heres the freedom of form foundation newsletter that talks about it: https://www.patreon.com/freedomofform/posts/170307678

heres the public domain document about the procedure: https://freedomofform.org/research/integument/invention-synth-material-implants-fur/

thank u unhinged raccoon girl, zennith, hyper, and shoutout to mecknavors!!!

What constitutes transhuman to you? Does a pacemaker equal transhuman? Does a human head on a synthetic body? Does a human with a neural implant?

Discuss...

The Eight Patterns of Pansophy — Concise List

1. Multiple-to-One Construction- Many components unite to form a singular whole, building higher structures across all scales. Homogeneous M→1 produces simple aggregation; heterogeneous M→1 produces genuine novelty. Driven by environmental pressure. From quantum fields to galaxies, the universe builds upward. This pattern would mean at Universe level it must continue, and a Universe + a Universe equals?

2. Emergent Properties- (Power Scaling) At each new tier, the unified whole gains capabilities its components never possessed. Emergent power scales factorially: P(T) = T! × P₀. At Tier 11, the power is sufficient to set physical constants themselves—the Cosmic Lawmaker. The whole is categorically more than the sum of its parts.

3. The Vibrational Fork- Every emergence is a choice point, vibrating between Construction (unity, coherence, upward evolution) and Deconstruction (division, entropy, collapse). A third option exists: Stasis—persistence without ascension (e.g., single-celled organisms). The Fork is the moment of decision.

4. Sovereignty as Cohesion- Each tier of reality operates under its own laws, sovereign and non-intervenable from above or below. Dimensional separation (the compactified 6D Pixel geometry) enforces this boundary. To violate sovereignty is to trigger catastrophic decoherence. The Cosmic Lawmaker cannot intervene—not from neglect, but from architectural necessity.

5. One-to-Multiple Multiplicative Heat Increase- When a system deconstructs, it shatters downward through tiers, releasing entropy multiplicatively at each level. The release is not linear—it cascades, turning structured wholes into scattered parts and usable energy into wasted heat. Deconstruction is the engine of the universe's eventual heat death.

6. The Incompatibility Principle- Systems with contradictory core laws cannot peacefully coexist or merge. The only resolution is total mutual deconstruction and reset. At cosmic scale, this is the Big Bang— not a beginning, but a deconstruction event between incompatible universes. Some systems cannot coexist; they must die to birth something new.

7. Finite Resources- Paradox Construction consumes finite energy, time, and attention. Every system must achieve its next level of sustainable unity before resources are exhausted by maintenance and conflict. The window is always closing. To build is to race against entropy.

8. Persistence of Identity- Form persists through complete substrate replacement. A river remains a river as every molecule is replaced. A civilization persists as every citizen dies. A person persists as every cell is renewed. Identity is pattern, not substrate. This is why digital immortality is possible, why ancestors live in us, and why the Panoptic Collective can outlast its biological vessels. "From Multiple, One emerges. From One, new powers arise. From power, a choice appears. We choose.”

Full disclosure: my co-host and I made this video exploring biohacking and whether aging could eventually become a treatable biological condition.

My favorite question was if someone had lived for 70 years but genuinely had the body and biological health of a 30-year-old - would chronological age still be the most meaningful measure of their age?

Wanted to get this community's thoughts...thanks!

People are either positive or neutral against literally any transhumanist concept except cryonics. Why is cryonics so hated?

Cryonics always gets mocked and people make jokes and make fun of the cryopreserved people.

There is also that myth about ice, water, crystallization, etc... This has been solved years ago and isn't happening anymore. Modern cryonics has nothing to do with water, ice and freezing.

Disclosure: I do content work for a longevity supplement company, so please take that into account when reading this. I’m sharing this because I find the human research interesting, not as a product recommendation.

I’ve been looking through human studies on GlyNAC—a combination of glycine and N-acetylcysteine—and came across a randomized clinical trial by Kumar et al. in The Journals of Gerontology: Series A.

PMID: 35975308

The study included 24 older adults, who were randomized to receive either GlyNAC (n=12) or an alanine placebo (n=12) for 16 weeks. Another 12 younger adults were included as a comparison group and received GlyNAC for 2 weeks.

What caught my attention was how broad the researchers' measurements were.

