 Questions about (d)—the potential constitution and range of realizations of mind—seem to depend partly on one’s attitude towards reductive intentionalism. This is readily joined with broadly functionalist or computationalist perspectives friendly to the idea that mind is realizable in physically very diverse entities. If indeed it is, then a confidence in reductive intentionalism should inspire confidence in the wide diversity of constitutions that artificial conscious beings can have, and similarly make us more confident of the potential to extend our own conscious existence in artifacts transcending our biological limitations. On the other hand, if we reject or are skeptical about reductive intentionalism, we lose certain these for such confidence. And if we combine this with the idea that the right kind of subjective experience is necessary and sufficient for mind, a corresponding biological conservatism about our grounds for attributing mind to highly physically diverse entities, and about our own prospects for indefinitely artificially extended futures, may seem more reasonable.