argument by saying precisely the opposite. We should domesticate, tame, and then, when technological integration becomes reliable enough, create a nest building owl.
MrGr3y

Con

MrGr3y forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
debaterTater123

Pro

debaterTater123 forfeited this round.
MrGr3y

Con

MrGr3y forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by debaterTater123 2 years ago
debaterTater123
Entropy can sometimes not apply to isolated systems, but it always applies to the universe as a whole. Sure, life appears to defy entropy, but when one observes life AND the system in which it resides, entropy increases. In order to reverse entropy, one needs energy. The energy taken from the environment results in an increased entropy of the environment. This increase of environmental entropy is greater than the magnitude of decrease of life entropy. So, the net entropy of the system increases. This is the same way the universe works. So, eventually, the universe will become too disordered to readily support life.
Posted by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
UndeniableReality
I agree that natural selection of course still applies to humans, but I'm not convinced that entropy prevents immortality from being possible. Could you elaborate?

Entropy doesn't apply to all systems (life syntropic), and it remains to be seen (as far as I can tell) whether a sufficiently powerful and intelligent form of life could overcome entropy on a cosmic scale. Just some thoughts.

With respect to the actual debate, I wonder what the debaters think of the current state of human-technology integration (see, for example, brain-computer interfacing). The brain isn't completely understood, but our basic model of the brain is that it is a essentially a biological computer made up of billions of processing units which are dynamically connected in order to facilitate learning. This makes the basic principle of brain-computer interfacing fairly well-understood and actually fairly simple. What's lacking is better technology to measure brain activity in real-time, and a generalized statistical signal processing / machine learning solution classification and regression over brain states.
Posted by debaterTater123 2 years ago
debaterTater123
What would the assumption be?
Posted by shadows2000 2 years ago
shadows2000
Doesn't the response to your own question have a built in assumption
Posted by ElCoyote 2 years ago
ElCoyote
Sounds like some Total Annihilation type evolution
Posted by debaterTater123 2 years ago
debaterTater123
I agree with you saying the laws of natural selection still apply to humans. I was trying to say that we have outpaced natural selection, but I guess I did not put much thought into what I was saying.

As for the "Laws of Entropy," entropy is a law itself of thermodynamics and there are not multiple. I do, however, understand your position on immortality. I have reworded my argument to accommodate the eventual demise of the universe via entropy.
Posted by TheNamesFizzy 2 years ago
TheNamesFizzy
Also, immortality can never be achieved according to the Laws of Entropy.
Posted by TheNamesFizzy 2 years ago
TheNamesFizzy
"the laws of natural selection don't apply to our species anymore"

This statement is just blatantly wrong.
No votes have been placed for this debate.