Answered long ago? Cite please. I've been aware and interested in the subject for maybe fifty years. Never heard any definite conclusions, just many debates. As someone already responded; not magic, just extremely complex and definitely not even close to being understood. So, unless you've got some new information for us on just how the brain does "its thing", that last sentence is meaningless.

You're basing your argument on your belief that the consciousness is actually transferred. The fact that you use the word copy belies your premise. Don't destroy the original and you now have two. One of them *must* be a fake (that would be the copy, regardless of how adamant it is that it's the "real" person). Therefore, "real consciousness" matters a great deal.

Continuity. Consciousness is not a snapshot. .

Don't expect philosophical bullshit to yield a rational answer. Expect more philosophical bullshit.

They may not progressively replace themselves, but some die and some new ones occur. Worse, on the cellular level the dendrites change with some frequency. Even worse, we don't understand exactly how the cells decide which dendrites to fire in response to stimuli (each cell can have thousands), and - here's another fun part - the brain doesn't stop. Unless the "transfer" is instantaneous, you're not going to get a good copy. Add to all of that the fact that hormones influence the functioning and you get a real mess.

The fact that it's a copy demonstrates that it's not *you*. If the process can be made noninvasive, you inarguably get a (somewhat) mental clone, not *you*.

If I chose to do this "transfer", you can bet it will be the very last friggin' thing I do in life before death at old age, not an option I'll consider a moment before. Kinda queers the whole "getting rid of the geezers" thing.

A simulation, regardless of how detailed, is still a simulation. Anything which destroys the human body during transport (including traveling great distance or time) is not a good idea if you value the integrity of self.

You mean during the last inter-ice age period? Like the one we're currently moving into?

You sir, are mistaken. People with the former attitude would indeed think a cheaply made, low quality production of LoTR would be preferable to a studio produced one simply *because* it was done with cheap tools. Hell, that view has been argued here on /.

Spent a similar amount of time in the business. Your views are ossified.

That is all.

And when your friend decides they don't want to watch that show in that time slot, what do you do?

There is no indication of causality in your statement, only in your mind. There are more automobile deaths now than seventy years ago. Would you promote that this means cars are less safe now or that perhaps there are other factors to consider?

You need to crack a dictionary. There was indeed theft, as theft is not restricted to the removal of physical objects.

Add to that, a book is a physical object which you purchase and own outright, giving you the legal permission to give it away or loan it. A subscription to a service is not.

And people wonder why I hold ACs in such low regard.

Good thing you're AC, else when those things do not happen (and they won't), you'd be derided to the end of your days here.

FYI, the executive branch cannot do those things. True, it could attempt, but it does not have that authority and they would be thrown out ASAP if for no other reason than to avoid immediate and armed revolt. This is why we have gun rights in this country.

Hell, I would promote that it is forged far more often than a real one arrives.

You neglect to mention that the WH had a filmmaker targeted and picked up (still not charged and still under detention). I think we care about that and the lame excuse of refusing to acknowledge the terrorists involved that enabled that sideshow is not a trivial detail.

The Tea Party is not anti taxes, just anti TOO HIGH taxes, so your entire third paragraph tanks.

I note that the only thing you find worthy of interest is the WH pulling records of reporters (liberal and Dems).

"Again I'm not a supporter of Democrats..."

Your commentary says otherwise.