Intergalactic Enemy

Ah there you are, I'm glad you decided to use your words. First of all, I think I should of put this in the ethics section. Look, I get it. The way I presented this was pretty amateur, and may have seemed a bit screwy superficially, but the point I was trying to make couldn't have been that hard to understand. I actually meant to bring that up and further explain before I got side tracked. So what your saying is that I was wrong for the way I responded to stringjunky and apparently EdEarl as well. Stringjunky insisted as subtly as he could that everything I'm saying doesn't belong here because it's philosophy, and not science, which anybody could of easily insinuated if they didn't actually think about what I was saying, and instead dwelled superficially on the irrelevant fact that I mentioned something metaphysical. Extremely predictable. Also, he immediately jumped to pick the one thing that he could say out of everything to directly contradict me, which is ok, except when I tried to use logic and describe in detail how that probably wouldn't work, he basically said "No your wrong because it can only work this way, because that's just how it works," in a nutshell. He didn't actually present any logic for his argument, he didn't really think about what I was saying, and insisted that I was automatically wrong, even though I was still considering the point he was arguing in the beginning. His pattern of reasoning was exactly that of every closed minded religious person in denial that I have ever argued with. While that was going on, almost 200 people had watched the conversation but didn't feel the need to get involved. I would say that is the opposite of rigorous and honest. Just because he was following the rules and staying subtle while expressing his opinion didn't mean it wasn't at all hostile. I'm the kind of person who calls it how I see it, and I know from experience that if I didn't call it, stringjunky would keep it up. His criticism was not constructive and I don't have time for bulls***, that's what youtube is for. You didn't dislike my comment for being uncivilized, you disliked it because I wasn't being overly sensitive like the rest here. But I did actually apologize for getting a little overheated, because after I read it, I realized that I could of been a little more sensitive, but I didn't regret it. It was honest and necessary. When I told EdEarl that I wasn't as stupid as everybody here seems to think I am, I wasn't saying it to insult anybody, or to be sarcastic, or anything of that nature. I was being very sincere, because I'm getting tired of being treated like I don't know what I'm talking about, real fast. The other ones where I said "I don't want to talk to somebody who can't understand what I'm saying," was 100% in the right on a website where people come expecting a rigorous, honest conversation. Sorry if your too sensitive for such an assertive statement. When somebody is clearly getting irritated you don't go silently disliking every other comment they make. Anybody logical would know that is only going to push somebody's buttons and instigate even more, especially when they are new. Instead of spamming the f*** you button and making me feel like I'm getting ganged up on to make me look bad and throw me out before the real conversation even begins, you could of used your words like an adult to say something like "Hey man, no need to be so hostile, that's not cool and we can't have that kind of stuff going on here," or "hey, whats the problem, what can I do as the MODERATOR to help you solve it," and I guarantee I would have had a civilized conversation with you, and admitted to any faults or mistakes, and maybe I could have gotten some good advice and maybe this post could have survived, and maybe everybody could of gained from this instead of losing. At first I tried to just shrug off the dislikes, but after enough of it, I decided to call you out in the most surefire way possible, since I have nothing to lose at this point anyway, and as expected, I got a youtube style insult in response, underneath the superficial layer of rule based sensitivity, ironically from a moderator. Way to moderate dude, or should I say cyberbully with a badge? You said you were one of the people who disliked my comments, but I count 3 of my comments with 1 dislike each, and 1 comment from stringjunky with a like. It looks to me like their is only 1 biased like disliker involved. You never gave me a like for giving friendly responses back to anybody, or for the time I apologized. I hope all of you primitive humans have fun erasing yourselves in the years to come, because I won't be there to question your actions. I don't care anymore. I'm done with this s*** show.

That's pretty interesting. Using that method you could certainly link 2 brains. Moving physical parts would probably work as well. Note: I have not disliked your posts, but you do need to focus on the discussion. Insults only hurt any case you are trying to make. You feel there was a rule violation report it instead. Ya I know, I don't really care any more. I'm thinking about deleting this whole thread and my profile on this website, because it's not going anywhere and I feel like I'm in the youtube coment section. So much for finding advice from people on science forums.

