These are the facts. Someone steps out of the teleporter. That someone has experiences. That someone has a self-autobiography, that tells it that it is, or is not, the same someone that stepped into the teleporter.

That is where the facts stop. — hypericin

Those facts are the premise of the problem though. The actual problem is in figuring out which persistent self(s) exist. All this kind of description does is take the difficult bit off the table so we can pretend the problem is simple

Sensations from the world are oriented around the pole of the self. They are what the self experiences, from the self's perspective. Sensations from yourself (thoughts, body sensations, emotions) are about the self. — hypericin

Which self?
I know it might seem I'm being a bit obtuse, but put it like this: we understand a phenomenon when we can make useful predictions or inferences about it.
It's very easy to just say: Mijin that walks out of the transporter truly is Mijin or whatever. In fact, that's a given part of the problem.

But the key thing is: do we have an explanation that allows us to clearly answer questions like "Is quantum immortality possible?" "If a configuration of atoms one day, by chance, is in an arrangement that has my memories right now, am I ressurected? What if that configuration of atoms is only N% the same...what N brings me back from the grave, and why?" etc etc

This is not a person engaging in good faith, or with any reasonable basis. This is an embarrassed toddler saving face. — AmadeusD

Agreed. What a waste of time.

You gave three examples of speech you fear, ones you completely made up I might add. — NOS4A2

Firstly, so what if I made them up? We are speaking about principles, and setting laws. You think we don't need to consider what might happen?
Secondly, these scenarios *have* all happened, at least partially. So this whole talking point of "imagined scenarios" or whatever is garbage. They are realistic scenarios, you just don't like them because they show the flaw of an absolutist position on speech.

Then you finished it off with the “yelling fire in a crowded theater“ canard, which was used as a legal dictum to justify jailing critics of the First World War. — NOS4A2

So you've had plenty of time to consider an answer to the hypothetical. Let's hear it.

I’m not sure why you refuse to answer the question. Do you want the government to decide what you can say or read? — NOS4A2

I want the freedom to state any opinion, or good faith reporting. But yes, I am quite happy for the government to limit other speech e.g. say I can't claim a product is safe for human consumption when I know it isn't.

The core confusion of all such problems is the nature of identity. Identity is a mental label masquerading as a metaphysical property. When this is realized, just as with the ship of Theseus, you realize there is no strictly correct answer to such questions. — hypericin

The problem though is whether I am alive or not is not merely semantics. Right now I am having experiences of the world; those experiences can be at different levels; some are more vivid than others, but we can still say there is a binary between having experiences of any type, and simply no longer having experiences.

And I care about that hugely. I don't care whether some third party is having a ship of theseus moment about whether to consider it the same Mijin. I care if the mind right now that is having experiences will still be having experiences.

If not, then (it seems to me) that individual identity = strict identity, which means that even a 1 particle difference would render the transported object something non-identical (having a different identity) on each end. — Relativist

Really? So if we made the machine then if particle 4ea26363f75 was in position x=71.23 then: welcome to your new life on mars. But had it been at x=71.23000001 then: it was simply a murder box. An infinitesimal difference is life and death?
...and we'll never know for sure. Theres no experiment to perform to ever know if it's a numerically identical person or just qualitatively (nearly) identical.

The nature of the transport also seems important. Are the actual particles being moved from place to place, or are a different set of particles being assembled into the same form at the receiving end? If the latter, then arguably - the receiving end is a duplicate, not the "same" individual. — Relativist

Why? Do the particles contain some essence of you?

It’s clear from your own examples that you want the government to decide what you can and cannot say. — NOS4A2

So I have put it to you that you are not engaging with the problems with absolute free speech and gave three examples to illustrate the problems.

Your response is to...just straight up ignore the examples. Again. And just imply again that any restriction on speech must be about the government deciding what views are allowed.

If you aren't going to engage with the points, why are you on a discussion forum?

@wonderer1 I have now. Very interesting, thanks.
It also raises another point. If numerical identity is based purely on the pattern of atoms then it implies a form of immortality. Because, even if our universe terminates at a heat death, that's not really a final end point as particles are still moving, and there is a non-zero chance of a structure of arbitrary size forming.
Even if it takes Graham's Number years before your current brain state is recreated by chance, it seems it will eventually happen.

