Welcome! These forums will be deactivated by the end of this year. The conversation continues in a new morph over on Discord! Please join us there for a more active conversation and the occasional opportunity to ask developers questions directly! Go to the PS+ Discord Server.

The downlow on uplifts.

12 posts / 0 new
Last post
bRA1N-b0X bRA1N-b0X's picture
The downlow on uplifts.
I have been working my way reading "The Panopticon" (Volume 1, of course, not sure there's another out yet that would require this specificity). Fascinating, of course, but I have a question I am not sure is addressed elsewhere or not, and if it is, please point me to where I can find it. Why were animals uplifted at all? Besides hubris or the countless other motivations suggested in the book, wouldn't it be easier to just make the neo-animal "ego-ready?" Forget granting a consciousness with countless permutations and consequences TO the creature, just have it merely made an option for sleeving by human or artificial ego? (And, for that matter, why worry about AI when there's consciousness available pretty much within everyone you know?) Is this because they were uplifted under that intention, originally? Just to provide alternative morphs? Which came first, the chicken or the neo-chicken?
Pyrite Pyrite's picture
Re: The downlow on uplifts.
Several reasons I can think of, some benign and others malicious: 1: Because it was hard. Seriously, it's stated that research into uplifts was a major factor in what drove cognitive science to it's present state. A big, incredibly difficult and complex but fairly easily measurable goal similar to putting a man on the moon, to drive research and have a public face to put on it. 2: A diversity of perspectives. An uplifted dolphin or octopus or avian will have an inherently different mindset than a human, allowing for another angle on various sorts of problem solving. 3: The ability to create an easily isolated minority with limited rights. Many of the hypercorps make a lot of use out of uplifted workers who are legally considered owned property rather than people. 4: Mindsets inherently adjusted for specific roles. Neo-Avian pilots, octopi in microgravity, neo-dolphins who can use T-Ray emitters with the same intuitive instinct as their native echolocation. 5:Hubris. If you can make a new type of person, doesn't that make you just a little like a god? Panopticon goes into a lot more detail about it, and I'd recommend it highly to anyone who thinks the details of the setting are important.
'No language is justly studied merely as an aid to other purposes. It will in fact better serve other purposes, philological or historical, when it is studied for love, for itself.' --J.R.R. Tolkien
GreyBrother GreyBrother's picture
Re: The downlow on uplifts.
One of the most fitting quotes regarding to uplifts you can find in the movie (i can't remember if it came up in the book) Jurassic Park: "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should." And basically that happened. Most scientists in uplift were more interested in "can we do it" and found some backers with a whole set of different motivations and until now, it worked out. No screams, no habitats with bloody floor, partially uplifted creatures roaming some hydropondic jungle, which sprang up from an overactive life-support AI. Thinking about it, Jurassic Park offers probably one of the best inspirations for Eclipse Phase horror without exsurgents.
Arenamontanus Arenamontanus's picture
Re: The downlow on uplifts.
The cognitive science angle is quite important, if subtle. Here is a take on it: How was uploading achieved? The first stages were fairly straightforward - high resolution scanning equipment, computational neuroscience and lots and lots of destructive testing of small pieces of neural tissue. Eventually it got to the level of small mammals. Now, in the real world I think at this point it would be just a matter of scaling things up and soon you would have human uploads. However, let's posit that in EP they ran into roadblocks: the bigger brain emulations did not work as they ought to according to theory. The problems were high-level cognitive issues rather than low-level neural issues. Maybe it was something weird with their consciousness, but it was impossible to tell from the outside. The researchers needed test animals that could report back what they were experiencing. Meanwhile other cognitive science had begun nosing around uplifting for other reasons - general curiosity about cognition, for testing cognition enhancement intended for humans, to test out ways of growing customized brains (which would later turn out to be really useful for making morph brains - those +5 SAV and INT bonuses have to come from somewhere). So getting uplifts for testing uploading made complete sense: you would have a fairly human-like brain that can learn things and report its subjective state, and is not protected by regulations about person-hood (here I am assuming the generally dystopian standard EP view: in reality it seems easier to get human subjects permission than to use animals - especially primates - for much research, especially if it is a postmortem brain donated to science). So the big projects in neuroscience were all benefiting from uplift projects, and there was a fedback. One can imagine it as the Apollo Project producing useful results to the Large Hadron Collider and the Human Genome Project, and vice versa - the first uploaded uplifts gave valuable clues to what was going wrong in the process, and early crude uploading helped map out what should be fixed in uplift brains, and all of this really helping figuring out how minds in general really work and can be changed. Good for everybody, except maybe some of the research materials. "We do what we must because we can For the good of all of us Except the ones who are dead" :-)
Extropian
MrPrim MrPrim's picture
Re: The downlow on uplifts.
My question is... :stares at brain-box for hours, suddenly having weird internet flashbacks: ... anywhoo, my question is: Why are the Hypercorps working on NEW Uplift strains? Humanity is stretched to the breaking point. Making new beings with murky civil rights doesn't seem like a particularly useful or economical use of resources. We already have so many extant Egos that we don't know what to do with them all, why would profit-seeking organizations bother to design more? I can understand the "Research for Research's Sake" argument... before the Fall. But now? When everything is in turmoil? There's no reason I can come up with why anyone would bother. If you need cheap ethically murky slave-labor, stick a bunch of Infogees in some custom-designed tin cans and put them to work - it's a lot easier than spending years tinkering and trying to make dogs that bite their own hands. You don't CREATE sapient life just to sell it, when there's a glut of sapient life in the system begging for work. It just seems like a bad plan to me. Now, in Anarchist/Autonomist habs? Pursued by obsessive geneartists? Sure, that makes sense. But I can't figure out a plausible reason why the Hypercorps would get in on this actions. Anyone got any way to make this idea work?
