From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@optusnet.com.au)
Date: Thu Jun 26 2003 - 17:08:48 MDT
Randy S writes:
> Hal Finney <hal@finney.org> said:
>
> > Brett raises one of our oldest and most fruitlessly debated topics:
> > whether an upload or a cryonics revivee is "the same" person he was
> > before.
> >
> > I believe the question is meaningless
If the question keeps coming up and cryonics and uploading is
something we want to gain community support for, at least
sufficient support to ensure we are not prevented from developing
and using these options ourselves, it seems sensibly that by now
we should have canned best answers for the reoccuring questions.
> yes, especially seeing as how we really do not have any choice,
Uploading is not an option today, burial or cremation seem to
offer less chance than cryonics so it might be argued cryonics
is the smart current choice. On what I understand at present
I'd agree with this assessment. But I don't like the arguments
or rather the lack of them much. Cryonics is not selling well.
> as it is
> apparent (to me, anyway) that virtual immortality or radical
> life extension is not right around the corner. So, if you want
> to live, go for cryonics. Otherwise, take your chances elsewhere.
There are two good reasons for giving a damn.
1) Better understanding of what is involved in preserving personal
identity may make for better procedures.
2) The better explanations make for better marketing and the
success of cryonics and uploading may require not just fostering
a more positive acceptance to these ideas in the community but
being able to answer objections from those who may try and
remove the right of those who wish to attempt to use cryonics
or uploading themselves.
Regards,
Brett Paatsch
(Sorry I should have bundled responses to this thread up
a bit better).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jun 26 2003 - 17:17:12 MDT