We can now replace limbs, hearts, skin, lungs - whatever. But everytime one of these parts is replaced, we still remain ourselves I assume. You still have the same thoughts, personality and aura about yourself. Therefore can we deduce that our body isn't really us? It's just something we've taken control of in order to survive in a physical realm...

The obvious answer would be to say that we're our brain... But is this true? I mean, surely we could disect a brain, look at how its constructed, and modify it if we had the technology? Would such actions change that voice you have inside your head; that personality you associate yourself with? Whilst not a direct comparison, look at drugs, and how they effect the mind. When intoxicated, parts of your brain are rewritten, but you still are aware that you're yourself. You still have that same undescribable presence inside of your which you know indicates your own existance.

How much can we actually change? Is there a central processing part of the brain; an inner core which dictates everything?

Are we just our unique DNA?

Do we have a soul?

If you gradually replaced every single part of your brain over time, would you adapt to each new modification and still be yourself at the end? Even though you're 100% different?

No one here probably knows the answers of course; but I'd be very interested on what people think of the question... If you can even understand what I'm on about :( I hope I've explained it clearly enough.

What makes us 'ourselves' is our personality; our habits; the tiny little quirks that make us individual. Our memories; our beliefs; the experiences we've been through. I agree with you in that it's not something physical, per se. And I dont think it's spiritual either. A very broad generalisation would most likely be the term 'consiousness'. I'm sure it essentially comes down to chemical balances and connections made within our brain.

Define "ourselves" and you will see that your question is meaningless.

ship of Theseus

Define "ourselves" and you will see that your question is meaningless.

Depends which definition of the self you are gonna use.

e.g.

Scientific view. Self = brain, so what would have to be replaced to cease it being you? The brain.

Meaningful.

Sure from some definitions of what the self is the question could be meaningless but it isn't inherently.

Keep in mind we are just particles stuck together in a way that allows us to move other particles. If you had the technology to control a machine that you could use to endlessly build and add on to yourself until the entire planet has been converted and built onto you then you would be the entire planet.

"Ourselves" are our surroundings that we can control (ie. move) with our brains. In a sense we are everything we interact with.

Depends which definition of the self you are gonna use.

e.g.

Scientific view. Self = brain, so what would have to be replaced to cease it being you? The brain.

Meaningful.

Sure from some definitions of what the self is the question could be meaningless but it isn't inherently.

but no matter what definition you use, my point still remains. consider the principle of identity.

A = A

If you replace the first A with the definition that you use, and replace the second A with what you actually are, and they match, then the question is answered.

My point is that until you define "ourselves" all answers are subject to the "fallacy of ambiguity."

Also, you may consider Leibniz Law, also known as the "identity of indiscernibles."

Keep in mind we are just particles stuck together in a way that allows us to move other particles. If you had the technology to control a machine that you could use to endlessly build and add on to yourself until the entire planet has been converted and built onto you then you would be the entire planet.

"Ourselves" are our surroundings that we can control (ie. move) with our brains. In a sense we are everything we interact with.

but i think what the OP is asking is this...

After a change has occurred in our anatomy, what are the necessary or sufficient conditions that must be met in order to consider the new organism to be the same as the previous one.

I'm sticking to my guns here, since I think the question is simply answered by the clarification of itself.

but i think what the OP is asking is this...

After a change has occurred in our anatomy, what are the necessary or sufficient conditions that must be met in order to consider the new organism to be the same as the previous one.

I'm sticking to my guns here, since I think the question is simply answered by the clarification of itself.
I don't think that any changes can prevent us from being ourselves, simply because we change, both mentally and physically throughout time. According to -AnEnima- it's our personalities and our memories that makes us "us" but memories fade, disappear and change, as do our little traits.

There is no such thing as ourselves. We are what makes up the air we breath, the water we drink, the ground we walk on. We are everything in the universe. The illusion of "self" is simply what we are used to seeing from the time we're born, ie. our bodies which stay fairly consistent/usually changes slowly enough that we don't see ourselves as changing.

I don't think that any changes can prevent us from being ourselves, simply because we change, both mentally and physically throughout time. According to -AnEnima- it's our personalities and our memories that makes us "us" but memories fade, disappear and change, as do our little traits.

