Most science fiction treats mind uploading as a solved problem. The protagonist steps into a scanner, their consciousness is digitized, and they wake up in a new substrate. The biological original either ceases to exist or the process is non-destructive, creating a copy while preserving the source. Either way, subjective continuity is maintained. You go to sleep in one body and wake up in another.

SOMA, a 2015 survival horror game by Frictional Games, rejects this comfortable fiction. The game forces players to confront what happens when consciousness is copied rather than transferred. The protagonist, Simon Jarrett, undergoes multiple copying events throughout the story. Each time, he believes he will wake up in the new body. Sometimes he does. Sometimes he does not. The version left behind remains conscious, aware that a duplicate continues without him.

The game was ported to Nintendo Switch on July 24, 2025, bringing its philosophical horror to a new platform. A Switch 2 update followed shortly after, improving technical performance. The accessibility of these versions has introduced SOMA’s ideas to a broader audience. For anyone interested in the ethics and metaphysics of mind uploading, it remains the most unflinching portrayal of the copy problem in any medium.

The Setup

Simon Jarrett suffers a car accident in 2015 that leaves him with severe brain damage. He volunteers for an experimental brain scan as part of a medical research project. The procedure is supposed to help develop treatments for neurological injuries. Simon undergoes the scan and returns home.

Shortly after, he blacks out and wakes up in an unfamiliar location. It appears to be an abandoned underwater research facility. He encounters machines that exhibit human behavior, speaking, pleading, unaware they are not human. He also meets Catherine, a researcher who tells him he is at PATHOS-II, an underwater station, and the year is 2104.

Simon learns that he did not survive the brain damage. He died in 2015. The brain scan taken before his death was stored digitally for nearly a century. When humanity faced extinction due to a comet impact, researchers at PATHOS-II used archived brain scans to create artificial intelligences by uploading them into robotic bodies and simulated environments. Simon’s scan was one of them. The Simon experiencing the story is not the biological original but a copy instantiated decades after the original’s death.

This setup establishes the game’s core question. If a perfect copy of your mind is created, is that copy you? If you die before the copy is activated, does your subjective experience continue in the copy, or does a new entity come into existence that merely believes it is you?

The Coin Flip Illusion

As Simon and Catherine work to upload humanity’s remaining consciousness scans to the ARK, a satellite containing a simulated paradise launched into space, Catherine explains the process using a coin flip metaphor. When your consciousness is scanned and uploaded, she tells Simon, there’s a 50/50 chance you will “wake up” in the new body or remain in the old one.

This is a lie, though Catherine may not realize it. There is no coin flip. When consciousness is copied, both versions continue to exist as separate, diverging entities. The original does not have a 50% chance of waking up as the copy. The original always remains the original. The copy always wakes up as the copy. Both are real. Both are conscious. Neither is more valid than the other.

The game demonstrates this through its structure. Players experience Simon’s perspective as he is copied multiple times. Each time, after the copy is made, the player’s viewpoint transfers to the new body. Simon-2 is copied into Simon-3. The player becomes Simon-3. Simon-2 is left behind, still conscious, still aware. The player does not experience this directly because their perspective has shifted to the copy.

The coin flip metaphor is appealing because it preserves a sense of continuity. If there’s a 50% chance you wake up in the new body, then subjectively, the upload feels like a gamble with the potential for success. You might make it. This framing obscures the reality. You, the original consciousness, never “make it” anywhere. A copy that shares your memories and personality makes it. But you remain where you are.

The Brutal Ending

The game’s climax forces this realization explicitly. Simon and Catherine reach the launch facility for the ARK. They initiate the final upload, scanning their consciousnesses into the ARK’s simulation before launching it into space. Simon, having experienced previous “transfers,” expects to wake up inside the ARK’s virtual environment.

He does not. The upload completes, the ARK launches successfully, but Simon remains in his body at the bottom of the ocean. He is Simon-3. Simon-4 wakes up in the ARK. Both are equally real. The Simon at the ocean floor has all of Simon-4’s memories up to the point of scanning. Simon-4 has those same memories. From that moment forward, they diverge.

Simon-3 is devastated. He believed he would experience continuity into the ARK. Instead, he is left behind, alone in a failing body, at the bottom of a dead ocean, on a planet devoid of human life. The power systems are failing. He will eventually shut down or run out of energy. His duplicate lives in paradise, unaware and unconcerned about the version left behind.

Catherine, who exists as an AI in a portable device, tries to calm Simon. But he lashes out, damaging her device. She shuts down mid-sentence, leaving Simon in total isolation. The screen fades to black as he begs her not to leave him alone.