It’s not about free speech. It’s about the cancellation. The physical shutting down. No one on the right is telling the left to stop arguing and debating and talking — Fire Ologist

I just listed four different ways that speech is being shut down off the top of my head

The right wing was never upset about speech being shut down, at least not on the top ten list of the problems with wokeness. — Fire Ologist

Firstly, what?
"Cancel culture" has been a top headline on the right for years. Trump's talked about it, Ron De Santis, FOX news, the daily wire, Candace owens etc etc. I don't know what it would take to make your top 10 list, and I don't care; it objectively is a common talking point on the political right. Indeed "woke" started out as often "woke cancel culture".

Secondly, yeah, they aren't concerned about cancel culture now, because they are the ones doing it. And they are apparently as unprincipled as you are being

It’s the physical changes to culture - men competing in women’s sports; men who choose to be called ‘women’ with outrage when not obeyed — Fire Ologist

Just ranting about issues you disagree with. What's this even got to do with the thread topic? Unless you're complaining that you can't cancel such opinions?

You asked me a question under which that is a direct, relevant and telling response. If you do not want to talk about Identity, the transporter and all its implications, you could have said that instead of stringing this exchange along to an end that tells me you are not open to discussions that challenge your presumptions. — AmadeusD

Amadeus, you are clearly very confused because, like I say, this whole topic concerns the continuity of the mental self and I was clear about that in the OP.
No-one but you seems to have a problem with this.

1. As far as the federal government limiting what the federal agencies do and say - that is called: how it works. That has nothing to do with speech rights in the public sphere.
2. [educational institutions] are such bad judges of what is "truth" and who has "power" and who is "victim".
3. Journalists, or opinion makers? Newspeople, or propagandists? — Fire Ologist

You decry cancel culture, but when it's shutting down messages you don't like, you're all for it.
And these rationalizations are, frankly, pathetic.

What I should have done is give examples of right-wing speech being shut down, wait for the outrage and then say, no, it was actually a left wing opinion. Because there's absolutely no principle here.

It would probably be a good thing for us as a species.
Even though it's wasted effort, the feeling that there are important secrets that we might figure out soon might make us more aspirational and hopeful.

I've sometimes had the same thought with [possible hijack incoming] the idea of aliens coming to earth, deciding we aren't that interesting, and leaving immediately, for good. As frustrating as it would be, human progress would skyrocket. Knowing that interstellar travel is doable, practically, and that there are species out there would be tantalyzing.

By pointing out that people cannot alter the world with speech as much as they claim they can, and that people overestimate the powers of speech, my point is that you have no reason to censor others. That’s it. — NOS4A2

I feel you're not really engaging with the point though, that literally allowing any words to be spoken in any context would in some cases cause great harm for no benefit.

Some examples

1) A man standing outside a school gate, telling children sexual acts he would like to perform on them.

2) Going on TV and giving the identities of US spies currently undercover in China and Iran. Or heck, just reading out the decryption codes of US defence systems.

3) Why not -- the classic "fire in a theatre". I cause a stampede and 5 people die. No repercussions?

Now, if your response is that these examples are silly, as none of them are about censoring opinions, that was exactly my point. "Free speech" really just means freely stating opinions or passing on information (that doesn't primarily put people at harm).
An absolute position, where no words ever have legal consequences is completely unworkable.

But it also *could be* the original. Because all "fake" means is "trying to pass off as".
So yes hypothetically someone could be trying to pass off the real mona Lisa as being a fake mona Lisa painting.

I think it is possible for fake fake to be kind of a double negation in some cases.
For example, let's say we have fake gold, and you can tell it's not real by the fact that if you shine a light on it, it's a bit more orangey.
But then there becomes a fashion of knowingly and overtly wearing fake gold. People start making fake fake gold. And one of the ways of making fake fake gold is to take regular gold and add a thin veneer of orange gloss.

As implied by this example though; I am not saying fake fake = genuine. Only that "fake" is a broad, and relative, term such that something that is genuinely X is one of the things that could satisfy a use as "fake fake X".

The cancelling that I am seeing is coming from the MAGA government right now -- federal agencies banned from talking about climate change, educational institutions not allowed to criticize Israel, journalists banned from the white house for being critical of Trump, museums made to remove mentions of slavery, or Trump's impeachment. Lots more if I just google around.

There's nothing remotely comparable on the left.

