Yes, absolutely. It seems you've got a great handle on the ins-and-outs generally. Thanks for the exchange!

I don't think this is a sensible position: whose illusion? — SolarWind

Baked into the position is that it is no one's illusion. Our experience, itself, may be illusory. That doesn't mean it doesn't obtain. We experience in the same sense an orange experiences being eaten. It happens to it. The illusion happens to us. 'I' doesn't need to be adequately defined for this. You can just say the experience is being had the body in question. Not to a 'self'. The qualia could be shared - we have no idea, really.

And what is the problem with that? — hypericin

They are not the same person. Obviously. I can't see how that's being missed?? If we're talking identity, you cannot have two people who are the same person. It violates both the law of identity, and all intuitions about the self. Though, I think those are a weak indicator, anyway, as you note - most people intuit some form of soul, which is totally unsupportable and is probably the only way to maintain identity obtains for a 'self'.

Not even old-old but after 20s people are generally removed from the main stage to accept smaller and smaller roles. — unimportant

What?

What do I suffer when you receive my personal information??? Stop fing around, and answer this question.

You haven't. You haven't tried. You've said other, not relevant things. This isn't my problem. I am now giving you something like the sixth opportunity to tell me what I suffer in that scenario. You are yet to tell me. Go ahead... Tell me, what I will experience as a result of only those facts?? Don't add any. Don't make anything up. Just answer the fucking question.

The OP is about the transporters on Star Tre — Patterner

I have addressed this. No it isn't. A plain reading shows this. The experiment comes from Parfit, not Star Trek. This is not controversial.

these two were identical copies of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy... And years later, during this episode, the Riker we had known all along was many times removed from that. — Patterner

Now this is interesting, and the branch line squarely addresses it. That's not an argument or anything, but more reason to read Parfit's book where this thought experiment stems. No shade at all, but it'll help understanding most of the positions and how/why they work or don't work because Parfit is extremely through. The book took him nearly 14 years.

:strong: Indeed. And with this knowledge, can we all come to terms? Noting that this doesn't deny either bigotry, or ideological absurdity.

1. If brain activity entirely ceased, it could not be restarted. Vegetative states are not death. That's key.

2. I am extremely well-informed about DMT. I spent around 10 years intensely embedded in the communities relevant to it including helping to design research protocols, raising funds, public speaking, ceremony and much else besides..

3. I see, that's fair enough. I'm unsure there is anything interesting there. Infrared light isn't that myusterious, is it?

And this implies that, as intuitive as it sounds, you "continue" after entering the teleporter, after being cloned, etc, because "continuance" is just the succession of these experiences of "self" over time — hypericin

Very clear and precise. Thank you. I don't call that a self, but I think its what matters.

I differ - it seems both, to me. It's obviously unintuitive, but it is also unsatisfactory as it gives us no notion of self. It allows for 1:x without explanation. Isn't that an issue, to you?

Please don't lie. What I said was this

what have i suffered, without something more? It's nothing, isn't it? — AmadeusD

and you've provided absolutely nothing to move that needle. You cannot name a single 'suffering' i endure by you receiving my personal information. You are getting extremely agitated by having to answer a simple question directly related to your contention.

Then then snuck in the something more (that I know about it) and assumed that would cause suffering. Deceitful, assumptive and wrong. You squirmed.

This is why you are not worth engaging with. You are being dishonest, uninteresting and avoiding the challenge entirely. These are facts.

You're very welcome - I will probably flesh it out with objections that I couldn't get to due to word count. Might post somewhere on the forum here once I do.

I don't know what you want here? You've posited three things I think require more than just some wishful thinking to obtain.

THe brain is not entirely shut down during NDEs. That's why they are NDEs. It doesn't suggest much of anything but that the mind is powerful.

I also note fairies appeared nowhere in that?

What spiritual reality?

Behaving like what? — Mijin

So, you say you've seen the ad. There is nothing normal, whatsoever, about how that person is behaving. Its like a childhood television presented. Its really weird, and absolutely out of hte norm for beer, advertising to adults, advertising to (mainly) men, and completely out of left field. I, personally, don't care - but I can 100% see why having someone prancing about like that out of nowhere is disconcerting, off-turning and feels intrusive. It would be the same if a load of white guys with guns and MAGA caps started appearing in Lululemon adverts.

t's good to know though that you're big enough to not label things as woke where you unknowingly see someone trans. It will be a big comfort to the community that they don't need to hide necessarily, as long as they can perfectly pass as cisgender. — Mijin

Two issues (imo):

1. You're making up a problem, as I've explain: being trans is not the issue, for the most part (this is not to deny bigots their existence, either). It is being intrusive, entitled and hateful (again, not to ignore bigotry where it occurs);
2. Sarcasm isn't helpful. Trans people don't pass, in 99.999999999999999999% of cases. It is a pipedream. Because they are not the sex they want to present as, and humans are evolved to tell sex from visual cues subconsciously, though i recognized a lot of slower people around hte place lol.

