Basically the title. I want complete experiential freedom but I’m not sure I’d want to upload my mind.
I guess the best bet would be a BCI that enables entry to custom virtual simulations?
Your body gets damaged or old? You take your brain out and connect it to the latest disposable artificial body. Then proceed to throw your own old body in the trash just to flex.
Your brain starts crapping out from age or disease? You inject new neurons that gradually displace the old ones while forming connections with them.
This doesn't require any new magical tech to be discovered or supercomputers that exceed brains' processing power. Just development of existing tech and biology.
​
I’ve reached a point where I’m done with real life. I’ve been through enough and have deliberately distanced myself from most human connections. The idea of continuing in this world doesn’t appeal to me anymore.
What I actually want is radical:
I would like to donate all my organs and the rest of my body, but have my brain (or consciousness) uploaded into a high-quality, permanent simulation/dream world where I can live without real-world consequences. A place where I can do whatever I want, feel whatever I want, and exist on my own terms — until the technology exists to transfer my mind into a full cybernetic body (something like Adam Smasher from Cyberpunk).
I see this as a form of “soft exit” — not traditional suicide, but a transition into a simulated existence until better options (mind uploading + robotic body) become available.
I know this is still science fiction today, but I wanted to put the idea out there. I’m curious how others in transhumanist or futurist circles view this kind of thinking.
Has anyone else thought about something similar? Or am I just completely detached from reality at this point?
Sharing a protocol I developed for auditing co-creation sessions with language models (LLMs). It's a single HTML form, no external dependencies, designed to evaluate both model performance and user experience.
Why this might be relevant
In long interactions, conversation quality tends to fluctuate. Sometimes the model loses the thread, shifts its tone, or drifts from the initial goal, and it's not always clear whether it's a technical failure or an effect of the session dynamics. This test offers a systematic way to track it.
What it measures
· Model (3C+1E): Clarity, Compactness, Coherence, and Emphasis (fidelity to the goal declared at the start of the session).
· User (SSJ): Speed (whether the session flows or stalls), Struggle (cognitive cost), and Joy (whether the interaction feels rewarding).
· Conversational ruptures: where and why the interaction broke, and how (or if) it recovered.
· Regulatory checks: flags potential violations of the EU AI Act's Article 5 (manipulative techniques, exploitation of vulnerability) and cross-platform contamination.
An unexpected finding
In tests with three different models performing the same task (translating an essay into native English), the data showed that:
· The Joy metric stayed at 0 in all cases, even when the technical outputs were solid.
· The main source of drift was cross-contamination: feeding one model's outputs into another destabilised the sessions.
· The model that received the most initial trust (and thus the heaviest workload) scored the worst — a bias the test helps identify.
The deferred phase
The protocol includes an optional phase 24 hours later: the results are shared with the model and analysed together. This second look often reveals patterns that went unnoticed in the heat of the session.
In summary
· Compatible with any LLM (local or API).
· Quick to complete (5–10 minutes after a session).
· Exports data as JSON for longitudinal tracking.
· Licensed CC BY 4.0, completely free.
The file includes the HTML form and a User Guide. This is a Beta version (v3); feedback is welcome from anyone who works intensively with LLMs and wants to try it under real condition
If you have spent any time doing any introspective work, you would have realised the unfortunate reality that having a sense of self is not a given. Though you may exist, make decisions, and manifest yourself in all the ways that constitute a "self," it is still possible for you to completely lack a sense of self, for you have frighteningly little knowledge of who, as a person, you actually are.
However, if we take that as a given, that having a sense of self is not a prerequisite for human existence, that leaves us in an interesting situation in relation to attempts towards contentment.
Let’s say we have someone with a fairly weak sense of self that lets the opinions of society and others dictate to them who they are and what they are. If this person were to ever reach a point of contentment, a point where they feel truly satisfied with their lives, how would they ever be able to know such contentment is authentic? If they have, in all effect, externalised their sense of self to others, then will that same feeling of contentment not also be an internalisation of their feelings and opinions towards him?
