This is downvoted more than I think it should be. It’s probably true that upload of any existing human is not going to happen. There may be a TINY possibility for a TINY percentage of the population, through cryonics and crazy good luck over a long period of time, but I give it extremely low probability for any individual.
But I think you do your argument a disservice by mixing up “can” and “should”, and by including weak arguments (philosophy of self and CS, arguing about verification rather than object-level upload) with the strong one (physics, sheer amount of hard-to-scan information).
As mentioned in my above comment, the reason for mixing “can” and “should” problems is that they form a “stack” of sorts, where attempting to approximately solve the bottom problems makes the above problems harder and verification is important. How many people would care about the vision if one could never be certain the process succeeds?
This is downvoted more than I think it should be. It’s probably true that upload of any existing human is not going to happen. There may be a TINY possibility for a TINY percentage of the population, through cryonics and crazy good luck over a long period of time, but I give it extremely low probability for any individual.
But I think you do your argument a disservice by mixing up “can” and “should”, and by including weak arguments (philosophy of self and CS, arguing about verification rather than object-level upload) with the strong one (physics, sheer amount of hard-to-scan information).
Thanks for the first part of the comment.
As mentioned in my above comment, the reason for mixing “can” and “should” problems is that they form a “stack” of sorts, where attempting to approximately solve the bottom problems makes the above problems harder and verification is important. How many people would care about the vision if one could never be certain the process succeeds?