Since you're so against cancel culture, do you condemn all of this?

That wasn't the argument. I listed some of the reasons why there has to be limits on speech. I just happened to also mention that no nation has had absolute free speech as illustrative of the fact that it's not practical.

But take that part out if you like, and the point remains: we have many legitimate reasons to constrain speech: public safety, protecting children, fighting crime, promoting business and commerce etc.

The Daily Mail itself outed it's behaviour as click-baiting in 2011, labeling the issue as a myth. — AmadeusD

This doesn't even make sense for the point you're trying to make.
A national newspaper, that almost never corrects any of it's various made up stories, a decade after Winterval, felt it needed to apologize and correct the record. But oh it was just a momentary thing in 1998

FTR the daily mail still pushes stories about how you can't say Christmas any more. I guess it helps pay for the Christmas turkey every year, for the poor billionaire owner of the Mail that doesn't pay UK tax.

This is no longer a relevant question, and its one I've directly answered in two different ways. Please review. — AmadeusD

Your first response was that it was a silly question. Your second response was that it needs to be your atoms. Neither response addresses why it needs to be your atoms, let alone the question of what if we create a mind using partially your atoms and partially others (I make a brain that is N% of the atoms that made up your brain. What N means you are alive (with brain damage) versus simply not living on at all?)

I can't understand what you're trying to describe here. This doesn't seem to say anything that could result in the experiment we're talking about. Can you please be clearer? — AmadeusD

I am asking the question: if the only consideration is that it is the same atoms, what if the transporter does use the same atoms, however, those atoms need to spend T time unconnected. When they get reassembled afterwards, did you survive that? What if T is 1 million years?

I think its entirely straightforward and have given you the reasons why. Its an air-tight reason. — AmadeusD

Which is probably a good point to stop and consider whether you're appreciating all the nuances here. Crucially, can this position be used to answer any of the questions related to the transporter that I have posed? Otherwise, it's a non-explanation. We may as well go with the "mojo" explanation for consciousness and declare no follow-up questions about mojo are permitted.

Hmm. Unfortunately, I think logically, No. This instantiates that you are two people. — AmadeusD

What the hell? I am talking about the situation prior to doing anything; the current status quo of our everyday life. It is both true that I am me. And that I am Mijin. As well as, heck, that I am 6'3 tall.
That doesn't instantiate 3 people.

I cannot understand what you're talking about. The analogy is that it is not relevant how many ,or which atoms are involved. For two reasons. Both of which make this an utterly ridiculous question (to me... it may be entirely reasonable on your understanding of what i've said). These are:

1. It had nothing whatsoever to do with consciousness. [...]
2. It is 100% true, without any possible discussion, that people lose limbs, multiple limbs etc... and remain exactly the person they were — AmadeusD

The whole topic of personal identity, the transporter problem, and this thread, all concern continuity consciousness.
If you don't want to talk about consciousness, then please stop posting in this thread. I am not interested in the trivial question of whether I am still me if I lose a pinkie.

- The fact that woke issues/analysis was so precisely tuned by 1993 shows how the woke attitude became ubiquitous in the 1980s. — Fire Ologist

I would come to pretty much the opposite conclusion -- that it shows how long we've been blowing up this "threat".

Let me give you an example from here in the UK. For example: in Birmingham a set of events across winter of 1992 (IIRC) was named "Winterval". Somebody saw posters for Winterval, jumped to the conclusion that it was a politically-correct renaming for Christmas, and right wing newpapers ran with it as a headline....for more than a decade afterwards.
"You're not allowed to say Christmas any more; they're calling it winterval!" worked great as outrage-porn and therefore selling the Daily Mail*.

This used to go under the clunky name of "Political correctness gone MAD" here. It's definitely helped that the term "woke" rolls off the tongue easier. But it remains mostly exaggerations and outright horseshit.

(this is not to say that there aren't some ham-fisted attempts at diversity in some cases, but they are few and far between, hence why the tabloids have to engage in exaggeration)

* A newspaper that then, and now, is run by a billionaire that pays no UK tax. But hey, let's worry about important things like a film casting a black lead.

It's a great puzzle, really counter-intuitive. I've done up to the case where there are 4 islanders (see below), and it works, so I can see it would work for n islanders. It still just feels weird though.

