[FoRK] Extreme Life Extension: Investing in Cryonics for the Long, Long Term
michaelslists at gmail.com
Mon Jun 21 19:30:05 PDT 2010
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Jebadiah Moore <jebdm at jebdm.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 8:45 PM, silky <michaelslists at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Surely, though, it seems like the most likely (or at least best) way
> > to achieve unlimited life is to build yourself into a machine. The
> > only amusing question (covered on other lists, I suppose) is
> > which one do you become, when the upload is complete. They'd need to
> > kill the human copy, before re-awaking the computer version, but that
> > implies part of you would die (the human part). Well, it's interesting
> > anyway, but as far as extending life, I would imagine that's the more
> > "practical" sci-fi approach.
> Why would they have to kill the human copy? There's no reason both couldn't
> exist. The machine version wouldn't be identical to the human one, of
> course, given different experiences, so in that sense they wouldn't be the
> "same" person. But continuity of objects and especially people is an
> illusion--you aren't the same "you" as ten seconds ago, you just have
> roughly the same memories, plus the extra ten seconds.
True, but I am trying to understand how the me that is looking at the
computer me could reconcile what has happened. Which one would "I" be?
The one that is typing this now? Would I be the human, or the
computer, or both? Or none? Would the human me be sad at my impending
death? Or comfortable because the computer me would live on? Clearly,
I would expect the human me to be sad and concerned, because he would
have different memories, and thus a different identity. I'm suggesting
that one of the two would need to die as the copy is made, otherwise
continuity of the singular person wouldn't be complete. Ideally, death
of the former would be a direct result of creation of the latter, via
some sort of entanglement process ...
> I agree about the practicality aspect, but wonder about the feasibility of
> the brain scanning technology as well. In any case, the question that seems
> more interesting to me is whether or not a significant chunk of people will
> stop having kids post-this technology, since it'd be cheaper/more
> efficient/less messy to have a baby consciousness in a machine.
>> But I must agree, I've never given any serious thought to extending my
>> life via some strategy other than living well.
> Why not?
> Of course, you probably consider things like going to the hospital as part
> of "living well", whereas 200 years ago a lot of our medical technology
> would seem outside that scope.
Honestly, because I would consider it more of a sci-fi dream that is
unpractical and hence worthless to spend time considering. If it was
practical, and every-day like hospital is now, then for sure, it would
be on the agenda.
> Jebadiah Moore
More information about the FoRK