Crazy Theory: Girard infiltrated the Azure Nobles

[Tragak]

Tell me that the "May the Twelve Gods forgive you if Azure City falls while under your rule, Hinjo" guy from the bottom of 414 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0414.html) (months before Familicide) does not look like our second-favorite Illusionist (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0693.html) (whose message was recorded decades before when Soon was still alive, and thus would not have white hair yet).

[Zmeoaice]

"Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes, characters that have a similar hairstyle just have a similar hairstyle. How many hairstyles do you think there are that can be drawn in stick figure style, anyway?"

-The Giant according to Shale

I guess this doesn't confirm or deny anything.

[Tragak]

"Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes, characters that have a similar hairstyle just have a similar hairstyle. How many hairstyles do you think there are that can be drawn in stick figure style, anyway?"

-The Giant according to Shale

I guess this doesn't confirm or deny anything.That's why I didn't call it my "Reasonable -AgreeWithMeOrDie- Theory" :smalltongue:

[EmperorSarda]

So whose Skeleton is lying under Statue Girard's feet?

[thereaper]

To be fair, there's no guarantee that it is actually Girard yet. It is possible that it's a fake (perhaps a family member), while the real Girard is alive (hidden beneath the crypt).

Not that it would make this epileptic tree any more reasonable, mind you.

[Emanick]

To be fair, there's no guarantee that it is actually Girard yet. It is possible that it's a fake (perhaps a family member), while the real Girard is alive (hidden beneath the crypt).

Not that it would make this epileptic tree any more reasonable, mind you.

Girard could also be some sort of spirit, rather like Soon (though probably very different), and the skeleton could be both genuinely his and a red herring. I have the feeling that we're going to have a face-to-face encounter with the real Girard before the end of the story. I suspect that he's too important and complex a character to make only one exceedingly brief appearance in the book, and that as a recording that portrays him in a rather one-dimensional light.

Of course, I concur that this particular theory is, as the OP said, rather crazy. But hey, it's possible! I like it, and nothing about it seems inherently implausible from a storytelling perspective (i.e. if it was actually true, it would hardly weaken the story or strain credulity, assuming The Giant's writing was at its usual level during the Big Reveal).

[EmperorSarda]

To be fair, there's no guarantee that it is actually Girard yet. It is possible that it's a fake (perhaps a family member), while the real Girard is alive (hidden beneath the crypt).

Not that it would make this epileptic tree any more reasonable, mind you.

Not all considering to be alive would be somehow avoiding Familicide.


Girard could also be some sort of spirit, rather like Soon (though probably very different), and the skeleton could be both genuinely his and a red herring. I have the feeling that we're going to have a face-to-face encounter with the real Girard before the end of the story.


Is there such thing as an epic level illusion of yourself that is permanent and has all your memories and your personality? It'd be like backing yourself up onto the internet, only with an epic magic illusion spell instead.

[Cranica]

Not all considering to be alive would be somehow avoiding Familicide.



Is there such thing as an epic level illusion of yourself that is permanent and has all your memories and your personality? It'd be like backing yourself up onto the internet, only with an epic magic illusion spell instead.

A permanent Eidolon could work. But really, Familicide isn't hard to get around at the levels of the Order of the Scribble - a Contingent Resurrection would be enough, since nothing about Familicide interferes with resurrection so far as we know (especially considering Speak With Dead worked).

[Sunken Valley]

You know who Girard resembles more? Rich Burlew.

Clearly Girard extended his life by replacing the author.

I do think the Order will have a face to face meet with a scribble member though. This is so we can get a proper first hand telling of the true story (not some patchy 4th hand account or one manipulated by an evil god).

[Bogardan_Mage]

A permanent Eidolon could work. But really, Familicide isn't hard to get around at the levels of the Order of the Scribble - a Contingent Resurrection would be enough, since nothing about Familicide interferes with resurrection so far as we know (especially considering Speak With Dead worked).
Of course, if Girard were alive his Gate would be much better protected. No way he'd allow the illusions etc. to wear off, let alone leaving his family to mummify.

