>
> I don't believe this at all, Christopher. If you wanna download
> something,
> you have to know what it is, and you have to be able to represent
> it in the
> digital form necessary to reproduce it. I doubt our complexities of
> consciousnesses and unconsciousness will ever arrive at an objective
> definition of what our consciousnesses and unconsciousnesses are
> (indeed it
> seems logical to me to say we never will), and I doubt even more that the
> dynamic relations which constitute the universe of a person's
> conscious and
> unconscious being can be digitised.
I believe that more often that not, in human history once there is an idea to do something, and the motivation to do it, it becomes a reality. Look at just what we have done in 100 years.
- Flight.
- Movies, Radio & TV.
- Space Flight (100 space shuttle missions)
- Manned trips to the moon (and back!)
- Nuclear Energy, & bombs
- Cures for Polio, eradication of Smallpox
- Organ transplants, Artificial organs
- Test-tube babies. Cloning.
- "Affordable" Home computers
- Genetic manipulation to cure diseases
Even now we are making remarkable discoveries every day into the nature of the mind and neurological processes. To say that we will never understand how the brain works seriously discredits our ability to understand how the world works. Would we ever be able to "capture" that and digitize it? It may very well be that it would require the "death" of the biological brain through a highly invasive scan using technologies we are just developing or haven't even thought of yet (such as nanotechnology, vastly improved imaging techniques) but still, it's just a matter of time.
> And ain't it just possible that the
> amalgam of consciousness and unconsciousness that characterise each of us
> might be just a tad related to our physical being - in which case even a
> successful download ain't so much a reproduction of us into another form,
I agree with this that it will be a 'reproduction'. Part of who we are is determined by our emotions, and our emotions are often determined by chemical reactions within our body. The best example might be that significant factors of my reaction to different situation are the result of my adrenal glands. Why can't these be 'simulated' as much as the chemical reactions underlying thought processes would be.
> but the creation of a new form that ain't us. Ergo, whoever does the
> eternal living, it won't be us ... which kinda defeats the point ...
It isn't us as you think it is. But is it still life? Should it be protected? If I am downloaded into a machine, and that "program" is a sentient entity, why shouldn't it be protected? It manipulates energy, it reproduces, it defends itself, it grows. What constitutes "life" and then what constitutes "protected life"? Because the essence that is me is now stored electronically vs. biologically it loses all it's rights?
Further, why does it defeat the point? I believe there are many people out there, if given the choice to shed their bodies for something 'better' they would want to do it. People seek artificial limbs in order to improve their ability to surivive and function. You think a parapalegic wouldn't find the idea of being put into the shell of a 'robot' to be even partially apealing? That they can walk and feel and be free?
I'm 'fully abled' and find the idea intriguing. The idea that my body would be vastly superior to what I have now. Being able to see and hear in ranges I can't now. Knowing that if an arm is torn off that it can be replaced. A "Brain" that is 1000 better with knowledge of human history available in nanoseconds. Being able to survive in harsh enviornments (underwater, desert, arctic, space). Turn off the ability to "feel" at will, or dim or increase sensations. Does it come at a price? Yes. I may no longer need or be able to eat, have sex, drink, get drunk. Maybe life would become boring without the 'risk' involved. Then again, it could become more interesting.
>
> >Once this step occurs, how long will it be before wetware (or at best,
> >just >homosapiens) are just a memory? History has shown us time
> and again
> >that once >an evolutionary step of this kind occurs,
>
> But where in the record do we find 'an evolutionary step of this kind'?
Single-celled to multi-celled organisms. Dinosaurs taking flight. Asexual to sexual reproduction. Early-Man using tools for the first time, being able to out-survive even-earlier-man who didn't. All dramatic changes in the existence of "life".
>
> >the previous species is wiped out within a few generations
>
> Well, when sexual reproduction came along, it didn't kill off the species
> who kept reproducing themselves in the old way, did it. Amoebas clearly
> saw all that sexual politics and dressing up wasn't for them, and their
> continued presence indicates they had a point, no?
Two men are walking in the woods and they see a bear. One man starts to put on his running shoes and his friend says "Are you crazy, you will never out-run that." And replied the other "I know, I only have to out-run you."
<<SNIP>>
>
> >Just something to consider considering this all may begin to occur within
> >the next 100 years. When you place that in perspective of
> 700,000 years of
> >civilization, it's very very soon.
>
> We got people dropping dead across the planet and we're spending resources
> that could save lives on investigating the possibility of saving
> some other
> lives by turning 'em into stark-raving mad robots who can't die. Sounds
> about right ...
Stark-raving mad? Is that a veiled personal attack?
You know I fluctuate back and forth on this issue (people dying across the planet). Should I care or not? On the one hand, you'd have to be a "monster" to watch a 'feed-the-children' advertisement and not feel some form of emotion at the images of children starving to death. On the other hand, there is another part that says "This is life in it's rawest grittiest form. This has happened for hundreds of millions of years, and will likely continue to happen in one form or another for another hundred million years or more." Who am I to change that process?