Aside from those issues, if you watch the Mulvaney advert and do not see something odd and awkward happening, I think you are lying, or naive. You don't have to talk smack about it to recognize these things.

I don't know what you thought would come of this, buuuuuttt.... the period you're tlaking about includes 65 hate crimes against Trans people. 65. There were 125 anti-Asian hate crimes in that year. There is also significant disagreement between types of data collected.

Crimes with a 'gender bias' totaled 7, a decrease from 15 in 2022. So, are hate crimes against trans people not gender-biased? Or what are we doing here? Additionally 'violent' includes at least 30% crimes against property, and not person. Interestingly, perpetrators are not noted by gender or identification. That is a shame, as I am fairly sure we're looking at much, much higher numbers of violent crimes by trans people based on a few relevant stats (like their socio-economic status, mental health status etc... collectively). Speculation, to be sure - but in the face of 65 (likely more like 40) violent crimes against trans people in a state with a higher proportion of trans people, inter-LGBT violence and 55 million people, I don't need to downplay anything. Its a nothing burger.

Is that, like, yes, both? — bongo fury

No. As explained, I am saying that a 'self' and an 'original work of art' are not comparable on a conceptual level, regardless of what might or might not be criteria for each. I then detailed why the criteria aren't related, so they can't be compared (imo). I hope that's clearer..

but evidently you don't bother read through? — bongo fury

No idea what you're referring to. Everything I've said is relevant and seems pertinent at the time I commented it.

Ok, and you don't think the same is true of personal identity? — bongo fury

No, and I don't think you do either. There's nothing that contains 'Napoleon' unless we make assumptions as between bodies and minds. The teletransporter shows this clearly, as it isn't 'your' body on the other side, and its obviously not 'your' mind. But it is hte 'mind of you', so we need to figure out where 'Napoleon' the person exists. It is clearly not in the body, and we don't know what a mind is. So... we're a bit stuck. That's not the case with the piece of art. If you're simply stipulating that, for you, a 'self' is, in fact, a confluence of mind and body in a single, recognizable-over-time entity, that's fine. I just don't think, (and it seems the discussion over a century has found this) that will hold up to many counterexamples.

We have to establish criteria beyond that? I don't follow. — bongo fury

In what does a 'self' consist? This is the central, clearly-still-in-the-air, crux of this and other considerations. If we already knew, point blank, what a 'self' was, the thought experiment could only possibly tell us whether we were happy a clone was wandering about after we die. But that's not how it runs.

ou wouldn't seek to convince me I was deluded by pointing to evidence of provenance contradicting my claim of bodily continuity with Napoleon? By asking me to reconcile that claim with historical evidence of my more recent birth in South London, e.g., etc? — bongo fury

This leapfrogs the question. This is absurd, if your conception of a self is as above. But that concpetion, generally, isn't satisfying when run through these thought experiments. I highly recommend reading Reasons and Persons if you've not. This position is relatively well deconstructed and made obviously unfulfilling or unhelpful beyond describing a widely-held intuition in clear terms.

Given the above, the answer is no, that makes less sense now, but I understand more why you're saying it :)

It's the premise of the OP. — Patterner

The OP vaguely mentions that its 'like star trek'. This thought experiment is from Derek Parfit. Including the problematic versions.

I don't think there's any need for the thread if the person walking out on Mars does NOT think he's me. — Patterner

You seem to have crucially missed, or reversed, the key that makes this senseless: It doesn't matter what he thinks. What do you think? You already know the guy is a 'replica' in the colloquial sense. You knew that before you went in. For you, the you who in real-life knows you have no clones running around - is that an acceptable 'you'? For me, there wasn't a 'me' to be continued, so I don't really need to decide. But its key that person B's opinion is irrelevant. They have been given an artificial worldview, basically. Born at 34 (or whatever age).

and is indistinguishable from me — Patterner

This isn't quite true, once the person is aware they are on Mars. They now have a different set of memories (though, almost identical) to you. And that will just continue to diverge as time goes on. Even arguments that get a 'self' out of the transporter can only maintain it for a literal instant.