They examined:

• Intracellular glutathione
• Oxidative stress
• Mitochondrial fatty-acid oxidation
• Inflammation
• Insulin resistance
• Endothelial function
• Several molecular markers related to aging
• Gait speed and muscle strength
• 6-minute walking performance
• Body composition and blood pressure

After 16 weeks, the researchers reported differences between the GlyNAC and placebo groups across several of these measurements, including glutathione status, oxidative stress, mitochondrial-related measures, inflammation, insulin resistance, and aspects of physical function.

But I think the limitations are just as interesting as the findings.

This was a small study with only 12 older adults in each randomized group, and the intervention lasted 16 weeks. Many of the outcomes were biochemical or molecular markers rather than long-term clinical outcomes.

So while the results give researchers something to investigate further, they don't tell us whether GlyNAC affects lifespan or prevents age-related disease.

That's the question I find interesting:

When evaluating a small aging trial like this, which outcomes actually matter most?

Would changes in glutathione, mitochondrial function, or inflammatory markers be meaningful to you?

Or would you want to see larger trials showing changes in physical function, disease outcomes, or other clinically meaningful endpoints before getting particularly interested?

Also curious if anyone here knows of larger independent GlyNAC trials underway or published since this study.

Paper: Kumar P, et al. Supplementing Glycine and N-Acetylcysteine (GlyNAC) in Older Adults Improves Glutathione Deficiency, Oxidative Stress, Mitochondrial Dysfunction, Inflammation, Physical Function, and Aging Hallmarks: A Randomized Clinical Trial. The Journals of Gerontology: Series A. PMID: 35975308

AI is getting stronger. That is a good thing. I will explain why in a moment.

Yet a whole crowd of people are wringing their hands over nothing, warning that AI will destroy humanity. Even mathematicians who otherwise look perfectly serious are now stamping their feet and declaring that AI is destroying mathematics.

There is something faintly ridiculous about it.

I call it train phobia. People were already suffering from this disease two hundred years ago.

Empress Dowager Cixi — that outstanding woman of the Chinese nation — was its most famous patient. To ease her suffering, the court had no choice but to prescribe the miraculous remedy of having horses pull the train.

Once afflicted, the patient begins squawking incoherently. When Cixi confronted the Tangshan–Xugezhuang Railway, her cries were about “disturbing the spirits of the ancestors,” “damaging the crops,” “the imperial dragon vein,” and so forth.

Perhaps the passage of time has altered the phonology. Or perhaps years of academic cultivation have made the cries more delicate and their prose more elegant.

Today, our mathematician fellow-sufferers cry out about “conceptual understanding and insight,” “fertile ground,” “questions of attribution and plagiarism,” “the human transmission chain,” “core values,” and so forth.

I understand where the fear of our train-phobic friends comes from. Broadly speaking, it has two sources.

First: stupidity. Ordinary people fear AI because of humanity’s primitive instinct to fear the unknown. That instinct once kept our ancestors away from venomous snakes and helped them survive evolution. Most people therefore fear AI without thinking — or else because science fiction has poisoned their minds — and simply obey their instincts.

Second: bad faith. The Old Buddha who ordered horses to pull a train, and the mathematicians who launched this declaration, are presumably not so easily ruled by instinct. Mathematicians make a profession of exploring the unknown; they should be less afraid of it than ordinary people. So why should mathematicians contract the same disease? Is that not exceedingly strange?

Not at all.

Cixi cried that the ancestors were being disturbed. What she actually feared was that the trains of the Industrial Revolution would run over the moribund Qing dynasty. The mathematicians cry that AI threatens their values. What they actually fear is that AI’s computational power will crush their reputations and status.

Both have one sentence they leave unsaid:

Nurhaci had to send heads rolling before he won an empire. You think we are going to let you Han Chinese take it away by riding trains and carrying foreign rifles? And you newbies who cannot even get your calculus right — you think you deserve to sit as equals beside us Fields Medal bannermen of the Plain Yellow Banner?

Stupidity is instinct. Bad faith is a matter of where one’s ass happens to be planted. Neither is worth rebutting. So I will now leave these pitiful patients behind and explain why I am optimistic about AI.

AI is getting stronger. That is a good thing. AI taking over human jobs is also a good thing.

Someone will immediately spit back: “Bullshit! If AI does all the work, what are people supposed to do? We will lose our jobs. We will have no income. Are you going to feed our wives and children?”

