h a l f b a k e r yCogito, ergo sumthin'
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
| |
Couldn't you just leave a will bequeathing everything to
yourself, in the case of your death. Then have someone
deposit it all in a "dead me" bank account, and the interest
will add up, till you show up to claim it. |
|
| |
//Scratches head, wonders what the hell cloning and
reincarnation have in common, decides nothing, gets dressed
and goes to work shaking head.// |
|
| |
Nice pressure on the future, both financially and resourcing. Hopefully the spawning will be way way out there and then shouldn't be a problem. |
|
| |
//wonders what the hell cloning and reincarnation
have in common// |
|
| |
Well, it sort of depends. |
|
| |
Reincarnation is what happens when you wake up
from a general anaesthetic: you have been, to all
in tents and porpoises, dead; then your memories
kick back in giving you a sense of continuity, and
you're alive again. |
|
| |
For DNA-based reincarnation to work, you would
need to produce a replacement person (relatively
easy), and then somehow upload all the memories
from their previous existence, to re-establish
continuity. Of course, you might be able to upload
those memories into a non-cloned body, in which
case the cloning is irrelevant. |
|
| |
Without the memory upload, all that would happen
is that somebody would walk out of a lab thinking
"Hey, I look just like this guy who died 50 years ago
and left me all this money." |
|
| |
// upload all the memories from their previous existence, to re-establish continuity. // |
|
| |
//somebody would walk out of a lab thinking "Hey, I look just like this guy who died 50 years ago and left me all this money."// |
|
| |
Just out of interest [MB], what language would the new person think this in? |
|
| |
It's impossible to say, since every individual has a unique, internal subjective perception of their sensory inputs. |
|
| |
Language is of necessity a consensus, otherwise it could not function. But play the objectively standardised sound of, for example, "coffee" to two individuals, so that the same pattern of frequencies and pressures impinge on their tympanic membranes, and one brain may internally decode it as "squmplet" while the other decodes "frimbortl". There is no objective way of knowing. |
|
| |
Similarly, although both individuals may respond "Yes, please" or "No thankyou", their internal representation of the consensus pressure wave patterns may be entirely different, although the neural commands sent to the muscles of the laryinx and tongue may be extremely similar. |
|
| |
So, basically, don't ask stupid questions. Don't make us do metaphysics at you. |
|
| |
Great, my left knee gets to live again, after I die. |
|
| |
Consider 100 inputs, each mapping to only a single
binary output. The ludicrously simple model gives
you 2^100 possible people, or about 10^10. It's
unlikely that even nematodes recur. |
|
| |