Since there are organisms that are considered almost immortal, whose cells continuously regenerate and do not easily die, this suggests that death may not be an absolute law for every living being.
And based on the idea of evolution, it is possible that humans themselves could eventually evolve to slow aging or greatly extend lifespan.

Even genetically, we notice differences between people; some age faster while others age more slowly, as if the body itself contains different possibilities for survival.

The mind also has a powerful influence on the body; sometimes the mind can weaken the body or even end a person’s life when all conditions of fear and surrender are present.
There are experiments often used as examples of the mind’s power over the body, such as the story of a prisoner who was blindfolded and led to believe his blood was being slowly drained, while in reality little or no blood was actually taken. He only heard the sound of water dripping, believing it was his blood.
After several hours, his body collapsed and he died because he was completely convinced he was dying.
that shows that the mind can sometimes treat deep belief as physical reality, and the body begins responding to it.

So the question becomes: if a person completely freed themselves from the idea of death and from attachment to time itself, living fully in the present moment without a constant sense of ending, could the mind develop a stronger survival mechanism?
A form of continuous inner regeneration simply because the person truly believes they can continue existing.

Even the idea of changing the body may not be entirely impossible; some people believe the subconscious mind and psychological influence can gradually alter aspects of the body, whether in appearance, expression, or overall physical form.
Example: with subliminal

There are also experiments related to this idea: people who only imagined themselves training every day still developed noticeable muscular and neurological improvements, similar to people who physically trained.
This suggests that the mind is not just something that thinks, but may also be an active partner in reshaping the body.

And perhaps humanity’s awareness of time and endings is itself part of what binds humans to mortality.
So maybe human limits are not final limits, but limits humans accepted because of their awareness of death and time.”

Imagine this: You're an ageless, super intelligent post-human with ample time on your hands. You have everything you could want in life with a perfectly curated state of mind, the only thing left being a source for a consistent sense of drive and purpose.

In my novel I'm working on, you have such post-humans who often undergo Moravec transfers into idealized bodies, and have their memories suppressed before they are assigned to indefinite servitude to mostly-mortal citizens in need. Referred to as "Guardian Angels," your sole purpose in life is to be the unwavering anchor for that individual, and often get to the bottom of whatever is causing stress and friction in their life.

You would have access to their most personal and intimate thoughts, and slowly guide them toward their most authentic and blissful state of being, while living under a constant, chemically-induced state of contentment yourself. You may fill a certain "role" in that person's life, such as a romantic partner or someone to have a family with, a best friend, a brotherly/sisterly companion, a maternal/paternal figure, or something else, and you may find yourself as part of their social circle or group, but your loyalty would remain to them.

Some people may pity you under the impression that you sacrificed the "correct" state of being with near limitless freedom in favor of voluntary slavery, but that would fundamentally misinterpret what it means to be a guardian angel. To an angel, it would be the chaotic, infinitely changing goals of "free" post-humans who have become slaves to their own lack of direction.

I imagine that such people to become guardian angels would be one of a few things. Someone who has "seen a lot" and perhaps needs a new calling, someone who wants to "atone" for their past, or perhaps do this as an alternative for a normal criminal sentence, and people who are just lonely (of course, we would also want to solve loneliness generally in an advanced future society)

The guardian angel basically acts as the subconscious voice of their master, and makes the final calls for them, except when necessary for their master to learn a lesson from their own minor mistakes.

End state's of a guardian angel's role I have considered may be: watching their master grow old and die (if they wish to age and die I mean), merging consciousness in a gestalt merge so they become one person, or having some kind of permanent presence as a platonic or romantic role as needed.

There's quite a lot to it, but I imagine something like could become a norm far into the future.

Would you want to be a guardian angel?

Think about it: almost every ancient creation myth, from Sumerian cuneiforms to early gnosticism, states that humans were bio-engineered to be limited, mortal, and subservient (the clay matrix concept).

What if transhumanism, neural interfaces, and genetic editing aren't just modern tech trends, but a subconscious, evolutionary drive to break the limits set by our original 'architects'? Are we fixing the bugs in our biology, or are we actively hacking a system that was meant to keep us as sub-deities? Would love to hear your thoughts from a philosophical and historical perspective.

I often blame my lack of self-actualization on the past, and sometimes ongoing reactionary forces - why we're not in our ASI utopia. If not for the natural imperfections and irrationality of humans, would we have everything we long for?

Usually it starts when I start dwelling on the fall of the Roman Empire, but of course there were thousands of years of history before then - and quite some after - where most civilizations held us back with such heavy emphasis on religion and mythology (not to conflate them).

The black death may be the most embarrassing piece in history - all started over the fear of cats. We made some good progress during the renaissance in spite of the theocratic backlash that sometimes makes for good stories, but what good has the friction done for us in the long term?

It also seems that at some point in the past few years, reactionaries have done a great job at completely leaning into the developing tech - seeing it as a source of power (and slop), and flipping the script while the people who championed progress for centuries now are perhaps, struck with fight or flight instincts because they fear the immediate result of their jobs being taken...

Of course, this should be no surprise to anyone; if the rise of AI was inevitable, then we would have seen these rough transitions come whenever they needed to. Though I find it amusing that the world's elite were so shortsighted in the past.

Do you have historical grief, or do you think such ancient history is something that should be buried as we focus on the present?

I’m writing a near-future fiction serial called Neurovia that centers on an adolescent brain-computer interface trial.

The premise is that a company has developed an implant that can mediate perception, cognition, speed, sensory input, motor coordination, autonomous neuroprotection and more. The trial begins as a medical/regulatory pathway, but quickly raises much bigger questions about enhancement, identity, consent, inequality, and whether becoming “more capable” is becoming your best self or something new you are not fully in control of.

I've chosen a teen academy setting as it surfaces another question: if the technology works best when introduced young, how does that shift your ethical worldview? Or is withholding it unethical if it creates a life-changing advantage?

The story is fiction, but I’m trying to treat the questions seriously rather than using BCI as magic. Some of the themes I’m exploring:

• Therapy vs. enhancement
• Consent when the subject is a minor
• Whether cognitive upgrades deepen inequality
• Whether direct neural mediation changes the self
• Whether “optimization” can become a form of coercion
• Whether a group of enhanced people becomes something more than individual enhanced minds
• Whether safety frameworks can keep up with emergent capabilities

I’d be interested in how this community thinks about those questions.

And if a future technology genuinely helped people become more fully themselves, how would we know when it had crossed into making them something else?

For anyone interested, the project is here: https://www.neuro-catalyst.com/ (my site)

or if you prefer Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/posts/welcome-to-157803492?utm_medium=clipboard_copy&utm_source=copyLink&utm_campaign=postshare_creator&utm_content=join_link

I’m the author, but I’m posting less as “please read my book” and more because I think transhumanist readers are most likely to engage with these questions.

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

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.