The Incredible Transit Map

Apropos of the last post, why I am a design buff is stuff like this body map from Sam Lomen:

[via Gizmodo via Behance via StreetAnatomy via TheDailyWhat]

The Problem With Evolution

Is that a lot of stuff gets dragged along for the ride whether we want it to or not. A recent article in the Wall Street Journal discusses the problems of modernity are often due to traits that were highly beneficial when we were nomadic mastodon hunters. Our environment changed without requiring our bodies to do so:

[For example] the human mouth has also evolved unevenly. Teeth shrank considerably as agriculture changed our ancestors’ diets from mostly meat and plants to mostly carbohydrates. The human jaw shrank even faster, making wisdom teeth largely useless and creating the overcrowding that people face today.

Why haven’t years of evolution corrected these quirks? “Many features of our anatomy operate ‘under the radar’ of natural selection,” says Dr. Held. That is, they generally aren’t problematic enough to affect people’s survival before they reach reproductive age, so they keep getting passed on. Some experts think that wisdom teeth and the appendix may be slowly on their way out—some people are already born without them—since they do sometimes cause life-threatening infections.

And yet we treat many of these complications routinely, removing wisdom teeth and appendixes that show signs of causing trouble. So is that an enhancement or therapeutic?

What’s Wrong With Skinny?

Lisa Hilton tears the too skinny/too fat debate a new one. Her exposure of the double standard (including that of feminists) between men and women is relentless  Read every word:

We rarely get hysterical about the weight qualifications required of male sportsmen. Jockeys, boxers, and wrestlers put themselves through torture to make weight. A survey published by the U.S. National Library of Medicine lists a range of weight-loss methods for jockeys that would make any model agency proud—69 percent skip meals, 34 percent use diuretics, 67 percent sweat off the pounds in the sauna, 30 percent regularly vomit and 40 percent use laxatives. So where are the angry headlines and government initiatives to fatten up our jockeys? Perhaps in sport, the sacrifices are viewed as noble, and the rewards (prize money or prestigious college scholarships) seen as secondary to the noble end of winning for its own sake. Shifting dresses is after all a frivolous little multibillion dollar industry. Or is it that men are considered psychologically robust enough to admire the buff beauties of GQ or Men’s Health without getting their tighty-whities in a twist? Women, it is implied, are too fragile to make a distinction between the Victoria’s Secret catalogue and their own closets. Young women who choose to conform to the demands of their industry in order to maximize their earnings are portrayed as irrational and deluded, while young men who make comparable choices are admired.

And for the record, as a guy who has spent some time with the nickname “Fatty McButterpants” and is about as liberal as they come in the “morphological freedom” movement, I think “fat studies” remains one of the most absurd new movements in academia. The only advantage is that they are as opposed to the nanny state food rules as I am. Ugh.

Update: Jezebel’s Jenna retorts with equal intensity:

Another issue that Hilton completely ignores is the question of whether the modeling industry may well attract girls already predisposed to disordered eating — and what implications this might have for the industry’s duty to be a safe working environment, if in fact it is the industry’s diktats that can push a young and already vulnerable population into seriously unhealthy territory. It’s not hard to look for anecdotal evidence of models with eating disorders; Crystal Renn, who lost her teen years to exercise bulimia and anorexia in order to fit into sample sizes, has said “Modeling, basically, pulled the trigger.” Three models, Ana Carolina Reston, Luisel Ramos, and Eliana Ramos, died of complications from their eating disorders in 2007 and 2008; one had eaten only Diet Coke and lettuce for the week leading up to her death. Coco Rocha has admitted the use of diuretics to control her weight in the past. Other substances, especially Adderall, for energy without appetite, were commonplace when I was in the industry. Ali Michael, at 17, was sent home from Paris for gaining 5 lbs when she started to recover from her eating disorder, which had cost her her menstrual cycle. Natalia Vodianova’s relationship with food changed dramatically when she began modeling — and her sudden, and unhealthy, post-pregnancy weight loss, both spurred her career to new heights and causef her hair to fall out. (When she regained 9 lbs, giving her a total weight of 115 lbs, her clients and agency were displeased.) The model pictured here, Natasha Poly, has not spoken publicly about her eating habits, but I included her photo to show just exactly what kind of beauty standard Lisa Hilton thinks is reasonable and harmless.

This is an excellent point, and the rest of Jenna’s critique of Hilton is supremely well written and researched. That said, Jenna didn’t rebut Hilton’s over all point that people exaggerate when blaming models and discredit women by assuming eating disorders are a result of wanting to look like a model alone. The issue, clearly, is extremely complicated and both authors are putting up valid points. I guess the debate rages on.

