From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@ricochet.net)
Date: Thu May 31 2001 - 00:49:21 MDT
Mitch evidently tried to answer my question (or I
should say our question, since several others have
also asked) "Why should the original perish?", but
I still don't get it.
>My preference is that one could use such a technology to extend
>someone's' lifetime, to eons, if they needed and desired it.
Okay. So?
>Hence, my stipulation (and apparently, Chris Ledwiths') that
>the original being, be deceased,
Huh? Could you explain? (It sounds kind of mean, actually.)
Lee
At 01:15 AM 5/31/01 -0400, Mitch wrote:
>In a message dated 5/31/2001 12:08:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>lcorbin@ricochet.net writes:
>
><< Why should the original perish? Is it in great agony or
> something? Why can't you (the original) also go on to
> enjoy life even as you (the uploaded duplicate) also
> enjoy your new circumstances?
>
> Lee Corbin >>
>My preference is that one could use such a technology to extend someone's'
>lifetime, to eons, if they needed and desired it. Hence, my stipulation (and
>apparently, Chris Ledwiths') that the original being, be deceased, and the
>continuer have the identical thoughts, attitudes, beliefs, personality,
>experienced by the original, to the point of loss of consciousness. It may
>even be essential for the "copy" to be copied right down to 'the 'quantum'
>state of the original. I would hope (like I have a choice?) that the copy
>actually be that "person".
>
>For me, unless they are producing a new society from the same identical
>individual (as suggested in Saucer Wisdom by Rudy Rucker), I am concerned
>that these copies are merely, a kind of narcissism. Seems to me that
>children, biological or adopted, are better to carry on family traditions
>than clones. Call it, my taste.
>
>Mitch
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:07:51 MST