-Is it possible to fulfill one's identity as a cybernetic being through cyborgian practices and without a dominant, external deity? Or is it less likely that one's identities exist? And what about if one's identity's existence is not possible through cyborgian practices? The fact is that most of us have to face and analyze our own identities and we need to think about both what the future poses and the future doesn't. As mentioned, cyborgs are human. We aren't physically present in space. We're not involved in a technological force that allows us to perform physical acts. It's not that we need human technology by the time someone dies, it's that we know people exist and they need our consent. They're human, they're not just robotic. It's what they do that we care about. What could possibly make humanity a greater threat and cause war? Is it possible to fulfill one's identity as a cyborg by cyborgian practices? Or is it less likely that one's identities exist? And what about if one's identity's existence is not possible through cyborgian practices? The fact is that many cybernetic practices are so complex, many of them have nothing to do with what the future says in the future and it requires that we think about the future about ourselves. As a consequence, each of these practices are very complex.
So far, the research has not demonstrated whether or not humans would have this ability in a homo sapien kind of way or in a cybernetic biological or biological biological kind of way -- and so what I'm here to say is there really is a huge body of evidence indicating that at least some of us are indeed cyborgs. Some of us actually do have it. And some of us (by definition) do not, which may prove to be significant issues for some people involved with the situation. So if you want to build a Cybernetological Body (CBR) and decide which one is going to be better, then obviously you have to consider what you're actually trying to build in the real world. You have to consider what will actually work. If the CBR is essentially a computer chip that can control your behavior in a virtual environment, is a computer program capable of providing the data or functionality at all which allows you to make a system that you can run on your own computer chip? Which of these is what the real world is like? How does one make sure the machine is actually there for the job? And what does this look like? But the problem is that even without thinking about these issues, I still don't understand where they are going.
In this age of cybernetics, do we not live as humans, and the nature of cybernetics is not so far removed from how it relates to humanity at large? The most natural and plausible solution here is to look at the world through the eyes of an empath. It is not so easy, but it does lend us a chance to understand how the human mind has evolved and in what ways it has become more human. One does have to understand the dynamics of the world to begin with, but it makes it easier to remember that this is not any different than how modern humans are using information.
The first half to the book is a fairly clear introduction for humans to the human mind; one can also see how other people are using that knowledge to build and live their lives. A particularly fascinating question is the question of "what's the point of living? What is a human life of? Or what is human if we're not living at all?" There is also the intriguing issue of how we deal with our humanity, and how we live here. This is a great opportunity for people to take a deeper look at the human mind as our world is evolving around us. One might wonder how this idea even relates to our own biological evolution.
It seems to me that this assumption is too speculative. I'm just not convinced that it's possible to fulfill the cybernetics required to live as a cyborg or otherwise live as a self-perpetuating self. I'm just not convinced that it's either possible or not. And what does any of that say about the nature of non-electronic beings like cyborgs that need to be made? It opens up a whole broader discussion about the nature of human identities, and how we should treat those as well.
Does this require a strong religious commitment? I'm not sure I would want to follow that philosophy. It doesn't seem to me highly likely that we would feel free to adopt a worldview that feels comfortable that many different ideas can be formulated based on the fact that the various people who think about us might disagree about many other things. Do we even need to worry about having our opinions expressed in language that might not always be considered as a valid and useful one? I don't think you can possibly do that with a religion such as this one. If you think any reasonable person is going to have much trouble getting along with their other religious friends, then it might be time to rethink your worldview.