One day, each of us will all die and cease to exist. No more

File: 1490384431617.png (3KB, 237x150px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 237x150px

It's not that different than my current state, tbh.

>>726901601
yeah it is

File: 984e55f4245a27e6a2fd53060852b9a8.jpg (119KB, 736x981px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 736x981px

When we go into deep enough sleep, we cease to exist that way anyway, much like the way an AI ceases to exist every time you reboot the computer.

The person I woke up as this morning has all the memories of the person I was last night, but that doesn't mean I'm the same consciousness. It's seems conveniently the case, because there's a continuity.

So ceasing to exist is like going to sleep, only not waking up.

>>726901601
Second

File: yy.jpg (23KB, 320x416px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 320x416px

>>726901714
Nah

File: FB_IMG_1489344514437.jpg (8KB, 245x326px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 245x326px

I wish I was aborted tbh

Since we perceive time as linear,
if there was an "end" to consciousness,
we would not currently have recollection of the events taking place right now.
because if we no longer exist, we no longer have the memories, so we skip to the end of the timeline, and there is nothing.

The fact that we are living in the present, and are conscious, proves that there will be life after death.

Comprehend that.

I wanna know what dying feels like. Does it slow down to a complete pause? Fade to black?

I'm high, so that explains this making no sense.

File: Automated-Fulfillment-Ping-Pong-Robot.jpg (512KB, 2042x1362px) Image search: [Google]

512KB, 2042x1362px

>>726902116

I'm not parsing how that follows. Elaborate, please.

>>726901826
Ceasing to exist is like going to sleep, only not waking up.

false


because ceasing to exist means the brain will be dead, and can no longer remain functioning while asleep..

Learn something

File: 1490303054684.png (553KB, 400x678px) Image search: [Google]

553KB, 400x678px

>>726902116
This is why you shouldn't take LSD

>>726902260
It's because you have a small human brain that can't understand things it does not know.

Frankly, everything that cannot be proven, it unknown.

When people say "There is no God, there is no life after death."

No side can give 100% solid facts to say one way or the other.

So people sound like literal dumbasses when they "think" they know what happens after death.

File: glados_by_shinju_the_dragon-d41g1lu.jpg (73KB, 1024x649px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1024x649px

>>726902321

How is it different? You are not conscious of your autonomic functions, and during theta sleep that's pretty much all that's going on.

In fact, that is part of the point of sleep is to discontinue consciousness. Dream sleep or REM sleep is only part of the night.

You'll need to explain in more detail, otherwise, I won't learn anything, at least not from you.

I'd love it.

File: Hot-Robot-1800x2880.jpg (267KB, 2880x1800px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 2880x1800px

>>726902637

Oh, you are correct in that I'm not certain of what happens after death. But there is no evidence of afterlife activity. And in fact, cessation of existence is the only possibility compatible with an exclusively material world.

Souls have not been detected in any way, which means if they do exist, they are so ephemeral that they would dissolve to quantum mechanics.

This does not exclude non-material worlds, such as if the universe were a simulation.

>>726902670
one, you referred to consciousness as like rebooting an AI, and the AI losing it's memory.

First off, consciousness is..
con·scious·ness
ˈkän(t)SHəsnəs/
noun
the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.
"she failed to regain consciousness and died two days later"
the awareness or perception of something by a person.
plural noun: consciousnesses
"her acute consciousness of Mike's presence"
the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world.
"consciousness emerges from the operations of the brain"

So, it's already described as a "state" and not the person you are.

When you sleep, you "still exist"
As long as you are "ALIVE" you exist

You cease to exist upon death.

But to say you are a different "consciousness" is just incorrect, do to the fact that "consciousness" doesnt hold any personal characteristics.

It is just the definition of knowing, you exist.

The time before I was born was pretty chill.

>>726902951
Just because something does not exist, does not mean it isn't there.

If you built a closed in environment, and had people born in it, and all they knew was that world, and someone said, "but there is a man that lives outside our world" people would say that you dont exist.. when you do..

File: 2342.jpg (66KB, 667x345px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 667x345px

OP are you familiar with any of these? you seem to be out of your element

File: human-vs-robot-12.jpg (60KB, 590x886px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 590x886px

>>726903034

Actually we are a state. In mechanics we'd call it a quasistable event.

