My understanding of the pro life view is that if someone chooses to put sperm in there, they are agreeing to give up some bodily autonomy and carry the child to birth.
Some philosophers think that every time you lose your train of thought (e.g. zoning out while driving or falling asleep) your consciousness disappears and a new consciosness forms later when you "snap back" (or wake up). This new consciousness shares only memories and personality with the previous one, but it is otherwise a new entity, similar to the teleporter thought experiment.
Conveniently, this makes death less scary.
Further reading: Zen and the Art of Consciousness by Susan Blackmore
I think what I was getting at is that it may be impossible to tell from the outside if something is conscious or not. If I can't even prove to myself that another person is conscious, I might have a hard time proving that a computer is conscious.
It might depend on how you define "person". When I look around, I see distinct human bodies. When I wake up, I'm in the same body as when I went to sleep, so in that sense I'm the same person.
What if "I" woke up in someone else's body? I'm sure there are movies with this premise, where "someone" wakes up in someone else's body, but they have the memories from their previous body.
But if memories are just physically encoded in the brain, I don't think this scenario makes sense even as a thought experiment.
When "I" wake up in the other person's body, I would have all their memories and none of my previous memories. So I wouldn't even know.
Consciousness is a loaded word. It tricks you into thinking that there's some profound concept here. There isn't.
When you contemplate consciousness you're not contemplating about anything profound. You're actually just contemplating vocabulary and how to map out the exact definition of the word "consciousness"
Really all it is, is just studying a collection of arbitrary intellectual attributes that we're not clear about which attributes are encompassed in the word "consciousness." Thinking about it results in just a large categorization problem of stating axioms like: " oh consciousness must include the ability to be sad" and other random attribute selection stuff.
It is a language phenomenon not a philosophical phenomenon. Don't fall for the trap. It is similar to the question what is "life." Well "life" is also another loaded word.
If you are saying that Twitter adjusts the timestamps to the viewer's local time zone, that's not exactly a secret. Or are you accusing Twitter of retroactively changing timestamps to alter the narrative? That would be a bold claim in need of some proof.
