Without absolving Jabba of answering your questions, let me add some insight that I think may be helpful.
You have stated clearly above that there is a direct line of deductive reasoning to support your conclusion that something is missing.
Ah, but read carefully. Jabba is playing one of his standard word games that other critics have characterized as boiling down to, "Do you agree that if I had evidence and a valid line of reasoning, I will have proven my case?" Naturally someone agrees to this -- because it does logically hold -- and Jabba pivots that agreement to mean agreement that he
has evidence and a valid line of reasoning, at which point he hops around with glee -- it's the "gotcha" moment he's been playing for for years. Don't fall for it; it's one of his more disingenuous deceptions.
In the line of reasoning
If the copy doesn't bring ME back to life, it's missing something.
"ME" is unclear. Jabba has never defined it except as whatever would be missing from an otherwise perfect copy. "Bring back to life" is unclear. Jabba has never defined it except as what wouldn't happen even if a perfect copy were made. Since his definitions are blatantly circular, we say his claim fails immediately (see below). But we can infer plausible (if unevidenced) meanings such that the line of reasoning is valid. If a process of duplication in some detectable way fails to produce an identical copy -- as insinuated by "bring ME back to life" -- then you can validly argue something is missing. (Something may have been added to the copy, but the gist of the line of reasoning is still operative.)
The abstract defensibility of such a cause and effect relationship, given reasonable meaning for the undefined elements, is utterly irrelevant to whether some enclosing reasoning purports those causes or observes those effects. Jabba wants you to agree that a certain conclusion would follow from a certain premise as a trick to avoid having to prove the premise.
Here the intentional ambiguity in his wording is meant to trick you into accepting the line of reasoning under the unstated premise that meanings reasonable under H are intended by "ME" and "bring back to life." Only after you expressly do what I suggest above -- evaluate the syllogism with provisional meanings -- will you find out that "ME" means soul and "bring back to life" means some form of spiritual (re)incarnation. Your agreement would give him the desired toehold from which to argue that you've also agree those things are part of H.
Then help me please, what IS it defined by? According to current scientific theory the conscious process IS defined by the physical existence and accumulation of experiences.
I don't have to belabor that Jabba is drawing the line of reasoning not from materialism but from a fairly obvious straw man. In materialism all observable properties flow from the material as time-dependent functions. As such it is impossible under H (materialism) to reproduce the material exactly without also reproducing the properties exactly. Jabba believes otherwise, of course, but has deliberately insulated himself from the elephant in the room: he cannot apply those beliefs to H as a means of falsifying it via Bayes' theorem.