If the original is not destroyed, then the copy is more obviously not the original, regardless of how these things are defined. — Patterner

No, not quite. This was run by Parfit and called the branch-line case where identity is considered to be 1:x rather than 1:1. There's no reason, unless you take a soul, to assume this person isn't you. They are exactly the same at the instant they appear (again, beyond this, fail, due to the above). If they have literally the exact same everything, including psychology then there's just two of you. The source and biography are exactly the same. You walked into the machine. They walked into the machine. All is well.

I still reject this, because I think either there are two 'you's, which means one cannot be identical with the other (there are two... its not possible) or there is no self to continue, so 'you' didn't even exist to begin with. It just seems everyone has an underlying assumption about what 'self' is and it exactly this, and in what it consists, that we're trying to drill down on with the thought experiment.

If the idea is this guy, B is 'not you' in the "different atoms" sense, then you must feel it is your bod which continues your self. That is highly unsatisfactory to me. If your mind was in my body, it wouldn't be 'me' in the sense you seem to be getting at (apologies if I'm misunderstanding your version of 'self').

My self is the experience of this body, with these senses; this brain, with these memories; etc. The continuity of self is due to the memories. — Patterner

But this would make B obviously and inarguably you, at the instant they appeared?

How do I know that, if my atoms are separated, I no longer exist? — Patterner

Based on the above, obviously you don't exist. You have no memory or experience and there's no continuity.

This is a genuine question, are you just working through these intuitions as we go?

That is all. — hypericin

I suggest if it were this simple, the answer would be quite obvious: Many people can be you. B is you, and you are you. Does this not seem unsatisfactory to you?

I think there is a difference between two things being identical and two things being the exact same thing. — Patterner

That's true, but this is, I think, about what Identity actually is. My response to this initially was always to move to your 'exact same thing' and reject that B could be me, on any conception other than a Soul being sent through space. I think this sidesteps the question though. Even if exactly me is hte only 'me' in the intuitive sense, there is no reason to think that two people can have that exact same experience. Is that identity? Yeah, shaky to me too, but its worth considering beyond resiling into the 'exact same' version imo. Technically, 'identity' means we can't have two, and they be the same. The issue is that a 'self' may not operate as a object does and could violate that.

If you agree that a world, a universe, of things existed prior to the advent of humanity, then we have nothing to argue. I must say, though, that it puzzles me that you continue to think we are disagreeing about something despite the number of times we have gone over this. — Janus

I very highly agree with this, as a 3p. You both seem to accept that things existed before human minds. That's enough.

Well, we're talking about Star Trek transporters — Patterner

Err, I don't ... think ... that's happening. But nevertheless, if I;ve missed that, it's worth noting that what Star Trek does has zero bearing on the discussion as its not one based within the restrictions of that universe.

Nobody has ever materialized on any of the shows and thought they were a duplicate. — Patterner

The entire point is to figure out whether you think the guy walking out on Mars is 'you' and then if so, how that's the case. Your position is quite clear, happily :P

You obviously don't think it is for similar reasons I don't. That's not particularly relevant, I don't think. We have no idea what B would 'think' because this is fiction, speculation and semi-nonsense all rolled into one.

Your response applies to a body well, but not a self as we can't know what that consists in (currently). But that response - It's the one i gave to Mijin in certain terms - covers any argument for bodily continuity well in this TE. Parfit's take is that there is no 'you'. There is no self - simply relation R. That relation is just psychological continuity. There need be no identity (nor could there be, on his and my conceptions). There was no identity to continue. So while intuitively, I think everything you've said makes sense, when you drill into the thought experiment, they largely don't answer much I think.

No. It is a literal description, which he says.

Further, this simply illustrates what Im talking about. Shut the fuck up about it, and people will stop caring what you identify as. Its this self-aggrandizing, delusional hyperbole. You seem to enjoy it - fine. It's ridiculous to most.

Trans people aren't superheros. They aren't like superheros, unless we want to agree that both categories are deluded. I'd prefer not to do so, but that's all they have in common. Its horseshit.

Hate crimes are generally speaking, based entirely off the reportage of the victim. Those stats mean essentially nothing without hearing the individual stories. Saying 'he' instead of 'she' when someone is demonstrably male is a hate crime, if reported as such. Its "woke" writ large.