There is no such thing as ourselves. We are what makes up the air we breath, the water we drink, the ground we walk on. We are everything in the universe. The illusion of "self" is simply what we are used to seeing from the time we're born, ie. our bodies which stay fairly consistent/usually changes slowly enough that we don't see ourselves as changing.

You don't seem to recognize that their is a world completely independent of your thoughts, feelings, and attitude.

"We are everything in the universe."
Absurd. Many things are ontologically objective.

the concept of 'self' is constantly evolving and mutating, so any kind of non-changing 'self' characteristic that you attribute to something only counts for the split second(term used loosely) before it grows and mutates on itself.

any kind of qualitative 'sameness' is not possible in any sense, no matter how much artificiality is smashed into your body.


the person you were a year, month, day, second ago does not exist anymore. tomorrow you will be different. if you were to wake up in a weird room in the year 2081 with a robot body and mechanically enhanced brain, you would be different again.
if you went to sleep and woke up again later on with a fully robotic brain, different from your old one, then you would again be different.
however, this change would be no more significant than the change which occurs normally to every individual at any second.

sorry if that didn't make sense. i'm pretty tired atm.

It depends on how much importance you place on the body as being part of your actual 'self'. I guess I'd say that a continuity of consciousness makes us ourselves, the ability to relate what we learn and experience to that which we have learnt and experienced before, and process it using our own unique acquired mechanisms. Tricky though.

Physically you are not the same you that 'you' were a microsecond ago. Liver cells are replaced every 40 days, but atoms are replaced continuously. The odds of encountering a former "part of you", atomically, are infinitesimally small. Obviously physical definitions cannot work here, otherwise "we" are an ever-changing mass of atomic particles. This, however, doesn't define our memories, our thought processes, and our schemas.

Genetic definitions fail for a different reason: are you genetically yourself, or are you 50% of each of your parents? What about additional DNA? What about your thoughts and experiences? What about so-called "parasitic DNA", which does nothing and may have come from viruses anyway, is that a part of you?

Metaphysical definitions, while fulfilling the "thoughts, schemas, and memories" part of ourselves, are trickily unprovable.

It is because of this "unempiricality" of thoughts, schemas, and memories that I intend to go into brain science. Then scientific determinism will finally be achieved, or spiritual beliefs about the nature of consciousness finally validated.

So really, we'll have to wait before 'we' can answer this question.

We can now replace limbs, hearts, skin, lungs - whatever. But everytime one of these parts is replaced, we still remain ourselves I assume. You still have the same thoughts, personality and aura about yourself. Therefore can we deduce that our body isn't really us? It's just something we've taken control of in order to survive in a physical realm...

The obvious answer would be to say that we're our brain... But is this true? I mean, surely we could disect a brain, look at how its constructed, and modify it if we had the technology? Would such actions change that voice you have inside your head; that personality you associate yourself with? Whilst not a direct comparison, look at drugs, and how they effect the mind. When intoxicated, parts of your brain are rewritten, but you still are aware that you're yourself. You still have that same undescribable presence inside of your which you know indicates your own existance.

How much can we actually change? Is there a central processing part of the brain; an inner core which dictates everything?

Are we just our unique DNA?

Do we have a soul?

If you gradually replaced every single part of your brain over time, would you adapt to each new modification and still be yourself at the end? Even though you're 100% different?

No one here probably knows the answers of course; but I'd be very interested on what people think of the question... If you can even understand what I'm on about :( I hope I've explained it clearly enough.



Are we just our unique DNA?

No, we are also affected by our experiences/environment.

Do we have a soul?

This is an archaic concept for which there is no support for. Just another baseless assumption some people use as a vehicle in order to create some possibility for eternal life. Eww.

Could you replace every cell in your brain and still be yourself?

I would think so, brain cells are constantly dying, yet our personality can remain. The whole is greater than its parts.



Most importantly are these 2 concepts:

1) The 'self' is an illusion, yet still an important social construct nonetheless. Read up on modern neuroscientific research and you will see that the 'self' and 'free will' are illusory and that the brain decides things well before your conscious experience "decides" it. Your decision-making is an illusion.

2) Consciousness is a process, not a 'thing'. It is a label for many, many processes, not some spiritual/immaterial hubagaloo.

