<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On Nov 13, 2010, at 4:09 PM, Stefano Vaj wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"> My point is that no possible evidence would make you a "copy". The<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"> "original" would in any event from your perspective simply a fork behind.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> I see no reason to assume "you" are the original, and even more important I<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> see no reason to care if "you" are the original.<br></blockquote><br> That is just another way to say the same thing.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>And yet another way to say the same thing is "no possible evidence would make the copy-original distinction scientifically relevant"; theological relevance is a different matter entirely, but as I've said before I don't believe in the soul. </div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>You perceive continuity, that is identity.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You perceive subjective continuity, but how could it be otherwise?</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>Previous "forks" are immaterial to such feelings.<br></div></blockquote><br></div><div>Yes, and it matters not one bit if you are on the copy fork or the original fork.</div><div><br></div><div> John K Clark</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br></body></html>