But it's not. A trans person behaving like that is 'woke'. And specifically, it's 'woke' because it was a cynical attempt at identity politics for sales point percentage by Bud Light. It has (almost) nothing to do with the simple fact that Dylan is trans and advertising beer. I wouldn't be surprised to find out we've been advertised to by trans people for beer in the past. I, and anyone I know, simply don't care about that. Its the surrounding ideological problems.

o is it the case that anyone that isn't white, male, Christian needs to hide? — Mijin

I have no idea where this has come from. This is the kind of response that definitely Fire and I, perhaps others, find infuriatingly out of step and possibly a form of 'gotcha' we need to ignore. No one has said, intimated or even vaguely referred to anything of this kind, including both the AE and Bud campaigns.

I think perhaps you're missing a few tricks. We can explain everything we currently know without fairies. NDEs, specifically, are a world away from requiring fairies. Unless by 'fairies' you just mean unexplained phenomena. Perhaps, but I still think you're giving it more than it's worth.

Yes, but sort of at a higher level than seems we're on. I mean to say that you can't give a criteria for the 'self' to being 'self-same' isn't quite available. Whereas, the initial piece of art (in our exchange, Guernica) is exactly that piece of art, without having to establish any criteria beyond that it is itself (being painted by x at time y etc..)

I can't see that your further comments then make sense: I could not point to a 'fake self' and support my pointing. I could do so with a piece of art, given I was actually capable of spotting fakes (or, had some evidence of provenance showing it was not the original). It doesn't seem available to the one claiming 'fake self' to do so.

the replica would not know he wasn't me — Patterner

I find it quite exciting that we actually do not know whether this would obtain.

But he wouldn't be. — Patterner

I certainly agree - but humour me - is your take that there's a set of interlocking criteria (these atoms, at this time, in this configuration) that cause someone to be 'you'? Obviously, I take there is only one shot/possible 'you' in this, just asking in that form to get clear response.

Between a fake piece of art and a self? Not at all. If that was an impression I gave, I apologise. That is wrong-headed and doesn't support what I'm saying at all.

My point is that a 'self' is not comparable to a piece of art, because there's an absolute limit to what's called the original piece.

I agree, but we do not entertain the idea of fairies beyond stoned bonfire chats (which are great, do not get me wrong. I love delving into speculative stuff. But here on TPF that's not the bag, imo).

I assume you mean if I don't know.

Becauase there is absolutely no reason to entertain all comers. I will entertain theories with something (even a lick) of indication they might be true. Fairy stories do not fall into this category.

You have devolved into someone not worth exchanging with. That's a shame, as some months back you were consistently contributing well across multiple areas of the forum.

Take care of yourself.

Yes, in a manner of speaking. I think you can successfully convey thought, but its incidental to two, separate, sets of similar-enough internal dictionaries looking up the same words in the same context. But hte thought itself cannot leave the mind. I would like to hear how if you do disagree..

But that is a desire to avoid (as you noted) our ongoing responsibility for (and to) what we say, which also creates the philosophical fantasy that one puts their meaning into words, and the rest is only interpretation and what we “read into them”, say, “take” offense at. — Antony Nickles

But that is factually true. You cannot 'get' anything from my words which aren't already in your mind. It isn't possible, on current knowledge. There is absolutely nothing in 'trying to offend' which includes the other person's offence. It just isn't there... There's a stark difference between things which can offend, and offence.

here is no single way of categorizing things as real or not. It depends on what kind of thing you are talking about. — Ludwig V

I still don't think you'll get a particularly clear criteria unless its contextually baked in. I think conceptually, its really hard to say one way or the other on any example.

I cannot say I am surprised at how quickly you got off the boat. A shame, because it is quite obviously a silly line of thinking.

Absolutely not. This is evidenced by the fact that non-white, gay, trans, weird people do things constantly, in all contexts and we only ever hear anything about it when its preachy, invasive, irritating or obviously performative. The issue, for many, is that any time one of these group do something vaguely noteworthy, they are praised as some kind of supernatural Hero. Literally:

Its grotesque football-passing, virtue signally nonsense. Those of us who notice call it out. It didn't used to be like this.

I've answered it multiple times. It's a shame you can't read simple sentences and also don't know anything about the law despite pretending to. — boethius

I see you immediately devolve into insults and ad hominems. Interesting.

