>>10 Well...when you think of it, what's actually real? Imagine that every time you go to sleep you are actually dying, and when you wake up, you've been replaced by a clone of yourself. What would the difference be, really? You have all your memories still. It's still you. Weeeerl, that's the philosophical conundrum, isn't it? I would argue that a clone isn't me because it doesn't represent a continuity of matter, even if it represents a continuity of mind - the fact that respawn can make a new copy while the old one is still alive shows that when a clone dies, that clone stays dead, and for that particular clone, death is absolute; the fact that there's another entity created with a copy-perfect memory doesn't change the fact that for the dead clone continuity is broken. The difference in your example is that even if someone wakes up tomorrow who is in every way like me, it won't be me; I will be dead, even if neither I nor my clone will be aware of this. A wonderful example of this problem can be found in the book Kraken by China Mieville: there's a guy who can 'beam' himself by deconstructing his body and reconstructing it in another physical location - however, every time he does so, he unknowingly kills himself and creates a new copy, just like respawn, and ends up haunted by the ghosts of all the past selves he has killed. He's the murderer of every person he has ever transported, including himself, and he doesn't even know it because every new copy is born thinking it's the old one. It's an awesome book, by the way, extremely recommendable.