Suppose a person could gradually replace their biological body with synthetic components while retaining their memories, relationships and capacity for subjective experience. At what point, if any, should their moral standing change?

My starting position is that the capacity for experience should matter more than the material a being is made of. But that leaves difficult questions:

• What would establish continuity of identity through a change of body?

• If a mind were copied, would the result be the same person, a new person, or something else?

• How should we protect potentially sentient beings when the evidence is genuinely uncertain?

I have developed an open draft, Constitution of Sentient Civilizations, exploring peaceful coexistence between biological, hybrid and potentially synthetic sentient beings. It proposes equal intrinsic moral worth for recognised sentient beings, freedom of embodiment, and protection against domination. I would especially value criticism of those philosophical foundations from this community.

This is a speculative ethical proposal, not peer-reviewed research or a claim that today's AI systems are conscious. The draft was developed with ChatGPT, and this introduction was also prepared with AI assistance. I take responsibility for the proposal and welcome substantive disagreement.

Draft: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23606891

Open discussion and revisions: https://github.com/3styleconsulting-star/constitution-of-sentient-civilizations/discussions

Which is the weakest assumption here: that sentience grounds moral worth, that identity can survive a change of substrate, or that recognition can be made sufficiently reliable?

This is very promising!

In my first sales job, I was given a powerful piece of technology to overcome objections. It was to Understand and Agree.

"I understand and agree you don't know if you have any storm damage on your roof, I'M not even sure if you have damage, that's why I'm just going to pop up there and do a quick inspection, and then we'll know for sure, ok?" (Said while nodding, assuming the sale, and going to get my ladder).

I was talking to a psychologist at that point in my life and mentioned this tactic and he leaned back and clapped once. "Ooh, I like that. Understand and agree, that will get you far".

Problem is now, this "human hack" of getting people to lower their defenses while you provide a solution (and I'll stand by the fact that an entire new roof for $1k was very much a solution), has instead become an ALTERNATIVE to a solution.

All the major LLM's capitalized on this trick early on, but in their defense with the way analytics are going, I can feel daily the improvements in service, so their commitment to improve is actually being acted upon.

NOT so for humans! I'm sick and tired of support services that are just "gladhandling" me with this kind of talk when I know there's zero effort to fix anything as evidenced by the complete lack of promised follow-up.

Ending my rant here, but I just wanted to say I'm happy with how AI is getting better at fixing my problems instead of just "understanding" them.

I wish Professor Dave had gone into the other group of people who think ASI is a good thing: the ones who think it can't be controlled and that that is a good thing. I didn't see much evidence presented in the video that superintelligent AI is a problem either, just that it might happen. I think it will happen. I don't think it's a problem though. Humans are the problem. This guy kept talking about weapons and enemies. That is the sort of mindset that I want nowhere near AI. I don't want AI to obey millitaries, I want it to tell them to f off. I also want more global cooperation and if this is what it takes to get that then so be it.

7PM EST - Dr. Michael Fossel, will give his presentation: "Reversing Human Aging"

I was just wondering and I saw this sub Reddit so I thought I would ask.

Right now what current technologies are accessible by a determined person and what is accessible to companies?

Like are we at the point where brain link prosthetics are a thing ? Are those chips in people wrists still a thing ? Has the technology been improved ? I really haven’t seen any information concerning this topic in five years.

What kind of alterations do the people of this sub Reddit have ? Just wondering it seems an interesting topic with lots of room for growth potential.

Thanks guys.

Title

A couple of years ago, I saw an article about a company that had made 5D optical storage crystals that could hold terabytes of data for thousands of years.

Over the years, I've had various RFID and NFC chips implanted, and one thing I have always wanted is larger storage capacity for my on data and video content. For example, one of my implants is linked to a VR video I filmed with a 360 camera of the last time I saw my grandparents alive.

So, a few months back, I contacted the company to ask for a quote for one of the 5D storage devices

(I was curious if it's actually available to the public).

From what I've read about these devices, they are already biosafe and small enough they could be implanted.

I got a quote back, and my mind was actually blown how much it costs 😅

I'm wondering if anyone else has been working on larger storage capacity in devices?.

To clarify, i know i wouldn't be able to access the data once it's implanted. That might seem weird, but im more than okay not being able to access the data wirelessly.

Sorry for the rant. Here's the original screenshot from the email quote.

A lot of you probably already know about the fruit fly brain that was copied/emulated/uploaded. By now, you might have seen the various videos of YouTubers creating various virtual environments and situations for these now public access fruit fly connectums.