I am telling you that you have said nothing that answers the question: What suffering am I undergoing in the scenario i gave you.

You haven't answered this. THe rest is not much my problem.

You may not suffer if you don't care about your privacy, but this would cause suffering to most people knowing that I have their private personal information when I shouldn't.

As I've stated already multiple times, the suffering also requires becoming aware of the invasion of privacy. — boethius

And now you seek to sneak in answers you refused to give previously. Gotcha.

Here's the 'something extra' i, multple times, noted was required. You now accept it. Great!

I wouldn't speak for them. I reject it. I just don't know if its actually false. Thats all i can say, I think.

Would you accept the "treatment"? — hypericin

This is a weird one. I would want this for my loved ones, if they could accept the clone. Otherwise, I wouldn't accept it.

By posing this question you are importing the notion that there is a metaphysical, persistent self that may or may not persist. — hypericin

Not at all. The answer can, squarely, be "none". Which is my answer, in the event. I see why it looks that way though.

But there are no underlying facts to support these beliefs, since there is no metaphysical, persistent self. — hypericin

So you say.

In any case, you've ignored hte issue. You listed these 'facts' in a particular context. It seems that was unintended. All good mate :)

These aren't comparable at all, imo.

A piece of art exists under certain descriptions, as a factual object. Guernica, the one painted by Picasso in 1927 is what it is. There is 'criteria'. It is that object. I don't understand any controversy or question here.

Any other Guernica might be indistinguishable, and if one is convinced of the deception, the effect is the same. The object isn't all that important - belief about it is. I merely pointing out there is an objecting "this piece of art by this person" which creates the cache. Not the object itself

You're identifying the wrong problem.

The problem is that those who did respond jumped to 'Nazi'. "Overt eugenics". "white supremacy".

No one has overblown either side of this one, as far as I'm concerned. I am also extremely reticent to believe a poll about offense to an ad campaign - how embarrassing to hit Yes even if you are.

Totally fair. If you have somewhere, I can send it directly to you.

I think you're identifying a different issue (but a good one to discuss, for sure).

The problem with my position, when objected to, is not the separation of thought and meaning - but words and meaning.

I can hope you interpret me correctly. I cannot ensure it (probably because of the incommensurability of thought). All i can do is retrieve words and sentences (utterances) which reflect, as far as I'm concerned, what I mean to say - once these leave my mouth, the meaning is lost until it reaches your mind, and you interpret it against the 'meanings' you have in your internal dictionary for those words and sentences (utterances). This is why you can fail to make someone laugh, or get offended. My meaning might be "disgusting black freak", but because I used words for which that interpretation is esoteric, I fail to offend person A.

I do not think thought and meaning can quite come apart, but they can be... stretched... from one another.

That might be true, but I did specify structure. The structures (and their structure, if you see what I mean) is essentially identical between us. Your biography, unless it includes injury, shouldn't alter that.

We share a 'direct of best fit' type of organ-based perception. We are aware that others can have aberrant structure or detail within this system. So those people don't share the same system, and they don't see what we report to be Red.

We don't always report the same thing, either.

Structure of our perceptual system is what we share. When that isn't shared

Edit: Sorry mate, I hit submit by accident way before I was ready. Not trying to be sneaky or anything.

Sure, but they are wrong. — Banno

According to you (and me, to be clear). And we've been there. In any case my point is that ignoring them is how you get invaded by barbarians. So, i agree with what you've said at the top there (but subjectively), but I don't think waving it away as 'wrong' is going to help anyone. I find it lazy and somewhat irresponsible. If its so reprehensible, we should probably be aware and even possibly activated by its globally significant presence and more particularly the small incremental attempts to move these sorts of thinking into Western societes in the name of inclusion or religious tolerance.

Ill reply to the below comment on it's own to avoid the ridiculousness of chronologically out of place discussion.

These rely on our reports of what they do to our perceptual system though. No instrument detects the 'red' humans do (and some humans don't, even on the same 'sense data'). The descriptions of frequencies as colors is a tertiary categorisation, i think. Primarily, we have an actual wavelength and the measure troughs and peaks, as esesntially a physical description.
We then have 'light' as a descriptor of varying intensity and other things (speed, concentration etc..). We then, third, name the experience 'red' (in certain contexts). These are tenuous relationships to the word red.

I also understand that in optics, frequencies are not considered colors. They are considered causes of colors. They are considered a physical property of light which our brain interprets to be color x. Other animals may have totally different phenomenal experiences of the same wavelength (it seems we know they do).