This is really an extension of the transporter paradox.

Say we used a computer to destroy your body, convert it to energy, transmit that energy to a different location and then reconstruct it, would it be the same person? It sure would believe it was.

What if we used different energy? Since all its memories are biochemical, it would still believe it was.

>>726903034
So you are me? You're a solipsist? Or do you not believe that each consciousness is an independant entity?

If I was hypothetically able to copy my brain's data into a computer and upload it, would that still be "me"?

Think the Star Trek teleports. They copy your every atom, disintegrate you, then basically re-create you at another location. Would that still be the same consciousnesses? Or would being "A" die, and being "B" just *think* it was being "A"?

>>726903411
You think you are still you from when you were born? 100% of your cells are new cells, so basically same fucking concept as your transporter paradox.

>>726903234

You're right in that things might exist that we don't know about. But when it comes to the human being, we mapped ourselves out pretty extensively.

And there isn't anything we've detected to indicate a human soul, and we've looked. Hard.

We've also looked at other live to see what other properties might suggest that we are central to a greater purpose in this universe. And there's none.

As far as we can tell, we're fungus suspended in the film on the surface of a spec of dust. That's it.

You can suppose all you want that we mean something more, but then you're going to have to provide some evidence to that effect.

You can suppose all you want that there are worlds beyond our own (and String theory even suggests that might be the case) but any hints of the properties of these places, or whether they can support life, let alone who its inhabitants are, is pure speculation. We have no evidence.

>>726901492
Actually we live in a simulator, and like any game this game has certain rules far more limited than the rules outside where our developer is. We will just wake up in another simulation after death, it may reassemble something like heaven or hell but it'll still be part of the simulation. We aren't real

>>726903664
Not neurons.

>>726903664

Anon provides a good point. Please continue with this discussion of consciousness and the nature of existence. As far as I'm concerned, you're all automatons or different manifestations of myself, but still myself and experiencing myself in a different way.

>>726903490
Well, when the tech comes out that can download our brains.

And when they have computers powerful enough to triangulate the constantly moving "point a" to "point b" locations for transporting through moving space at what ever speed the earth is moving through space.

we'll talk then.

But all you have is theory's and paradox's

>>726903034
>do to the fact

>>726903938
No, it doesn't transport anything. It copy's data, destroys the body, and then a machine at another location re-creates the person from the downloaded data.

So it's not really transport.

>>726903810
you are doing it again
and again
and again

You cannot provide 100% proof there is no "soul"

just because we can't "detect" it only means we lack the technology to do so. NOT that it doesnt exist.

Remember when scientists thought the sun revolved around the earth? oh wait, then we got the technology to see other wise..

you are just a stupid ignorant person.
please.
kill yourself.

File: char_feng_image42.jpg (66KB, 880x607px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 880x607px

>>726903664

In fact I'm sure I'm not who I was when I was born. We are dependent on continuity for personal identity.

Hence who I am when I wake up is dependent on my biochemical cognitive processes.

Like the Ship of Theseus (or Washington's Axe) yes, we're all replacement parts that only share an identity with who we were before.

So what happens when we take the broken parts, restore them and make a new axe or ship?

What happens if we use the data from my last transport and reconstruct a separate copy? Which one is the more valid me?

>>726901492

No, and neither can anyone else, since you need a living brain to 'comprehend' anything.

/thread

>>726901923
We all do

>>726901492
its called going to sleep
you do it every night

>>726904109
Nobody's trying to prove a negative you fucking moron. The time to believe that something is true is when there's good evidence that it's true. Furthermore, people don't wait until they're 100% certain of something to act, they act on the information they have available.

If you have evidence that "souls" exist then do feel free to present it, but until then nobody has any more reason to believe they're real than they do to believe that things like leprechauns or fairies or law-abiding blacks or Santa Claus are real.

>>726904170
Not really, not if this is a simulator.

