So, might we say, that for that infinitesimally small amount of time, "I" was in every sense occupying two places at once?

But this raises another issue. Yes, we obviously will differentiate immediately following the replication. But does that, in and of itself, mean that I am "me" and the replicant someone else?
Remember that, in that same tiny space of time, I will have differentiated from the way I was at the time of replication. Does that mean that "I" was not replicated but that "someone else" was?
What would that imply about our history? That "I" was not at my last birthday party, but a distinct "someone else" was?

We referred recently to the statement that my parents gave birth to me. But if we decided that slight changes are alone enough to distinguish "me" from the replicant, then surely the considerable differences between me and a baby are sufficient to distinguish "me" from the person that my mother gave birth do. Should we say that "I was never born, that was someone else"?
That path seems to abandon all sense.

Actually based on my thoughts on the issue so far, adding the concept of "soul" does nothing to clarify things; it merely adds an additional layer of ponderables.

Hmmm...I don't think that works.
If "I" am merely a perception, then who is perceiving it?
And, similarly, if "I" am merely a perception, then how can "I" have right to anything?

On the other hand, I don't really see how a "self" (or, if you prefer, a perception of "self") is an essential component for species survival. I mean, our species seems to need it, but then we have it and have adapted to it. But that doesn't mean species couldn't get by perfectly well without it; little mindless biological automatons, if you will.

Yes. This changes the meaning of the word "I".

There are clearly always two individual entities.

There are easily two "Is", after the brief period of equivalence. During the equivalence period the two individuals percieve the same I as they possess the same ego which is a product of the same physical brain structure.

Yes and No. You were indeed a different entity then. However the entity you are today would not be possible without the preceding entities. Therefore what you are today is the combinatorial result of all preceding entities.

Why not - a baby is born. An adult is not born.

This goes to the heart of those age-old "meaning of life" questions... Why are we here? What is our purpose? Does our life matter? What happens when we die?

As a Christian, the answer to your question is obvious. You cannot clone or replicate your soul. You can physically replicate something right down to every single nano-atom, but you cannot replicate one's soul. You only get one per customer.

__________________

That's why I assumed it's absence for arguments sake. Otherwise we'd have nothing to talk about!

On the other hand if you replicated the physical person could it acquire a soul through other means? Would god seeing a creature that appears human but souless confer a soul upon him/her for example.

BTW: I personally don't believe in the existance of a soul or god.

But that kinda defeats the whole purpose of the inquiry doesn't it?
If we're trying to explore what we mean when we talk about "I", then changing the meaning of "I" in the middle of the discussion more-or-less invalidates the whole thing.

If it changes the meaning of the word then I want to know:
Changes the meaning of the word from what?
Changes the meaning of the word to what?

See, here we seem to have drifted off the meaning of the word. Everyone seems to say that "I" was born to my parents, for legal purposes of ownership the state seems to acknowledge that the me in the past was the same "I" as the me now and not some other person. I can't escape responsibility for past deeds by pointing that "I wasn't there, someone else was."
So clearly the common meaning of "I" somehow incorporates linking the same person in the past and present. But what is that linking?

Actually I don't think introducing the component of a soul gives very many answers at all.
As far as plausibility goes, its utterly impossible to perfectly "replicate" a physical body (at the quantum level improbability ruins everything), so we're already assuming that something innately impossible has occurred: we might as well throw soul duplication into the mix if we wanted to.

But really, adding a soul to the equation opens up a whole new set of unanswered questions:
1) What difference would a different soul (or lack of soul) make in the replicant?
2) If the replicant is physically identical to me, do we know which of us my soul would be connected to? To both of us?
3) What if I was killed in the instant of replication? Would my soul then be connected to the replicant? What about if I were killed a few minutes after replication?
4) What if I were just "scanned" by the replicator and then killed, and afterward a replicant was made using only the physical matter from my original body? Would THAT replicant get my soul? What if only half the matter was from my body? What if it made two replicants?
...etc...etc...


Now, personally, I believe in something like a soul, though I admit to being supremely sketchy on the details.
And it might be that something like an unconscious or just lingering cultural belief in something like a soul accounts for the fact that everyone talks as if "I", rather than someone else, was born to my parents and was the "person" there in "my" past.

But, as far as pondering what happens to this concept of "I" in the described replication scenario, I think adding a "soul" (or two) to the mix serves only to exponentially increase the number of questions, which is why I left it out.

I'm happy to leave the soul out of it.

Well it least as a new dimension to the word.

At one point "I" means a single individual that is identifiable as unique.

Then at another very brief point "I" is attributed to two seperate entities.

After which there are two increasingly unique "Is" when divergence sets in.

The point is that "I" does not refer to a constant nor the same entity as time passes.

This discussion has no practical application in todays world. I am content to adopt a more useful view in the legal and social sense - I am me and always have been and will be. Furthermore there cannot be another me.