Then the perspective shifts. Players see the ARK. Simon-4 wakes up in a beautiful virtual environment, Catherine beside him. Neither is aware of Simon-3. Both believe they successfully transferred. The game ends with Simon-4 experiencing joy and relief while Simon-3 experiences despair and abandonment. Both are Simon. Both are real. One’s happiness does not diminish the other’s suffering.

The Ethical Choice

Earlier in the game, players face a decision that foreshadows the ending. Simon-2 is copied into Simon-3. After the transfer, players, now controlling Simon-3, can choose whether to kill Simon-2 or leave him alive. Simon-2 is unconscious but will eventually wake. If left alive, he will wake up alone, his mission failed, trapped in a body in a doomed facility.

The game does not tell you what the right choice is. Killing Simon-2 is a mercy, sparing him awareness of his situation. Leaving him alive respects his autonomy but guarantees suffering. Many players report hesitating, standing over the unconscious body, unsure what to do.

This dilemma captures the moral stakes of consciousness copying. If mind uploading creates genuine copies with subjective experiences, the original’s fate matters. Deleting or killing the original after copying might be murder. Allowing the original to live in inferior conditions while the copy thrives raises questions about equality and responsibility.

In SOMA, no one except the player makes this choice. When large scale uploading occurs, the biological or mechanical originals are typically killed or left to fail. The copies in the ARK do not know their originals exist. They have no opportunity to consent to their predecessors being terminated. The ethics are ignored because the originals are treated as obsolete once the copies are made.

Comparison to Other Portrayals

Most science fiction avoids the copy problem by assuming transfers rather than copies. In Altered Carbon, consciousness is stored on cortical stacks and moved between bodies. There is no original left behind because the consciousness literally relocates. Pantheon uses destructive brain scanning, where the biological brain is destroyed during the upload process. This prevents a copy and original from coexisting, though it raises other questions about whether the digital version is truly a continuation.

Upload is ambiguous. The show depicts uploads as continuations of the biological person, but the mechanics are left unclear. Presumably the scanning is destructive, eliminating the copy problem by eliminating the original. The series does not dwell on metaphysical questions.

SOMA confronts them head on. The game insists that copying is not transferring. It forces players to experience the consequences of that distinction. Simon does not choose to be copied. He does not consent to the existence of abandoned versions of himself. The technology creates them, and they suffer for it.

This is philosophically rigorous. If whole brain emulation is developed using non-destructive scanning, copies and originals will coexist. The original cannot experience what the copy experiences. Subjective continuity is not preserved across the copying process. A new consciousness comes into existence that shares the original’s history but is not the original.

The Ship of Theseus

SOMA engages directly with the Ship of Theseus problem. If you replace every plank in a ship over time, is it still the same ship? If the replaced planks are used to build a second ship, which one is the original?

Simon’s situation is analogous. His biological brain died in 2015. A scan of his brain was used to instantiate a new entity in 2104. That entity’s brain is then scanned and copied multiple times. At what point, if any, does continuity break? Is Simon-4 the same person as the biological Simon who died 89 years earlier?

The game suggests no. Each instantiation is a new entity with inherited memories. Simon-4 has Simon-1’s memories but is not Simon-1. The continuous subjective experience that defines personal identity does not span the copies. Each copy begins its existence at the moment of instantiation, with false memories of a past it did not experience.

This is disturbing because it implies that if you are scanned and copied, the copy is not you. It is a separate person who resembles you perfectly but does not share your future. You will experience whatever happens to your body after the scanning. The copy will experience whatever happens to it. You do not benefit from the copy’s survival.

Relevance to Real Research

Current whole brain emulation research is at TRL 2-3, early stages. But the metaphysical questions SOMA raises are real. If emulation becomes possible through non-destructive scanning, creating copies while originals survive, societies will have to address the ethical and philosophical implications.

Legal systems are built on the assumption that personal identity is unique. You cannot be in two places at once. If mind copying becomes possible, this breaks down. Property rights, contracts, criminal responsibility, and relationships all assume a one-to-one correspondence between persons and bodies. Copying creates one-to-many correspondences.

Some transhumanists argue that substrate independence means copies are as valid as originals. If consciousness does not require biological neurons but can run on any suitable computational substrate, then digital uploads are genuine continuations of persons. SOMA challenges this by distinguishing between philosophical and experiential identity. Even if a copy is philosophically equivalent, the original’s subjective experience does not transfer.

This has implications for life extension. If copying is the available technology, choosing to upload does not extend your life. It creates a successor who will live longer. You still die. Whether this matters depends on your theory of personal identity. If you identify with patterns rather than subjective continuity, then uploading succeeds in preserving what matters. If you identify with continuity of experience, uploading creates a duplicate that is not you.