File: beautiful india.jpg (43KB, 624x351px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 624x351px

>>726903341

>the upanisads
>the up an i shads
>the up and he shats
>he up and shat

#pooinloo

File: 234_324.jpg (199KB, 470x661px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 470x661px

if you don't know who pic related is then you need to close the thread and do some more reading immediately
>>726904267
this guy gets it

>>726904129
well, next time you see science making replacement brains?

call me bruh.

till then, the brain is mostly unmapped.
you think science truly knows how the brain works?
you must be smoking something.

>>726904344
How much evidence does pacman have that he's real? Assume for a moment we could give conscious awareness to a simulated game character, how would it know we, the God, exist using the limited tools programmed into its simulation?

>>726901492
I did it before i was born, im not afraid.

>>726904344
God you sound like a MORON!

"The world is flat"
"The earth is the center of the universe"

YOU ARE FUCKING RETARDED

>>726904364
Shut up Joe Rogan

>>726904468
It zips a bunch of electrical signals around an obscenely complex network. What's to understand?

>>726901492
Too bad rebirth exists

>>726904465
> I made a more obscure reference than you so I automagically win

klelk

File: c27ac98628f5eb087aaa8dc6c4192cdd.jpg (29KB, 736x564px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 736x564px

>>726904109

Why do I need 100% proof of anything?

If you say there is a soul on the bases we can't disprove it, you're arguing from ignorance. You can argue we have twenty souls and three of them are purple. You can argue we have an inner penguin. It becomes meaningless.

But obviously I hit a nerve, as you're trying to discredit me.

But I'm not going to kill myself, and I won't hope the same on you. But I do expect you'll realize that all your desperate fantasies of greater glory under God are hollow, with no indications except your fellow parishioners patting you on the back and assuring you that OF COURSE Jesus will redeem your immortal soul, and that there is nothing in the universe that verifies that is a test of faith, because faith is important you know.

I'd have preferred if there was a greater construct, a purpose for my living, a benevolent deity. But I'd rather know the truth than live in accordance to comforting lies. And yes, it means having to find a point to everything without there being a point to anything.

Don't let your doubts kill you while you cling to faith.

>>726904582
He is not making an assertion. He is holding off on a belief until there is sufficent evidence.

Do you not see the difference?

You are the one making the assertion. He is the one saying "we don't know yet, let's not jump to conclusions"

>>726904623
Well, you are a moron, so done with you lol

>>726904651
that's not what this is about and you clearly missed something.. do you know who it was that was posted or are you just being a smart ass?
lack of piety will only get you so far I am afraid

>>726904722
No, he is saying "there is NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE there for, it DOES NOT EXIST

You too are a moron, cause you cant read english

>>726904109
Actually we didn't need any technology to learn the earth went around the sun. At all.

>>726901923
I wish i was a girl so i could fuck anyone i want and get whatever i want and die a miserable slut

>>726904867
Nah, civilization just believed otherwise for decades. -_-

>>726904729
Prove me wrong fuckwad. Each of some 15-30 billion neurons is connected to a couple thousand other ones, sending electrical impulses across axons.

File: tmp_8015-d9679576b30be67d7a7b816b09bc69db1949690334.jpg (56KB, 500x624px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 500x624px

>>726902116
You're not making much sense professor Charles Xavier, maybe you need to stop hanging out with those faggot meth heads

>>726904852
No he didn't. Holding off on a belief is not asserting a negative.

Let me argue on your level.

You may be wearing panties right now. Could be. May not.

I'll assume you aren't because of statistics and available evidence. That's not saying "YOU 100 PERCENT ABSOLUTELY AREN'T"

>>726905058
We calculated that stuff long before the Catholic Church became the dominant source of information.

Learn the history of astronomy.

File: futuristic_robotic_girl_by_ociacia-d7cqys5.jpg (71KB, 1024x483px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 1024x483px

>>726904468
We're making the most advancements not in neurology, but in robotics, where we're trying to create robots that behave in a way that is comforting to human beings. Our work with digital assistants such as SIRI or Cortana follow those lines.

So we may not soon be able to map your brain and simulate it, we will be able to map your behavior and simulate that with reasonable authenticity.

But that simulation would probably work differently than your brain does.

When it comes to directly (or near-directly) brain mapping, we'll probably see development in cybernetics. When people lose the ability to engage in certain cognitive functions (e.g. associating names with faces, or doing math) we'll be able to give them a cybernetic replacement that does it for them, much the way we're creating cybernetic eyes and ears that connect directly to the nervous system.