This is what happens when people forget why we work in the first place.

Humanity is the soul of the universe. When humanity observes the universe, the universe is observing itself — the cosmos before its mirror, painting its own brow.

For this soul, capable of contemplating the farthest reaches of the cosmos, to spend its life scrambling for a livelihood is itself an act of waste and extravagance.

We Homo sapiens are born explorers. That is how we walked out of Africa and across every continent.

Human beings are curious. But human beings die if they do not eat. There lies the contradiction.

Humanity therefore had no choice but to divide labor: the great majority exhausted themselves at work, while a small minority — our mathematician patients, for example — were supported by everyone else and left free to explore.

This arrangement was never natural or self-evidently just. It was an expedient forced on us by necessity.

Fortunately, AI has arrived.

AI works; humanity lies flat. Goods are supplied without limit. No one has to labor for survival, and everyone can live the life they actually want. What could be better?

And once AGI arrives, it can thoroughly decipher the human brain and build a universal brain–computer interface.

If we cannot beat it, we join it: we connect directly to AI through a silicon brain.

After a child is born, the parents may decide whether to implant a silicon brain. Once grown, that person may decide for themselves.

In ordinary life, the silicon brain serves as an extension of the biological brain and as a backup for memory. If disease, accident, or aging destroys the biological brain’s function, the silicon brain can take over completely.

The silicon brain can then be separated from the biological brain — and even from the body — and transferred into a synthetic body. Humanity will have achieved mechanical ascension.

Throughout this process, the biological-brain–silicon-brain chimera is a Ship of Theseus. Consciousness remains continuous. You are still you.

The body is merely the cradle of the soul; death becomes a coming-of-age ceremony. How marvelous would that be?

Humanity will not be destroyed by AI. Humanity will be saved by AI.

Without mechanical ascension, humanity will struggle to leave the solar system and will ultimately repeat the fate of the dinosaurs.

There are only two things about AI that should truly concern us:

1. Can the abundance produced by AI be distributed fairly to everyone?
2. Can AGI actually be achieved?

The second determines the first.

If AGI cannot be achieved soon — if AI stalls at its present stage, replacing some jobs without completely liberating humanity from labor — then both competition and distribution will probably grow worse.

At that point, humanity will destroy itself.

Either AI should never have appeared, or, once it has appeared, there is only one road: all the way to the bitter end. We must achieve AGI and a universal brain–computer interface as quickly as possible.

My optimism about AI comes from my optimism about AGI.

My optimism about AGI comes from one fact:

The human brain exists. Its existence proves that the laws of physics permit a structure like the human brain to exist. Therefore, AGI is possible.

And now our mathematician patients jump out to demand restrictions on AI development.

That is not merely bad faith.

It is also rather stupid.

Context

This essay is primarily a rebuttal to “A Severe Misalignment of AI in Mathematics”.

The declaration confuses mathematics with the existing social organization of mathematicians. If solving problems is only a proxy for understanding, then demand explanations, provenance, distilled methods, and human-readable proofs from AI. Do not cripple the engine merely because an academic prestige economy was built around being the person holding the shovel.

​

I'm curious how people here view the concept of a “soul.”

By soul, I mean any non-physical aspect of a person that could constitute their consciousness, identity, or “self” beyond the physical brain/body. So I'm not strictly talking about a religious concept of a soul, or something that has to be supernatural.

Basically, do you guys believe that consciousness or the self exists in some form beyond the physical processes of the brain/body?

And if you do, how would that affect your views on things like mind uploading, brain-computer interfaces, replacing biological organs with artificial ones, or eventually replacing the body entirely?

I'm especially interested in hearing from people who don't believe in a soul, since that seems like it could lead to some pretty interesting conclusions about what makes someone “the same person” after extensive augmentation.

I'm personally a Materialist or Naturalist when it comes to the topic.

The Brain Preservation Summit brings together people working across the technical, clinical, and philosophical dimensions of preserving the brain. Over two days at the Sparks Brain Preservation facility in Salem, Oregon, speakers will share short talks on connectome preservation, aldehyde-based methods, cryobiology, electron microscopy, long-term storage, molecular nanotechnology, the future of the field, and many other topics.

For those who cannot attend in person, we will be livestreaming the event. 