1) The 'self' is an illusion, yet still an important social construct nonetheless. Read up on modern neuroscientific research and you will see that the 'self' and 'free will' are illusory and that the brain decides things well before your conscious experience "decides" it. Your decision-making is an illusion.
Were you the one that was arguing this earlier? IIRC, you got thoroughly pwnt when this discussion was initiated. "Well before" in this case is a few milliseconds, and will always depend on prior decisions. Furthermore, just because the brain signals travel faster and are processed sooner than we can cognize them doesn't mean that free will goes out the window; there are several explanations that I could go into but won't for the sake of brevity and not derailing this thread.

2) Consciousness is a process, not a 'thing'. It is a label for many, many processes, not some spiritual/immaterial hubagaloo.

Then why hasn't science discovered the process of it yet? Why hasn't science pinpointed the sequence of neurons that fires whenever you become self-aware?

Our memories; our beliefs; the experiences we've been through. I agree with you in that it's not something physical, per se. And I dont think it's spiritual either. A very broad generalisation would most likely be the term 'consiousness'.

This is not how I would define consciousness. If you use this word to describe these things there is nothing left for the origin of experience. I prefer to think of consciousness as the opposite of 'unconsciousness', a theoretical state void of experience.

Even if you have no thoughts or memories or emotions, for whatever reason, if you can see something, you are conscious. I would assert that these things that define us as people, are, on a basic level, indistinct from physical reality. The only difference is that we have developed a series of complex systems to predict and conceptually organize our experiences of the outside world to a much greater extent than our experiences of our own minds. The differences are organizational.

The important thing is experience. If you were to suddenly only experience the images reaching the nearest mirror to the exclusion of all else, thoughts and emotions included, and your mind and body continued to function as normal, thinking the thoughts you just were and doing the things you once did, would the body that proceeds to live your former life still be 'you'? I don't think it would.

I feel that it is our memories that define us. I think that there is something like core programming, possibly determined by DNA, or just the way the brain develops, giving us the basis of ourselves, such as whether you are good or evil mostly, or insane, but our experiences constantly change who we are and shape it. I think it is this personality that is you, this collection of memories, and the brain is just a host for this, like a computer hosts an operating system. If you moved from your body to a computer, you would still be you

'i' am not a organic shape, nor the imprinting of that organic shape.

we are not our body, or our personality, but our mind. the brain is the organ of the mind. consciousness is our knowledge of our mind. 'our' mind merely refers to the partition of the universal mind which exists for the finite organic life, which is the transitionary, imperfect life. divest of our body, man would be god, if only he could become unindividualized. but he can not, unless we imagine a action of God returning upon itself, but it is the nature of thought, of the motion of the unparticled matter, to be irrevocable. man is a bodied spirit.

If you moved from your body to a computer, you would still be you

If the information contained in your brain and dna was moved to a supercomputer, while you were still alive, creating a perfect copy of yourself, would it be you? Would it be you if your differing experiences led you to become distinct? after you eventually died? How can it be you if you aren't aware of it?

Here's an interesting piece of scientific evidence that might lend itself to the discussion. This evidence is psychological so it cannot answer the philosophical question, but certainly answers a simpler question which is: how much of ourselves can we replace before people BELIEVE that we are no longer ourselves?

In judgments of identity, there is often a simple distinction between living (or natural/things that lived) and non-living (or artificial) objects. Non-living objects are often categorized by people in terms of their FUNCTIONALITY. Hammers are defined by their ability to hammer things, knives are defined by their ability to cut things, etc. With respect to living objects, people seem to identify living objects with their "causal history." Consider a lemon. If we paint the lemon red and white, inject it with sugar water, run over it with a truck, and then rinse it under cold water, is it still a lemon? Regardless of whether it is a REALLY a lemon, the fact of the matter is most people (i.e. not philosophers) believe it is a lemon (Rips, 1989. "Similarity, typicality, and categorization." In a book called Similarity and analogical reasoning).

Children (the unbiased judges of our societies), are asked whether it is possible to turn a toaster into a coffeepot. Children acknowledge this possibility. However, when asked whether it is possible to turn a raccoon into a skunk, children tend to refute this possibility (Keil, 1986. "The acquisition of natural-kind and artifact terms." In a book called, Language, learning, and concept acquisition). Explanation? Whereas you can turn a toaster into a coffeepot by perhaps cutting the centerpiece out and putting some sort of water holding device in-between the toasters (i.e. change its function from "toast" to "brew"), raccoons seem to have some "essence" or something that people can't describe that makes the raccoon a raccoon despite all physical changes.

