Magma, I was actually trying to find and use Catsups definition of "same" in my analogy, which proved... elusive, at best. The only point I was attempting to make was that there is a way to handle the process while maintaining continuation, which was an integral sticking point to several people. And good job figuring out that I was basically describing mind mitosis, heh.
Again, I wasn't trying to make a general argument about the mind, only that there exists a process whereby one could maintain continuance while still ending up with two objects in the end. I was working on but a pillar of the logical fallacies that pervade this thread, and haven't really even stated my own viewpoint - only that those who maintain that the mind is both important and that it's important comes from a continuous line from 'here' to 'there' aren't actually providing a reasonable objection, since it's clearly not an important point about what they value.
Also, panH, you said
Actually, no. Us being continually changing doesn't mean we don't have a link to our past selves, this link being part of our present selves.
There's no point in creating a clone / teleportation / mind transfer, even with the same memories.
But that doesn't really address the point of my example. The purpose was that it is possible to enable what is essentially a 'mind transfer' (hypothetically) while maintaining that link, and furthermore that it is possible (hypothetically) to get even more far-out stuff like mind mitosis. Whether you think there's a
purpose to doing something like that, or whether you'd want to, or whether you believe any number of things isn't really relevant to the original example or the analogy I tried to use to describe it. I guess I might have misspoke - I meant to say, as far as I can tell, that you wouldn't have a problem with the splitting of the mind being something that can happen (while maintaining that link), not so much that you'd want to do it personally.