Tasteless

The five senses (sight, taste, touch, smell, and hearing) are not equal. When someone can’t feel (at all or, more commonly, just feel pain) that person is probably not going to live very long. A lack of touch is a fatal disability. On the other end of the spectrum, people who can’t smell or taste things are pretty much OK. Maybe you can’t cook by taste or smell smoke from a fire, but your day to day life won’t be hindered that much. Loss of sight or hearing is right there in the middle – a lot worse than not being able to taste or smell, but quite a bit better than being unable to feel.

My point is that we tend to focus on problems that fit a kind of Goldilocks Rule of not too bad and not too mundane. It makes me wonder how that affects our research into transhumanism. We often talk about prosthetics and gene therapy and AI superbrains, but maybe we should be focusing more on simpler problems, like improving the notoriously fickle GI tract in humans or perhaps making dentistry less barbaric. Or maybe the simpler problems are subsumed in the research going into the bigger problems.

Body Dysmorphic Disorder Alters the Brain

UCLA researchers believe it could be a result of an altered, dysfunctional, or damaged visual processing center:

Now researchers at UCLA have determined that the brains of people with BDD have abnormalities in processing visual input, particularly when examining their own face. Further, they found that the same systems of the brain are overactive in both BDD and obsessive-compulsive disorder, suggesting a link between the two. The research appears in the February issue of the journal Archives of General Psychiatry.

“People with BDD are ashamed, anxious and depressed,” said Dr. Jamie Feusner, an assistant professor of psychiatry and lead author of the study. “They obsess over tiny flaws on their face or body that other people would never even notice. Some refuse to leave the house, others feel the need to cover parts of their face or body, and some undergo multiple plastic surgeries. About half are hospitalized at some point in their lifetimes, and about one-fourth attempt suicide.”

What triggers BDD is largely unknown, as is the strength of the connection between BDD and environmental factors like bullying or sexualized pop culture. The important take away here is that the BDD brain stops perceiving reality the way a typical person would; a BDD sufferer literally sees themselves differently in the mirror than the rest of us. What is frightening is that because we largely don’t know what triggers the shift, be it genetic predisposition or  a self-reinforcing mental state or something else entirely, is that we don’t really know how to cure it.

BDD is particularly troubling because it is based in the part of the brain that deals with normative judgments, meaning that, by and large, the problems of which it is hyper-aware are almost entirely socially constructed. Even if the problem is rooted in a physical or chemical problem, the norms selected by society are what become over-amplified and dangerous. It is very troubling and very sad, because it seems that regardless of what the standards of beauty are, those with BDD believe they do not live up to them and take dramatic measures to try and correct the problem. I hope research like what is being done at UCLA helps us at least understand the mechanism so that we can work to mitigate its effects.

["Why the mirror lies" - Science Daily]

“Imprisonment Without Parole”

Tony Judt lets us into the struggles of his daily routine. His summary of his condition:

In effect, ALS constitutes progressive imprisonment without parole. First you lose the use of a digit or two; then a limb; then and almost inevitably, all four. The muscles of the torso decline into near torpor, a practical problem from the digestive point of view but also life-threatening, in that breathing becomes at first difficult and eventually impossible without external assistance in the form of a tube-and-pump apparatus. In the more extreme variants of the disease, associated with dysfunction of the upper motor neurons (the rest of the body is driven by the so-called lower motor neurons), swallowing, speaking, and even controlling the jaw and head become impossible. I do not (yet) suffer from this aspect of the disease, or else I could not dictate this text.

By my present stage of decline, I am thus effectively quadriplegic. With extraordinary effort I can move my right hand a little and can adduct my left arm some six inches across my chest. My legs, although they will lock when upright long enough to allow a nurse to transfer me from one chair to another, cannot bear my weight and only one of them has any autonomous movement left in it. Thus when legs or arms are set in a given position, there they remain until someone moves them for me. The same is true of my torso, with the result that backache from inertia and pressure is a chronic irritation. Having no use of my arms, I cannot scratch an itch, adjust my spectacles, remove food particles from my teeth, or anything else that—as a moment’s reflection will confirm—we all do dozens of times a day. To say the least, I am utterly and completely dependent upon the kindness of strangers (and anyone else).