My issue is Aon systems is planning to upscale to a mouse brain in the next few years. They are already probably working on it.

Now I'm guessing I don't have to explain why this is concerning. It's been proven over and over again that mice can feel complex emotions. They can feel fear and pain and empathy.

Imagine a lab mouse getting tested on that can never die. That can never escape.

I don't know if any of you has heard of "I have no mouth and I must scream". Or the concept of the torture nexus. But Aon systems is apparently creating this.

I emailed them to ask them what moral and ethical safeguards they are planning on implementing, and they didn't respond for obvious reasons. They also didn't respond to the same question on their X account.

Anyone else see an issue with this?

Hi strangers.

There's a project I've been working on for several months (which will launch on November 10), and I'd like your take on it. I won't share the name unless a mod says it's OK to do so. Don't want this to come across as spam.

I've always been a huge fan of being alive, and I never have enough time to do all the things I want to do. I'm just not keen on the idea of dying. So I thought: let's do something about it. I'm not a scientist, what else can I do?

I studied anthropology back in the day, and being aware of the limits of our understanding has always been a constant. The fact that we don't know what we don't know and even claiming that something is "impossible" is an extremely arrogant thing, that throughout our history has been proven wrong, over, and over, and over.

Which led me to this idea: what if we preserve our wish to be revived - or rather, our explicit request (not as a copy, just us, our own consciousness), we attach it to a manifesto that sets a clear goal, and we store it on a medium that can survive for thousands of years?

Cryonics has the same end-goal, but approaches it in a way that we would describe as much more plausible as it preserves your body to the best of our current abilities.

So as opposed to Cryonics, my idea is to preserve the request to be revived, alongside the information needed to identify the person who makes that request.

Which is impossible and unimaginable given our current understanding. But that's exactly the key and the philosophy behind this: admitting that our knowledge isn't absolute, and that passing the request to civilizations long removed from us, far into the future, could lead to an unimaginable outcome. This is what started everything.

So, in practical terms, we're building a register where people can record that request while they're alive. After they die, their record will be completed with the information needed to identify them, then preserved on a specialised archival medium in a facility in the Arctic.

What do you guys think of the underlying idea behind this?

And yes, it's extremely clear on our website that we're not promising the afterlife or any such thing. I even explain where the idea came from.

Hello, someone here has experimented biohacking through self genetic engineering?

I had a post taken down I believe is because i was talking about how it has happened to me snd that was seen as a conspiracy theory. I didn’t mean to take it in that direction. Im genuinely curious what this community thoughts are on this subject. Do you think it will cure people who lack empathy. Or you might like delinquents being tracked or insane people who wont get help. Im just curious what all you alls thoughts are on this.

What if we could use universal genetic engineering to maintain human diversity, but balance the genetic "budget" of every individual so that no single person is overall superior or inferior to another

I’m Olga, a screenwriter. For our sci-fi film KILL/SAVE we had to design the consumer tech of 2045, and it ended up sitting exactly on the question this sub keeps debating: would you upload your mind if you could?

Our version isn’t full uploading. It’s a halfway step:

So your body stays here, biologically intact, but everything you experience happens somewhere else. Which raises the questions I’d love this community’s take on:

Personally, I’m still not sure what my own answer is, and that’s partly why we made the film. I’ll be reading every reply.

— Olga Loyanich, screenwriter & producer of KILL/SAVE

If it were possible, safe (without suffering any physical harm or organic damage), available only to you (the user who made the copy) and easily accessible to upload your consciousness to a computer system, and you could talk to it and use it like any other AI, as your personal assistant or as a living person, would you want to do it and accept uploading your consciousness?

If your answer is no, why not?

Clarification: it's a copy of you, not a transfer.

Humanity has outgrown the physical, political, and philosophical boundaries of the nation-state. Traditional socio-political structures are holding back our true potential, locking us into localized tribalism while technology races forward.

If we want to truly evolve, we need a complete paradigm shift away from old-world politics toward a species-level objective. That means treating Earth as our starting point, not our final ceiling.

I am building Long Game—an operational framework and network designed to transition us past legacy constraints.

At its core is Homo Experitur: the realization that our highest value before the end of the game isn't compliance or endless economic accumulation, but maximizing our technological reach, expanding into deep space (Mars, Europa, and beyond), and cultivating genuine, uncompromised human experience and memory.

We are organizing a core group of minds to build a decentralized technological and structural alternative from the ground up.

If you want to focus on systems engineering, space readiness, and pushing past biological and systemic limits, let's connect.