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.
http://ninemsn.seek.com.au?hotmail