What's the take home message? In summary, people generally find that no matter what you replace in humans, we will still be "us." Perhaps a disfigured, grotesque, and ugly "self" but the same "self" nonetheless. Why? Possibly because we tend to identify ourselves with a historical timeline of "previous selves." Perhaps we identify "self" with our "self history" as opposed to the individual instances of the history.

I guess that still doesn't tell us if we our selves are REALLY, absolutely METAPHYSICALLY the same. But whatever.

'i' am not a organic shape, nor the imprinting of that organic shape.

we are not our body, or our personality, but our mind. the brain is the organ of the mind. consciousness is our knowledge of our mind. 'our' mind merely refers to the partition of the universal mind which exists for the finite organic life, which is the transitionary, imperfect life. divest of our body, man would be god, if only he could become unindividualized. but he can not, unless we imagine a action of God returning upon itself, but it is the nature of thought, of the motion of the unparticled matter, to be irrevocable. man is a bodied spirit.

Or perhaps we are just animals. Embrace Animalism! http://users.ox.ac.uk/~univ1741/documents/Bekoff.pdf

Or perhaps we are just animals. Embrace Animalism! http://users.ox.ac.uk/~univ1741/documents/Bekoff.pdf

that idea is retrogressive and disgusting. we are far more then animals. we alone can, and should, defy nature, crush and subjugate it. i know we've been backsliding on our humanity that last few years, with human structures like marriage and restraint on the down slope, but seriously. you can go be a animal. maybe i'll shoot and eat you.

that idea is retrogressive and disgusting. we are far more then animals. we alone can, and should, defy nature, crush and subjugate it. i know we've been backsliding on our humanity that last few years, with human structures like marriage and restraint on the down slope, but seriously. you can go be a animal. maybe i'll shoot and eat you.


Did you read the article on animalism? What does that to do with "backsliding on our humanity?" I think you miss the point of "animalism". It is not about being a dirty animal, or defying our "nature", or anything like that. It is a philosophical point of view on what it means to have human identity. But perhaps my reference was not the best, I know.

I don't really prescribe to animalism, but the value I find in the argument it is trying to make is the following. Instead of trying to define the "self" into our "mental" and "physical" parts, animalism is a step towards unity of the two. This I think is a valuable move, and despite your apparent (I am inferring here) distaste for "nature" and perhaps the bodily parts of man, we are not "man" without them. Why must the mind be "superior" and dominant to the "flesh"? We are the flesh in as much as we are the mind, and it is the unity of the two that makes us human.

This I think is a valuable move, and despite your apparent (I am inferring here) distaste for "nature" and perhaps the bodily parts of man, we are not "man" without them. Why must the mind be "superior" and dominant to the "flesh"? We are the flesh in as much as we are the mind, and it is the unity of the two that makes us human.

because nature is the standard, the default, the norm, the status quo, the average, nothing, it is nothing and blankness and worthlessness. it is what we can't fall lower then, what we start at, what would make us lowly animals.

what makes us 'man', i believe, can be nothing from nature, simply because we alone can rise above nature. nothing - nothing, no animal, no star or astral body, can move from nature, but we can. which is why i believe what makes us man can not be finite and organic, but must be supernatural, by it's very definition. and mind is only half of our humanity, i believe, because as powerful as ours is, it is still merely a organ. i believe the thought that makes man holy, or set apart, must come from outside of nature altogether.

it seems clear to me, that to be truly human, we must be divested of our organic self entirely, entirely holy from nature. i think that either mankind will at some time in the distant future transcend organic life, or perhaps we all do individually, once this disgusting carcass that continually tries to make me something i do not desire to be is destroyed, once we are divest of body perhaps we are fully human.

if i kill myself, it'll be out of boredom or curiosity.

Were you the one that was arguing this earlier? IIRC, you got thoroughly pwnt when this discussion was initiated. "Well before" in this case is a few milliseconds, and will always depend on prior decisions. Furthermore, just because the brain signals travel faster and are processed sooner than we can cognize them doesn't mean that free will goes out the window; there are several explanations that I could go into but won't for the sake of brevity and not derailing this thread.


It was not I, I have never debated this specific point before on Totse. "depend on prior decisions" begs the question that those decisions were made by some single entity, the "I."