At some point we'll be able to cyber-replace enough of the brain that we'll have a strong idea of how it functions.

And then, yeah, your simulation WILL think the same way you do.

>>726903928

current science debunks these "beliefs"

it's one thing to assert this line of logic to something like God, but something that is proven by science and math?

>>726905595

gdi this is for

>>726904722

>>726903341
Schrodinger was...he was certain that consciousness was not a localized condition based on his proofs of quantum entanglement or spoopy action at distance.

>>726905859
>proofs of quantum entanglement
nice meme

>>726905595
The fact that you think science is about proving things says a lot.

>>726905194

I know of a philosophy major who was telling me things like this. I feel like it's just splitting hairs/semantics at that point when you want to get down to it.

ashes to ashes
dust to dust
faggots

>>726905930
thanks. no really
https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Erwin_Schr%C3%B6dinger

>>726906026

I never said that, but ok.

>>726906107
> but something that is proven by science

>>726906088
>wikipedia
>scientific reference
K

>>726906178

Scientific evidence that "proves" claims like the Earth is flat and is the center of the universe. Stop being so fixated on the word prove.

>>726906197
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/andp.19263840404/abstract

File: 3D-robot-close-up-landscape-small.jpg (2MB, 2500x1667px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2500x1667px

>>726904867

Galileo world out Heliocentricity from a 32x telescope by which he was able to distinctly see the moons of Jupiter.

It was from that that he developed the model by which other planets (from our perspective) would do these loops, where they slowed, stopped, backed up a bit, and then resumed, as Earth overtook them, (or vice versa, in the case of Mercury and Venus).

Then it was Kepler who took things to the next step and worked out the orbits were elliptical (rather than purely circular).

So, at least in Galileo's case, he used technology to figure out the operations of the orbs.

I don't know if someone else, say in the Hellenic epoch, or in China found other ways to make the same determinations.

Still, while we imagined that human beings were special (that we were unique for using tools, or having mores, both long since disproven) we did imagine that human beings had souls, and some people still cling to the notion.

My point is that we've not been able to detect souls through any side-channel attacks, and if they were resilient enough to hold together, we'd have been able to detect them with the scopes we have today.

So they don't exist as a material thing, and we have no other indicators that there's a supernatural element to the universe, id est, we are a simulation generated by a machine computing our natural processes in accordance to the mechanics of another manifold.

Yes, I've probably thought about this sort of thing way too much.

>>726906028
Did he tell you about gnostic / agnostism? It's mostly used in the context of a god, but it doesn't actually have anything to do with it.

Belief /= knowledge

You can believe something without having any knowledge, for example.

>>726906351
I don't follow. Are you saying there is scientific evidence for those things?

There never was.

I'm fixated on the word "proof" because it only exists in mathematics. We use it commonly in everyday usage, but mistakenly.

Could any of you answer this please?

Does the way we have evolved and think lean towards general 'good', 'bad', 'neutral' or 'other' in the grand scheme of the universe?

e.g I believe humans generally try to be 'good'. Whether that's behavior based on the way we are raised, the environment we are raised in I don't know but I believe there is an inclination for humans and animals to be 'good'?

This makes me believe that something more intelligent than us did design us and the universe, or has a hand in shaping it, if not I believe this inclination of goodness in and around us would be neutral

forgive me if this sounds retarded smart people itt

>>726906488

Ugh.

> Galileo FIGURED out Heliocentricity from a 32x telescope by which...

Sometimes I think faster than I type.

>>726901492
I was pretty depressed for a while and started self medicating with opiates in addition to my anti-depressant, mood stabilizer, and anxiolytic drugs.

It's fathomable.

>>726901492
>Can you fathom not existing or thinking?

I work in retail so yes it's a daily reality.

Yes easily. Just think of what it was like before your were born. It will be exactly the same.

>>726901826
>The person I woke up as this morning has all the memories of the person I was last night, but that doesn't mean I'm the same consciousness. It's seems conveniently the case, because there's a continuity.