In such an example, you have someone that thinks they have reached the pinnacle, that they have made it, but in reality, due to them having a weak sense of self, they are still far from their apotheosis. It is my opinion, however, that this is the highest point we can ever get to. No matter who we are or where we come from, we are always going to, at least in part, offload our sense of self onto others, precluding us from ever reaching our highest state.
However, with FDVR this is not the case. With FDVR, there is no longer any need for us to externalise our sense of self onto others, because the others within said simulation can align with our own true selves (or sense of self). In such an example, the malforming force of externalisation becomes an impossibility, and the contentment that we feel will be the true highest form of existence.
Most arguments about whether LLMs understand anything treat intelligence as a unitary capacity. Stanovich's tripartite division of mind (autonomous, algorithmic, reflective) has been around for two decades and rarely shows up in the AI debate, which is strange because it cuts the question cleanly. The autonomous layer is the reflexive, intuitive system. The algorithmic layer is raw computational capacity, which is what IQ tests target and what LLMs do extraordinarily well. The reflective layer is something else: it is truth-oriented, metacognitive, and capable of evaluating the algorithmic processes running beneath it. The question worth pressing is whether current architectures can ever reach the reflective layer or whether they are stuck producing high-fidelity imitations of its outputs from one layer down.
I recently gave a talk at the 6th International Conference on Philosophy of Mind in Porto arguing the second. You can watch it here.
The empirical side of Stanovich's program supports the structural separation. Stanovich and West, and more recently Burgoyne and colleagues, have shown intelligence and rationality share only around thirty percent variance, with the overlap shrinking further once attention is partialled out. The result tells us something beyond raw intelligence is operating in human cognition. That something is what allows an agent to step outside the current frame, ask whether the frame is right, and reorient toward truth. LLMs cannot do this in the relevant sense. They can produce text that looks like metacognition, but the system has no truth-orientation because it has no stakes in any world. Frankfurt's analysis of bullshit (as distinct from lying) applies in the technical sense Hicks and Bender have pressed: the output is indifferent to truth.
If the tripartite frame is right, the productive question is whether the gap between layers is bridgeable by scaling or whether it is constitutive. Is anyone in philosophy of mind doing serious work on whether the reflective layer is in principle implementable in architectures with no embodied existence, or is the embodied-cognition objection now treated as settled here?
Nor should it. A realistic mind uploading procedure that works according to physics will not be a one to one transfer. An exact simulation of biological processes would be incredibly glitchy and inefficient. A more realistic path is to use a human brain as an “embryo” for a mind that is equipped to take full advantage of the physics of a solid state substrate.
The mind would remember everything about its past self and be able to perfectly mimic its old personality but it will have become something more. Instead of direct transfer a better analogy is reproduction across substrate or metamorphosis inside a digital chrysalis.
Art examples:
http://az (dot here) lib (dot here) ru/g/gastew_a_k/text_0010.shtml
I think he's an example of transhumanist thought before transhumanism.
So to be upfront, we sent a message to the mods asking if it was okay to self-promote, and we received no reply. Thus, if this post breaks any rules, we did try to ask first.
Second is with X's algorithm becoming self-destructive, we need new members more than ever to help spread the word. Now, this being said, I've recently joined the CubiFoundation, and I volunteered to handle Reddit interactions. Now into the meat of the post.
Do you want ot evolve into something other than fully human, but not comfortable with uploading your mind into a computer or leaving your body behind? Then we might be the group for you.
Welcome to the Cubi Foundation.
We are building a real community and ethical foundation for humans consciously evolving into Cubi (Succubi=female /Incubi=Male) — a new species blending transhumanism technology, bio-augmentation, and a culture of consensual desire, connection, and vitality.
This is not a fantasy art group, quick-biohacking hype, or a finished product. We're in the early stages: forming rituals, discussing ethical enhancements, creating support structures, and laying groundwork so the future doesn't run wild or get hijacked.
Core: Consent above all. Advancement with wisdom. Community over spectacle.
We are in our earliest stages, where we are still growing and forming the foundation of members to make the online community. Once we are large enough, then we will start founding a town or two to help bring our group out of the internet and into the real world.