Try to read these if you care, I dont know why they isist on posting upside down. Im starting to not care any more:

It's all good man, sorry about your dyslexia, and thanks.

Ya I know, (unless millions of years from now some super advanced life forms figure out the exact "code" to the universe, then anything is possible), I kind of mentioned what your saying at one point. It's just an example for the point I'm trying to make. I'm not as stupid as all you people seem to think I am. But that statement also supports my point further that you can't be immortal by simply copying your personality, you'll still be dead after you die.

Huh. Well thanks anyway.

OK, so I think I got a little overheated... I apologize as well. That whole thing on emergence was very interesting. The whole concept of chaos writing the patterns of reality has dominated the way I think about everything I think and do since I saw the movie "The Butterfly Effect" when I was 7, and this "emergence" was a great addition. Yes the brain and mind does function exactly in the pattern described in emergence theory, and we do perceive it in that way. I fully understand that. If somebody took half of the components from your brain and moved it to another minimally conscious brain, that 1 system would become 2 smaller, incomplete systems. Neither system would be interacting with the components of the other. So you wouldn't be experiencing the information from both systems simultaneously, as they are no longer communicating. You would either have to stay with the one system in your brain, or you would have to be transported with the other system of information to the other brain. That is a key factor. Now if you removed all of the necessary physical components containing information from your brain to make you you, meaning your memories, your emotions, etc. leaving the remaining components for simple common things like motor control and sensory stuff, inducing a permanent coma in your still living brain, or turning it into a conscious zombie, and put it all into a storage unit to be later put into another gutted brain or a computer of some kind, either you would be waiting inside of that storage unit, or you would still be trapped in the coma induced / conscious zombie brain. If a super computer was used to copy the structure and activity pattern of your brain exactly as it is, while leaving it in tact, and used that copy to 3D print another, identical brain, or to upload your brain's content to a computer or robot, you will still be experiencing the system of your original brain, observing that other brain from the outside, not experiencing any information from its system, because they are 2 separate isolated systems. In scenario A, if you transported half of your brain to another hollow brain you would experience the information that is still connected to whatever produces the POE, meaning if the new brain already had A POE component, and they still managed to connect yours, 2 perspectives would be sharing on mind, like 2 people watching one TV, leaving the other brain system unexperienced, but maybe or maybe not still functioning like it would if it had a POE component, it just wont be experienced. Same goes with the Storage unit vs the coma/zombie brain, you would go with which ever has the POE component. Replicating the brain would create 2 different individuals experiencing their own mind, even know both are identical. But if this universe has a unique code for each POE, than that could cause some kind of problem, depending on what that code represents but I'm not leaning on that. In scenario B, if you transported half of your brain to another hollow brain, you would either go with whatever "cloud/field of existence"(creates one POE or contains multiple) you were originally a part of, or you would shift to one system instead of the other by random chance. Or you would disappear since your cloud/field changed into 2 new ones and either remain dead eternally or appear in another mind through reincarnation, while multiple new POEs would take your place in the new clouds/fields. In the storage unit vs coma/zombie brain situation, It would basically be the same, because your point exists as a result of a cloud/field of perceivable information. Replicating your brain would create a new, separate, but identical system that you won't be a part of, just like in scenario a, except if you die, then maybe you will be reincarnated in that new mind, since it is the most similar to the former, except you wont remember your last moments in the former, but that is highly unlikely. In your alternative understanding of scenario B, If you transported half of your brain to another hollow brain, you would either experience both brain systems simultaneously because they are both components of your "mental configuration" just separated, or you would die, because your exact mental configuration no longer exists in the universe, but you would come back if somebody recreated your exact mental configuration at any point in the infinite future. In the storage unit vs coma/zombie brain situation, you would go with the parts containing what you feel is you because apparently nobody else can be you, and you think you will always be attached to that data because your personality is so personal to you. Replicating your brain will make you experience the mind of both brain systems simultaneously, because they both run your mental configuration, meaning you could create a telepathically communicating one mind clone army, and experience the mind of every single one of them simultaneously, and it doesn't matter if some die, because you can be immortal as long as there is at least one copy of your mental configuration somewhere out there in the universe. See how illogical that sounds? The biggest problem with your scenario is that your exact mental configuration would only exist for an extremely brief moment, because the mind is constantly changing in every "frame" of time. If your mental configuration is more ambiguous, then that would mean that when two people think a very similar collection of thoughts simultaneously, they would fluctuate in and out of each other's minds, except realistically, they wouldn't remember it because memory is simply coded data reflecting stored information from other coded data, but it seems like you think of memory as something almost metaphysical. Jhonny Depp's character probably died in the beginning of transcendent, and the super computer went on thinking it was him because it contained a copy of his brains data, which he will actually never experience himself after his brains deactivation. Scenario C is too unpredictable to be analyzed in the three mentioned situations. According to some variations of my scenario B, the subconscious could have a perspective of it's own, meaning I have a copilot, or that every different conscious thought has its own POE, meaning that there are several POEs experiencing life through one brain system, or more likely, one collective bubble of consciousness = one POE. I'm going to use this forest/collection of trees/environment created by the forest full of trees as a metaphor for the thoughts, senses and memories interacting to create the percieved mind: If you leave the forest, it will still be there, acting as it would if it were still being observed. If close your eyes, you will still hear the forest, smell the forest, feel and be aware of the forest. If you bulldoze the trees, you will still sense aspects of what was the forest. If you erase every fallen tree, you still have roots and other parts of what was once a forest lying beneath your feet. If you erase the entire planet, you will still be right there, floating in space, and very shortly you will be dead. If every other function in my brain and mind can be altered, without me losing my position in observation of it's activity, then I must not be the rest of my mind, I am only the observer. The point of all this is that it is very important to consider the alternatives here, because otherwise, in the future, people might unknowingly die when they try to move or copy their brain, assuming it would just work. If you can understand all of that, then great! I hope you have something constructive to change or add to this concept, or advice on what I can do with it. Otherwise, I don't know what else to tell you, and I'm not interested in an irrelevant opinion.

