As I see it things don’t exist on an exact scale where you can clearly separate one from the other.

But rather a continuous spectrum of existence where everything is connected as one thing but still has different aspects/ properties to it that contain enough information for us to differentiate.

A bit like a color spectrum where the color blue is not exactly defined and might be more of a dark purple to one person but most would still agree it’s a completely different color from yellow for example.

All this to say that in my personal opinion the mind upload would definitely be something different but you could say the same every moment when your mind or the particles that make up your body make even the slightest change. (Like a minimal change in hue could be classified as a different color)

The question is how much different it would be? I think it would be quite a difference since so much of what makes us human is anchored in our biological anatomy. Our imperfections and desires, social, biological or sexual they are very much a product of our physical bodies.

Would we try to keep them somehow or would the mind upload be like a perfect mind free of impulses and vices?

I agree that ethics is a very puzzling field. I have my own theory that might be a bit to long to elaborate here. But I must say that over all the judicial system is doing a surprisingly good job in having a nuanced and differentiated view on ethics, at least in theory. How we differentiate murder from manslaughter for example is quite an advanced level of logic, that I sometimes miss in other branches of Society.

No I’m saying we don’t know if it matters and if it matters we don’t know the context for what is good or bad.

Basically that humanity doesn’t know if there is objective morality.

It’s a philosophical question from the field of ethics / value theory.

I wasn’t introducing any world view of my own as much as I was just criticizing your theory about the importance of physical connectedness for one’s mind upload/copy.

We simply do not know the context so we can’t know if it is important to have continuity or if the mind upload would be the same thing. And if it’s not the same thing maybe it’s better to just die and have body decompose back into nature and become reborn in the cycle of life this way.

I’m not saying I know I’m just asking questions and criticizing answers 😅

My point is that your theory is full of assumptions that are not really justified.

Your premise that current conscious moments have some kind of control or significance is build on unfounded assumptions about: -time -free will -determinism …

And more, that are just not justified by any evidence.

I’m not saying anything about the importance of one moment in time over another. Or that some person is somehow more important.

I’m simply saying we do not understand these things at all and your theory is not based on science but rather subjective speculation.

I would not necessarily agree with your premise that all conscious moments matter equally.

To be of relevance (matter) requires some kind of context in wich it would matter.

If you can’t decide what to eat for dinner. Not all conscious moments are of equal matter for you.

Since we do simply not know the greater context of the universe it can’t be known if they are of equal matter.

What you are describing boils down to the philosophy of ethics/ aesthetics in the end there is no definitive agreement on this. ——————-

Your description of memory is build on the assumption that time passes in a linear manner. There is no consensus on this either. Actually the current academic understanding suggests that past and future exist simultaneously. ————

Fazit: there is simply no way to verify anything beyond undefined existence.

I think we can still all agree that some aspects of existence are different from others. Eg a chair is different enough from air to make a distinction.

We can’t ultimately know what a chair is or what air is on a fundamental level.

But we can agree that some things are different enough so we can try to describe the differences.

When you say all moments are of equal important. You can say that as a personal truth.

If you like all moments equally it is your personal belief that is true by definition.

But when you say it as an absolute truth that is independent from you true for anybody.

It is just unfounded assumptions and speculation.

By this logic nothing at all matters.

I agree with your premise that we don’t really have any possibility to verify anything other than something conscious exists.

But your conclusion that continuity doesn’t matter could be extended to anything.

If we can’t verify continuity why even bother about this mind uploading stuff?

Maybe you switched consciousness with a bird today and your memories are just implanted.