Read the whole essay. It is, in turns, beautiful, heart-wrenching, frustrating, alienating, incomprehensible, and inspiring. Stories like Judt’s, more than anything, are why I study and believe many of the tenets of transhumanism. Wellness – vibrant, youthful, dynamic, perpetual – is the goal, enhancement is secondary.

[H/T Tyler Cowen]

Tinkering With Libido Part II

Yesterday I talked about how our culture labels male erectile dysfunction and female low libido as pathological. The reverse, that men might have low libido or women might have trouble with physical arousal – both of which are real problems – goes totally unconsidered. Framing sexual problems (chronic or one-off) in this way is not just problematic because it is wrong, but because it causes a cascade of problems when pharma companies try to develop drugs to solve the problems.

Given our busy lives and our complicated relationships, it’s unsurprising that in the small window available for hanky-panky occasionally one person or the other has a physical or mental hang-up that prohibits sexy-time. But here’s the rub: if it isn’t a disease or disorder, it’s hard to argue for a reason to develop a drug to treat it. Not commercially, of course, but to the FDA. Our legal system and general culture has made it so that if a company wants to develop a product that enhances or enables a person’s physical sexual ability or libido, they have to find (or “discover”) a pathology to justify research and FDA approval. Companies cannot simply make a chemical that makes our life better: they have to find a disease to cure first. Low libido and physical problems associated with sex are problems, and we should be able to take drugs to control those if we choose without the need to describe either as a disease state requiring a doctor’s prescription.

The result of their being available only by prescription creates a frustrating cycle. One who wants a beneficial drug must either lie to their doctor or must begin to see his or her natural hiccups as pathological. This cycle is one of the core reasons we should begin to advocate a health system in which prevention and enhancement are as valued as therapeutic and restorative medicine. A child who has trouble focusing in a boring class is not pathological, she or he simply might lack the coping methods other students have – for example, I doodled to cope with calculus. Drugs like Ritalin or modanifil should be readily available along with simple instructions on how to use them for cognitive enhancement. Most people don’t take fistfuls of ibuprofen because they are aware if two pills don’t do the job, five more aren’t going to help. Overdoses are prevented by information and education, not prohibition. Furthermore, in many cases cognitive enhancing drugs can make a frustrating class more tolerable and survivable, which brings up the quality of life and of education for the student using the drugs. Voluntarily taking the drug makes the student an active part of their education (instead of being compelled to both go to school and take a drug).

The logic of inventing a pathology to facilitate a drug has spilled into modern sexuality. Our absurd condition, where in any sexual problem is either a personal failing or a chronic illness, leads to an irrational cultural and personal nervousness and silence around how we could improve our sex lives with drugs. I drink coffee when I want to be more awake, I take pain-killers when I have a headache, drink alcohol when I want to relax and/or have fun. And I don’t even do recreational drugs. That’s a-whole-nother category of mood alteration. People take drugs to control their emotions all the time.

The same logic can be applied to sexual function drugs. Why can’t I have access to a pill that makes me aroused and a pill that lets me not think about sex? If men are constantly thinking about sex, which is an obvious distraction, why don’t we have a pill to liberate us from our own annoying biology? There is no reason an advanced society should not have the ability to control base urges.

Knee-jerk reactionaries will, of course, say that this takes the “magic” out of romance because it chemicalizes and “controls” the situation. False. The first time you meet someone, that random spark or connection that draws two people together, a great night where everything clicks: those are where the “magic” comes from in a relationship. Sexual drugs like the one’s I’m talking about aren’t designed to create false highs, but to prevent unnecessary lows. A pill that encourages arousal when taken intentionally and with purpose is no more ruinous to sex than drinking coffee is to have the energy to read a favorite book after a hard day at work. People’s bodily cycles are weird.

An example: Tom might get horny right before the end of work, but Jane might be horny first thing in the morning. Sadly, the only time the two have for sex is after 7pm, when they’re both home from work, and neither is all that interested. Now imagine if they could reduce their arousal during the day and boost it at night. Sexual frustrations resulting both from being aroused with no outlet and from having an available partner with low desire, would be largely eliminated. No pill is going to make Tom and Jane more compatible intellectually or personality-wise, but the right pills could help make their love life a lot easier and a lot better.

There are lots and lots of other potential uses of libido altering drugs, but the example above is far and away the most common problem. Like most mood altering drugs, they in no way have a totalizing effect. They aren’t love potions or hypnotic devises. Drinking a cup of coffee does not make a person love making excel sheets, but it does give him or her enough concentration and energy to get them over with more quickly. Another concern with sex enhancing drugs is that people might feel compelled to take them to improve a relationship or to mask a current problem. This problem is a real one, but is in no way unique to or exacerbated by sex enhancing drugs.