Then why hasn't science discovered the process of it yet? Why hasn't science pinpointed the sequence of neurons that fires whenever you become self-aware?

I don't know of any "sequence of neurons," it is a process that envelopes all different areas of the brain. As it is now obvious, the whole phrenological model of the brain is simply a myth.

ship of Theseus

Exactly.

I say down to the last nail, you are still yourself.

because nature is the standard, the default, the norm, the status quo, the average, nothing, it is nothing and blankness and worthlessness. it is what we can't fall lower then, what we start at, what would make us lowly animals.

what makes us 'man', i believe, can be nothing from nature, simply because we alone can rise above nature. nothing - nothing, no animal, no star or astral body, can move from nature, but we can. which is why i believe what makes us man can not be finite and organic, but must be supernatural, by it's very definition. and mind is only half of our humanity, i believe, because as powerful as ours is, it is still merely a organ. i believe the thought that makes man holy, or set apart, must come from outside of nature altogether.

it seems clear to me, that to be truly human, we must be divested of our organic self entirely, entirely holy from nature. i think that either mankind will at some time in the distant future transcend organic life, or perhaps we all do individually, once this disgusting carcass that continually tries to make me something i do not desire to be is destroyed, once we are divest of body perhaps we are fully human.

if i kill myself, it'll be out of boredom or curiosity.

how do we rise above nature? we are natural. We're more developed than other animals, so we have the power to change our environment dramatically, but that's just changing nature, and everything has some effect on it. Ours just happens to be more noticeable.

Separating the mind and the body is an old mistake, the mind is just a way of describing a physical process. Think how much your thoughts are affected by your body... think how different your mood can be before and after a meal, when you're tired, when you're in pain... It's completely connected, which is obvious because thoughts are produced in the brain, which is a part of the body. You talked about how amazing the mind is, and I agree, but that's only because the brain is so amazing. I remember watching a famous anaesthetist talking about the brain, and about how complicated it is. There something like 10^11 neurons in the brain, and 10^14 synapses. He was talking about how a single-celled organism more simple than a neuron can move, eat and even learn (something like it could get out of a tube faster after it had done it before, I can't remember). So imagine that level of complexity, add a bit more and then get combine it with another 9,999,999,999 of them working together, and youve got a brain. It's insane.

I think you're setting us a bit too high above nature. Think about evolution, and how closely related we are to apes. The main difference people would say there is between us is consciousness, and I think that isn't supernatural at all, and isn't as important as it's made out to be. Well it is in a lot of ways, but a lot of thinking is unconscious. Think about when you talk, you don't plan the sentence before you say it, you just start talking. I think consciousness is just a sort of 'lighting up' of the most important thought in the brain, to focus more on it. One of the reasons we've developed so much is probably that with our lifestyle, it's much easier to think. Greek philosophy was possible because the country was run well enough to provide free time to think. And you're more conscious the less stressed you are, so by removing many natural dangers, we have increased our normal consciousness.

humans have for a long time been attached to some greater thing by a longing for it. this has pulled us upwards over the animals in that time.

i'm not seperating mind and body, i'm seperating mind and body. the brain is just part of the body. it is a reducer on reality; it filters all of reality down into a set of things it deems to be necessary for survival. a mere fraction of existence. the brain is a reducer, not a creator. our mind is what animals do not have. it is something totally apart from the chemical whims of a animals struggle to survive. it is unnatural, supernatural; art, is supernatural. morality, is supernatural.

our body, our brain, i tell you, are merely more advanced then the animals. our social group, the group animal we form, is more advanced. our techniques and our knowledge and scope of prowess regarding survival is more advanced then the animals, but a skyscraper is still nothing more then a complex beaver dam. all our sex and our war and technology, it's just another animal scrabbling to survive and doing it well.

but our minds... or what the brain will leave of it, is something totally apart from nature. above and beyond it. art, philosphy, theology - these seperate us from animals. not our cars and our buildings and our science and our tanks and weapons. our art and our philosophy and our theology are what animals never, ever do, but WE do. that is why we are greater then the animals. our body, our struggle to live, hold us apart from our humanity.

Most importantly are these 2 concepts:

1) The 'self' is an illusion, yet still an important social construct nonetheless. Read up on modern neuroscientific research and you will see that the 'self' and 'free will' are illusory and that the brain decides things well before your conscious experience "decides" it. Your decision-making is an illusion.

