In response an argument that an individual can't be copied and still be the same person

[the_fantastic_ms_fox]

Having been back and forth on this issue a lot over the last few years, I've lost any confidence in the validity of the question as to where the self begins and ends. I can find no logically sound test that indicates whether individual identity under a given case is continuous or not. It seems to ultimately come down to a cultural semantic argument, and the closest cognitive science can come is that the "self" is a projection, convenient within a brain and across them for labelling, tracking and predicting behaviour patterns.

Growing from an infant into a child into an adult; having the body replace its own cells and/or chemicals; becoming unconscious; brain damage; near death experiences; religious rebirth; spiritual experiences; disassociative states; being ridden; psychopharmaceuticals; losing a limb; abiotic prosthetic implants; organ transplants; tissue scaffolded pseudotransplants; cranial magnetic interference; bundle theory; it's the ship of Theseus by a thousand names. Each argument describing a true core self as something other than opinion or tradition strays either into the ad hoc or unfalsifiable metaphysics.

That's not to say that there is not a "self," but there is no way of deliniating where it begins and ends that holds up to empirical testing. It makes the question "does God exist" seem simple by comparison.

And this fuzziness is just one of the philosophical questions that can drive an amazing show!