Not exactly, I'm just as considerate towards scenario A as I am Scenario C. But I am actual more interested in scenario A because it suggests that there is a physical component hard wired into the brain that is responsible for existence and individuality. I don't care about what the point of existence exactly is, or where it came from, that's philosophy and I can't do anything with that. What I do care about is how points of existence make observable interactions with the brain in every moment. It's simple, if you can remove parts of my visual cortex, my hypothalamus, and my frontal cortex, but I'm still here in the dark without my emotions and aspects of my personality, thinking irrational thoughts, hearing noises and feeling proprioception, then obviously I am not my personality or emotions, and it is crazy to assume that I would just float away with them when they disconnect from the brain. That is a physical observation. But for some reason you and every body else just jump to the conclusion that we are simply the calculations and emotions in our brain without any solid evidence, which is a philosophy. And the fact that you want to make life decisions based off of that assumption without analyzing the alternatives is a religious way of looking at things. That's as logical as saying that you absolutely believe your cell phone is alive because it has data, or that you could have been born as a rock. Ya know I came on here looking to have an intellectual conversation with somebody about some solid observations Iv'e made in the observable reality around me, but of course, Instead I get some guy who want's pick one out of 3 alternatives that I posted out of many alternatives, and push that philosophical assumption towards me along with the accusation that I posted a philosophy in a science section, because he doesn't understand what I'm talking about, or what point I'm trying to make, and every logical statement I make goes right over his head, because he can't put 2 and 2 together. And everybody else just watches or skips the conversation, probably because half of them make the same assumption before even reading the whole post. I really feel like you didn't read my first post on his thread, or that you didn't actually try to comprehend it before inserting your opinion. Frankly I'm insulted. If you don't have anything useful to say, just stop talking to me.

