[ExI] Cryonics is getting more respect from the courts

Ben Zaiboc bbenzai at yahoo.com
Wed May 19 13:55:31 UTC 2010


John Grigg <possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com> wrote:

> This has been a very interesting topic of discussion! 
> I just wish the
> thread subject title had been something along the lines of
> what I
> used.
> 
> I'm curious to know how many of you believe an actual
> biological
> reanimation (and not simply a scan & simulation) will
> be possible at
> some point (and if that is preferable to other
> options).  I'm just not
> content with having a copy made.
> 
> I'd better be careful or this could lead to one of those
> identity/qualia threads that seem to go on forever... 


I think it likely that at some point biological reanimation may well be an option, but it wouldn't be my preference.  What would be the point of being revived in the same kind of fragile meatbody when a much more useful, versatile and robust existence is possible sooner and with less effort?

This position assumes a few things, of course, but I think all of them are fairly reasonable:

1) Uploading is indeed possible.
2) Recreation or repair of an entire biological body around an existing possibly damaged brain will be harder than scanning and uploading, and will come first.
3) The dreaded 'identity problem' is not a problem at all.

If 1) and/or 2) above are wrong, I suppose biological reanimation would be better than nothing, but I'd be a bit disappointed if, after dying, I woke up and was still made of meat.

Re. "I'm just not content with having a copy made", I'd regard a destructive scan as being a 'move', not a 'copy', and would be perfectly happy with it, but I agree with John that we'd better not open that can of mouldy old worms.  It's well past it's sell-by date.  (Is it too much to hope that people can state their preferences without sparking off another fruitless argument?  Perhaps the moderators could lay down some guidelines for this).

Ben Zaiboc


      




More information about the extropy-chat mailing list