Introduction

We should consider our introduction to the paper. It does not seem enough simply to say, "We are going to consider what makes a person the same person over time. But the problem with this question is that it is ambiguous." This formulation does not indicate to the lay reader why this question is interesting in the first place. Tip 4 states:

Do not expect the reader to fill in gaps in your reasoning, even if you know they have read the same things you have. Write as if you were trying to explain things to one of your friends who is not taking the class. You might even test this by having a friend read the first draft.

What makes this question interesting to me is that it is essentially a matter of life and death. Right now, people assume in various cyberpunk novels that people can be copied. They think that it is okay for their current bodies to die if they have backed themselves up. I need to tell them that it is not okay. I would never consent to being killed even if I had been backed up, because the restored human will not be the same token of person as I am. I do not identify with my type, but with my token. I also suspect that if other people reflected on these issues as I have, then they would draw exactly the same conclusion. Hence, in some ways, I see myself as fulfilling a moral imperative, to maybe help to save people's lives somewhere down the track. God forbid that the technology described in these books ever becomes available. But if it does, I would like to think that people will have the good sense not to use it. This essay will embody my hope that they do not.

This is essentially the same way that I introduced the topic in my blog. But it somehow just doesn't seem appropriate to start an essay in this manner; it seems somehow too parochial. I should try to clarify why the cyberpunk authors find this view plausible in the first place.

Oh, that's easy. It's through a mistaken analogy with computer programs or documents. When you save a document to a hard drive, you don't feel so attached to the working copy. You know that if you need to, you can always restore your current copy from the saved version. As long as you save your work regularly, then you don't have to worry about losing too much of it. Many computer science students think of the mind these days as just like another piece of software. It is mere information. If you save this information regularly, then you don't have to worry about your body dying. Your mind can be automatically restored from the saved copy in a fresh body, without having to worry about losing too many of your memories. It's a uniquely computer-oriented means of immortality.

Then it seems to me that this is already not a mere "opinion" paper. You can see that you have already written all your ideas as a response to things that you have read. There is nothing wrong with discussing them in the context of cyberpunk literature. You should simply try to identify what their philosophical influences have been that have moved them to adopt this position. That is definitely a topic for further research: the philosophical influences of cyberpunk.