>
> > > Anyone an opinion.
> > Apparently we agree after all on your original question (does a copy
> > know he's been copied---> probably not). Now there's this tricky ID
> > thing: is a non-connected copy of any use to "the original"...???
>
> Still: if the copy is PERFECT at the absolute NO-brain-activity-point.
> The copy is You. If not, you have to believe in some sort of magical
> spirit called "you". This is exactly my problem point, when both
> become active again: who is who ?
I beg to differ: the copy is not you. Unless you have some way of
superimposing the copy onto the original, the copy will be in a different
location than the originial. This fact, in itself, is a fundamental
difference.
For example... say in a galaxy far, far away there is a planet that
developed life exactly like ours. On this planet, by pure coincidence,
there just happens to be a human being *exactly* like you,
sub-atomic-particle by sub-atomic-particle. Is this person you? I would
say not, even though he has exactly the same structure as you. As I
mentioned in an earlier post, I think we should define a person by his
*history* of structure and history of actions. Obviously, actions should
be tied to location, so two structurally-identical people performing the
same actions in different locations are not the same person.
geoff.