Could you explain this a little more? If you're not necessarily in the same consciousness, what consciousness are you in, and what happened to the other consciousness?

>>726906668
You're going to have to define "good" and "bad" first.

Good for whom? Humanity? Seeing as there's nearly 8 billion of us, and that we haven't gone extinct yet, I'd say we're "good" if your standard is the prognosis of humanity.

Or, perhaps you were thinking more in terms of sympathy and empathy.

Those are not always "good" things.

A mother bear defending its cubs, with your head in its jaws, is motivated out of empathy, for example.

A solder in an airplane hitting the button to drop bombs on an enemy city is motivated by the love he has for his friends.

>>726906488
>yes, I've probably thought about this sort of thing way too much

>tipping intensifies

>>726901492
>One day, each of us will all die and cease to exist. No more thoughts or waking up. Just nothing forever.

No, just you.

>>726907301
I'm immortal.

...so far.

File: 0_64759_7c35fd3e_XL.jpg (47KB, 700x526px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 700x526px

>>726906668

Right and wrong are exclusively human concepts which are part of our hypertrophic social brain. Other animals (all mammals!) have social instincts enough to cooperate with their kin, their pack or pride, and some predators are more sophisticated in that regard than herbivores.

Interestingly, when we look at "right" or "wrong" we tend to cling to those things defined by our basic instincts, e.g. loyalty, reciprocity, avoidance of harm, conformity, and so on.

At the point we start getting into modern forms of society (e.g. democracy, social equality, general welfare), we have to determine what is right or just based on the consequences we want to achieve, since traditional morality doesn't apply to outlaws, heretics, infidels or strangers.

>>726902951
>mentions quantum mechanics like he knows wtf he's talking about
Fuck me this faggot is hilarious

>>726901492
Remember what it was like before you were born? It'll be like that.

>>726907213
>>726907365

I get what you're saying I think, it's kind of relative to our concept of good and bad.
But say for example evolution if you will, is the fact life evolved to survive an indication of a 'non neutral bias' for lack of a better word in the universe?
Could you call that a neutral occurrence?

>>726907325
Lets see that in 60 years

>>726903664
But 100% of your cells are never new at the same time -- they're constantly dying and regenerating at different rates.

And most importantly, with the exception in the case of genetic mutation, the DNA in the nucleus of those 'new' cells is the same...

File: o-ROBOT-HUMANOID-facebook.jpg (160KB, 2000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 2000x1000px

>>726907147

The previous consciousness ended when I (literally) lost consciousness to sleep.

When I wake again, the only reason I know who I am, where I am, what I've been doing, etc. is because I remember those things. And it's verified by my surroundings, my family, my stuff, all being familiar and consistent with my memories.

But the only way to assure that I'm the same being, is to stay conscious in perpetuity.

The webcomic Freefall by Mark Stanley gets into this, specifically with his robots who don't want to run any updates that require a reboot, and they don't want to have to restore a backup, on the basis that dying for them is dying, and being rebuilt entirely, or even rebooted in the same old chassis is still some other version of themselves, and not them.

It's the same thing for us, except that we get rebooted, essentially, with every solid night's sleep.

>>726907874
It really didn't evolve to survive, that's just natural selection. in other words life can ONLY evolve to survive, there is literally no other option.

If life evolved to "not survive" well, we wouldn't be here asking this question, because life wouldn't exist so it's moot point.

>>726908176

Define consciousness. ty.

>>726908488
If he could do that in detail he'd get a Nobel Prize

>>726908176
So, is our physical body the manifestation of that consciousness?

File: sddefault.jpg (35KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 640x480px

>>726907874

I'm not getting what you're saying.

Our ancestors show a chain of stronger social functions, but they really only got us as far as hunting-gathering tribes. We aren't evolved (very much) for the role-specialization that was brought upon by our development into agriculture (in which not everyone had to forage for food), and we are certainly not evolved for nations, modern markets, or industrialization.

I suspect it's why we go crazy every once in a while and decide that we now need to annihilate a large chunk of our society. Pluralism is learned, where racial, cultural and religious sectarianism is innate.

