All is one

yeah....this was obviously a draw.

I'm unsure if this was an argument against the idea i present or? human complexity is not relevant whatsoever for my philosophy. Genetics are irrelevant too.

What can go wrong when the Human body is made up of 37.2 trillion cells?

The genetic DNA similarity between pigs and human beings is 98%. Interspecies organ transplant activities between humans and pigs have even taken place, called xenotransplants.

I said Hitler not me? i clearly do equate insects to the whole, based on the scientific theory. there's no evidence of most insects being sentient so i don't have much moral contemplation for most species, i don't lose sleep when i step on a worm. I see them like a machine. Dolphins, octopus, elephants and apes i think is probably immoral to kill species like this. Although i do personally believe insects are apart of the whole, of course. I don't lose sleep over throwing a rock, even if i believe its part of me, same with most insect species.

hang on why are you not equating insects to humans if they are also part of the 'all'?

To claim you know what humans should and shouldn't regret must mean you know some absolute moral imperative, care to elaborate?

why would someone not regret hurting others if they are you? i see it as the opposite, we only care for others in so far as we can see ourselves in them. That's what "dehumanisation" is. Hitler would equate Jews to things such as insects and diseases to create as big a distinction between himself and them as much as possible to not have to put himself in their position, that he cant possibly be like them. The definition of empathy is to imagine yourself feeling what they feel, once you accept you are others this makes that act even easier. I brought up the free will argument because your argument is an emotional one, just like people who cling to the idea that free will exists just because they feel like it exists and how obvious it is. How is it a strawman? its an analogy. If it is a strawman, explain why without simply stating so and not elaborating.

Well, I look forward to what you will say here, and find it so far, interesting.

That's interesting; I believe my other theory, which is superior to this one, will provide you with an answer to this. Because it is not dependent on the material universe, but rather simply on the existence of awareness. If we assume nothing, all we can know of existing is our own awareness, but that's a debate i should be having in the future.

Well, I'm 'not my arm in a sense,
And in another sense 'am,

The arm can be lost, but Lemming will remain,
My spine can be broken, living in an iron lung, but Lemming will remain,

I won't be 'all I was, able to do and feel all I did, but I'll still 'be,
Once my mind is gone?
No, then 'I'm gone,

Make a copy of me, kill me and replace me with the copy,
Well, other people might not notice, copy might not notice,
But Lemming Original sure died,

Personally I'm hopeful that the ship of Theseus we are, manages to 'continue 'being the original by continuous consciousness, I hate the idea of dying X many times in my life, before the copier itself dies.

Saint Augustine: Is consciousness continuous, where we are conscious at each single point in time, or is it discrete, where we are conscious only at certain moments of time?

A corpse would not be Lemming, in a sense.
Mummies find no eternal life in their wrappings, though their echos verb a time longer.

I literally said nothing about free will at all, nice attempt at a strawman and better luck next time.

Also, there is absolutely no reason to regret if the victims of your abuse are just an extension of you, you are actually enabling psycopaths with your outlook, not me.

You as a conscious existence cease to be, but to argue parts of you don't persist in some form even as an unconscious existence would be equivalent to saying your arm is not your own. You as the lemming you are wont be, but you will live through as other facets of reality, maybe one day your energy once more being transformed into sentient life. But you're still yet to demonstrate how separation can exist, you can appeal to common sense and the senses and how obvious it seems, that doesn't make it right. You're still yet to make a case for how you can fulfill the criteria of form theory and tracking theory without contradicting one of the other, unlike i.

I'm unsure how the fact humans are individual persons and experience their own emotions and go through their own struggles defeats my argument, not made from an appeal to emotion, but from science. Just because people act as if we have free will (everyone does and believes so) doesn't mean its correct. Just because it appears to be common sense that separation exists, doesn't make it so. Science surprises us all the time. Just because people believe themselves separate, dissociating themselves from caring about others, doesn't make it so. Humans are wrong all the time about how we believe we should act, otherwise we wouldn't feel regret.

This is all fancy talk until you have survivor's guilt while you avoided severe torture, mutilation or death etc. After a traumatic ordeal.

Your agony is not their agony and vice versa.

The pleasure felt by a sadistic and competitive winner of a contest is independent of the pleasure of the loser masochist or agony of the loser non-masochist.

When I die some day (Ideally of old age)
My heart stops to beat, my matter decays and transforms,
I will no longer be,
It doesn't matter to me, that the building blocks that made up me shall continue, for 'I shall not.

A square or a circle, drawn upon a piece of paper may need 'something to 'be,
Whether ink, graphite, or an indentation,
But when the shape has been rubbed or burned away,
Even if energy cannot be destroyed, the square or circle that was, 'has.

It matters if two items are energy because that which we are is what gives us being, as we're being. If we strip ourselves down and down and down, all we can be said is to be energy. That's why its far more precise than simply saying you're the brain, that's why its more precise to say your trillions of mini computers working together over the brain and it becomes more precise the deeper you go. Energy is ingrained in your identity, as it is literally your being and existence, so why wouldn't it matter? is a better question.

People can differentiate between things based on borders, based on geometry. That's how we point out division between things. We are which constitutes us, as we're being, so that which makes us must also necessarily be being. Energy is the thing which creates being, but this building block of being has no borders nor division which means it is simply one substance, as we would see a tin of red paint as one substance. If reality is then made of this one substance, how can it said to be a different substance? how does a whole new substance come from one substance and not two different substances interacting? unless it was fashioned from its own being. This then necessarily means matter is also energy, as proven by Einstein. The fact matter has a centre too it, doesn't matter mean its truly separate. Unless its an emergent property of energy, matter constantly transforms back into energy, and energy into matter. Its simply energy taking on a transient state of false separation as it still exists as energy, unless it can be proven separation is an emergent property of energy, can you do that? Matter is simply energy taking on a lower vibrational frequency. It doesn't change substance, it simply changes its own density through changing its vibration, energy is vibration.

