Daddycaylor writes:

I'm new to this so I haven't read about all your people's different
theories. I've read quite a bit on transhumanist stuff, Aubrey DeGrey, Freeman Dyson, ... it seems people are trying anything they can imagine, and expanding
into what they can't imagine, to look for immortality.  Now  if continuous
consciousness is not necessarily required for immortality, then why are you waiting around for copying? Won't cloning come far sooner? What is it about copying that is better than cloning. If you, or one of your copies, went on a hyperwarp trip to a far away galaxy, saw one of your copies, or one of your copies of a copy of a copy, a million years from now on some strange planet, there's a good chance you probably wouldn't like him/her and he/she wouldn't like
you.  Their behavior would  be strange and probably disgusting.  So what's
the big deal? What's the difference between copying and having any intelligent
life exist a million  years from now in the universe?  Why not just have
children, and pour our lives into them? It's a lot easier, and we can do it now.
 I'm  seriously wanting to know.

Why do you say that continuous consciousness is not necessarily required for immortality? It seems to me that this is the one thing that *is* required, which is what makes it different from cloning or having children.

--Stathis Papaioannou

SEEK: Over 80,000 jobs across all industries at Australia's #1 job site.

Reply via email to