Consciousness is a series of electrical signals that travel through the central nervous system of a living creature, a primary portion of the biological mass you mentioned that's thought and cognition. I agree with this. However, electricity isn't sentient. It isn't capable of independent thought or emotion. Over the course of gradual advancements in neuroscience, the release and balance of various chemicals working alongside the impulses of electricity in the neural network of the mind have been discovered to be responsible for the creation and storage of memories, emotional responses to external and internal stimuli, and the ability to properly perceive and experience the concept of "self". So, even though neuroscience is still yet to be fully understood, consciousness and personality can reasonably be concluded to be created through of a mixture of electrical stimulation as well as biochemistry. And since chemicals within the body are either used up or broken down into new substances as decomposition sets in on organic tissue, it can be said that half of the equation is lost upon death. However, if the first law of thermodynamics is applicable to the decomposition of organic matter, like the chemical component of the body breaks down into new forms, the electrical component shifts forms as well, gradually transitioning into the form of heat, which eventually becomes part of the background radiation constant of the physical universe. So, while it is true that there's little reason to believe that memory or consciousness would be retained by the remnants of decomposed matter, do you think it would be worth considering what might occur if electricity and basic biochemistry were introduced to an efficiently simulated, artificial host? Do you have any suspicion that an individual personality could essentially be recovered or at least simulated by artificially reintegrating the chemical and electrical components responsible for it back into something capable of mimicking a healthy, functional human being? Granted, we aren't currently at a point where we're capable of perfectly imitating the combination of systems that compose a living human being, but consider it just as a question for the sake of playful speculation. I also apologize if I misspoke at any point, I had to go back and change around my wording at various points of this response.

I like how you think. I knew that biological memory storage included more than just signals, but to be honest I did not know what else was involved, so thanks that's a cool fact. If you were to copy the electrical signals into a database, and then reintroduce them to a new body or other substitute, I think it might be possible to "bring a person back." But, I wonder how that body would be able to handle storing that much information instantly, or even if it was done over a period of time. And in order to begin storing said information, it would have to be already functioning and matured enough to do so. As I'm writing this, cloning comes to mind. I wonder if it will ever be possible to copy the consciousness of the original and actually be able to implant it into the newer. [spoiler]Oh and I forgot another point you made. I do think that it will one day be possible to stimulate new consciousness as you said, but as I stated, I question the possibility of keeping or reintegrating an old one.[/spoiler]

Well, we're already in the process of creating data storage that can house petabytes worth of information, which is equal to 1024 terabytes. And one terabyte is equal to 1024 gigabytes. So in terms of that technology, we're reaching new heights as technology advances. We're even gaining a lot of ground in terms of bionic prosthetic limbs and such, although there's still a ways to go on that before we reach the level of creating some form of android like we see in science fiction. And even cloning tech is moving along. Granted, at a much slower pace, partially due to limited knowledge of the technology required, but also due to the questionable moral/ethical concerns of that area of science. That being said, i'm fairly certain this whole subject would face those concerns as well, but I feel that most people don't really consider the possibility of bringing long deceased consciousness' back in the form of synthetic humanoids. All of these potential futuristic outcomes being considered, I have other questions on my mind, to be perfectly honest. Such as, where do we draw the distinction between magic and science once the intended end results of both essentially become the same? As the limits of our technology and scientific research gradually expand beyond what we ever thought possible, what will science be other than magic done through precise and better understood methods by which the ends results are achieved? I suppose this is best summed up by a quote from Arthur C. Clarke, who stated that, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." If we brought even the smallest portion of our current technology to humans from a thousand years ago, this quote would be proven. If someone from a thousand years in the future came back to our age under the same circumstances, might we be any different? I'm probably rambling a bit at this point, hopefully something of interest was conveyed in this post and it's not all a jumbled mess. lol

[quote]I'm probably rambling a bit at this point, hopefully something of interest was conveyed in this post and it's not all a jumbled mess. lol[/quote] Nah. I love reading and debating this kind of stuff. Even if it jumps from point to point a bit.

Bump because I finished the comment. Also, reply to this if you have any questions about what [i]actually[/i] happened in Frankenstein.