I had an interesting conversation about one form of supposed immortality.
We ran out of arguments on both sides and no one “won”.
So I was hoping that it could get new life over here.
This is what was proposed.
If you use a machine to read the exact positions of atoms in a human and store them then when that person dies you can bring them back to life by creating a new one with the data you collected. This new person would be you.
My argument against this was that you might as well take death out of the equation and you will get the same result. You merly copy a human. It doesn’t become you. If you die you die. This new copy will however appear to him to be you; the outside world will see no difference. And he will see no difference.
You however would still be alive and would still be… well you.
This can also be made into an example.
You use the machine to read your data. Then go outside and get hit by a buss. You are assumed to be dead. The doctors reactivate you by creating a new you. But then the you that got hit by a buss comes back to life.
Now you have a dilemma. And with or without death it is the same. Only more complicated.
Are you the one that got hit by a buss or the one that got recreated?
To me it’s obvious that this is more or less the same as just cloning you. You just use technology to do it. And you get added benefits such as the clone having your memories and way of life and so on…
However the point of the other side was for this to work you absolutely had to have death in the equation for it to be you.
I had no luck what so ever trying to get them to see that creating a copy of you isn’t the same as immortality. This because if you die you die. So what if someone creates a copy. You will still be dead.
I do however agree that it is theoretically possible to do and has many uses.
Now I wonder not what side you take but if you can ad more arguments since we ran out of them
I will not say how the people I discussed this with are. If they want to say it themselves then go right ahead.