Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

cwallen t1_iwrwt9p wrote

My nitpick with this view is that I don't see a problem seeing both versions as having continuity.

If you had nano fabricator technology, such that you could create a perfect replica of a person, to the point that you can't tell which one is the copy, they are not the same person as soon as they start having different experiences, but they both still have continuity to the person they used to be.

You are not the same person you were ten years ago, you are slightly not the same person you were yesterday. If you copy yourself, both used to be the same person, but are now two different people. Who the original is doesn't matter.

6

Forstmannsen t1_iws0pqb wrote

Yep. Actually though, it would depend on your mindset if it matters or not... but the funny thing is, if you are very attached to the idea of thinking yourself as the original, and not a mere copy, you can bet your ass that the "copy" thinks the exact same thing. Knives out, I say whoever bleeds out last is the original.

Also, this whole continuity argument is a cop-out, IMO. I fail to subjectively (which is the only way that matters) experience continuity every night, and somehow, I live with that.

3

-ZeroRelevance- t1_iwsagw0 wrote

I think there also needs to be spatial continuity, on top of the associative continuity. If you use such a nano-fabricator technology, you’re putting someone in a place that they never were, thus breaking continuity and meaning they are not the same person. On the other hand, if you just replace all the cells in your brain with artificial ones, there is still both associative and spatial continuity, so the end result is still you.

2