|
|
|
|
|
|
by jacobr1
928 days ago
|
|
|
> There is a difference between the body-self of yesterday’s cells and a self made of software. There doesn't seem to be a strong reason to presume this. What is your basis for stating this? > But that these won’t be copies, they’ll be a new thing. Hence “uploading” is an incorrect model. Sure, that's a relevant, but pedantic point. Does it matter? Presume star-trek transporters were real, effectively they could be said to be duplicating and murdering every-time someone is beamed up. But the subjective experience is still one of continuity. It seams likely that would be the case for an "uploaded duplicate" they would "feel" like the original, in mind (barring sensory differences). Whether the "upload" process itself is destructive is another matter. |
|
|
As time goes on these kind of things will get better and maybe you can have a copy version of you to chat to people you don't really want to talk to or do chores or the like.
As you get older and maybe go gaga the AI version of you may be closer to the old you than your physical self, and that could live on if you pass away.
Not sure if they'd do things while no one talked to them or just respond like GPT or have some physical presence or in VR or if you could leave money and power to the virtual you or not. Guess we'll have to see how that plays out.
Getting data from scanning a brain is probably a long way off but could be added in in a few decades if they get there. Sadly real world teleporters probably aren't happening. Though maybe in VR.
There's actually a YC startup for brain scanning but I still think that'll be a while https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/03/13/144721/a-startup...