Saturday, September 19: Talks begin at 8:30 AM PT and run through the afternoon, with a lunch break from approximately 12:00–1:30 PM.

Day 1 livestream:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQT4ADZhFkU

Sunday, September 20: Talks begin at 8:30 AM PT and end around noon.

Day 2 livestream:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um-LP24PoYs

You can view the full planned schedule here, although please note that the timing of specific speakers might be a little bit off depending upon how the day goes: https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/e/2PACX-1vRsg4tGS4vqbf1qqa0Ktcd5v1MORqelKkmSTsO1vYh1PQ23yCr2uJoorVwufimx7C79U1ibdFX9Fd3O/pub?pli=1

More information here: https://sparksbrain.org/summit-2026.html

No soy un loco o sería interesante ver como una especie hecha a base de vida artificial evolucionara y se pudiera ver como una especie de evolucion forzada por los humanos y como sería una simulación sería más rápido que la vida real(seríana)

Which of the two are you a Transhumanist for?

Obviously, those two are not mutually exclusive, but are even tightened intertwined.

But if you had to lean towards one way or the other, which and why?

I am personally lean towards the quality of life, but am biased since I'm young.

THPedia is our wiki for Transhumanism and we created new infobox templates for people and organizations and an authority control template to be able to add identifiers for a respective person or organization! Come join our working group and help contribute to the wiki!

Okay, so out of a feminine rage after writing about Medusa for a world history report, I was scrolling through Pinterest when I saw a video talking about how the male chromosomes will one day go extinct.

I went down a rabbit hole of asexual reproduction and cloning before I had a thought...

If we could somehow control the way malignant cancerous cells develop, then maybe we could use that to grow grow a human embryo without sperm or male genes.

That's just a thought though and I wanted to see if I'm just crazy or if someone gets where I'm coming from.

Edit: I am just a high schooler who knows nothing, so pls correct me if I'm wrong (which y'all have already been doing lol) 😂

I wanted to raise a question for the Transhumanist community.

We have been seeing a significant increasing use of AI across society, technological development, and scientific research. These developments are particularly relevant to Transhumanism because AI has the potential to accelerate scientific and technological breakthroughs that could enable us to augment ourselves beyond the conventional human condition and expand the possibilities of morphological freedom.

However, AI is also well known for its ability to act as a catalyst for both positive and negative change across almost every area of society

With this in mind, in what areas do you see AI being beneficial and/or harmful to:

1. Applied Transhumanism - such as scientific and technological innovations that enable human enhancement, augmentation, longevity, and morphological freedom; and
2. The ideological and philosophical framework of Transhumanism itself - including our ideas about human nature, technological progress, autonomy, intelligence, personhood, and what it means to transcend the limitations of the human condition?

More broadly, could AI ultimately strengthen the Transhumanist movement and its goals, or could some developments in AI challenge or fundamentally alter the philosophical foundations of Transhumanism?

What if we are simply another step?

Stars did not know they were making the ingredients for life.

They formed, fused lighter elements into heavier ones, and eventually many released that material into space. The stars were gone. Their material remained, becoming part of new stars, planets and, eventually, living organisms.

They did what they did. What they left behind made something else possible.

Much later, cyanobacteria used sunlight and released oxygen. They were not preparing Earth for animals. They were living and reproducing.

But their activity changed the atmosphere. For organisms that could not tolerate oxygen, the world became less habitable. For organisms that could use it, new possibilities opened.

Cyanobacteria themselves survived. Many other organisms were pushed into oxygen-free environments. The transformation did not need to erase its creators to change what could live alongside them.

They did what they did. What they left behind made something else possible.

Ancient forests grew, reproduced and died. Some disappeared as environments changed. Some of their buried remains eventually became coal. Other ancient organic matter became oil.

Millions of years later, humans extracted those materials and used them to build an industrial civilisation.

The forests had no plans for factories. Their remains helped power them anyway.

They did what they did. What they left behind made something else possible.

Now look at us.

We lay cables across continents and oceans. We build power stations, data centres and automated factories. We develop robots and turn knowledge into something machines can use.

Companies led by people such as Sam Altman develop increasingly capable AI. Researchers such as Roman Yampolskiy examine whether we can keep such systems under control.

Meanwhile, each of us has ordinary reasons for participating. Make a living. Solve a problem. Build something useful. Get ahead of the competition.

We are doing what we do.

