[QUOTE=iamthewalrus(:3=]
That’s not a fundamental assumption of Kurtzweil’s Technological Singularity concept. Progress doesn’t need to increase exponentially without limit, just far enough that it’ll leave humanity and our slow meat-based cognition in the dust.
[/QUOTE]
Right but couldn’t Shamalese be right too? That the Singularity leaves us in the dust but on the other end progress is in an S curve (not a straight line off the graph) We might not be able to see it, because it would all seem like magic to us at a certain point …
[QUOTE=Priam]
Since I’m not anywhere near an expert, I’m staying away from the mainstream debate. However, I just wonder how well this assertion was thought out, given just above it you talk about replication simply creating a “clone” of the human it was modeled on. If we scan a brain into a computer that is then implanted in our head, the old us is dead or floating in a jar being supported by Super Sophisticated Life Support. What’s moving our body around? A facsimilie. We will still die, while something else takes our place in society. If that turns out not to be the case, which would be extremely hard to test, then we get into metaphysical issues like evidence of a soul.
[/QUOTE]
Read Rogue Moon by Algis Budrys for a discussion of just this problem. If we use the backup only if the primary body dies, then the issue still exists but I’d suspect people would be willing to take the risk. Using the backup while the original still lives gets more interesting. I think we’ll need to redefine what personality means. And yes, if both copies seem to be authentic, that kind of wraps it up for the soul - unless you claim the soul can clone itself also.
I suspect the moral qualms will seem small potatoes compared to the benefits.