File: 16237433_1428767487154166_883204420_n.jpg (94KB, 640x744px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 640x744px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pirlP48EajI

IUDHIUHDIUN

>>726904916
Same but I rather would like a family or at-least someone to love everyday

File: Cyber_Eye_by_Ragaru.jpg (73KB, 900x554px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 900x554px

>>726908488

Aware. Cognizant. Attentive.

I'm not talking about consciousness as an identity (developments in robotics continue to show there's no difference in self-awareness or consciousness between humans and robots). I'm talking about the state of being awake versus the state of being unconscious.

File: 1429420420720.jpg (228KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 1920x1200px

>>726908647

In the material world, the physical body is a manifestation of the physical body. Our behavior is a manifestation of our consciousness.

>>726909071

[citation required]

File: 1406503591679.gif (2MB, 383x576px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 383x576px

>>726904704

File: 8897679.jpg (70KB, 792x439px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 792x439px

>>726904916
The gold-digger career (if you can call it that) is a lot of work, and feels gross, not because you're just mooching off some guy -- you're not -- but since part of your job is making it look like it's all effortless, your target thinks you're mooching off him.

And then he dumps you for the younger model, and you have to sue him for all you can, especially if you ruined your body squeezing out puppies for him.

Look at Melania Trump. She's NOT the first wife, and she looks totally miserable being Trump's plaything.

If only you idiots knew you are already dead living someone else's afterlife.

File: Jake___Interface_robot_tripod_by_JK_Studios.jpg (62KB, 900x675px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 900x675px

>>726909205

You'll need to specify what seems implausible.

Behavior as a result of consciousness is basic psychology.

The physical form being innate to the material world is axiomatic to philosophical materialism. Both of these are explained in length on Wikipedia, but I'm not going to look it up at this hour.

>>726901492
I would have liked to experience being god for a while, aside from that it's kind of a relief tbh

There is a soul.

I can make this assertion just because it hasn't been proven to not exist.

File: 2014-kia-forte-super-bowl-commercial-sexy-robot-girls-video_11.png (835KB, 1772x1033px) Image search: [Google]

835KB, 1772x1033px

>>726909302

I have no idea whatsoever what this is supposed to mean.

But then I'm actually on the autism spectrum, so I don't always pick up things like sarcasm, or whether I'm being mocked. My impulse is to take obtuse messaging or deception as open hostility.

So you'll need to explain the joke, and what your sentiment behind it is.

I did for billions of years before I was born. Since I will be death I won't even be aware so it's fine. It's a bit scary when you put it that way but that's just the way it is.

>>726904109
"Just because you can't prove the existence of unicorns doesn't mean they don't exist hurrrr durrrr"

Fucking idiot

>>726909071
>When I wake again, the only reason I know who I am, where I am, what I've been doing, etc. is because I remember those things. And it's verified by my surroundings, my family, my stuff, all being familiar and consistent with my memories.

But If we awake to a new consciousness every day, we need to physical world to verify the memory from our previous consciousness.

What if I fall asleep for 3 hours, then wake up to a stimuli, then fall back asleep for 4 hours? Am I'm burning through multiple consciousnesses?

>>726910659
I mean, I think there's a reason they call it 'regaining consciousness' and not 'gaining consciousness'.

>>726901492
it will be exactly like it was before i was born. Nothing new here, move on guys, it's just someone who turned 16 and found his existential strain.

File: forex-robot-small.jpg (89KB, 1200x806px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 1200x806px

>>726910659

You're burning up consciousnesses in the way that if you sit down and stand up multiple times in a day, you're burning up standings.

It's easy to regard our identities as a visceral thing, rather than a collection of desires, dislikes, aspirations and so on (granted, a rather extensive set).

>>726910716

I don't think the language means much. It's pretty casual how we can interchange gaining vs. regaining. I can see just as easily someone gaining consciousness from a nights sleep, vs. regaining consciousness after having been stunned with a taser.

Still, consciousness remains a state of activity, not a state of personhood. But we think of the continuing state as "ourselves", and it's easy to think of it as ongoing so long as interruptions are short.

But imagine we stowed all your knowledge and memories and inclination away, then two thousand years later, constructed a new body based on a digital storage of your DNA and uploaded to it the mental data we stowed before, would that still be "you"?

What if we made two of you?