There are so many benefits available, it is baffling and infuriating that our culture cannot simply allow us to work on making little problems in our lives go away so that we can have more of what we enjoy just because it needs the help of a little pill.

Tinkering With Libido Part I

Do you see it?

The human sex drive is complicated (duh). It is closely tied with mental processes, both biologically and by association within our culture, that we often forget how simple hormonal or physical “problems with the plumbing,” as it were, can mess things up. There are hundreds of reasons that one person might be sexually attracted to another person but not physically and/or mentally aroused. One of the most infuriating is timing. Simply put, one person might be horny and the other might not be. Despite mutual attraction and no chronic problems, two people might just not sync up due to their schedules. It is a problem.

Of course, given our culture’s weird mystification of sexuality and romance, we then proceed to make an already frustrating situation far worse. We pretend that things have to be passionate, instant, and awesome every time, so we force the situation, with neither person really all that happy. Ok, most of us have come to the conclusion that they don’t need to be and are actually very practical about the whole situation. Sometimes it’s just meh but that’s alright because hey, nobody’s perfect. Yet the idea of taking sex enhancing drugs that alter our mental state of emotional arousal are far more controversial than mere physically arousing drugs, despite our reasonable knowledge of how day-to-day life can go and that mental states are more often the real problem.

The shocking, or at least confusing, part of this mental-physical split is that we generally accept physically altering drugs (e.g. Viagra). Viagra’s chemically active ingredients do not do much for one’s mental state. Actually, its ingredients have the somewhat humorous effect of working regardless of one’s mental state, resulting in the dreaded four-hour situation in which it is recommended that one go and see a doctor. Because of the obviousness of male physical arousal – in addition to its propensity to malfunction even in healthy, young men and therefore cause tremendous angst in already insecure individuals – there is a significant amount of focus on how to make sure the penis works no matter what. The assumption, of course, is that men are always mentally aroused (the apocryphal “men think about sex every 12 seconds”), so that never needs to be addressed, but occasionally get over excited, nervous, and/or are old, therefore sometimes need a pill to make sure mind and body are in sync when the opportunity presents itself – such as when you have access to two claw-footed bathtubs on a bluff overlooking the ocean. That, my friends, is a perfect time to make sure everything is working, better take some sex enhancing pills.

While men are allegedly always mentally ready, there is a reverse cliche for women, which is that they are always physically ready for sex: a falsehood of serious magnitude. It is noteworthy that the female physical arousal process is actually more complex and involves more bits and pieces activating than the male body. The myth that women are always physically ready (because there is nothing to become erect) is a corollary to the other cliche: the myth that women are rarely in the mood for sex. Our culture paints female libido as lower than male by definition. There is no cliche about women thinking about sex every 12 seconds. There is a cliche about women getting headaches as excuses or needing bouquets and chocolates to get in the mood. Women who are seen as being as sexual as men are labeled deviant, slutty, unbalanced, etc. Obviously the centuries of describing female sexuality as dangerous, dirty, seductive, controlling, out-right sinful, and pathological being embedded within the most basic aspects of our culture has nothing to do with that perception – but I digress. My point is that it is even conceivable in our culture that a woman might not want sex, where as that condition (not wanting sex) is obviously alien to all men at all times.

As you can see, it is comical that we would ascribe men has having primarily physical arousal problems and women as having primarily mental arousal problems. It makes far more sense that both sexes would be afflicted by either problem about the same amount, despite the differences in biology and mentality. Yet here comes the interesting part – and I think it is an excellent example of the male world view affecting not just TV and movies but science as well – the “Viagra for women” is more appropriately a sexual anti-depressant than it is physical power boost.

There have been lots of articles about the new little blue pill for women, but my favorite reaction was actually over at Broadsheet, where each of their savvy writers added another wrinkle to a debate far too smoothed over. Most interesting are the links to articles about the medicalization of “female sexual dysfunction.” It is important to note that these articles are not implying that there is no medical form of female sexual dysfunction, but instead are arguing that the efforts by current studies and drug companies are pathologizing common and non-dysfunctional reasons for low libido. In short, when men want to have sex and their penis does not work, it is an obvious problem that Viagra fixes. When women don’t want sex, however, it isn’t just a question of what might be causing the lack of desire, but begs the question is it a problem with her or with her partner? Does her low libido even need correction or is it an appropriate reaction?