[Tragak]

So whose Skeleton is lying under Statue Girard's feet? That would still be Girard (barring Contingent Resurrection), seeing as my alleged "sighting" came months before Familicide.

[The_Tentacle]

So he died of old age several days or so before the rest of his family died of familicide and was placed in the tomb. What are the chances of that?




I do think the Order will have a face to face meet with a scribble member though. This is so we can get a proper first hand telling of the true story (not some patchy 4th hand account or one manipulated by an evil god).

...Or maybe, manipulated by any god...:smalleek:

[Bogardan_Mage]

That would still be Girard (barring Contingent Resurrection), seeing as my alleged "sighting" came months before Familicide.
Sorry, are you or are you not claiming that the noble in question is Girard himself? Because the skeleton in the coffin clearly died more than a few months before Familicide. A few extra months would not be sufficient to reduce the body to a dusty skeleton given the state of the other Draketooths.

[Tragak]

So he died of old age several days or so before the rest of his family died of familicide and was placed in the tomb. What are the chances of that? I'd say about "Crazy"

[thatSeniorGuy]

Aye lad. E's been dead fer twenty years or more. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0846.html)

[Kornaki]

You guys were close. The real Girard is dead as a doorknob in that coffin we saw. His permanent illusion 100% real shadow clone, however, is living quite comfortably in his old age

[Tragak]

His permanent illusion 100% real shadow clone, however, is living quite comfortably in his old age CALLING IT! CALLING IT! :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin:

[JBiddles]

That would raise interesting questions about the nature of souls in OotS - if the Epic-illusion Girard clone was a perfect replica of his mind (memories, personality etc.) would it be him? In our world, yes, but in the OotS world, it might be a new soul produced, Girard's soul might inhabit the clone (I favour this - if an Epic characer hasn't found a creative way to cheat death they're not even trying) or just a "personality imprint."

[BaronOfHell]

if the Epic-illusion Girard clone was a perfect replica of his mind (memories, personality etc.) would it be him?
Girard would be in the afterlife.

In our world, yes
How is that? Haven't heard of any way to measure a "soul".

but in the OotS world, it might be a new soul produced, Girard's soul might inhabit the clone

It's an illusion, it doesn't actually summon anything, so my guess is there won't be some kind of "soul" stick to it.
It'd be similar to placing a soul inside a shield only with purpose to defend, which would be unnecessary and therefore a strange choice.

[JBiddles]

Perhaps I shoul clarify; on Earth, if one were to somehow build an exact replica of a person - something with their exact memories, thought patterns, personality and other aspects - it would be that person's consciousness, in that if you made the replica then destroyed the original, the person wouldn't notice. If there were no souls in OotS, Girard's hypothetical me-again illusion would be his consciousness continued in magical form. However, what complicates the issue is the existence in OotS of souls that form a person's consciousness. I was talking about whether this means that illusion-Girard would be the creation of a new, slightly different soul, Girard's soul interacting with the world via illusion or a soulless bit of magic.

I do sort of expect Girard to be alive in some form. In the world of OotS, an incredibly powerful and paranoid sorcerer charged with protecting reality itself would almost certainly find a way to become immortal in some form - hell, Soon managed it and he was a paladin. He may have been killed with Familicide (that spell is ridiculously powerful) but then it's not too hard to believe he'd have had Contingent Resurrection. Any Epic character who doesn't use that is off their rocker.

[hamishspence]

Perhaps I shoul clarify; on Earth, if one were to somehow build an exact replica of a person - something with their exact memories, thought patterns, personality and other aspects - it would be that person's consciousness, in that if you made the replica then destroyed the original, the person wouldn't notice.

Actually, the most common view I've seen, is that creating the replica creates an entirely new, identical person- and you'd have two consciousnesses instead of one.

