No, your last sentence did not make sense, and neither does the rest of that comment, hence my attempt to clarify. My best attempt at interpreting what you’re trying to say looks at this particular section:
‘an implicit answer to the question of what “I exist” means physically’
Where I immediately find the same problem I see in the original post: “I exist” doesn’t actually “mean” anything in this context, because you haven’t defined “I” in a way that is meaningful for this scenario.
For me personally, the answer to the question is pretty trivially clear because my definition of identity covers these cases: I exist anywhere that a sufficiently good simulation of me exists. In my personal sense of identity, the simulation doesn’t even have to be running, and there can be multiple copies of me which are all me and which all tag themselves with ‘I exist’.
With that in mind, when I read your post, I see you making an issue out of a trivial non-issue for no reason other than you’ve got a different definition of “I” and “person” than I do. When this happens, it’s a good sign that the issue is semantic, not conceptual.
Did my last sentence in the edit make sense? We may have a misunderstanding.
No, your last sentence did not make sense, and neither does the rest of that comment, hence my attempt to clarify. My best attempt at interpreting what you’re trying to say looks at this particular section:
‘an implicit answer to the question of what “I exist” means physically’
Where I immediately find the same problem I see in the original post: “I exist” doesn’t actually “mean” anything in this context, because you haven’t defined “I” in a way that is meaningful for this scenario.
For me personally, the answer to the question is pretty trivially clear because my definition of identity covers these cases: I exist anywhere that a sufficiently good simulation of me exists. In my personal sense of identity, the simulation doesn’t even have to be running, and there can be multiple copies of me which are all me and which all tag themselves with ‘I exist’.
With that in mind, when I read your post, I see you making an issue out of a trivial non-issue for no reason other than you’ve got a different definition of “I” and “person” than I do. When this happens, it’s a good sign that the issue is semantic, not conceptual.