I see I've arrived a bit late to this debate, but it seems it would be helpful for someone to bring it back to the original topic anyway.

So my 2c is that, yes, there need to be restrictions on speech. AFAIK no modern nation has had absolute free speech. For the sake of public safety, crime-fighting, protecting children, commerce, and other reasons crucial to the functioning of a society, there have always been restrictions.

So how do we define the "right kind" of free speech?
I would say it's not straightforward and it should be an ongoing, nuanced goal. But, in general, we should aim towards everyone being free to state an opinion, and/or disseminate information in good faith. Everything else is fair game for a society to decide on.

What do I mean by "good faith"?
I mean with some reason for believing it is true (I am against pundits having a "right to lie") and without the intent of causing harm (e.g. doxing).

Doh! My mistake.
I meant the bit about when all the brown eyed people realize they have brown eyes...but on checking, that wasn't from the OP, that was from someone's solution.

You're right that in the OP as stated, the blue eyed people all leave on day 100 or whatever, and no-one else.

I've got here late and just read the first and last pages, but I'd agree that this version of the puzzle is not logically sound.
If we follow it through, then if I'm an islander with red eyes, I will still erroneously conclude on day 100 that I have blue eyes and get thrown off the ferry.

A perfect replica is still a replica. Is that a bit clearer? If you are not the exact atoms that make up my body, you couldn't be me. You could be a replica. — AmadeusD

How many of your atoms, and why does it matter?
If the transporter worked by just spitting your atoms across space and reassembling them, is that now you? If not, why not?

To be clear: I don't believe that the transported transports a single instance of consciousness, i am just saying that bodily continuity (or identity...I didn't really follow the distinction) is not as straightforward
an answer as might first appear.

You disagree that someone who loses their legs (or other body parts) is still hte same person? — AmadeusD

No, I disagree with the implied analogy to the problem and your suggestion that it is a "silly question".
Losing a limb does not involve splicing the consciousness. It doesn't solve the problem, it avoids it.

I am suggesting that:

1. Bodily continuity is thought about wrongly (i.e without the spatio-temporal aspect here noted); and
2. That all this does is defeat certain claims (bodily continuity ones).

Perhaps you've misunderstood me. — AmadeusD

Yes it seems there is something not being communicated here, because bodily continuity is defined as requiring continued continuity of the spatio-temporal aspects. So I can't make sense of either your point (1) or point (2) here.

There can't be two yous. There can be two Mijins which are not identical. — AmadeusD

Well this is a critical thing in dispute. Right now I am Mijin, and Mijin is me. And it's all very simple because we have no technological means to duplicate, splice or augment my consciousness.
In a hypothetical time where I could be duplicated, and for some period of time (before they diverge) there are identical Mijin agents, how many are me?
Bodily continuity doesn't make a clear claim here, not in its basic form, and also requires we know the history of how we arrived at this configuration of the universe.

Oops typo. Yes I meant Sent

Right, and most of us accept Copied, and you too, but you want to tackle Sent on their own ground (show them it's a quagmire), so it's tiresome if I don't join you on that ground? — bongo fury

Well explaining the context of the transporter problem was important to the OP. And then, I engaged people to the level that they engaged with me. If you consider Copied to already be refuted then great; I guess you don't need the imperfect transporter (although modified versions such as moving, or replacing, someone's atoms present equivalent problems).

What's consciousness got to do with it? Copied doesn't need consciousness. (Nor unconsciousness of course.) It just needs a reliable basis for individuation (same what? different what?). — bongo fury

Because firstly the whole problem is concerned with what happens to the consciousness.
It's much more important to me than what happens to my body. Whatever process I am subjected to, the most important questions are 1. Whether I am still alive, in any form, from my own point of view and 2. What form that consciousness is in (on earth, on mars, with brain damage etc).

And secondly I don't think we have a good model for answering these questions, apart from the proposition that perhaps our consciousness is never persistent.

Bodily continuity seems like the common sense approach, but only because today in 2025 the only way for a consciousness to be created is within a human brain (and probably other animals, though it's hard to know what level of consciousness to what kind of brain). All we can do is snuff consciousness out of existence or modify it with either trauma or drugs.
But if at some future time we can splice / copy / augment the mind, bodily continuity is way too vague, and our model of consciousness too ill-formed, to make concrete predictions.

