3 ms·
yeah, but is quantum state really necessary to replicate an indistinguishable copy of a human being? There's probably some sort of lossy way to represent a huma
by jes5199 13y ago
yeah, but is quantum state really necessary to replicate an indistinguishable copy of a human being? There's probably some sort of lossy way to represent a human brain-state and body-state that's good enough. As a thought experiment: how much subatomic noise could you introduce into your own body before you damaged it significantly? Irradiation, electric shocks, temperature changes, introduction of various chemicals - and yet you're still you. Your "self" could probably survive some pretty spectacular waveform transcription errors.
- Xcelerate 13y ago> Lossy human compression Uh-oh, this is not something I would want to be a part of
- jes5199 13y agoI think you might be better off with a lossy copy, actually! We could lengthen your telomeres - come to think of it, how attached are you to that DNA? We might as well patch up your genes on the way. In fact, should just build you a stronger skeleton and musculature from first principles, rather than xeroxing the one in your current body. As long as we get the gross neuron structures of your brain - and your encoded memories (which might simply be stored as binary code in some proteins as described in http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120309103701.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120309103701.ht... ), then I say that you're as "you" as two copies of firefox are "the same program".
- ajuc 13y agoWe could just send let people choose one out of few perfectly healthy body templates and only send brain state and body template number. Think how much bandwith that would save.
- danpat 13y agoThey already made a movie about it: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117108/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117108/