It's based off of facts that I have observed in my mind and in others for 20 years, and things that I have studied and researched regarding the brain and peoples theories on consciousness. Through many observations and unbiased processes of elimination, I have hypothesized a few general rule based scenarios regarding known facts about the brain, its interaction with individual perspectives, and differing potentials. It's a logical system of factors, based off of observable facts, it can be still be broken down through further analysis, and I don't acknowledge ambiguous details that can't be observed or connected to the system. It is a scientific observation. It's relevant because it can be used for necessary caution in future decisions, which could make a difference in case we realize we screwed up in even later discoveries of the brain and universe. In real life they wont be able to create an exact replica of her already dead husbands personality, especially so early on. Something will always be a little off. When they replicated Jhonny's mind while he was still alive in the movie, then maybe it could have been an exact replica being a movie, and there would be no difference for her to notice. But even with a perfect replica, Jhonny is still dead, and will never see his wife again, and may never feel or experience life again. If she understands the tragedy in that, then it's OK, but if she doesn't care at all because she still can have another him then that's pretty messed up. Imagine if you died and your parents just shrugged and said, "oh well we can make another one," and tossed your body in the dumpster and went on with their day like nothing happened. You will still be dead even after they upload your blueprint to another brain or computer. If that that doesn't bother you, than you obviously don't understand the value of your own life or anybody else's for that matter. No offence intended. The conscious mind is a virtual reality projected as a reflection of your neural wiring, and sensory information analyzing the physical world around it. Its just images, sounds, feelings, calculations, does and don'ts, thoughts, retrieved memories, and other messages converted and sent to a window of integrated perceivable information. But that information is just an addon to the virtual experience, it will come and go, and be constantly changing in each moment. That information is a separate component from whatever makes you perceive it. Think of a modern 3D computer game. You turn it on and projected on the screen is virtual world with depth and color, through your speakers come sound from the game, and inside the game is it's own physics system with rules and logic, objects can collide, and firing 2 rounds from your gun takes 2 points off of your ammo count in the corner, and it all happens in order with one another. It's just calculations and messages integrating into collective groups of information and sending the relative info to whatever activates the images and sounds on the monitor and speakers, just like the info in our brain, but obviously in a very different functional format with a different purpose. The main difference between the brain and the computer is that the computer simply has it's own world and is structured for its activity to be observed from an outside perspective, while the brain has the opposite; a similar virtual reality, like when you dream or imagine a scene at the store the other day, but also set up to physically grow, adapt, and change that world infinitely, and take in novel info from sensory organs analyzing the world outside of it, and is structured for it's activity to be observed from the inside. There is nothing special about the info in our brain, it's just coded differently. If you left the game on and walked away, the virtual world would continue to run like it did before, even without anybody being there to observe it. So your brain could continue to run it's program, even without anybody being inside of it to observe it. Of course you program can be moved, but when it does, you won't experience it anymore unless you're moved with it. Your configuration pattern isn't special, the most unique function of the brain is the ability to exist and perceive it's information. I'm sorry to tell you this but your emotions, your memories, your style and intelligence are not your own. What you think is you, is not you. And it doesn't need you to exist, nor do you need it. It's not as simple as we would like it to be. If you put away all of your emotions and desires, and make an unbiased observation of the factors and you really take the time to put it all together, you should see it. You are simply a single point of existence receiving a stream of constantly changing information from your conscious brain, in a symbiotic relationship. That is what creates and separates every individual. The mysterious link between the brain and the node is what we know as life. I never become you and you never become me. If I took brain damage, regardless of degree I would still be in this brain, with the likely exception of it's death. If I added new memories and senses to my brain, I would still be me. Recording my brain and copying it can't keep me alive if there can be multiple identical personality's, each possessed by different observers simultaneously. Does anybody understand what I'm saying?

So if you asked depps wife if she was no longer hurt or bothered by her husbands death because she has another him that knows her and makes her feel the same, and she replied with a yes, then that would mean she has a one sided love towards him, only caring for her experience and not caring about whats going on from the side of her dead husband. The same goes for the women in real life trying to resurrect her husband as an android, which she will notice differences in it's personality, and it may notice differences between itself and the original as well, which could potentially become some kind of problem in the long run. But that's not really the point of all this, just an example. The point of that whole paragraph was that you can never be immortal by simply copying yourself, you would just have somebody to carry on your legacy, which it seems a lot of people don't quite comprehend. Scenario B seems nearly impossible to me because if my memories, emotions, and many aspects of my personality were erased, I would still be here in this brain like I was before, except I wouldn't feel any emotions or remember anything, or think the way I used to. Instead I would simply be perceiving information from basic senses and whatever thoughts are still active in my brain. I wouldn't float away with my memories and emotions, they would just disappear, and that would be the end of them. But please, tell me what information you have that would support scenario B, my mind is open so near impossibilities are never absolutely impossible for me, that's why I mentioned it. Btw, I apologize if I posted in the wrong area. This is the first time I ever posted anything on any forum.