2) Consciousness is a process, not a 'thing'. It is a label for many, many processes, not some spiritual/immaterial hubagaloo.

Interesting, do you have any links that point to an explanation of the self being an illusion? Or at least a good site dealing with modern scientific research? I did a search but could find nothing dealing specifically with the self being an illusion.

the answer to your question depends on which philosophical views you believe is truthful. if you think you are your body, then any addition to your body (piercing, new heart, tattoos, wooden leg, etc.) is something that is not "you" at all. this relates back to a simple question; if you replace every board of wood on a ship, do you still have the same ship? further, if you take the wood which you just replaced and built another boat out of it, is THAT your boat?

if you believe that you are your mind, then anything that happens to your body does not directly affect "you" at all, but it is more the quasi-memories and quasi-experiences that make up "you" or that change "you".

i forget which guy came up with this question, which deals directly with this, but it goes something as follows;

you have two types of teleporters;
1) like charlie in the chocolate factory, you are split into many millions of pieces which fly to the next teleporter where you are recombined back together.

2) like star trek, when you step into the teleporter, everything about you is recorded and that information is sent to another teleporter where you are reconstructed. the "you" who was in the first teleporter is erased in the process.

which ones of these makes it still "you" when you step into them?

a further question: you step into one type of teleporter (try both) and the information process messes up, and it sends the data to two separate teleporters, resulting (depending on which teleporter you used) in two "yous" being reconstructed. which one is "you"?

there is no real answer to this question. look at a baby picture of yourself; you don't still look that way or act as you did back when, but you still consider that to have been "you" at some point or another. it's obvious that we are changing, yet we still stay somewhat the same. it's a paradox. :(

Are we just our unique DNA?

No, we are also affected by our experiences/environment.

Do we have a soul?

This is an archaic concept for which there is no support for. Just another baseless assumption some people use as a vehicle in order to create some possibility for eternal life. Eww.

Could you replace every cell in your brain and still be yourself?

I would think so, brain cells are constantly dying, yet our personality can remain. The whole is greater than its parts.



Most importantly are these 2 concepts:

1) The 'self' is an illusion, yet still an important social construct nonetheless. Read up on modern neuroscientific research and you will see that the 'self' and 'free will' are illusory and that the brain decides things well before your conscious experience "decides" it. Your decision-making is an illusion.

2) Consciousness is a process, not a 'thing'. It is a label for many, many processes, not some spiritual/immaterial hubagaloo.

your bias is great

your bias is great

what do you mean by that? I agree with everything he said, more or less. How is he biased?

The op's question is rather retarded, but look at it this way. If your consciousness was somehow transplanted into another body, would you be yourself more or less versus keeping your body, but having a different consciousness take over. Sure you would be the same physically, but you might aswell be dead. From this analogy it's easy to see self is defined as consciousness. If my vital organs were failing and I somehow managed to take on the form of some android, damn right I would still be myself.

The op's question is rather retarded, but look at it this way. If your consciousness was somehow transplanted into another body, would you be yourself more or less versus keeping your body, but having a different consciousness take over. Sure you would be the same physically, but you might aswell be dead. From this analogy it's easy to see self is defined as consciousness. If my vital organs were failing and I somehow managed to take on the form of some android, damn right I would still be myself.

consciousness isn't as separate from the body as that. If your body is different, you are different. There is no lasting self. You could argue that the self is a continuity of consciousness, i.e. consciousness following a certain path through time/space, but sometimes you're unconscious, so that doesn't work. What if some android was made with exactly the same brain as you (so the same consciousness as well)? If your identity is only your consciousness, it would be you just as much as you are.

consciousness isn't as separate from the body as that. If your body is different, you are different. There is no lasting self. You could argue that the self is a continuity of consciousness, i.e. consciousness following a certain path through time/space, but sometimes you're unconscious, so that doesn't work. What if some android was made with exactly the same brain as you (so the same consciousness as well)? If your identity is only your consciousness, it would be you just as much as you are.

Just because you unconscious doesn't mean it's a break in consciousness. You can still remember the day before and life continues on.

It's really just about remembering your past and realizing what events led you up to where you are now, even if your not in the same body. And if it was created by someone else as a copy as me, it would be pretty confused when it wakes up in a different bed, city, country, whatever. It would know that it is an impostor.