3 ms·
This feels straightforward to me. The you that is now, pre-preservation, will be dead. The you that is then, post-restoration, will be alive and believe and b
by sulam 9y ago
This feels straightforward to me.
The you that is now, pre-preservation, will be dead.
The you that is then, post-restoration, will be alive and believe and behave as if they are you.
It's convenient that this process (as described) kills you, because that simplifies things quite a lot. Scanning is more complicated, and I suspect if technology ever arrives that allows for it we will treat such scans as "heirs of the body" -- meaning they will only have such assets as you give them, although of course the IRS will still find a way to get them to pay your taxes.
- sulam 9y agoOh, and one more case that's interesting -- we know the "embalming" process fixes things such that you are now dead. However we don't know what the reading process looks like yet. If _that_ is non-destructive (and I can't think of any way that it _wouldn't_ be effectively non-destructive, since any transformation should be amenable to duplication), then you could be resurrected an infinite number of times. I haven't thought about that very hard, but it raises fascinating possibilities.
- sulam 9y agoThe more I think about this the more I think it has some really wild implications. The earliest restores are likely to be less high fidelity than later restores, just because that's the nature of technology (getting better over time). Does this mean that later restores will somehow be "more authoritative" than previous? Who knows?!