Yes no problem.
When it comes to the transporter problem (also called the teletransporter problem) there are two major positions*, let's call them Sent (your consciousness is transported) and Copied (the person on Mars or wherever, is a new instance of consciousness).

I summarized one argument against Sent in the OP, but another common argument against the Sent position is what if the person at the source location is not killed? In such a situation it would be absurd to claim the consciousness has both been sent and retained in the original. They clearly aren't a singular instance of consciousness because I can stick a pin in one person and the other is not going to flinch.

Having been in transporter debates many times, I am familiar with the counter-argument that most Sent proponents will say. They will say that the consciousness was branched. Only for the instance of time that the two mental states were identical could the consciousness be said to be in two places. As soon as their experiences differ, they are two people.
I tried to find the formal name for the position that, essentially, being qualitatively identical entails being a singular instance of consciousness (the philosophical underpinnings of the Sent position), but all I could find was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_identity#Locke's_conception.

* And a third position, which I've already alluded and I won't expand on in this post to keep things clear.

Well a new person starts and ends their life at every instance under that hypothesis, there's not even a singular person constantly dying.

Indeed. The question of what happens if the person at source is not deleted is a common objection to the idea that you are teleported. The common answer is that you have now become two people; not that you are linked now, but basically your existence is branched.

If you find this problematic, so do I. The imperfect transporter I think is a pretty good counter against this position.

But I also find bodily continuity problematic when it comes to questions of how much continuity is sufficient and/or how exactly we define continuity.

The best, though most unfortunate, explanation is simply that there's never really continuity. It's an illusion.

The point is, the measure of our understanding of a phenomenon is what predictions and/or inferences we can make about it.

When it comes to your position on personal identity, a position that I think is basically the bodily continuity position, it seems it doesn't enable you to answer questions like the kind that I have posed; about a mixture of continuous and discontinous material, or of being discontinuous on a time frame far quicker than mental events.
And I've asked why we would take the position that bodily continuity matters, because that might give a clue about how we'll go about answering such questions. But you haven't given an answer why, you've tended to just repeat your position.

I don't want any of this to sound like snark, or as if I am accusing you of bad faith. I'm just saying it seems pretty pointless.
If I were to say that what defines an instance of consciousness is the mojo, but not answer any questions on what the mojo is, how I think this might work in practice, or what led me to think it was the mojo in the first place...then all anyone can say is "good for you". End of debate, nothing learned.

I'll answer again: nothing; only my continued corporeal integrity matters. — bongo fury

Your answers are basically just asserting your position again.
What I am trying to get at, is why. And to also tease out the answers to questions that are problematic for bodily continuity, like why it would make a difference if I move your atoms from point A to point B in one piece or separated for a nanosecond. What was lost in that second scenario?

Radical Lastthursdayism says, that's constantly true, all the time - your existence is being renewed every moment and your memories are effectively implanted. — flannel jesus

Indeed. In fact, even talking of "your existence" being "renewed" could be misleading here, as what we're actually positing is that every instance of consciousness is essentially a new entity that just happens to inherit the memories of that body. And then its existence ends in an instant.

It's not a pleasant conception, but as I say, it's immune to the strong counter arguments to the two more obvious positions on the transporter problem. In fact, I've never heard any argument against it (but I've generally not heard this position discussed very much at all -- most people in this debate implicitly assume continuous existence).

I didn't content they did. Not sure where this is coming from. — AmadeusD

Because I am trying to get your meaning. You're alluding to bodily continuity, so I am asking follow up questions of why bodily continuity is critical.

This doesn't have much relevance to my position, or the claim, to be clear. For sake of discussion, there will be no specific amount. You can lose both legs and still be alive, and you. It's a silly question, in context. That's not the belittle it. It just has no reasonable avenue to a response. — AmadeusD

Hard disagree.
Look, in daily life we all implicitly subscribe to some form of bodily continuity. I have Mijin's memories and I assume that I am one and the same entity as Mijin. If I were to suffer an accident and have brain damage, then that is a damaged Mijin.
The problems for bodily continuity come with hypotheticals like the transporter problem and the follow up questions that I have summarized in this thread. It's much easier of course to insist that we keep our focus only on how personal identity works in daily and handwave questions like the imperfect transporter. But if we have a good model of personal identity we shouldn't need to dodge; we should be able to apply our model.

