Let’s see. 1. It’s vitrification, not freezing. 2. Nobody has proposed stitching heads onto random bodies. The idea is to re-grow the lost organs and tissues from the patient’s own DNA. As long as the brain survives there is no rational reason to believe a person is truly dead.
It is? I thought scanning and emulation would be a more likely outcome.
I doubt repair is significantly more challenging than scanning and emulation. However it is conceivable that memory loss would be lower with the scan/em method, at least when the tech comes out. In an FAI intelligence explosion event, emulation seems slightly more likely due to conservation of resources. But in the grand scheme of things, a standard human isn’t that resource-intensive (compared to e.g. the mass of a planet or a star’s total output). I’d say there’s a good chance of it going either way regardless of FAI versus incremental tech advancement scenario. Fixating on one or the other seems like a case of burdensome detail to me. Maximizing preservation quality is likely to prove helpful in either situation.
Fixating on one or the other seems like a case of burdensome detail to me.
Details only become burdensome in that sense if they are misused. It is an unimportant detail for the purpose of deciding how to handle life-challenged individuals. But ‘burdensome detail’ refers to a specific use of details for (poor) predictions that isn’t present here.
I’d say there’s a good chance of it going either way regardless of FAI versus incremental tech advancement scenario.
An FAI creating bodies for people wouldn’t surprise me either. I’m not sure about the ‘regrow from dna’ thing… that sounds like what we would have to do.
It is? I thought scanning and emulation would be a more likely outcome.
I doubt repair is significantly more challenging than scanning and emulation. However it is conceivable that memory loss would be lower with the scan/em method, at least when the tech comes out. In an FAI intelligence explosion event, emulation seems slightly more likely due to conservation of resources. But in the grand scheme of things, a standard human isn’t that resource-intensive (compared to e.g. the mass of a planet or a star’s total output). I’d say there’s a good chance of it going either way regardless of FAI versus incremental tech advancement scenario. Fixating on one or the other seems like a case of burdensome detail to me. Maximizing preservation quality is likely to prove helpful in either situation.
Details only become burdensome in that sense if they are misused. It is an unimportant detail for the purpose of deciding how to handle life-challenged individuals. But ‘burdensome detail’ refers to a specific use of details for (poor) predictions that isn’t present here.
An FAI creating bodies for people wouldn’t surprise me either. I’m not sure about the ‘regrow from dna’ thing… that sounds like what we would have to do.