> If you think experience is simulatable, you buy computational or “patternist” theories of identity, there are some very strange implications that are not comm

> If you think experience is simulatable, you buy computational or “patternist” theories of identity, there are some very strange implications that are not commonly brought up. Maybe the sentence isn't worded correctly, but these are two entirely different claims. It's relatively simple and straightforward to argue that one's experience is simulatable, but that identity lies in the instance of the simulation itself, so a copy of a simulation would be a different being. That two machines running the same computational process represent the same entity is a separate, unverifiable claim.