What kind of immortality would you rather come true?

https://imgur.com/a/HjF2P

 

Dips on Hourai Elixir!

Oh, wait... no tampering with eternity allowed?
Well, bummer...

Seriously though, I think the combination of these will be the most realistic outcome in the long run. Many of these already overlap with each other.
Some of them will be more convenient, risk-less and cost-effective. Idea of cybernetics for example is romantic and interesting path of transhumanisn, but alone it's clumsy and problematic. Combination of genetics, nanotechnology, AI and cybernetics on the other hand...

 

I'll go for nanomedicne. Then I can be JC Denton.

One problem I can see here is that the Digital Immortality and AI options both result in the original human dying. You haven't made a person immortal, you've just created an immortal copy.

BTW, the AI and cyborg girls are hot. Don't know why. I may be spending too much time around computers.

 

Yeah, this is actually a thing people seem to completely forget. Copying yourself isn't technically immortality.
Same goes for cloning. You are not immortal. You just make another you. It's like saying two cars of same model are same car. They just look same, but they are their own entities and may have completely different life.
Guess when your ego is high enough you still think copying yourself as a win.

 

My definition is that it's me in there. When I "upload" my mind into a computer, until my body dies, there are two Haki's (let that one sink in). That isn't me in the computer, it's just something that thinks it's me. It's a very good copy. No one else can tell the difference. But I know it isn't me.

If you want to be metaphysical, it doesn't have my soul.

 

Indeed. I'm going to be that guy -- And what of the soul? That's the debate I expect to see a lot of in the future.

 

In the end it comes down to ability to transfer consciousness, and way of proving you are the one from whom your mind was extracted.
The magic question is, is your consciousness copied or transferred?
It's complicated question and we can only get answers when we try it in practice at some point.

EDIT: And speaking of soul.
Firstly: I'm Atheist/Agnostic. But, I personally think if there's some sort of soul it is connected to your consciousness. You could say it's connected to you, or you to it, from another plane of existence. What happens to you in this world will not affect it.
What is that other plane? That's another discussion.
And this is just my two woolongs so don't take it too seriously. Just my own thoughts.

 

If at any point during the process there are two independent entities that think themselves the same person, it was a copy. I think at this science and theology can agree with each other. Everything we know from both tells us that a true transfer is functionally impossible, unless we could prove that souls do in fact exist (even I will admit you can't), and can be moved from body to another.

That "rights" of both are a completely separate question. Of course, one way around the problem is to use a scanning procedure that destroys the original brain. Solve both problems in one go.

 

And what Dihm said brings out the dilemma of multiple entities of same person. Is the original person the only "legally" real person? Who actually is the original? What are the copies? They are fully sentient beings too thus deserving of life and independent thought and yet people see them as copies, which makes them look "inferior".

 

This is one of the reasons a scientist should always ask if they should do something before asking if they can do it.

 

I think the should would be once we've mastered planet colonization.

Edit: Like Dihm said each copy would experience a unique perspective therefore becoming someone different.