In summary, our culture generally sees male sexual dysfunction as a physical issue (unable to have sex) while female dysfunction is mental (unwilling to have sex). The reverse (men-mental, women-physical) goes not just unconsidered, but is treated as irrational/impossible. Men always want sex! Women don’t have to worry about “getting it up!” Basic biology! Science!

Wrong. It’s easy to blame the corporation for “inventing” a pathology (and they often are) but it is just as important to look at why they invent one pathology for men (erectile dysfunction) and one for women (low libido). Cultural framing guides their logic. Men can have low libido, women can have trouble becoming physically aroused. Let’s stop with the “Viagra for women” canard and recognize we all have issues now and then, shall we?

Artie’s Wheels

I really, really like the show Glee. I like it because it stops pretending that people who live in small cities in western and mid-western states are somehow more wholesome than their metropolitan counterparts. I like it because it exposes the high school ruling class for the terrified, soon-to-be-townie losers they usually are. I like it because it admits high schoolers have sex and drink and smoke weed and still manage to function. I like it because it obliterates the myth that marrying your high school sweet heart is a good idea. I like it because it is the sunshiniest, saccharine dark comedy I’ve ever seen.

I also like it because instead of taking a stab at diversity, it actually has it. The caveat is that the diversity is totally unrealistic: somehow there are at least three Jews going to the same school in Lima, Ohio, which is actually more impossible than a lot of other things that happen on the show, but whatever. That the wheel-chair bound kid, Artie, isn’t some super hot chick missing a leg (looking at you Deuce Bigalow), but instead a nerdy, sweater-vest-and-glasses-wearing, paraplegic with a molasses smooth voice, is great. That the writers of Glee devoted an entire episode to showing what Artie’s daily struggles are like is, well, something I don’t know if I’ve seen on prime time television.

When I was initially writing this post, I kept using the word “disabled” to describe Artie, but the whole point of “Wheels” was to show Artie isn’t disabled. Except for walk, Artie does everything the other glee club kids do: sing, dance, play instruments, battle wits, go on dates, and maintain some level of self respect. My favorite moment in the episode is when Artie blurts out, “I wanna be very clear: I still have the use of my penis.” The act is so human, so basic, and so central to his life as a paraplegic it reminds us that he is simultaneously a person in a wheel chair and a teenage boy. Artie’s ability to walk away from Tina when she admits she’s faking her stutter shows he is, alternatively, confident enough in himself to prefer being alone to being with a fraud. He’s great.

In The Future of Human Nature Habermas writes that, “Since individuation is achieved through the socializing medium of thick linguistic communication, the integrity of individuals is particularly dependent on the respect underlying their dealings with one another.” What he is blathering about is that our sense of self is in large part formed around our interactions with our friends, peers, and society at large. He then goes on to discuss how this individuation relates to one’s sense of bodily (phenomenological) self, “Bodily existence enables the person to distinguish between these only on the condition that she identifies with her body. For the person to feel at one with her body, it seems that this body has to be experienced as something natural – as a continuation of the organic, self-regenerative life from which this person is born.” Emphasis mine. If a person’s body feels unnatural to her, then she has a fractured identity. What I disagree with is Habermas’ assertion that what constitutes a person’s body must actually be “natural” and/or “organic” and must link with what that person was at birth. To say Habermas is discounting or ignoring amputees and the paralyzed, among a multitude of other bodily changes that can occur after birth, is an understatement.

Artie’s dancing and countenance in a wheel chair, not to mention his confidence and honesty about his difference, disprove Habermas’ claim. I would argue that the body must not feel like something “natural” but like something contiguous and familiar. The body must feel as though it responds to one’s mind in conjunction with what is expected. Artie’s adaptation to life post-car crash at the age of eight, a situation that borders on normal, demonstrates the ability for the phenomenological body to incorporate (literally) non-natural and non-organic objects into the self. If Habermas had deigned to read Merleau-Ponty or Lacan he would have known these things. But, as we know from another lesson Glee bashes us over the head with: no one is perfect.

Oh, and Artie is singing Billy freaking Idol. The song choice couldn’t be more perfect. Artie’s identity and sense of self is heightened by his difference, hence the song “Dancing with myself.” Thus, Artie Abrams from Glee disproves Habermas’ thesis on phenomenological self requiring a “natural” and “organic” body. Enjoy the refutation:

The Substrate of Consciousness

Athena Andreadis’ article in h+ about the transhumanist fear of biology in general and their underestimation of just how complex and powerful biological systems is deliciously blunt:

And it came to me in a flash that many transhumanists are uncomfortable with biology and would rather bypass it altogether for two reasons, each exemplified by these sentences. The first is that biological systems are squishy — they exude blood, sweat and tears, which are deemed proper only for women and weaklings. The second is that, unlike silicon systems, biological software is inseparable from hardware. And therein lies the major stumbling block to personal immortality.

