Dude, you still didn't define "you". Either you mean your body, or you mean your mind.
why dont you start defining what "mind" is? you know exactly what i mean, your brain is the physical reality that represents "you". Duplicating it perfectly creates a copy that is a copy, that are their own, and which experience the world as a separate being than "you".
"You" die when your original brain dies, period. I dont get why thats so hard to understand, we arent discussing sci-fi fantasy here.
So you choose to perceive of "yourself" as a collection of particles, rather than as a configuration of particles. Now in a few years' time, most of the particles comprising "you" will be gradually replaced by other particles. The hypothetical copying scenario does the same thing, only it replaces all of the particles at the same time. The future "you" will be as different from "you" as the clone "you". Yet you only have problems with copying, not with aging. I see some cognitive dissonance here.
The second statement is true (we'll leave brain transplants out of the scenario for now). But the first statement is false, since that body has the same memories (therefore the same mind) as the original body.
Here's another question. Let's say you are abducted while sleeping and replaced with a duplicate of yourself. Nobody would notice, and your copy would be perfectly okay with that, since he doesn't know he is a copy.
Now let's say the same thing happens, except you are awake during the duplication process, and the copy remembers that. What would the copy feel?
it doesnt matter what memories the body has, it doesnt matter what appearance they have, it doesnt matter if the world is unchanged since your clone is your exact double. It doesnt change the fact that he is a separate being than your original self, whose body cannot be controlled by your original brain.
I agree to all of this (assuming "being" means sum of mind and body), yet it doesn't explain why you are against being replaced by a copy.
the other 2 questions are kind of pointless, what exactly are you trying to prove?
I'm trying to prove that since you don't fucking care if you are a copy or not if you
don't know whether you are one, you shouldn't fucking care when you
do know.
Is it wrong that I laugh when I read stuff like this? I think that basically a clone with my exact particles and memories is me. At the moment of it's creation there is no longer a singular 'me'. There is now two units of 'me'. Once any amount of time has passed we are no longer identical, but neither has a greater claim on being 'me'. No more than the 'me' that existed yesterday still exists. Basically I think that mind and body are one and the same.
no one will know its not you, but it isnt you because you arent the one in control of the body, you arent the one looking through its eyes.
what is created here is a piece of flesh that just happens to have the exact same brain structure and organization as you (and thus the same mind) as your original self, but is a entirely separate entity with it's own thought process (even if those may be identical to you).
EDIT: after rereading, mind and body are not exactly the same for humans because we do not have a decentralized nervous system. Just transferring our brain is enough to transfer our mind and our present "ability to become conscious", into another body so we can wake up in that body.
So transferring your brain is enough to transfer your "consciousness", yet merely transferring the pattern of your brain (which contains your "consciousness") is not? Seriously, get your thoughts straight. That sounds disturbingly like homeopathy. Atomic memory and stuff.
Also, can someone please explain why there are 47 votes in the poll, yet the poll says there are only 46?