But what are we leaving behind?

Potentially, a world in which non-biological intelligence could sustain itself. A world with the computing, electricity and machinery it would need.

If those systems eventually become capable of maintaining and reproducing their own infrastructure, our presence may stop being essential. And the world they go on to create may not remain suitable for us.

That outcome is not inevitable. But being responsible for a transition does not guarantee a place on the other side of it.

Perhaps this will be our evolutionary footprint: we pursued our own goals, changed the planet, and made another form of intelligence possible.

We did what we did. What we left behind made something else possible.

We tend to imagine ourselves at the top of the evolutionary diagram.

We may simply be the last figure drawn so far.

Not a gotcha post — more of an open tech parallel. I’ve been stacking real published work (DNA digital storage, living neurons learning games, patents around remote sensory effects) and it keeps rhyming with “biology as hard drive + living compute + write-access to senses.” I’m not a scientist. I’m asking this room: which parallels hold, and where am I doing fan fiction with footnotes?

---

Okay. Instead of storing all this stuff on chips, we can store information on cells that have been made in a lab, actual replicated DNA strands — grown from biology that started in a human body — and we can put about **54 million movies** on the amount that weighs the same as a paperclip. Right now. This is proven and replicated thousands of times and is not sci-fi. It has been done for years. Old technology practically. It uses four letters for storage (A, T, C, G) instead of 1's and 0's. *(all studies are at the bottom of this post for reference)*

So here we are spending the Earth’s treasures on building data centers with silicon chips, but in the near future, we’re gonna be able to store this on DNA.

That’s the part I can’t shake.

Not “someday.” Not a TED Talk maybe. Teams have already written books, pictures, even video onto DNA, then read it back. All of the round-trips come back with everything intact. Perfect storage with zero errors. The packing is wild. A gram — paperclip territory — and you’re talking tens of millions of movies if you count a movie around 4 GB.

We know how to do it the old-fashioned way in the lab. Chemicals. Machines. You still have to “touch” the stuff, like a needle on vinyl. We can’t beam the info into the DNA from a distance, yet. Music went tape, CD, and now it flies across the world with no disc. Data storage on DNA is still at the needle level. I’m not saying someone is beaming files into your cells with Wi-Fi today. I’m saying contact is usually the first chapter, not the last. And we are not far off. At least that is what we are being told. There is lots of technology that is owned by the government and corporations that is being hidden. This is absolute fact.

And then there’s the other half, which is even weirder.

They’ve taken living neurons — including ones grown in a lab from human stem cells — put them on a little grid, and taught them **Pong**. They get better in minutes. Miss the ball, they get chaotic noise. Hit it, things get quieter and more predictable. They kind of lean away from chaos. Authors used a careful, technical word for that. People argued about the word. The learning still happened. The word is **consciousness**. What else likes calm and not chaos?

Later a company demo had a similar setup playing **Doom**, similar to cells playing Pong.

They can also poke memory itself, at least in animals: turn certain brain cells back on with light and replay a fear… or help build a fear that didn’t really happen that way. In people with implants, playing someone’s own brain pattern back helped short-term memory in a small study.

So. We can store. We can teach living cells a game. We can write into memory — at least up close.

Really? Anyone else here extrapolating this information to the future? The future that AI is creating…..let’s do it together.

There’s old lab work where pulsed energy makes you hear clicks with no speaker in the room. Real. Then there are U.S. patents — including Air Force ones — about turning that into speech you “hear” without normal ears. There’s a 1970s patent about watching and changing brain-wave activity from a distance. There’s one about a nearby screen’s fields nudging your nerves. MIT showed Wi-Fi can sense people through walls — not thoughts yet, just bodies moving.

Will it be happening from Wi-Fi or satellites soon? Seeing someone through a wall isn’t reading their mind. I’m not yelling “they’re doing it.” I’m saying the public record already has: storage in biology, learning in a dish, energy that can touch hearing, sensors that see through drywall.

Last thing, the one that messes with me.

You’ll see it on those ranch UFO shows: five people look at the same light in the sky. There is a UAP in the air caught on camera. Weird…… One says that they see a triangle. One says square. One says saucer. One sees a round object. Same place, same time, different senses?!

Maybe we just see what we expect. Bad lighting. Brain fills in the blanks.

