At least CCP came up with something. All other shooters don't even try.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_uploading

There is detailed info about this on Evelopedia, but basically at the moment of death, it scans the state of each neuron, dendrite etc. destroying the source brain in the process, and instantaneously re-creates all that in the clone brain.

If you take an instantaneous snapshot of a process, for example that of consciousness, and instantaneously re-create it somewhere else, it seems like that process would basically be moved somewhere else.

And how would you propose reliably transferring a human consciousness across interstellar distances instantaneously without using magic?

A common misconception is that it's just copying memories. I would not be a transfer of consciousness, that would just be making a copy of a person who might think they're the original.

Anyway, it does get into philosophical areas, and maybe capsuleers actually wonder about whether they're really themselves or just a copy.

To me, taking an instantaneous snapshot of the brain, destroying the original, and re-creating that snapshot elsewhere is essentially transferring it.

If that's copying then so is Star Trek transporter technology. Every Star Trek character would be the copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of the original. For that matter, each person would be a copy of themselves seven years ago, since all of a human body's cells are replaced every seven years or so.

Copying implies making a duplicate, leaving the original intact. When you copy a file on a computer, you have the original and the copy. When you move a file in a computer, you delete the original, transfer the bits, and recreate the file somewhere else on the computer.

So unless you believe in some metaphysical "soul", the consciousness is basically the state of the brain and the ongoing process of it working. If you capture that and recreate it elsewhere, that's transferring it.

If you want to call destructive "copying" copying then okay whatever floats your boat. Do you consider yourself a copy of yourself from 7 years ago? After all, all your cells are copies (and inexact ones at that) of your cells then. Your consciousness is running on new "hardware" in a different place than it was 7 years ago.

It's not copying. With a few rare exceptions in the novels, a consciousness never exists in more than one place at a time.

I watched BSG twice, actually. It's a good show, but the ending gets a little weird.

A wizard does it.
The REAL reason for our immortality.
There are wizards,and they use magic.

AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

I wrote a detailed post, hit "post," it didn't post and brought me back to the drafting screen, and then it saved over my previous draft. I even had a clever way of suggesting suspension of disbelief. You guys are just going to have to deal with this discussion on your own. Here are some talking points:

• No word in philosophy for what we call "soul" (i.e. experiential being, minus all the prelife/afterlife debate) -- no idea why
• Clone =/= Original (see The Prestige)
• Therefore, each time we die it is a permanent death
• However, jump clones suggest persistence of consciousness
• Hence, EVE universe is advanced enough to preserve a stream of qualia across physical manifestations
• Oversimplified: domino effect, consciousness = kinetic energy, body = domino

Read that paper, not convinced, definitely doesn't work in this context because it isn't gradual or continuous. The way to make this work would be to suggest a singular consciousness is in all the clones at all times but must be dormant in all but one at any time, and that would be a big leap philosophically.

Of course, none of this really works philosophically except the idea that each clone is a distinct individual consciousness, which doesn't align with the jump clone concept, so go ahead and suspend the hell outta your disbelief as far as I'm concerned.

Its a misconception that because religion deals wih the supernatural, it isn't possible to be rational with it. As long as conversation remains courteous, then there should be no problem. The problem arises when someone allows themselves to get offended that you disagree, and tries to shut down the opposing opinion not through logic but by smearing it.

Contrary to popular belief, science does not preclude religion, but merely opens more unanswerable questions. Its a form of kick the can, where the basic problem only gets pushed further down the road. Of course, it answers many questions we have about the natural world also.

As Aristotle said; "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without accepting it."

/rant, back to DUST! :D