Note there are no actual experiments about this, only thought experiments that exist specifically to explore peoples’ reaction and intuition. There is no empirical value to them. Some of them take care to specify that “original” is meaningless (by splitting into 3 and destroying the “original”, for instance), but people are pretty well used to thinking of “me” as one thing.
I prefer to define being same by causal flows.
Prefer whatever you like. I prefer not to use the word “same” in these cases—it’s ambiguous and misleading. Specifying HOW they’re alike and different is the only sane description, IMO. “fungible for a given purpose” is way more operationally sound than “same”.
Note there are no actual experiments about this, only thought experiments that exist specifically to explore peoples’ reaction and intuition. There is no empirical value to them. Some of them take care to specify that “original” is meaningless (by splitting into 3 and destroying the “original”, for instance), but people are pretty well used to thinking of “me” as one thing.
Prefer whatever you like. I prefer not to use the word “same” in these cases—it’s ambiguous and misleading. Specifying HOW they’re alike and different is the only sane description, IMO. “fungible for a given purpose” is way more operationally sound than “same”.