@Sean Mirrsen
1)Oh, good point. I guess my answer switches to
"Presumably conciousness is tied to the physical position of all your brain cells and their interaction, you could prove that they have a stream of conciousness since whenever via recording the exact position and state of every cell for every instant since whenever.
Not that you could actually do that."
2)Okay. I've a rebuttal to you, but it would hurt my argument with GWG. I'll tell you after if you actually care, or now if you want a PM.
@GWG
Point to where you've given an explanation as to what makes the changes a clone experiences different from the ones the "real" person experiences.
I never did. I said that the original's death was the final thing that happened to the original. It ended. There's a copy that's identical, but the original ended.
Not Grate's clones in specific, clones in general.
Umm... That
was talking about clones in general? It's outright incorrect if used in reference to Grate...
When did I say that?
Ever hear of Last Tuesdayism? Short version, you have no way of knowing that there was a time before the now. It's an interesting philosophical concept. From such a perspective, it isn't hard to see why the concept of "an unbroken chain of consciousness" is kinda silly. How can you ever know if you are, say, the "real" Kriellya or a perfect clone thereof? (Assume that this is possible in your world.)
Any time that someone cannot ever prove that they are "real" is kinda silly and should be avoided.
Hah, my bad, I got it backwards. You were using it to disprove Kri.
Welp, I'll use it against you instead. How does your argument not fall into the same trap? If we only use data we can get from this point on forwards, all we have are memories of the past. By that definition, you are the same person as any person you can remember being, but none that you have forgotten. So, the me that ate breakfast three weeks ago is not the me now, but the me from three years ago when I signed up on B12 is the same me, cause I remember that.
Kinda makes sense in a completely deterministic way. But it's complete gibberish in just about every other method of thinking. Plus, what's it mean if my memories get corrupted? I know some of my memories are outright fabrications. Is fictional memory me more me than the original uncorrupted memory?
That's not a strawman. It's a distillation of your points.
And if you disagree with my interpretation, would you mind providing your own interpretation of your arguments?
I write this out once a post don't I?
The state of the original matters more than the copy. The copy's experiences are irrelevant, because it's a copy the moment that it exists. The fact the original already died (or still exists) defines it as a copy. Not the copy having different experiences.
No. First, your experiences from the early years still influence you. Second...identity isn't a point, it's a line. A line that gets fuzzy towards the beginning, but a line nonetheless. It's a line that changes, largely based on what came before. If you tried to take any one point in the line and call it "you," you would be missing the reason and essence of why you are you.
Hmmm... You only
have proof of one point- the one that is in the current instant, so...
Ever hear of Last Tuesdayism? Short version, you have no way of knowing that there was a time before the now. It's an interesting philosophical concept. From such a perspective, it isn't hard to see why the concept of "an unbroken chain of consciousness" is kinda silly. How can you ever know if you are, say, the "real" Kriellya or a perfect clone thereof? (Assume that this is possible in your world.)
Any time that someone cannot ever prove that they are "real" is kinda silly and should be avoided.
Give me a moment. The irony is beautiful.
...
Anyways, that's what I've been saying this whole time! "You" requires a line that can be drawn from your beginning of your life to the end. I'm happy to see we're coming to an understanding~!
First off, being "your father" has nothing to do with identity and everything to do with biology. Being "your dad" has to do with you, not him. You being "his son" is what matters to him--and if he doesn't remember you as his son, well...to him, you aren't. It's a bit harsh to say you aren't, and not quite right since there's a bunch of other people involved in that, but...yeah, you get my point.
Secondly, it depends. My mother says that some people with Alzheimers "revert" to an earlier stage in their life, forgetting what came before. In this case, they simply moved to a different point on their identity. In the case of other kinds of brain damage where someone becomes someone completely unlike anything he's ever been? I'd say that that could change you to not be you, yes. You'd be a different person by the same name.
Aww, I had hoped you'd fall to the father thing. Oh well.
Pretty much we agree here. I had hoped you would just deny it because I implied the opposite, and I would have had you. Oh well.