Why does it matter if two items are made from energy?

Paint is all pretty much paint, but people differentiate between paintings easily enough.
We're all blood and meat and bones, but differentiate between ourselves easy enough.

Even without a center of the universe, two things in relation to another can easily enough be separated?

It doesn't matter if things appear separate, or even if consciousness ceases as such if certain perceived mechanism don't interact properly. My philosophy is still consistent despite these facts, despite the theory of tracking and form. one flower petal, does live and die different to another flower petal on the same stem but this once more doesn't deny that all of this is energy of the same substance which has no divisions as something with division needs a centre. The only argument against this is an argument to emergent properties. If my debate opposition brings it up, you'll find my response to it. A split brain is still made of the same energy, but the energy that makes up the brain and sends signalling is now going to different places. Leading to a different experience of self and reality, but still energy. I'm unsure why eyes have to be conscious for this theory to make sense. This theory applies to in-animates and life all the same.

Without emerging, how can a self exist?
Two flowers upon a vine, are not each other, though sharing the vine, and before budding, they were not, when they die, they will be, not.

From what I've read, a split brain doesn't have two consciousness, only one.
Just because one half of the brain can't transmit to the other doesn't mean both are conscious, just because one's eyes get removed from one's head, doesn't mean the eyes acquire or 'were ever conscious.

Atoms do have centres i don't deny that, i deny the fact of this then meaning we're all actually separate. As any theory not based on the most fundamental element cannot pass both the structural theory of identity and the tracking theory of identity at the same time without contradicting one or the other. All you can actually argue for is emergent propertism, if my debate opponent choose to go in that direction, i am already prepared for it. Just because you don't experience others feelings or in their body, doesn't necessarily mean you don't look through their eyes also. Its simply another version of you locked into that body. which is why you cant experience their feelings as i cant experience yours. If what we are is being, it should be that which gives us being and which constitutes our being which is us. Its more arbitrary, less laser like to draw that line on your feelings or arms or emotions as opposed to energy itself. It would be like someone saying they are their brain which isn't wrong, but if you were more precise you would say you're trillions of mini computers interacting together to form a whole.

I don't really understand what atoms and molecules are,
But looking at online pictures, they look like spheres, sphere's have centers,
Therefore, what we're made of has centers.

As for distinguishing one clone from another, one Ship of Theseus from another,
Well despite being the same shape,
They're not in the same location in existence,
My clone is not me, 'I'm me, thinking my 'own thoughts, feeling my 'own experiences.

I see that as simply human ego talking, the facts point out that your pinky being separate from the whole or its own entity is an illusion too, your pinky is constantly changing structure all throughout your life, therefore it does not pass the structural theory of identity, just because we cannot see this change doesn't necessarily mean its not happening. We notice distinctness between things based on if they have a centre. A triangle has a centre which then necessitates an edge or boundary. So does every other geometric shape, but that which has no centre cant have an edge, or this works the other way around, that which has an edge necessitates a centre. To use a syllogism:

P1. separate beings have their own centres
P2. the most fundamental building block of being has no centre
P3. all entities are the same being

Can you demonstrate on how a centre can come from something without a centre? If we look to our liver, our liver is a living mass of cells but the cells within the liver, are living and have the property of living, which gives the liver itself life as its components are living. The liver can only die when the smaller components, cells die. Following this analogy, how can something with a centre come from something with no centre or possible distinctness in its substance if it is made from the thing with no centre simply allowing itself to become denser? if energy has no centre, and matter is energy condensing itself to be harder. matter also too shouldn't have a definable centre outside of perception. If all is energy, how can the energy be distinguished even in the form of matter?

I currently think it's a reasonable enough position to hold,
To sort all energy (People) into a single set of sorts,
Though I prefer to be an individual Egoist, myself.

My pinky is identifiable as it's own finger, capable of being hurt on it's own,
Though a pain in it may resonate out to other body parts, or other body parts resonate to it,
Shares blood with the rest of the body, acts in tandem, is usually thought of as part of a whole body.
But is replaceable, that the whole see's no difference between a transplanted pinky and the old, (Assuming no transplant rejection).

Though sometimes I worry about consciousness, individuality, if we're material, where does it lay.
Cerebral cortex, some might hazard, but if all about it get's replaced, material and experience,. . . . Feels there's no holding on at times, to our 'selves, but I ramble.

In the end I hold to the visceral experience of 'appearance of self.

We can debate the moral implications of me and you being the same being but different persons, id disagree on it being a nihilistic reality.

Looks like mereological nihilism to me.

So you're aware, this isn't the argument i will be using with you when we have our debate. This is the prototype and far weaker argument than the one i have in store for you, as this argument relies on the material universe existing to begin with, the argument i have in store for you does this but even better as it doesn't even rely on the material universe, and it even kills solipsism. Or at least, the idea that you can only know of you yourself existing. I'm a freak of nature, an anomaly, a glitch in the matrix. let it be known.

What do you think, my beloved?

well you're definitely correct. I'll edit it for us.

"I believe that the self is an illusion and that there is no logically substantiated line between me and another."

Not mutually exclusive. I am you, you are still you. The self still can exist, it just encompasses everybody.