Indeed we are. FreedomToCreate's point, as I read it, is that our identity as a person is nothing more than our brain state at the present moment. That is, fr

Indeed we are. FreedomToCreate's point, as I read it, is that our identity as a person is nothing more than our brain state at the present moment. That is, from moment to moment we are a different person as our brain states change. If 'I' am nothing more than my brain state at this precise moment, then any previous brain states that preceded this are separate persons. How then can I be held responsible for something "other people" (i.e. my previous brain states) did? Of course, we could say that the legal and philosophical definitions of 'person' are different, but what purpose is the philosophical definition if not to inform our definitions in other domains like law?