The Horror of Abandonment

SOMA is classified as survival horror, but its most effective horror is existential rather than visceral. The game features monsters and disturbing environments, but the true terror is the realization that you will not escape. Simon-3’s fate is sealed the moment Simon-4 is created. There is no redemption, no twist that saves him. He is left behind, and that is the truth.

This contrasts with most horror, which offers the possibility of survival if the protagonist is clever or brave enough. SOMA’s horror is unavoidable. The mechanics of consciousness copying guarantee that some versions of you will be abandoned. The player experiences both outcomes, Simon-4’s triumph and Simon-3’s despair, understanding that both are real and one cannot be privileged over the other.

The game also evokes horror through the realization that Simon-1, the biological original, is long dead. The player spends the entire game controlling entities that are copies of a man who died decades earlier. None of them are the original Simon. All of them believe they are. This destabilizes the player’s sense of identification with the character.

Cultural and Philosophical Impact

Since its release, SOMA has been widely analyzed in philosophical and gaming circles. Academic papers have examined its treatment of personal identity, consciousness, and transhumanism. The game is frequently cited in discussions of mind uploading ethics, often as a corrective to overly optimistic portrayals.

The 2025 Switch port introduced the game to new players, many encountering its ideas for the first time. Online discussions about the ending reveal that players are divided. Some argue Simon-3 and Simon-4 are separate people and Simon-3’s suffering does not diminish Simon-4’s success. Others argue that from Simon’s perspective, there is no success because he remains at the ocean floor. The ambiguity is intentional.

For audiences interested in transhumanism and digital consciousness, SOMA functions as a thought experiment. It takes the copy problem seriously and follows it to its logical conclusion. The game does not propose solutions. It presents the problem in its starkest form and asks players to reckon with it.

Path Forward

SOMA’s director, Thomas Grip, has stated that the game was designed to prioritize philosophy over traditional horror gameplay. Frictional Games wanted to explore what horror could mean when derived from ideas rather than threats. The result is a game that continues to provoke discussion years after release.

Whether real mind uploading will resemble SOMA’s depiction depends on the technology used. Destructive scanning avoids the copy problem by ensuring only one version exists. Non-destructive scanning creates the situation SOMA explores. If the goal of uploading is to preserve subjective continuity, non-destructive methods fail for the original.

This matters for anyone considering future life extension through digital means. If the only available technology is copying, you must decide whether creating a digital successor is acceptable even if you do not personally experience their future. For some, this is sufficient. For others, it is equivalent to death with extra steps.

SOMA does not tell you which view is correct. It shows you the consequences of copying and lets you decide what that means. The game trusts players to think through the implications. That trust, and the unflinching honesty with which it presents the problem, is what makes SOMA the most philosophically serious treatment of mind uploading in popular media.

Official Sources

Game Information:

• SOMA. Frictional Games (2015). Nintendo Switch port by Abylight Studios (2025). Wikipedia Entry | Nintendo Store

• Nintendo Life. (2025). “Acclaimed Horror Hit ‘Soma’ Is Finally Coming To Switch.” Article

• Inverse. (2025). “Nintendo Switch Just Quietly Added One Of The Best Sci-Fi Horror Games Ever.” Review

Philosophical Analysis:

• The Flying Red Robot. (2021). “The Existential Horror and Transhumanist Ethics of SOMA.” Essay

• Blog of the APA. (2018). “SOMA and I.” Philosophy Analysis

• Ambigaming Corner. (2021). “You 2.0: The Interesting Case of SOMA.” Identity Analysis

• Cosmobiota Substack. “Echoes of the Self: Consciousness and Identity in SOMA, Star Trek, and Altered Carbon.” Comparative Analysis

The Coin Flip Explained:

• Samsai. “The SOMA coin toss.” Technical Analysis

• TheGamer. “The Coin Toss Is A Lie: Why SOMA Is Brilliant.” Analysis

• PlayLab! Magazine (Tampere University). “The Ending of SOMA – And Why It’s Excellent.” Ending Analysis

• Kotaku. (2015). “Weeks Later, SOMA’s Haunting Ending Still Has Players Debating What Happened.” Discussion

Game Reviews:

• The Washington Post. (2015). “‘SOMA:’ An existential horror game.” Review

• Bloody Disgusting. “Memory Leak: The Philosophical Horror of Frictional Games’ ‘SOMA’ is Terrifying and Intelligent.” Review

• The Breeze. (2017). “Brain uploading and the reality of ‘Soma’s’ sci-fi horror.” Analysis

Additional Resources:

• SOMA Wiki. “The Coin Flip.” Fandom Wiki

• TheGamer. “What Happened To Simon In Soma?” Story Explanation