Nicq MacDonald wrote:
>
> Samantha wrote:
> > Really? Are you sure? If that time can be put off and put off over and
> > over again and one gets better and better about handling all
> > contigencies and having backups of one's self in case of mishap, then
> > you get a lot closer over time to "and then you die" not being so. It
> > is not clear that even the heat-death of the universe will necessarily
> > end it. It looks so now, from here, but I will not take bets that we
> > will not eventually see even this ultimate trump beat.
>
> A backup would just be a copy- your consciousness would be gone forever.
> I'm not interested in "backing myself up", having my brain scanned into a
> computer, or copied into a different body- the minute my current brain goes
> offline, I'm gone- only an I that is not I would remain. Every evolutionary
> step in history has lead to an increase in longevity- but not immortality.
> Stardust didn't organize itself into a human being overnight, no matter what
> any scripture might say.
What is your consciousness? When you are knocked out, where is your
consciousness? If you had every part of your brain bit by bit replaced
by more efficient hardware performing the same functions but better,
would you still be you? If so then why would copying all that is part
of your consciousness and reintroducing it into a reconstructed body be
not-you?
>
> > So as long as accidents are possible you are saying that not dying
> > except by such unforeseen and unprepared for accident is simply not a
> > good thing? Or not good enough for you to be particularly interested?
>
> No. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against life extension. I just
> don't believe in immortalism- and many of the immortalist scenarios I've
> read offer little appeal to me.
>
I hear what you are saying but I have yet to understand why they don't
appeal to you.
> > Maybe so, but so what? Would you rather stay on this size of stage you
> > are on now for these few short years followed by oblivion or expand the
> > stage and the time, perhaps enough to find real answers to whatever it
> > is you seek?
>
> Certainly- I plan to make use of any technology that comes along that can
> potentially extend my lifespan without destroying my true self. I'll make
> use of any nanotech devices or longevity treatments that come along, barring
> the destruction of my body or brain. I'm not going to download myself,
> however- I like having a body, and, until the tech is availiable for me to
> transmute myself into other forms, I'll keep it.
>
Do you think you know what your true self is? If not then what is it
that will inform you what will endanger it? Your body is being
destroyed and recreated throughout your life. It is a dynamic system.
I like having a body to. If possible I want one that is not so puny and
prone to various breakdowns and extreme limitations as this one. I
would also like a brain much more capable than the one I was dealt at
birth. I don't consider this particular flesh (including this
particular brain) to be definitive of "I" even as it is what "I" am
embodied within and implemented through at this time.
When you transmute into other forms how is this so very different than
transference to another form?
> > Does this somehow comfort you or are you somehow confronting us with
> > something you think is for our own good or what?
>
> No- it's just the truth. In the long run, we're dead. It doesn't really
> comfort me- how could the idea of dissolution possibly comfort an egomaniac?
> I just don't see any point in a lifespan extended beyond a few millenia...
> but this is subject to change. I don't have to worry about this until 4000
> CE.
>
If you don't see any point in it it is because there is no point except
the point of existence which each of us must create for verself. The
creation of the point is essential continuously. It cannot be put off
for a few thousand years.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:33 MDT