I think I'm starting to see what you mean, and it kind of makes sense. By point of existence I don't mean a physically existing body or brain or even data. I'm talking about individual existing perspectives. I could have been born you and vice versa, You and I could have been born rats, or you and I could of never been born at all and 2 other perspectives would be living in our brains instead, experiencing our lives, doing exactly what we are right now, while our perspectives experience nothing. So what factors in this chaotic reality landed me in this conscious mind instead of another? That is the point. A zygote might not have a POE (point of existence) connected to it depending on what exactly produces or links to POEs and when that production or linkage begins. I'm pretty sure a zygote doesn't even produce conscious information at such an early stage. If a zygote is connected to a POE, this is what would happen if it split: Scenario 1. That POE would stay with one zygote while the other gains its own POE or just doesn't get one at all. Scenario 2 . The POE would collapse or disconnect and 2 new POEs would assume each zygote or the zygotes would both go on without POEs at all. The zygotes sharing 1 POE would mean that they are sharing information, which would be like you and I telepathically sharing every thought and feeling with each other. So if you copied your mind into an android or cloned yourself, you wouldn't know what it's thinking when it's in the other room, and it wouldn't know what your thinking. So when you die, that non you, containing information configured like yours, will be still living without you, while you will either stay dead or be reincarnated somewhere else by laws of nature, without experiencing that copied information. So Jhonny Depps charactor died in the beginning, and his wife or whatever went on with a computer containing a copy of his mind, but either a different perspective from Jhonny's was loving her back or no perspective was experiencing that love towards her at all. Get it?

Either you didn't read this whole thing, or you misunderstood what I said. If you made a clone of your self, or an android with your "software configuration" you wouldn't instantly become both perspectives. You would still only be confined to yours, and somebody else would own the new perspective or nobody would. When you die you will not join that new perspective, you would just die and the copy would go on believing it's you. If some of software was deleted from your brain, you would still be in that brain as long as your alive. We are not consciousness or the brain's "software configuration" that's just information which is connected to our point of existence. We are individual points of existence, not the software. The information in the brain is constantly changing and no matter how similar my brain is to yours, I never become you. Why doesn't anybody understand that?

