I didn't say that. Science doesn't "do" good or evil. Science doesn't act. See first paragraph that you quoted. I also never claimed that the knowledge attained scientifically has only been used in good ways, only that we're ahead. See the paragraph you cut out using ellipses.

It is hypocrisy to condemn a process while reaping the benefits of it. That's almost the definition of hypocrisy. I didn't say anyone was evil. Disrespectful, perhaps - but isn't the methodology that has allowed us to achieve our modern way of life worthy of some respect?

...

Sounds interesting. Will check it out. Also, thanks for putting a name to the paradox.

My answer would be that they haven't moved - neither ship has a discontinuity of existence. After every swapped piece they still are where they were. Only the matter that makes up both ships has moved.

You sound like you (and society) have given up on the word already. Don't, it's a good one, worth fighting for. I'm using the word in the way in which scientists use it still. (for, IAAS, as it were)

Plus I don't think the mainstream has accepted the teachings of any religious groups using the word "Science".

I'm thinking that as more people realize that eternal life is within reach, that taboo is going to evaporate. (Religious objections aside)

You don't even need a complete understanding of the way the mind works to start with this - all you need is a logically complete brain scan, a computer that can hold the result in memory, and slowly simulate nerve impulses. Perhaps later when technology and understanding has caught up you can then transfer these mind-patterns to dedicated machines built to excel at that task.

It doesn't have to be fast, just complex enough. As long as the computer could hold my mind, I would happily sit and wait until better machines become available - and the slower the simulation, the faster that would be.

Bah, computers aren't only used for productive tasks now, so I don't see anything wrong with putting non-ideal intelligences in them in the future.

I've thought about this, and there are two things to consider.

Ever heard of the philosophical problem where you fix rotten pieces of wood on a sailing ship by replacing them with fresh pieces - until you've replaced every piece? The question goes - is it the same ship still? I would argue that you really do have the same ship still. Because the pattern was the same at every minor wood-replacing step, you always had the original ship. This holds for brains (the wood of the ship) and minds (the pattern of the ship), because after all brain cells die and have to be replaced - and yet your mind is the same. So, what you have to do is transfer the mind bit by bit, while maintaining functionality - you have to transfer the mind without introducing a discontinuity in its existence. While this would make the whole process hellishly difficult, there is no reason inherently that says it can't work that I am aware of.

(incidentally, the philosophy problem continues by saying - what if you reassemble the original bits of wood into another ship. Is this the original ship too? Do you have two then? I would say that despite being made of the original materials, the discontinuity in its existence makes *this* the copy)

The other thing to consider is whether or not this is happening already anyway. If you fall asleep or get knocked unconscious, your consciousness is interrupted - and when it gets recreated, is it the same one or a new one? Is your consciousness now the same consciousness as you had a second ago? As the pattern is identical, you cannot tell. if you were copied into the computer, the computer-based version of you wouldn't be able to tell it was inhabiting a different mind, for it the process would be continuous.

Your signature is oddly apt, considering ;)

I'm hoping my natural life is long enough for computers to get complex enough and scanning equipment sensitive enough to transfer the entire logical structure of my mind into a computer.

I'm not religious, so I believe that my entire mind (no soul required) is governed by the logical patterns made by the neurons and electrical impulses in my brain. There is no good reason a computer cannot reproduce these structures. I think that a simulation of consciousness is as conscious as the biological model it is based on - after all, what does it matter if the machine that houses my mind's pattern isn't biological in nature?

If moore's law continues and is supported by advances in FMRI or similar technologies, we may be the first generation whose minds' expected lifespans exceed their bodies'. I'm a great fan of the irony that despite all of religion's promises, it may be science that brings us the dream of life after death.

This sort of thing infuriates me. Flamebait be damned, this needs saying.

Science is not a cause, nor a goal, or agent. Science is a framework for gaining knowledge while discarding falsehood. That is all. Saying science is the cause of some evil is saying that learning is the cause of some evil.

There are consequences to the knowledge that science unlocks, it is true. Some of these consequences are detrimental, it is true. However, to condemn the best process of learning because some of the things we have learnt have been used in a less than ideal fashion is to condemn all the good things we have learnt through it as well, and on balance, I'd say we're ahead.

And finally, to bitch about science, from the shelter of your science-made walls that house your your electricity-powered home, via quantum mechanical communication equipment, and with you alive in no small part due to a plethora of antibiotics and immunisations - is the worst disrespectful hypocrisy. Next time a doctor saves your life think hard on that.

As long as we're being pedantic, you yanks dropped an "i" there. It's aluminium. Just look at the other elements in the periodic table... it's not like you say Helum, Lithum,Thorum.... no, that would be silly! (Or, in the case of Sodum, kinky.)

No biggie though. Just fix all your textbooks and I'll be on my way.

As opposed to making wild unsubstantiated claims that go against common sense without any sources at all... "I read a study" doesn't count!

"I read a study that said the earth is flat!"!
"No it's not!"
"What a foolish thing to say without citing numbers. This sort of thing should be banned!"

So does 42 include the time you figured it out, or is it 43 now?

And it turns out that once in a blue moon happens just under every 3 years:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=1%2F(once+in+a+blue+moon)

Not now that you can install windows on them. Gaming on my old MacPro is fantastic - plus I'm not tied to windows for my work. Price isn't so bad (not good, just not terrible) when you get a decent gaming pc AND a high powered workstation - although these new ones could indeed use a bit more graphics power.

The clincher for me (personally, no evangelising here) is the operating system though... To say I've used both windows and mac and prefer the latter would be...erroneous. I do use mac os x (with elegance, the slightest touch, subconsciously if it weren't for the beauty - and I don't mean visually). I can't say I've ever progressed to the level of actually "using" windows... the experience (hah!) is better described as suffering, struggling against, despite years of trying. With windows I get stuff done despite the operating system, but the mac actually speeds my process. If I have to pay through the nose for apple hardware, so be it, as long as I get to keep the operating system

Ok, so I did stray into the evangelising. Sorry. It's just so hard not to...