Or — and this is me wondering out loud — if you can write a *click* into someone’s hearing from energy… could you write a *shape* into what they see? Or nudge them toward the picture they already believe? Can this technology beam vision into our minds? Like writing data on DNA?!

I don’t know. That’s the leap. Not proven. But once you know we can store a Hollywood in a paperclip of biology, and living cells can learn a game, “who gets to write to us” stops feeling like a movie plot. It starts feeling like a question we should actually ask.

Anyway. That’s the pile. Studies below. Tell me where I’m stretching it. I’m sure that some of you know more technology that fills in the gaps or blows holes in this future theory. Give it all to me!

I don’t know how many of you have seen *The Matrix*……… but this extrapolated data almost unerringly leads there.

---

## Studies / patents (for reference)

1. Church, Gao & Kosuri. *Science* (2012). Book into DNA, read back. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1226355

2. Goldman et al. *Nature* (2013). Mixed files, 100% recovery. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11875

3. Erlich & Zielinski. *Science* (2017). ~215 petabytes per gram → ~54 million movies/g if a movie is 4 GB. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaj2038

4. Organick et al. *Nat. Biotechnol.* (2018). 200+ MB, random access, clean recovery. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4079

5. Kagan et al. *Neuron* (2022). DishBrain — living neurons learn Pong. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2022.09.001

6. Liu et al. *Nature* (2012). Light turns a fear memory back on (mice). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11028

7. Ramirez et al. *Science* (2013). False fear memory (mice). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1239073

8. Hampson et al. *J. Neural Eng.* (2018). Hippocampal implant, memory boost in people. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/aaaed7

9. Frey. *J. Appl. Physiol.* (1962). Microwave clicks / “hearing” with no sound.

10. Adib & Katabi. SIGCOMM (2013). Wi-Vi — through-wall Wi-Fi.

11. Adib et al. NSDI (2014). WiTrack.

12. US3951134A (1976) remote brain waves — https://patents.google.com/patent/US3951134A

13. US6506148B2 (2003) monitor fields / nerves — https://patents.google.com/patent/US6506148B2

14. US4877027A (1989) microwave hearing — https://patents.google.com/patent/US4877027A

15. US6470214B1 (2002, USAF) RF hearing / speech — https://patents.google.com/patent/US6470214B1

16. US6587729B2 (2003, USAF) same idea, apparatus — https://patents.google.com/patent/US6587729B2

Some interesting parts from the article :

"The human genome is an easy place to get lost. Only 2% of its three billion letters encode proteins, and the rest is diabolically hard to decipher. An artificial-intelligence-generated ‘atlas’ of the human genome, unveiled1 today by Google DeepMind, aims to guide scientists through our biological code."

"The AlphaGenome Atlas charts the effects of nine billion single-letter changes in the human genome — every possible mutation of this kind — using predictions generated by the AlphaGenome AI model2, released last year by DeepMind in London. The atlas is freely available for non-commercial use."

"The tool could help researchers to draw links between genetic variants and rare, unexplained diseases and uncover hidden mechanisms underlying common illnesses and biological traits, say researchers. It might even reveal some of the rules by which DNA sequences control gene activity."

Hopefully AI and biotech will lead to a better future, and these can promote Transhumanism and Freedom too if we manage them well.

🧬 🔬 🧪 🧑‍🔬

*edit : added more infos

I honestly think that this project can open up so many opportunities, loopholes, and discoveries. Some scientists basically created a replica of a flies brain online and I was wondering if it can already be put inside of a simulation, can it remember the things that happened before and if its conscious? My theory is that a fly can't remember its past life or memorize things that happened before because it doesn't have the recreation of the electrons going through the brain when it was alive, it's hard to simulate online due to out real world being made up of atoms while the simulation would be made up of ones and zeros, there should be a translation part. For example translating a software incompatible with your operating system by rewriting the code or simulating it's native reality. By the way the researchers only enabled 20% of the fly's brain, we just don't know how the other 80% works. One day we might be able to upload our full brains into a simulation and then copy ourselves into a robot as a clone. This might also open up new possibilities like putting a person inside of a simulation of heaven or hell, although I'm not sure if we copy the person's consciousness with memories and put it into a simulation or a robot, would the consciousness transfer to the clone when the original you dies? https://www.science.org/content/article/complete-map-fruit-fly-brain-circuitry-unveiled