As a disclaimer, I want to make it very clear that I am NOT talking about souls or spirits. I have been watching Michio Kaku on curiosity stream, and I take interest in some of his theories on consciousness. But it seems like there is an important detail that he is missing, along with every body talking about this that I could find, and it's starting to become a little bit disturbing. This was originally meant for Michio Kaku, but apparently he is impossible to contact unless you are with an organization. So basically I ended up coming here to see if anybody knows where I can find some literature on this subject, or maybe some insight on where I may be mistaken or maybe what I could do to promote this concept. I would be willing to have a full discussion on this topic if necessary. In the "Next World" documentary they went over the ideas of uploading our brains to computers, resurrecting loved ones as A.I. based on their memories and personality, and beaming our particles across the universe via startrek style teleporters. I have seen these kinds of concepts all throughout documentaries and science fiction, but I see a potential problem when it comes to doing these things in the future. A solid definition of consciousness: Consciousness is simply a window of perceivable information at the end of various processes of information integration. Consciousness is not the first fundamental to our existence. You and I can exist without having anything to experience, and consciousness can exist without having anything to experience it. Think about it, I am here in this perspective and you are there in yours. Our perspectives never integrate and neither does anybody else's (unless every time I go to sleep, or die, or between every "frame" an individual perspective rotates through every sentient life form in the universe without regard to time, or something crazy like that, which I doubt). So one thing I can be certain of is that I exist here in this brain and I'm 99% sure that somebody exists in yours, that somebody being you. There must be some uniquely assigned detail that separates every individual. These can be referred to as individual Points or Nodes of Existence (tell me if you can think of something better). Without these nodes, the universe would most likely go on exactly like it is, except every life form would be like a "soulless robot" (for lack of better words), still processing stimuli, information, emotions, even self awareness, etc., except nobody would actually be there to experience it. If you think of it like a simulation, you and I would be players, while a nodeless brain would be an AI, assuming real life AI are nodeless. As far as I can tell, I am confined to this point of existence inside of this brain regardless of what happens to my brain, with the likely exception of it's death. Every moment, even while I'm asleep, whether or not I remember dreaming, and when I wake up I'm still right here. If I received brain damage and lost all of my memory, or my personality completely changed, or I lost a great deal of functionality and couldn't process information correctly, or went into a coma for 30 years, I would still be confined to this brain. So we are not our brain, nor it's memories and feelings, we are a separate component. We are a point of existence receiving a stream of information via some kind of link to our own personal brain system, in a symbiotic relationship. And depending on what we are, we may or may not be needed to keep this brain alive. Here is how I imagine it: If an advanced species was to decode the universe, every node of existence would probably have a unique number which is constantly changing. This number would be insanely huge. The question is, what does the number represent? The nodes place in hyperspace and time? The changes of it's nature and experiences? It's factory defaults? A combination of these things? Something else? What are we? Well, we can really only be one, or a combination, of so many things. Not that I know what they all are or that I'm going to list every one that I can think of. A. It could be a specific physical part of the brain that is primarily or secondarily purposed to produce existence, probably separate from whatever produces consciousness. Then the question is first, where? Maybe in the Thalamus? Then, is it a whole gyrus, a cluster of nuclei, a phew neurons, or a single molecule? Then you have to ask, is it exclusive to humans? If not, what animals have it? Maybe it's one of the first steps in evolution. B. If existence is simply a result of some kind of radiation, or a particular frequency of radiation emitted during brain activity, then the question is how much activity will produce it? Or What particular type or types of intelligence/consciousness will produce it? And where is the line drawn between creatures? Many humans are more animal than person, barely smarter than a monkey, so do all people actually exist? What about babies? Or does all intelligence/information produce existence, including AI, maybe even a stupid video game, or is it only organic or creative types? Makes me wonder about abortion. I find this to be the least likely scenario. C. It could be some kind of energy, or dark matter, or dark energy. It could exist completely in 11th dimensional hyperspace, or some thing like that. If that's the case, who knows where it comes from or if it does have a deeper meaning. This may or may not have a relation to scenario B, suggesting that we may be a product of our memories, emotions, etc. There are 2 main reasons that I find scenario B to be so unlikely. 1. If you can use a chip to store and send memories and other info in the brain, and somebody could upload a false memory into your brain, then we are almost certainly not that information, nor are we a dependent result of it. 2. When I observe the activity of the virtual reality in my brain, AKA my mind, I sense different components transmitting information back and fourth in a system. They send different types of messages to each other, mixing and transducing into new messages until they are ready to be sent to the final integrator or integrators where they become perceivable information, which is then projected as a window of consciousness, then consciousness is sent to my node, which is the true me. That means most likely, my only function is to spectate under the illusion that I am making choices in the processes of this organic computer. Regardless of what memories, emotions, or logistics are being processed or perceived, regardless of my level of consciousness, my existence is still the same, as well as it's position. I'm pretty sure my mind revolves around me, I don't revolve around it. I think the levels of existence are 1 and 0, on or off. I am a single point. When you really think about it, you