Pyrite Pyrite's picture
Re: The downlow on uplifts.
It was my understanding that the inner system hypercorps were largely getting out of full-uplift research, for exactly those reasons, and that the new cash cow was smart animals, who have most of the usefulness without that pesky self-awareness and social conscience getting in the way. Most types of uplifts already exist, and while I imagine the hypercorps are applying some new research to what they already have, I don't think they're majorly pushing down that path of inquiry anymore.
'No language is justly studied merely as an aid to other purposes. It will in fact better serve other purposes, philological or historical, when it is studied for love, for itself.' --J.R.R. Tolkien
bRA1N-b0X bRA1N-b0X's picture
Re: The downlow on uplifts.
Hi, Prim. I see you have moved into new waters, too. Strange that new waters have familiar fish/people... Anyway, I understand the motivations, and agree with some more than others, and there doesn't need to be a singular one. The surplus of egos waiting for reinstantiation is a long list and the more options for sleeving are certainly to the benefit of transhumanity as a whole. Even if animals were uplifted to offer those other options, I would imagine the process of making such a morph a viable vessel for transhuman egos would lead to emerging consciousness, whether intended or not. In order to house consciousness, a consciousness needed to be found to have adequate "room." Of course, most models of known consciousness around that time were human, so they would be easier to read and gauge development. The Panopticon goes into some of that. Consciousness seems to be a side-effect rather than the goal, in the case of morph development. (Which makes me wonder about morph production in general. Do they get "built" without a local/native consciousness, or does it get wiped before emergence takes hold? The difficulty lies in determining if cog-sci is merely creating vessels where consciousness finds its way in from "somewhere else," or if it is legitimately created out of whole cloth. After all, we may have harnessed and managed to generate electrical power, but electricity is as old as the universe. We didn't invent electricity, per se. I know there's other threads that are dealing with that, somewhere.)
The Doctor The Doctor's picture
Re: The downlow on uplifts.
MrPrim wrote:
Now, in Anarchist/Autonomist habs? Pursued by obsessive geneartists? Sure, that makes sense. But I can't figure out a plausible reason why the Hypercorps would get in on this actions.
There is another possible reason that Autonomist habitats may engage in uplifting research: Ethics. There is an argument in biomedical ethics that says that it is both good and correct to atempt to grant human-equivalent sentience to animals when it becomes possible to do so. One might consider the possibility that this is the argument played out in those habitats. As for Hypercorps, profitable spin-offs from R&D are always welcome. From modifying animal brains to host more human-like consciousness, the possibility of serendipitous discovery of new cognitive augmentations, neurological implants, and design ideas for morphs would be very real. R&D costs in the short term that lead to long term revenue streams resulting in profit are worthwhile investments.
GreyBrother GreyBrother's picture
Re: The downlow on uplifts.
Panopticon actually states quite directly, that there is no major research into uplifting new species. The reasoning is simple: The "low-hanging fruit" is already taken, every other animal species lacks default cognitive abilities which makes it that much more expensive to uplift properly.
MrPrim MrPrim's picture
Re: The downlow on uplifts.
It does say that... and then it goes onto a discussion of current new Uplift plans and the latest Uplift arms race. The narrator even makes a comment about betting that Dogs will get Uplifted before Cats. EDIT: Man, I wrote this this morning and it seems to have come off, snippy. I didn't intend for that. My bad, ya'll, my bad.
bRA1N-b0X bRA1N-b0X's picture
Re: The downlow on uplifts.
MrPrim wrote:
It does say that... and then it goes onto a discussion of current new Uplift plans and the latest Uplift arms race. The narrator even makes a comment about betting that Dogs will get Uplifted before Cats. EDIT: Man, I wrote this this morning and it seems to have come off, snippy. I didn't intend for that. My bad, ya'll, my bad.
I'm not sure where, but the book also mentions that there certainly is the possibility in continued research, and mostly the mad scientist kind. The official word may be "no more uplifts" but it could just be sleight of hand. Also, the advent of "smart pets" they are capable of placating the public into not only believing they've stopped such unethical experimentation (by someone's standards, anyway), while also giving consumers a shiny new toy. I haven't read up on smart animals yet, so I don't know. There are many factions, though, for and against uplifting, some are terrorist or activist types, I think. ..."Uplifht arms race" -- tee hee. :) In the case of various other animals one might need to replace that with a different limb, or else in answer to how some uplifts are given arms and such.
GreyBrother GreyBrother's picture
Re: The downlow on uplifts.
I didn't read it as snippy :) Yes, they still want to develop it, but as far as i understand it (and this is mostly on a "I read it once and remember it that way" basis), the big investors didn't bail out, but severely limited their funds into projects that are aimed at developing more "usable" products, like the aforementioned smart animals. So the guys who still say "we need to uplift more species" are either Mad Scientists, Furries or Uplifts themselves who want more diversity.