4 ms·
It’s not somebody else though - it’s me, they know the exact same things I know, and thus have the same feelings about them. And of course it’s also their acco
by trasz 4y ago
It’s not somebody else though - it’s me, they know the exact same things I know, and thus have the same feelings about them.
And of course it’s also their account and their spouse. It’s not like an original and a copy, it’s not even fork, where you still have the parent and child - in this case here all “mes” are equal.
- ncmncm 4y agoThat is how people confuse themselves. If you have an "identical twin", that also is not you. You started diverging the moment you both existed. Which of you owns the bank account, or is married, is a matter of law, and there is nothing that transfers either. I don't know why you imagine there is no "original and a copy". You existed before, the copy did not. The copy thinks of itself as you, but isn't. It carries a delusion. It will start by trying to steal your stuff, so is an adversary.
- trasz 4y agoYes, we started diverging at “fork” - the other me is different than current me, but we are both the old me. And the legal stuff is indeed down to law, although I believe even from that point of view both “yous” are still you, because there is no way to tell you apart. That’s also why there is no “original” and the copy - of there was a way to tell which is which, you wouldn’t be identical. And there is no delusion - the other me is the “old me” same way I am. I think the essential problem with this point of view is similar to many words theory - to most people the idea of “cheap fork” sounds quite alien; I’m not sure if there’s anything similar in our usual reality. It is however common in the internets, from Unix to Git.