You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Gunnar_Zarncke comments on A rational approach to the issue of permanent death-prevention - Less Wrong Discussion

-4 Post author: Nanashi 11 February 2015 12:22PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (28)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Gunnar_Zarncke 13 February 2015 09:51:25PM 0 points [-]

We know how to make ~100% copies of software sure, but hardware? I don't think we can do single-material solid copies with an accurracy with much more than µm resolution.

We can 'copy' (clone) a lot of life-forms. So you might mean that kind of hardware copy. I don't know the mutation rate of animal cloning and it is probably good enough to call it ~100% on the DNA-level. But the resulting phenotype often contains errors that make it questionable to call the result a 100% copy.

Comment author: imuli 15 February 2015 01:42:34PM 0 points [-]

I would hazard that cloning comes a lot closer to 100% fidelity than a child comes to 50% fidelity. In any case, one cannot transfer their self to clones or children with our current means - I doubt one can even convey 1%.

Comment author: Gunnar_Zarncke 15 February 2015 05:13:29PM 0 points [-]

That entierely depends on how to measure this.