You deny the premise of the position you argue against.

I would also deny it, but my position is a practical argument, yours is pretending to be a fundamental one.

The premise of the position is that it's theoretically possible to create a person with memories of being another person. I obviously don't deny that or there would be no argument to have.

Your argument seems to be that it's possible to split a person into two identical persons. The only way this could work is by cloning a person twice then murdering the original. This is also unethical.

▲

ben_w 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> Your argument seems to be that it's possible to split a person into two identical persons. The only way this could work is by cloning a person twice then murdering the original. This is also unethical.

False.

The entire point of the argument you're missing is that they're all treating a brain clone as if it is a way to split a person into two identical persons.

I would say this may be possible, but it is extremely unlikely that we will actually do so at first.

	▲	mrob 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		One has a physical basis, the other is pure spiritualism. Accepting spiritualism makes meaningful debate impossible, so I am only engaging with the former.