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
Received on Sun Jun 12 2005 - 07:25:59 PDT