>>11351081"It would just be a copy" fags don't go far enough.
Look, here are three body-moments.
If you line up three rocks, do they magically begin to share in the same identity?
If yes, then OK. That's a weird opinion and I don't see why anyone would believe in it, but you're at least being logically consistent then.
If no, then expand out from 3D space to 4D space-time and ask the same question.
If you line up three body-moments along the temporal axis, do they magically begin to share in the same identity?
In both cases if you believe they DO begin to share in an identity, what specific module is making this work? Why is nearness conferring identity?
This is the sort of thing the "if you make a copy of someone is it the same person" thought experiment should make you realize is bullshit. Having a copy that's exactly alike in structure and exactly alike in mental activity doesn't magically make a person's "self" teleport into the copy's brain. And of course it wouldn't since no "self" ever magically teleports from one body-moment to the next to begin with even before the novelty of a copying machine is even added to the equation.
Take the buddhism-pill. "Self" is an empty concept i.e. a fiction of convenience used to help society function through the benefits it confers with tax collection and criminal justice. It doesn't exist as a literal physical object any more than other abstract reference points like a "center of gravity" or the "US dollar" do. They're treated as though they do exist through the behaviors surrounding them e.g. we use pieces of paper to represent money and the way physical objects predictably behave in space is used as the basis for abstracting out a center of gravity for them.
