It all comes down to energy states and patterns...
This argument seems to remind me of those arguments that the identity is based more on the physical body than the mind. I disagree with that line of argumentation for reasons I'm willing to outline again if you want.
You can just link to them if you have them outlined elsewhere.
If I can find them, and if they aren't shrouded behind too much else. Or scattered between multiple posts. Or not mentioned because they weren't brought up by any particular argument.
So, here we go.
1. The physical body is constantly being replaced. Most of the definitions of identity-by-body avoid needing to tread Thaddeus's Paradox by defining the whole as the sum of specific parts--parts which are constantly being replaced! This definition of the self implies a periodic complete replacement of self.
2. Conversely, what happens when the parts split? To pick the most obvious example, the parts that make up a baby come from the mother--is the baby the mother? And don't get me started on food.
3. Above all, the identity-by-body argument implies that the mind is completely unimportant when it comes to determining identity, compared to the physical form. This has all kinds of unpleasant implications, ranging from implied racism to encouraged vanity.
...
Oh wait, you type your brackets.
...
You don't?
Well, there's also a quote button. Highlight the text and hit the button with a speech bubble.
@GWG: Okay then, let me put it to you this way - define the concept of being. I hope what I meant by the integral nature of identity becomes clearer.
Being, physical, or being, as in cognitive?
As to the first, if a thing can be described at any specific point in time by a collection of parts, it either is, was, or will be. If it can be described as a such in the now, it exists currently.
As to the latter...
cogito ergo sum. It's not a new thing.
Another question as well. Are two beings with the same identity interchangeable? If so, would you say you are interchangeable with the you of tomorrow? Or the you of next week? Or the you of ten years from now or in the past? And if they are not interchangeable, what makes you say that?
What do you mean by that? If you're asking if they're exactly the same, of course not, but why does that matter?
Also, do you believe the human mind and personality to be an entity independent of the body?
In principle? Probably. In practice? No.
I like to think of humans as machines or programs because it makes things easier, at least for me. I don't know if there's a name for my broader way of thinking. Functional? Realistic? Solipsism? Not really sure.
It reminds me of the old spherical-chicken joke.
It's a model. It's simpler, and it preserves the important basic qualities.
As to your explanation...it's interesting, but strikes me as simplistic. I can't quite place my finger on why, though.
This is kind of outdated, because I answer posts as I read them.
Been there, done that anyways.
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.
You don't. It's impossible to really determine if anything in the past really happened. I thought you were the one that said using that as an argument was cheating?
When did I say that?
And it doesn't; if it did, I wouldn't have said that the argument is completely irrelevant for all intents and purposes. :I
...?
You really haven't. You've basically said "The clone is a different person because of the changes he's experienced, so he's a different person from the original."
Again with the putting words in my mouth. Can't you deconstruct my argument without resorting to strawmen? 
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?
Differences in their minds. Person A has a certain set of experiences, memories, skills, personality traits, etc. Person B has a different set of the same.
Okay then. I don't remember anything from when I was three. Am I not the same person, because I have a completely different set of memories?
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.
What if an old man develops alzheimer's? Does he become a different person? If he used to be my father, is he not my father now?
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.
How about me six months ago? I must have had some memories I don't have now- I can't remember what I had for breakfast January 17th for example. Plus I have new memories. And my personality has changed somewhat over that time. Was I a different person before those changes?
See the "line" explanation above. Assuming you didn't "splinter," you're still you.
Why is life good? Why is stealing bad? A few things, we just need to have as axioms.
Yes, that was my point. Thanks for illustrating it for me~!
And my point (in various posts, largely against Baldman's arguments) was that this isn't one of those things.
I think. I can't quite remember what your argument I was responding to was.
Can you describe something in principle without language? I don't think that'll quite work over the Internet. Although I'd certainly like to get the peripheral that'd permit it. In any case, I'd like to hear whatever you've got.
As a native speaker of Russian, communicating a concept is a hurdle I face too many times on the Internet. My brain knows what it wants to say, but there are no words that match. I'll give it a try once my brain starts working again in the morning.
Is it that you don't understand English as well, or that English doesn't have words for what you're trying to say? The former seems more likely, but the latter has more interesting implications, so I hope it's true.
Oh, you may communicate it in Russian to me through PM if you find that easier.
Do it in the thread, for all I care.
...Okay, maybe I'm just hoping I can Google Translate something semi-comprehensible and/or amusing out of it.