After an interesting start, Andreadis wanders off into the territory of questioning other aspects of immortality and makes more than a few errors in logic. To more fully consider her argument, we need to understand how the mind/consciousness can be understood in relation to the brain/body.

Among futurists, there seem to be three options for how a person’s consciousness exists in relation to the physical mind.

1. Software: A person’s active consciousness, personality, and memories can be downloaded onto a different substrate, such as a computer hard-drive or other digital memory source.
2. Hardware: A person’s active consciousness, personality, and memories reside in the brain’s physical substrate of neurons. The mind is emergent from this organic matrix and inseparable.
3. Embodied: A person’s active consciousness, personality, and memories reside in a brain that is interwoven and inextricable from the body in which it resides. When you lose a hand, it’s not just your body that changes, you as a person change.

Andreadis discounts option one as an impossibility or, if anything, a process that results in a mental clone that would become different the moment it attained consciousness. I agree with her, if “mind uploading/downloading” is possible at all, in any way, is not a method for immortality. The rest of her article moves between interpretations two and three, using one or the other as it fits her argument. Mostly that’s fine, for her purposes hardware and embodiment are generally the same.

The problem with Andreadis’ article is that this is actually an argument against immortality, not, as it seems initially, an analysis of the complexities of keeping the mind alive indefinitely. Most frustrating is Andreadis’ reliance on the flaw that doesn’t assume “perfect method,” when discussing the ethics of an argument. When she critiques constructions of the brain “in silico” that is, in an artificial body or with artificial neurons, there might be a loss of “pingbacks” and/or “empathy.” This argument is equivalent to saying, “manned flight won’t work because what if we build a plane with wings that fall off or aileron cables made of silly putty?” It presumes a level of technological ineptitude that is ridiculous for ethical considerations. When arguing the ethics you do not say, “Thing X is unethical because a broken or incomplete version of thing X would cause problems Y and Z.” That isn’t an argument, it’s a technique and a distraction.

Even more frustrating, and particularly disappointing from Andreadis, who is eyeballs-deep in transhumanist lit, is her final paragraph, which repeats tropes of the anti-immortalists that have been readily rebutted.

Instead of refuting or critiquing the rest of Andreadis’ argument, I’d just like to forward my own. For a moment, let’s forget all the other enhancements and modifications transhumanists and technoprogressives support and posit, and instead just consider keeping the mind healthy and alive indefinitely. Based on the current trends in science, I largely think that the human body can be maintained indefinitely through purely organic/biological means. The problem is aging, and Aubrey de Grey has me convinced we can take steps to fix or at least slow those problems. Furthermore, I believe progress will be so slow in that field that societal norms and our relationship with life expectancy will adjust to prevent the societal upheaval or existential ennui Andreadis fears.

As for the hardware/embodiment issue, I would still posit that mind transplantation is possible if three criterion are met. If any one of these is impossible, I would argue ethical brain transplantation is impossible.

1. A brain can be severed from one body, taken out, and placed into another (either organic or artificial) without any degradation in brain matter and with all connections necessary for immediate function (blood circulation, involuntary muscle control, immuno-suppression) working.
2. Embodiment happens slowly in a controlled environment. Senses would have to be eased back “on,” control of the body would have to occur in stages, like recovering from paralysis. I imagine body transplantation would happen this way automatically, given the complexity of the re-wiring going on, but if not, it would probably need to be induced.
3. There are extant methods to ensure the legal personhood of a transplanted mind does not alter from body to body. Rights stem from the consciousness and personhood of the mind, not the physical substrate or its body.

In addition to these, there are the obvious requirements of consent on behalf of the transplantee and that the new body is not the result of some other crime (really Athena? de facto murder? No vat-grown or robotic bodies came to you as a possibility?). Number two is likely to be the most overlooked, but Andreadis’ emphasis of the mind’s link to the body is correct. A contiguous consciousness is already adapted to a changing body (aging, injury, exercise, operations, etc), but something as traumatic as a brain transplant would be, well, something with which a mind might need a bit more time.

But ideally, the transplant wouldn’t be necessary, because we’d be able to maintain our bodies as they are, preventing aging internally through a variety of biological modifications to the wetware of the human being, from the DNA up.