[BaronOfHell]

Before I continue what I find an interesting discussion, I'd need to know if it'd be at all acceptable to discuss this off topic matter here.
I have no problem

Thank you. :smallbiggrin:

@JBiddles
In the way I understand the concept of consciousness, it's similar to the idea of a soul in the sense both represents a lower requirement for a unique existence than the entire body.
The only difference is that the consciousness is the least required amount of correctly aligned particles which uniquely defines the existence that is you, whereas the soul, at least in popular fiction, keeps certain tools, such as the abilities to remember and think, and senses such as sight and hearing.


if one were to somehow build an exact replica of a person - something with their exact memories, thought patterns, personality and other aspects - it would be that person's consciousness
Given consciousness arises due to a physical phenomena, which is the only approach that makes sense to me, then I think so as well.


if you made the replica then destroyed the original, the person wouldn't notice.
If you've one consciousness with two bodies, neither destroyed at first, then I can't see how you come to this conclusion.

Let's simplify it. In stead of one consciousness, two bodies, we'll make one consciousness, and four eyes in stead of the regular two, which is doable. Unless you place those eyes so that you can cut off two without changing the image the brain receives, you'll obviously be aware that you've lost eyes, just like you'd be aware you've gained eyes.

The same goes for an entire body, in stead of only a new set of eyes. Unless you make an even more complex setup where the two bodies experiences exactly the same, the consciousness which experience the world from both bodies will know there's more than one body from the different information received from each. Likewise destroying one of the bodies, unless both bodies observe an identical reality, will change the information received. Also the destroying process would have to not send information of its own process, e.g. through feelings such as pain.


Actually, the most common view I've seen, is that creating the replica creates an entirely new, identical person- and you'd have two consciousnesses instead of one.

That's how it usually is in movies where the bad guy tries to immortalize themselves through the creation of clones that can live on for him, then the cloning process happens to early and he and the clone live their lives independent of each other, i.e. the cloning process gave birth to a new person with the same mindset and looks as you, but not to you.
However one can argue that the cloning simply isn't sufficient identical then since the consciousness obviously weren't copied so it'd manifest in both bodies simultaneously.

[Tragak]

Before I continue what I find an interesting discussion, I'd need to know if it'd be at all acceptable to discuss this off topic matter here. I have no problem, should the Mods?

[jere7my]

Perhaps I shoul clarify; on Earth, if one were to somehow build an exact replica of a person - something with their exact memories, thought patterns, personality and other aspects - it would be that person's consciousness, in that if you made the replica then destroyed the original, the person wouldn't notice.

I think the point was that there are some billions of people on earth who believe the original would notice, because their consciousness would be moving on to the afterlife while their clone continued hanging out on earth. (There have been SF stories about exactly this—"What if transporters don't work quite the way we think?") If that's not your belief, that's cool, but quite a lot of people have quite a lot of different opinions on the subject.

[HanKhalifa]

This is why it's necessary to check out threads regardless of what the topic says. Folks will not always still be talking about the same thing. Interesting... I may weigh in later.

I actually find this arboreal seizure completely plausible. There's nothing about the corpse of "Girard" that has confirmed that it's actually him, which means that it could literally be anyone in order to throw potential intruders off the scent, but could possibly be another elder Draketooth. I find it entirely in keeping with what I know of him, especially the paranoia and illusions/trickery aspects of his character. Missing tattoo; simple illusion can fix that. And while there are only so many hairstyles, they do look similar enough, down to the facial hair, that it could potentially be a small hint for the readers to *facepalm* themselves over after the reveal. Anything else? Oh yeah, Familicide. Easy enough to avoid and/or Contingent Resurrect from if you're epic, I would imagine.

Personally, I believe he's probably alive and most likely will be interacted with directly by the Order, whether via spirit form or in the flesh.