"The Role of Human Perception
It's important to remember that color is a psychological and physiological phenomenon, not a fundamental physical property of light itself. Light waves have frequencies and wavelengths, but they don't have color until they are processed by the human eye and brain. Our eyes contain specialized cells called cones that are sensitive to different ranges of frequencies. When a mix of frequencies enters our eyes, our brain interprets the signals from these cones to create the perception of a particular color. This is why mixing different colored lights (additive mixing) or pigments (subtractive mixing) produces different results."

This can go awry, showing that color is a phenomenal experience. Calling frequencies colors is mere convenience for the lay-person.

Pretttttty much. But its a bit trickier than just that, because we must have an internal 'meaning' to utterances (at least their parts) before we can even entertain an utterance. But our internal meaning can be wrong, so clearly is not coming from the person uttering x unless it is an explanation of the parts of some other utterance.

I would say intent and thought can be given - but their actual meaning and relevance is up to the hearer (well not 'up to' but reliant on).

The discussion stemmed from talk of what is 'real'. Some hold these views (possibly, most). We cannot ignore it. I find your response above emotionally satisfying, but essentially unhelpful and lazy. It happens and we should grapple with it (I think, obvs lol - do what you wish). I think this came directly from the idea that some religious will argue that Heaven is empirically real. The argument would run similar to that round hte fact that I have never seen x but rely on reports of it. I should do the same with their reports of Heaven. I rejected that this is a good way to determine real, but that it is clearly showing us that there is no universal acceptance of how to categorise things as real or unreal.

Ok, you're right that "honour lkillings" are an exception. — Janus

I am not sure these are 'exceptions'. I rather think the Western, Enlightened model is the exception. That may lead to digression, so I'll just note that disagreement.

as though it must have been their fault and they are now forever defiled. — Janus

This is a particularly pernicious thing which only recently changed, even in the West. Marital rape was legal until like the 90s.

motivated by dogmatic religious views which effectively dehumanize them. — Janus

I agree, but that is considered a morally astute and respectable way of dealing with such things. *sigh*.

they understand that their faith is for themselves and should never be inflicted on others — Janus

This seems to me, a personal impulse and not institutional thing - the most wild of our religion offenders tend to have broken with orthodoxy and instead look to the scripts themselves. The 'old testament' types, that is (or, the Wahabis). Another issue is that the increasing, and somewhat aggressive attitude of religious immigrants is that the society into which they go should accommodate their beliefs - this, to me, being a matter of taking advantage of religious freedom (or misunderstanding it, i guess).

But if you allow that different wavelengths of light reflected from things are colours then they would be thought to exist independently of percipients. — Janus

I think they are used in both ways, but the answer to "What is red" is never a frequency. Largely because that's an unsupportable answer... Describing an experience is fine, but that's not something that 'red' can be, in this context. It is the weird stipulations of philosophy that has us calling a bundle of seemingly un-causally-related facts about perception, the world and our bodies "red" (notice, I need not enter into the discussion about perception for this oddity to become clear).

100% repulsive, both in reasoning and action. Utterly barbaric.

I see no reason to - so I want a reason to. We are here. All else is here. That's all I can find..

This wasn't for me, but I read it and I have thoughts.

I think the problem is so much simpler than the chapter illustrates (and it seems most intuitions capture). If there is a 'perfect fake' of lets say Guernica, the only difference we should be able to note between the original and this fake is that it is not the original. It was not painted by Picasso, at time X and is unique In context - it is obviously just as unique as the original in principle).
Someone purchasing Guernica for say $100millionUSD, they aren't buying a painting, per se. They are buying a biography of a painting which was commissioned in 1937, painted that year, displayed in the Pavilion, it's statement against Franco etc.. etc.. etc.. all the wya up it arriving on the auctioneers stage.

It can be made impossible to know this. But it is intuitively almost universal, from what I've seen, that one, if they knew, would be mortified by their purchase. I think the same fits with the Teletransporter. If a repllica knew they were a replica, they would spiral into a crisis. If their friends knew they were a replica, they would likely find it canny, and reject.

Again, I don't see the problem? Why would we assume there's purpose to anything?

That said, you may be interested in one of my profs work

I'm not moved by it, but if you're wanting to maintain some form of purpose or fundamental meaning to existence/the universe, he's good some good ideas. I just don't see why we would be pushing for it, if we can't see it already.