It removes the potential for my first-person to disappear, but someone to still be me. Which seems ridiculous and intuitively hogwash. — AmadeusD

This is why the terminology is important here. Another entity could be qualitatively identical to me, but if he is not numerically identical to me, then he's arguably Mijin but not me. If you stick a pin in him, I don't feel a thing. And when I'm lights out, I have no reason to believe I will suddenly have his conscious experiences.

Mijin If spatial-temporal continuity is required to maintain identity, then your case adds nothing, the subject is killed no matter what. — hypericin

Can we know that? What if the transporter functions by firing your actual atoms across space? If assembling your own atoms back into the configuration that they were in isn't you, then what is missing?

If it is not required, then your case reduces to, "How much damage can someone sustain before becoming a new person?"

From the third person perspective yes that's what it boils down to. The question is what about the first-person perspective of the person that entered the transporter. Is he gone entirely?

It seems more realistic to infer episodes of relative coherence among otherwise fleeting and unconnected moments of consciousness? — bongo fury

This seems to be alluding to different levels of consciousness. Sure, there are different levels of alertness largely corresponding to brainwave states. This seems a different topic though to personal identity.

They deserve identifying with (or as) one person because they arose in that particular (spatiotemporally continuous) brain and body. — bongo fury

This is just asserting the position of bodily continuity. I'll ask again: what makes the particular atoms that you are made of special, and how many of your own atoms need to be incorporated into an entity for you to survive in any form?

It seems crucial to the viability and identity of an organism, at least? Pre-sci-fi, of course. — bongo fury

But that's my question. When I ask why spatio-temporal continuity matters, I mean why is it critical to whether consciousness persists or not? If we believe that there is some persistence of consciousness from moment to moment then it is a valid question of what is required for this persistence. If the key thing is that it's the same atoms, why is that necessary?

Really? I suppose there are edge cases, like that of conjoined twins? But generally we, like the ship of Theseus, maintain our personal identity by losing and replacing a few planks at a time. — bongo fury

Yes that is the case today but I am not talking about only what is biologically or technologically possible today. If that were a requirement for topics here, then 99% of threads on philosophy forums can be shut down right now.
I am talking about hypothetically copying entire brains, swapping out atoms etc to test a given position or model of personal identity.

I think this is the correct answer to the branch-line case. Any "one" who is me, yet occupied different atoms and extracts difference resources from the environment to maintain homeostatis, and occupies a different "moment' in space, cannot be me. — AmadeusD

But why? What is it that your specific atoms contain that hold your "essence"?
And how many such atoms need to be moved across for you to still be alive? Will 95% do it? 99%?

I think this is a really stupid 'paradox' personally. A ship is "that ship" because of what people call it. There isn't, that I can see, a physical boundary to the identity of a utility/object. — AmadeusD

Agreed, I hate the ship of Thesus. It's only a marginally interesting paradox in its own right, and though it is invoked for good faith reasons, I think it actually derails this topic. Because, as I said upthread, the problem of personal identity chiefly concerns the first-person perspective -- what it is, and under what circumstances it is preserved. The ship of thesus gets us immediately thinking of the third person perspective, and making a completely arbitrary judgement that doesn't actually matter.
Whether my first-person perspective still exists or not matters a hell of a lot to me! It's not like ship of thesus.

Independent medical exam? — bongo fury

In my experience

Spatiotemporal continuity (with me). — bongo fury

Why does that matter? And how, precisely, do we define it? Because of course it is vulnerable to the same sort of "imperfect copy" problem that I talked about in the OP. Whether I am alive or not is binary (NB: alive but damaged is still alive), but whether I as an organism have spatiotemporal continuity with an entity at a past state of the universe is something less clear. Does it matter whether it's the same atoms? What proportion of atoms must be in the same state?

Oh ok.
Yes this is just an IME thing, so no worries if you disagree. But often when there are debates on the transporter problem, and you have the people forming into two groups of either "transported" or "killed" (and, as I say, no-one but me seems to occupy the third group of "no continuity even before the transporter"), the rhetoric is often like this:

"What connects the person at source to the person at the destination, instead of them being separate entities? What was actually transported? Is it a soul?"
Vs
"What does the person at the destination lack in order to be you? Is it the soul? If it makes a difference whether we literally move the individual atoms, does that mean you're suggesting that the atoms held the soul?"