I don’t think we’re going in circles. It is just that problems related to the Anthropic Trilemma aren’t easy.
Pattern Identity Theory does not have a distinction between “me” and “something identical to me”. You believe in the existence of such a distinction, so you want Pattern Identitfy Theory to not be true. So you are, quite rightly, pointing out the absurdities of Pattern Identity Theory: Sufficient changes being like “killing yourself” and other such nonsense.
I agree Pattern Identity Theory is false, if for entirely different reasons. I do not agree that the falsehood of Pattern Identity Theory means that the distinction exists.
I don’t think we’re going in circles. It is just that problems related to the Anthropic Trilemma aren’t easy.
Pattern Identity Theory does not have a distinction between “me” and “something identical to me”. You believe in the existence of such a distinction, so you want Pattern Identitfy Theory to not be true. So you are, quite rightly, pointing out the absurdities of Pattern Identity Theory: Sufficient changes being like “killing yourself” and other such nonsense.
I agree Pattern Identity Theory is false, if for entirely different reasons. I do not agree that the falsehood of Pattern Identity Theory means that the distinction exists.
I do? Since when?