The biggest body changes we are focusing on are higher metabolism, changing of skin color ranging from bright pink to imp red, Horns of various sizes and shapes, wings that, even if we will never be able to fly (Boo physics) they will be a key indicator of our emotions and mating. Tails ending in heart-shaped tips. Another thing we are adding to the biology that will be unique to our interpretation of succubi/incubi is having heart-shaped pupils that can glow with bioluminescence that reacts with emotion.
If this sounds interesting to you, then please engage with us, especially on X, since things are borked over there.
I’ve been thinking about at what point medical neurotechnology becomes transhumanist enhancement.
A lot of brain-computer interface or neuromodulation work is currently designed for restoring function: paralysis, blindness, depression, Parkinson’s, epilepsy, stroke, addiction, etc. That feels ethically easier to defend because the technology is helping someone recover or manage something harmful.
But if the same underlying technology eventually improves memory, attention, sensory processing, emotional regulation, or direct AR-style perception in healthy people, when is it more than medical technology? At what point do regulators discern between approving the technology for use and approving the application of the technology?
Where would you draw the line between therapy and enhancement - or is there one?
Most discussions about digital immortality assume the goal is to copy the brain somehow. But if continuity of consciousness actually matters, then copying may completely miss the point.
A copied brain could behave identically.
It could have the same memories.
It could genuinely believe it’s you.
And yet your own subjective experience may still end. So maybe the real direction isn’t copying a mind into a machine.
Maybe it’s gradually extending the biological mind itself:
Not replacing the person in one moment. But slowly expanding the same ongoing process over time.
If that’s true, then the future of human survival may look less like “uploading¨and more like becoming increasingly synthetic while never experiencing a break in consciousness. At what point would a human stop being biological while still remaining the same person?
In the novel I'm working on, I have two characters that undergo this process via a neural network bridge (ex-vivo transfer?) from the biological neurons in brain A to synthetic in brain B, rather than an in-place replacement. It also allows the characters to change bodies as they upgrade their minds so to speak.
I was under the impression this is the most scientifically grounded method because if performed in-place it would basically cook the biological brain - injecting billions of nanobots inside the same skull - but if performed as a functional bridge, then the original can survive using the same method of neural communication (neuroplasticity) that already exists in our own mind, while spanning it across to the new neurons in a new body.
Here is an example of how one scene is portrayed, the POV seeing it as a kin-of "hallucinated spacial narrative": "The world began to dissolve around Travis as he closed his eyes. He found himself in a tunnel following a stream of light for what seemed like an eternity. It was as though he was moved between two realities as he felt new sensations taking form while others shut down. When the world began to reshape, he slowly opened his eyes, feeling much lighter than before."
As you can see, it's sort of a bottleneck transfer based on what I heard was the "functional" view, opposed to a "materialist" or biological essentialist one, which defines consciousness as being tied to the carbon atoms we were born with, and is sometimes religious in nature.
Have I done a good job at preserving the original person? It's very important for my narrative.
What increasingly strikes me is that the strongest near-term aging interventions may not be one grand therapy.
They may be layered: targeted senolysis, immune surveillance enhancement, tissue repair, and maybe partial reprogramming later on, right?
That is less dramatic than “immortality,” but arguably more plausible.
If that’s the path, then the real milestone isn’t “curing aging” in one shot; it’s building therapies that keep pushing back multiple aging drivers faster than damage accumulates.
Curious whether that feels like a realistic transhumanist path or just a slower version of the same old promises.
I accidentally came across this sub and found the concept really interesting, so I wanted to bring this up.
Some background: I've been trying the dnsys x1 walking assist device as someone with Parkinson's.
For me, the main issue is leg fatigue. I can walk, but my legs wear out before the rest of me is ready to stop. This device doesn't solve everything, especially balance, stiffness, or freezing, but it does change how much energy walking costs.
How it works: the fit took some adjusting. Once the cuffs sat higher near my lower thighs, it felt more stable. Eco mode is pretty subtle, while sport and the stronger assist mode are more noticeable on hills.
How I feel about it: it doesn't make me "superhuman". It just makes short walks and easy hikes feel possible again without being completely wiped out afterward.
So my question is: would you consider this kind of tech an example of transhumanism?
The residency program has a workload of 80 hours per week, and I'll be entering general surgery, one of the most demanding residencies. I'm 23 and have no comorbidities.