If I can find them, and if they aren't shrouded behind too much else. Or scattered between multiple posts. Or not mentioned because they weren't brought up by any particular argument.
So, here we go.
1. The physical body is constantly being replaced. Most of the definitions of identity-by-body avoid needing to tread Thaddeus's Paradox by defining the whole as the sum of specific parts--parts which are constantly being replaced! This definition of the self implies a periodic complete replacement of self.
2. Conversely, what happens when the parts split? To pick the most obvious example, the parts that make up a baby come from the mother--is the baby the mother? And don't get me started on food.
3. Above all, the identity-by-body argument implies that the mind is completely unimportant when it comes to determining identity, compared to the physical form. This has all kinds of unpleasant implications, ranging from implied racism to encouraged vanity.
Okay, so by reasons:
1) Mine isn't a by-body viewpoint exactly. A body-product-byproduct is a little more accurate.
2) The energy imprint of the baby starts becoming distinct from its mother's as soon as the baby gains systems complex enough to change state and form patterns on its own. Until it grows sufficiently that it can, of its own accord and separately from its mother, respond to stimuli, it may well be considered an organ. The exact point is not defined solidly - defining it is a matter of personal preference - but it's fairly obvious that once the baby has well and truly separated following birth, it has become a separate individual.
3) The mind... how do you separate body and mind? The mind is not something that exists nowhere, it operates in the framework that the body provides it, and it is a large part of the "energy imprint" I am talking about. The mind is a pattern - a pattern of energy states clustered around a source of energy, interacting with each other in complex ways and producing a result that affects the source. I'm... uh. Are you familiar with cellular automata? Imagine an analogue, multi-dimensional sort of automata, where rules of interaction are defined by relative energy state, the number, states, and arrangements of energy "packets" within a given pattern, grouped by relation to uncountable other energy states and patterns in the universe rather than any kind of physical position and distance. That automata is an example of how the universe works. The body generates all kinds of energy, and all energy that the body generates falls into patterns - that's the "imprint" that the physical body leaves in the universe. The brain creates patterns of energy - electric energy, in this case - that together form an entirely different layer of interaction than mere physical collection and discharge of electricity through cells can hint at. If a pattern changes, it doesn't simply go missing - as long as the change in pattern is gradual, it will still fall into some of the uncountable rules of interaction, retaining its connection to other patterns, and as the source reacts to stimuli and changes, so do the patterns attached to it change and expand, extending the "imprint".
In short, it's not simply a "body" kind of viewpoint. The body is the mechanism by which the "being" works, but the "being" is the result of the uncountable interactions between the body and the surrounding world. The "imprint" - the "soul", as it were - is a byproduct of the product of the body, the product being the "mind" and everything within the body itself that affects it. If a pattern in your "imprint" were to change, like if another person was in a sufficiently similar state of mind as you, and his stimuli, being different from yours, would do the same partial changing of pattern as they do normally,
you could end up having your own mind affected by it as well. Since complete matches would be impossibly rare outside of identical twin and clone situations, this does not usually come up full-scale, but it shows up frequently in less pronounced ways, and the closer people are to each other mentally and emotionally, the closer their states and patterns are, and the more likely they are to consciously or subconsciously "think" for each other. I'm rambling again, aren't I? I gotta sleep. -_-
Is it that you don't understand English as well, or that English doesn't have words for what you're trying to say? The former seems more likely, but the latter has more interesting implications, so I hope it's true.
It's a somewhat equal mix of both, I would say. It's only natural. To me, English exists only so far as I know and understand it - therefore, even if a term exists that I am not aware of, from my point of understanding it's the English language itself that lacks the term I wish to express. I also have this problem with Russian, so it's not a matter of having a different native language. It's a matter of having a mindset that encourages finding new things, and lacking the vocabulary to back it up.
Author
Topic: Einsteinian Roulette: OOC and NEW PLAYER INFO (Read 2541844 times)