Why do so many articles on future tech simply take as a given the notion that uploading your brain – done successfully – means avoiding death?
And that everyone (writers, interviewees, audience) knows it?
“I’m not sure I would want to be the first one to do it,” he said. “There is tremendous appeal. The obvious benefit of having a longer lifespan, the possibility of living in a fantasy world for a period of time is certainly appealing. There’s an obvious risk of losing your philosophical grounding and becoming depressed and realizing your world doesn’t matter.”
For his part, researcher Vardi says that uploading the human brain and consciousness onto a computer is still in the realm of science fiction.
“It depends what you think about death,” Vardi said. “Some people have a hard time with this concept that you don’t exist anymore. This is one more attempt to overcome death. I don’t find it particular useful.”
It’s that they don’t even question the assumption – as if it were simply established fact.
My objection here is not religious, but based on logic: even if we assume God doesn’t exist, it still does not follow that the “emergent properties” concept of consciousness is the only or even the best possible explanation for what life is, where it comes from, what it means, or what it is to have.