>>>>You think so? I think that if you were uploaded into a different body, the mere fact that you would be inhabiting a different brain with it's differently forged neural pathways
>>>
>>>Ah, but then that's not upload. If the target CNS is so read-only, where am I written?
>>
>>We're talking science fiction here, remember?
>
>There weren't any cases documented elsewhere but in SF, so where else? :). My point here is that any metempsychosis or upload or reincarnation without memory - method is irrelevant - doesn't count if there's not enough of the original person left after transfer to maintain the person. So if you get a different person as a result, it may be related to the original, but is substantially someone else.

I think then we have a fundamental disconnect. You may upload your memories etc, but because you are uploading into (I presume) an already formed brain, then that brain has its own neural pathways. That means that the memories may be yours, but the interpretations of those memories will be governed by the attitudes, aptitudes, and functions in place through those already existing pathways.

Those memories will not necessarily mean the same thing to you before and after the upload.

>
>So the assumption of "inhabiting a different body" always assumes that some integrity of the original is maintained, and authors only vary the degree.
>
>>>IMO, that so-called "spirit" is our self-image. And if it gets lost in translation to a different environment, then translation failed.
>>
>>Depends on how you define 'translate'. Something is always lost in translation.
>
>For the scope of this discussion, as above. I figure I'd lose some of my habits and attitudes and gain new ones if I was transferred into a female or virtual body, even if my memory and self-image (aka spirit) were initially transferred intact.

Again, it would depend on the maturity of the neural networking already in place. If you upload into a virtual body with no pathways in place, then you will be pretty much a vegetable. Or, if not that, then at least a newborn with memories but no ability to access or interpret those memories. Otherwise, my argument above gets trotted out again.

>IOW, I think we basically agree here - differing only in how much and when would the person be changed, but not whether.
>
>>>Um... I was thinking of metaphysics in its original sense, as in the opening paragraphs of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics, not as in the latter: More recently, the term "metaphysics" has also been used more loosely to refer to "subjects that are beyond the physical world". A "metaphysical bookstore", for instance, is not one that sells books on ontology, but rather one that sells books on spirits, faith healing, crystal power, occultism, and other such topics.
>>
>>To me, a metaphysical bookstore would be a store I couldn't enter because it is above or beyond the physical frame of reference to which I belong.
>
>That's a shortcoming of English language - in Serbian et al, it'd be "metafizička knjižara" - a bookstore which is metaphysical in its nature, and "metafizičarska knjižara" - a bookstore related to metaphysic(ist)s. But I somehow wouldn't expect it to sell Crowley's books. Maybe nowadays, I wouldn't know.
>
>>According to Webster, definition #2 is "of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses". Yours is only definition #3, so I win. ;)
>
>The online version has only two meanings, which differ by generality only - a particular or a general system of thought. It's probably meant to not mean much to spectators with cheaper tickets.

The online Webster I was using has 4 definitions - unless you count 2a and 2b as separate definitions, in which case there are 5. I simply dismiss the first one as pointless:

1 : of or relating to metaphysics
2 a : of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses b : SUPERNATURAL
3 : highly abstract or abstruse; also : THEORETICAL
4 often capitalized : of or relating to poetry especially of the early 17th century that is highly intellectual and philosophical and marked by unconventional imagery

>
>The Cambridge dictionary lists only the philosophical meaning (i.e. related to ontology and gnoseology). Written by staunch atheists, perhaps? :)
>
>So we're at 2:1 for now :).

Now I've lost track of the score, but I think my Webster's trumps your Webster's for completeness, so I think I may have gained a point even if I don't know the scoring rules.