True. It's more of a philosophical point at any rate. My goal-method is a gradual change of neurons or semi-large brain structures to an artificial analog, while the patient is awake (nano-particles that wrap the neuron, destroy it, and replace it? Connecting the new piece to the brain before excising the old piece?), to best combat the idea that "I am not the same person I was when I came in," because they'd have no "memory loss" associated with unconsciousnesses, or being asleep.
After the brain has been replaced in this way, moving the brain, upgrading it with additional structures or neurons, or adding a radio-transceiver to allow avatars of other bodies should be much easier. Comparatively.
Remember when we had a big argument about this about the continuity thing? I remember that. I still think I was right.
Still, I see no reason to have just an artificial brain, since there's a lot of human bodyparts that would give out first. You'd be better off replacing some other things like livers or hearts or maybe even individual mitochondria.
When did I say anything about "just an artificial brain"?
In fact, I said quite the opposite when I said "a durable brain in a
hard, sturdy shell interacting with the world through [replaceable] avatars".
@Telomeres: Just because my end-goal is man-in-a-can, doesn't mean that telomere shortening isn't an issue in the short-run. Millions if not billions of people will die from aging related illnesses that anti-aging could fix between now and when we have a viable, long-term "consciousness storage" method. I just, personally, want to work on the long-term solution, both because that's my main goal and because I don't see others focusing on a continuity-retaining method, instead aiming for a "one-shot brain upload and then squishy-brain destruction" method, which sounds incredibly dangerous to me.
@Sirus: Danke herr Trucker~