SOdhner,
- It's interesting how difficult it is to make sure that we're all talking about the same thing here.
The problem seems to be caused by you wanting to define it in a way that assumes your position is correct. We don't want to do that, because in order to make your argument you need to start with materialism. You keep including things that assume materialism is false, which is like saying "Assuming I'm correct, I'm correct".
- I think that you do experience what I'm calling a "sense of self" -- and, that you do know/understand which shared experience it is that I'm referring to. You and I just disagree about its nature.
For the most part I would agree, although at times it seems like your definition is inconsistent.
- Do you accept that conclusion?
Sure, but do you understand that this is not a trivial problem? Us not agreeing about the nature of our sense of self isn't something we can set aside for later because it's the core premise of your argument.
It's been said before, but here's my take (which seems to be the same as everyone else here apart from you, though there may be some minor variations) in a numbered list:
1. We do experience consciousness, or a sense of self.
2. This is caused by our physical brains, by the electrical signals and neurochemistry and all that jazz.
3. If our brains are disrupted, so is the sense of self.
4. Our sense of self isn't a tangible thing, nor is it a thing at all. It's an emergent property of our brains.
5. If you duplicated someone perfectly, that duplicate would also have a sense of self. Since the person was duplicated exactly, both copies would have the same thoughts, feelings, and personality.
6. Our sense of self goes away every night when we get some good sleep. By most reasonable definitions it's just gone. When we wake up we once again have a sense of self.
7. Likewise, people have been pretty darn dead and have been brought back. During the time we are dead, or deeply sleeping, or in a coma, or whatever our sense of self isn't somewhere else - it just is gone entirely. There is no persistent sense of self that survives outside our body.
8. We don't really call this a "new" sense of self, because it's an emergent property rather than a countable thing. Likewise if a chameleon was green, and then turned red, and then turned green again we wouldn't say it had a "new" green. It was green, then it wasn't, then it was. We are aware, then we're not, then we are.
9. When our brains break sufficiently that they can no longer generate this sense of self awareness ever again, it's just over. There's nothing to reincarnate because that sense of self isn't a countable thing and it's gone anyway. Nobody else will have "our" sense of self, or any part of it, because it's not a THING that can be passed around or divided up.
10. That feeling you have, that a copy wouldn't be you and that there's something special about the original that would be lost in translation - that's not an actual thing, it's more like sentimental value. It means something TO YOU but it's not an actual measurable or quantifiable value. If we DID replace you with a perfect copy and didn't tell you, you would never know.
I hope that helps. The above is the definition you need to start with. You can't assume your own definition is right when you make your argument, that's the thing you're trying to convince us of. Start with the above, and then try to show us why it's wrong.
