That makes no difference. The copy, by definition, is not the original.

I’ve repeatedly explained to you why it’s different, as I just did.

Precisely why it’s silly to assume that creating a copy of one’s consciousness to be initiated upon one’s death is equivalent to eternal life, as I said at the outset.

Again, that’s categorically different than initiating a copy of your consciousness upon death.

How can your consciousness continue when you are dead?

The copy is a copy. Therefore, it is not 100% identical to the original, because the original is the original.

You will be dead. There’s nothing for you to notice.

Also, you’re repeating a long-debunked myth, just for the record. Your cells don’t turn over every 7 years.

Transplanting your consciousness into another body is not the same thing as making a copy of your consciousness and transplanting that into another body.

Poetically speaking, yes, a tree comes to life again after shedding its dead leaves and sprouting new ones in the spring.

But you haven’t woken up. A copy of you has.

Who’s the one who can’t tell the difference?

Your consciousness died. Your copy is what lives on.

A copy is a copy.

Copying someone’s consciousness ≠ eternal life

Tessa irritates me.

The control/variable metaphor isn’t workable. Neither is the idea that creating simulated humans is equivalent to enabling people to escape death.

My comment was front-loaded in order to serve the lobotomized.

It’s not a movie’s job to educate people about its contents. If people are confused, let them be confused. Many great films confused people. The Big Sleep is just one example where the plot befuddles people. Hitchcock famously relied on plot devices that he refused to explain, because explanation was irrelevant.

I like stupid things, like Attack of the Clones. That does not make me a stupid person.