The_Fredrik t1_j7vckig wrote on February 9, 2023 at 5:54 PM

Zero.

It might be a copy of you, but it won’t be you since “you” is product of your conscience.

You are not conscious in any a way of any alternative you, meaning they are not you, in an meaningful way of the word.

It be freaking sweet to meet a true doppelgänger though.

Kilharae t1_j7vh75n wrote on February 9, 2023 at 6:23 PM

Well, I think people presume that a copy of you would have a copy of your conscience too. And it is not necessary for a copy to be aware of other copies for it to be a copy, so I disagree with your logic here. Although, not necessarily with your conclusion. I definitely get there via a different route, which I describe elsewhere on this thread.

The_Fredrik t1_j7vjcc0 wrote on February 9, 2023 at 6:36 PM

But that’s exactly my point.

A copy of you is not you, no matter got how good the copy is.

Kilharae t1_j7vkfi0 wrote on February 9, 2023 at 6:43 PM

You have to give a reason though. Just saying so doesn't make it true. You can call a copy of you a copy, but that's just semantics, you could just as easily be described as the copy. I mean, unless you're alluding to the idea of a 'soul' being intrinsically unique or something like that. In which case, it's no longer a scientific argument.

The_Fredrik t1_j7vl785 wrote on February 9, 2023 at 6:47 PM

How do you define “you” if not for your distinct body, your distinct conscious experience?

Do you experience any of these copies? No. Then even assuming they exist they are not you, only copies. Similar yes, but distinct in every way that matters.

If you disagree you have to define clearly what you mean by “you”.

Kilharae t1_j7vlthl wrote on February 9, 2023 at 6:51 PM

I would define you in 4 dimensions, so if you can imagine a 4d blob of yourself as your traverse time throughout your entire existence, as well as how you came to be and how you are disposed of when you die (which worms eat you, where they go afterwards etc.) And I think you can consider that another version of 'you'. Though I grant other, less exacting definitions of 'you' would probably pass muster for other people. But I think it's equally incumbent upon you to have to clearly define what you mean by 'you' to prove that there isn't another one out there. Delving into natural language definition and semantics seems to be the crux of your entire argument. If this becomes a debate over semantical definitions then this debate becomes completely asinine. You're basically saying that even if a copy exists, it's not you because its a copy... okay... maybe you can move yourself to get past your self imposed semantical restriction and ponder the actual argument. Because what you're doing is splitting hairs that don't matter.