History of these ideas

The ideas about multiplicity started with me when I asked the question: What is the consciousness of someone who has exactly the same structure and functioning in the brain as someone else? Do they have the same consciousness? Back then, it was more along the line of were they the same person. There really were not the technical words to describe what was scientifically happening in these rational experiments that I was constructing in my mind. When I would describe a cidentireplica to people before there was a term cidentireplica they though I was talking about a clone. Clones do not have the same structure and functioning; physipaths consequently, they do not have the same consciousness; awarepaths either. But cidentireplicas do have the same structure and functioning consequently the same awarepath as each others. There are many reasons that I have developed overtime for this. See cidentireplica identity proofs. However, if you told people this they were not impressed. How do you explain what this really means or its importance? You can't say that one person is identical to another person just because they have the same structure and functioning. They still are two separate distinct people. The concept of personal identity that philosophers deal with all the time is biased toward conscious singularity theories. A person by most definitions is a body separate from all others. The concept of personal identity becomes a matter of body identity over time, no matter how ridiculous the results of the rational experiments are when singularity is assumed. For instance, you can have a continuous conscious live body over a period of time, that with a sequence of many very small changes to the structure of the brain will end up with an entirely different consciousness, but this is still you according to many philosophers beliefs. Yet if you make the exact same structure and functioning in a body exactly the same as the original's but made this new person out of different matter it would not be you because it did not some "magic essence" that continuation of the same matter does. in the first place you have the same body but a different consciousness in the second case you have a different body but the same consciousness. It dawned on me that it is more important to have the right consciousness than the right body. It is true that legally the body guy gets the legal rights such as the money, estate, wife, kids, etc., but the conscious guy gets to carry on the conscious existence of the original. The body guy gets to carry on the conscious existence of someone else other than the original.

When I started this process of developing a theory of consciousness, it was for the purpose of understanding knowledge better. Consciousness is closely related to knowledge. Because without consciousness there really is no knowledge. My field of study is Mathematical Epistemology. Epistemology to me is the scientific study of knowledge. Although most people think it as being an area of philosophy known as the theory of knowledge. I was more interested in finding ways of producing knowledge rapidly with mathematical systems than defining what knowledge is. Knowledge is developed by people thinking or by the process of being conscious.

When I started thinking about my personal existence and eventual death, as a child, I believed in what I call now singular finite theory of consciousness. This means that there is just one of you and when you die that is it. This meant that there was no life after death, no immortality, no souls, and no heaven or hell. It seemed common sense to me. I believed that I could experience dying but I would never experience being dead because being dead is not being conscious. It was not experiencing nothingness, it was the total unawareness of time passing. You could wake up the next moment in terms of your consciousness, and a trillion years could have passed. I was happy with this view point. I was not scared of this eventuality. this is what I thought most rational people believed that were not brainwashed by religions or fear of death to think other wise.

After years of studying these questions, and developing concepts, terms, and equations dealing with them, I have come to the belief that there is much more reason to believe in multiplicity than singularity. I am gratified that other thoughtful people, after condering the evidence, seem to be coming around to versions of these ideas also.