[chispamed]

I don’t see it as a problem per-se, it just defies the notion of having a somehow unique, identifiable self which I understood as a condition for OP’s question and which I suppose is how most people view themselves.

As far as I’m concerned we might very well be just processes that can in theory be copied and recreated. In that case the person in the thought experiment would exist twice at a single point in time and then diverge into to different persons due to different environments and probabilistic processes in the body.

[thaumasiotes]

> As far as I’m concerned we might very well be just processes that can in theory be copied and recreated. In that case the person in the thought experiment would exist twice at a single point in time and then diverge into to different persons due to different environments and probabilistic processes in the body.

This already happens, though before the formation of any memories. We call them identical twins.

The divergence is more limited than you might imagine. One striking experiment found that if you separate identical twins and give them the instructions "just draw whatever comes into your head", they are likely to draw the same things.

[lisper]

> a condition for OP’s question

that being:

> If we remove our "selves" from our bodies, are we still us?

But answering this is now a straightforward thought experiment. You just approach it incrementally.

If you replace your limbs with prosthetics, are you still you?

If you get a heart-lung transplant, are you still you?

If you get an artificial heart, are you still you?

etc.

> a somehow unique, identifiable self which ... is how most people view themselves

Well, yeah, but that's a limit of our present technology, not necessarily a fundamental aspect of what it means to be human. Technology redefines the answer to that question all the time.