<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div><a href="mailto:avantguardian2020@yahoo.com">avantguardian2020@yahoo.com</a> wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">By definition, a copy, even a perfect one, would be not be experienced by you from within.<br></blockquote></blockquote><div><br></div> Ben Zaiboc wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite"><br>This makes no sense. We're talking about a copy of *everything that makes you you*. By definition, this must include whatever it is that is the 'you-ness' of you! Therefore, a copy of you *is a you*, exactly as a copy of Beethoven's 5th is Beethoven's 5th. The copy will be experiencing being you. How could it possibly be otherwise?<br></blockquote><br></div><div>I too would love to respond to Avantguardian's Email by asking him how something can be absolutely positively 100% identical and radically different at exactly the same time, but unfortunately I cannot do so, as I mentioned before I have no originals of Mr. Avantguardian's posts to work with; so I must remain mute.</div><div><br></div><div> John K Clark</div><div><br></div></body></html>