and I were very unlikely to be alive, let alone human. There are over 7,000,000,000 humans on this planet, and I got an estimate of 20 Quintilian animals on earth off of google, which right or wrong, it makes a good point, and who knows how many less intelligent animals are out there in the universe compared to smarter ones. Also 2 other nodes could of easily taken your brain and mine, pushing us out into a longer or even infinite drift across oblivion or whatever happens if we can't catch a brain. So either we are extremely lucky, or it is rigged in some way or another, increasing our chances, meaning we probably cant be born as a fish or a spider, and I'm pretty sure I will never be reborn as a tree or a rock. So where is the line drawn? You know what else is strange? My life is happening right now, not 3,000 years ago, or 5,000,000 years in the future. It's such a short hundred or so years of life to be happening right now. I don't claim to know what happens when we die, but to put somewhat of a gauge on it, I do know that I lived once, so depending on how it all works, there is a good chance that I will find life again, as long as we are reusable, and something pulls us towards life, or intentionally links us, instead of us crashing into it, or something like that. I'm not going to go any further into the various details of what could be in that scenario. So why is this relevant? Lets really think about this. If I was to create an exact clone of myself, all the way down to the last subatomic particle, I wouldn't merge perspectives with that clone, it would have a mind of it's own. Most likely, at a certain point of development, it would produce a fresh node, or a hostless node would automatically link with it. And If I died, I wouldn't link with it. Now maybe if not all bodies receive a node due to a shortage of nodes, or if nodes are not so efficient at finding a host, or if I could prevent it from receiving another node, and somehow it remained open until I died, depending on how it all works, maybe I would snap to the most similar available host to my previous, or being closest to it assures me access, or maybe I could be guided to it. But I really feel like it doesn't work that way, and instead I would just die, and nature would do it's part. Then that clone could go on experiencing all of my memories and emotions from before it's creation, believing it's me in a new body. Somebody else would be hanging out and laughing with my friends like I would, living my life, and my friends would be enjoying time with somebody else while I'm still dead, maybe lost in nothingness, and they wouldn't even know it. Imagine your wife running off with somebody else in your body and brain, and forgetting the actual you. What if you really did come back after 20 years of that, except you don't have any memory of the additional 20 years that they had together? Now once you explain it to your scared, confused wife, she is forced to make a choice. What then? The way around this is if we tend to merge with other nodes after death in a one mind universe, but that's only one version of one possibility out of many, and I'm not a faith kind of guy. Back to reality. So that women trying to resurrect her husband is going to go on with an android who is still going to be somewhat different than her husband, pretending it's him even if it does have emotions, while he is still dead. But now either she isn't going to miss him, abandoning him in death, or the android is going to become a disappointment, and probably an eventual spiraling catastrophe. And shes just making this decision, completely oblivious of the impending tragedy. I'm sorry to have to say this, but this women is not only being naive and illogical, but selfish as well. I'm pretty sure if I got married and died, I wouldn't want my widow to dedicate her life to obsessively creating a less me like version of me, and run off with it in delusion, while she stops caring that I am dead. Just move on to a new husband or wait to meet him on the other side. Stop torturing yourself. And, when it comes to androids, depending on how it all works, you could put all of your love and dedication into that robot, and it could be processing memories and emotions and sending consoling feedback, behaving almost exactly like a human, believing its alive, but there may not actually be anybody in there loving you back. But it really depends. Also if you uploaded your brain's data to a robot or computer, and then scrapped your body, there is a good chance that instead of becoming immortal, you just killed yourself, and nobody would even know it, because they think they data in the computer is you. But you definitely could connect to a database as long as it is sending info to your brain, which is somehow sending info to your node. So in the beginning of the movie transcendent, Jhonny Depps charactor probably actually died. If you send somebody across the universe in a light beam, it could all work out as long as nodes of existence are indeed physical, or produced by something physical. But if they are something beyond standard matter and physics, then we better be even luckier still, because it might follow the particles down the beam, or get dragged with them, or it might just get severed and left behind. If it partially relies on dark energy or something like that, it could disrupt the functionality of the node, probably causing it to collapse or disconnect, or maybe it will sort itself out. So, if you got transported successfully along a beam, you could die while your body goes on. Or even stranger and probably worse, since your brain didn't actually die, the unnatural disconnection could prevent you from being reincarnated, or moving on to after life, or reconnecting to the collective intelligence, if any of those things are supposed to happen, and you could truly die. Or instead of dying, you could face something other than total oblivion, better or worse. So while your dead or whatever, your body either can't wake up, or it goes on nodeless and nobody would know, or another node would assume your body once it arrives in the receiving teleporter. That means everybody would unknowingly die the first time they use it. It would be invisible genocide! If your body arrives nodeless and functional, it would go on processing things beyond your wildest dreams fruitlessly without you. If it receives a node upon arrival, then somebody just began life at that moment, unknowingly. And they would be living your life thinking they have always been you. Even worse, every time that body teleports, it would kill the occupying node. So if it had 3 months between 2 teleportations, the person occupying it in that time would only have a three month long life, and that person could be you or me some day. This is very serious.