Are we trapped in our material body?

The problem with these types of questions is that no one really ever defines "you". In truth "you" is just an illusion. The "you" that exists an hour from now is not the same you as the one that exists now because in reality, "you" only exist in the current moment. The experience of it is just an illusion resulting from memories and chemistry and what not.

So in reality, the robot won't be you, but neither will the person that exists when the upload happens.

Or at least that's the conclusion I've drawn.

>Are we trapped in our material body?
We all live on after death, but in different respects. Some of us will live on in the collective human genome. Others of us through the remebrance of others. Some through literature, or contribution to science.

Since "you" will be dead, it wont matter that you left your clone before dying. You're dead. Its pointless.

Yes, the original "I" is dead, and the one living is now now a "copy", but if from the perspective of my non-physical consciousness, there will be no difference.

Like, if I were to be me, in my sweet 3-bedroom apartment full of tasteful furnishings, and then I were to go to sleep.

Then, while asleep, all of my furnishings were replaced with exact duplicates. They would not be the original, but to to subjective "I", it wouldn't matter.

The same thing would be true of the collected memories of my being, especially if there was no discernible lapses in memory experience. If the copied me can convince my own mother , my best friend, my stock broker, my attorney, and my accountant that it is me, that and the original me is dead, than I am willing to concede that the new me is effectively me.

How is that pointless?

Your consciousness is electricity but your personality is chemistry. If we were to remove your electrical impulses but still have them act in a manner like a brain it would still be a consious thing but that thing would most likely be devoid of:
instincts
emotion
personality

Because these are all products of neurochemistry. However if we figure out how to give machine emotions and self awareness we can figure out how a complex electric current can become a simulated consiousness.

you should probably read some books on cognition and neurobiology because you're wrong.

Are indistinguishable as long as you pause them - but your copy would be just a state of consciousness at copying time with the memories stored to that point - it will diverge it's own path from that point - and the original one will also go it's own way - so unless you have a copy of a consciousness paused alongside the original also paused - they're no longer the same.

We tend to believe in the light of evidences - that consciousness has a fundamental root but it's also an ever-changing process - so it's not the exact same state of awareness in the copy, it will tend to alter itself in the light of environment and so on...

Well then you could just be ok - with constructing one single consciousness that's better than the whole of humanity that ever existed and let it rule - why have you particularly living or me - or anyone else inside that machine.

^This exactly.

There's a casual strong connection between you from now and the future - the casual connection can be only broken by damaging the brain or death.

In reality you truly exist in the past and in the future even in present as a line - as a real casual thing - that if we exist in a 4d non-euclidean space - BUT in the light of quantum mechanics and its favored interpretations of experiments past and future are not set in stone, they are constantly fuzzy so even in that 4d space, the past becomes less clear to the future and vice-versa.

>There's a casual strong connection between you from now and the future

That doesn't mean identity is carried over in some special way that clones wouldn't have. It means what you wrote: there is a cause and effect relationship between past versions and future versions. That relationship isn't the same as identity sharing any more than any other cause and effect relationship is. Picking up a rock and throwing it doesn't make the rock become "you." It just means there was a cause and effect relationship between a body and a rock.

I'd contend that our identity is formed by the combination of current thought with memory of previous thought. So if the entity at the center of our experience or thought, whether that be chemicals or something else, is successfully replicated then that on its own represents a fragment of "you", and if the memory is successfully replicated then that is another fragment.

The part of this question that's totally subject to opinion is whether or not multiple copies of "you" can exist and if the current "you" would be transferred to the new physical body or remain in the current one.

i feel like those kinds of definitions of "you" are completely meaningless in a scientific sense. i feel no reason why the "current "you"" would be transferred, if you mean your own phenomenological experience

lit is dead though
because of /his
and his is dead too

No but if you break the chain of cause - it's over, our entity is the whole chain not a portion of it - our brains work in such a way that it processes a fraction of a second of moments from that chain and gives you the now - your personality memories and everything else it's result of a long chain of cause and effect of that very unbroken process.

And to be more clear - in 4d non-euclidean space the future you already exists, the end of what started your consciousness is already defined - but until then you, the identity and awareness represent a whole line segment - mainly because of how brain decodes reality.

A clone is just a new chain starting from the cloning point that resemble the original you.

>How is that pointless?

I'm not the one that's experiencing those things; I'm not alive. That's a clone. A clone is not me. It may think it's me, but because it will experience things I never will, it cannot be me. Just because it convinces my circle that it is me, does not make it me.

It is not "effectively me"--there is no such thing. There is only me and what is not me.

It's pointless because you're preventing others from realizing the truth of their situation for no purpose. The clone could create its own identity instead of behaving like some strange ghost. Your family and friends could begin funeral/estate proceedings if nothing else. There is no reason or need for a clone.

Do you want to upload your consciousness into one of the sex robots?

your "self" is a kind of software within a hardware made of tissues

so you could transfer that into a different hardware, but it would feel different

more important is would you be trapped in a substrate that is not your body

the body is material but your mind is not, imho