No, your argument is not what is aggravating. Don't assume someone disagrees with you just because your argument is aggravating. What is aggravating is that yo

No, your argument is not what is aggravating. Don't assume someone disagrees with you just because your argument is aggravating. What is aggravating is that you claim to be getting the point, but you're not. > Death is two things: your mind stops being executed, and the information making up your mind is being destroyed. Neither of these things happens to an uploaded person if the upload is sufficiently recent. This is an improper reduction. If you want to extend the computer analogy: If I die, a particular instance of my mind's execution goes away forever. You may argue that that doesn't matter for some reason (perhaps by analogy to going to sleep and then waking up, as I do every day), but you have to first accept the that it is a fact. Your account pretends that it isn't a fact. For example: > The notion of an "original" and a "copy" is not even applicable if the copy isn't degraded somehow. This ignores the fact that a copy is a different instance.