[JBiddles]

^^ Setting spiritual belief aside for the moment, a purely physical interpretation is that an exact copy of a human, down to the last quark, is that same consciousness - if you could somehow destroy somebody and make a perfect copy at the exact same time, then they wouldn't notice. NB that nobody actually knows how consciousness works as yet, but that seems a reasonable guess. If you believe in a soul, then fine, but there is still some relationship between your brain and who you are (brain damage can affect your memories, for instance), even if the brain is only some form of "soul receiver".

In OotS land, the afterlife isn't about your faith or personal belief - its existence is not in doubt, it's just another plane, and you can pretty much pop over for tea. A person is definitely, empirically, demonstrably more than the arrangement of brain cells inside their skull. The question is whether they have any relationship at all.

I suppose the brain being a vestigial organ would explain why Serini ever wrote about the Gates in her diary :smalltongue:.

[BaronOfHell]

a purely physical interpretation is that an exact copy of a human, down to the last quark, is that same consciousness [...] but there is still some relationship between your brain and who you are (brain damage can affect your memories, for instance)
I agree that given the consciousness is defined in the brain (which I too think is a reasonable guess), then damaging the brain can change who "you" are.
It should also be noted that "you" from your viewpoint and from someone else's viewpoint is not the same. "You" from my viewpoint is defined through the interaction we've. So if an evil Warlord possessed your body, and robbed you of your free will, but decided to do only actions I'd expect of you, I couldn't tell the difference. So for someone not being you, what is you is defined through your actions.
However from your perspective, it certainly matters if "you" are inside the body which does the actions. Something someone from outside can't be certain of by observe through actions alone.


In OotS land [...]. A person is definitely, empirically, demonstrably more than the arrangement of brain cells inside their skull.

I think you're right, but I wouldn't say it's so for certain. A scenario could be that a specific configuration of brain cells create the "Roy Greenhilt" who's inside Roy's body and who "left his body" and "went to the afterlife".

Then the question is, how can he leave his body, when he needs his body to be in the first place? And here I'd like to go back to your example of a perfect copy, which can't tell the difference of it being destroyed and created under whatever required circumstances.

In that case, one can imagine that what the Gods did was to cast some kind of epic spell, which makes a perfect copy of what defines the "Roy Greenhilt" inside Roy Greenhilt's body in the moment this part of his body gets destroyed. It's not a perfect copy of his entire body, but it contains what is required for his unique existence to present itself within this other realm, in this alternative body which floats and looks like Roy, except it's somewhat intangible.

It's an unnecessary complication to try to explain how an afterlife can exist in a physical reality, but it's just to show that it's not impossible for these two to coexists.

Then on the moment of resurrection, just to complete the tangent, Roy's self is once again able to manifest itself within his body, and the body he used during the afterlife could e.g. (as it's somewhat intangible) be left within him, ready to bring him to the afterlife when needed, it could also simply be destroyed and re-created when appropriate, etc.

[JBiddles]

In that case, one can imagine that what the Gods did was to cast some kind of epic spell

For all intents and purposes, an Epic-magic brain simulation activated on death and reincorporated into the body on Resurrection is still a soul.

Even aside from that, though, we've further evidence of souls. Off the top of my head, when Kraagor was killed by the Snarl, the Order of the Scribble were awfully hurt by it - Serini falls down sobbing presumably weeks afterwards (they had time to build him a statue) and the party split, because if the Snarl gets you, you're toast, and even Epic magic can't bring you back. Contrast the treatment of Roy's death - Elan cries a little at the prospect of them being in separate afterlives, but he's fine because he knows the person that is "Roy Greenhilt" is fine, just on another plane. If there were an Epic person-replicating spell, that situation with the Scribblers wouldn't happen, because Kraagor would only be a True Resurrection away.

[BaronOfHell]

One should be careful when dealing with God's and God devouring beasts. While your example about Kraagor is probably correct, it's also possible that the Snarl has some effect preventing Kraagor from reappearing or maybe even more likely, Kraagor never perished, but were somehow blocked off from the world of the Scribble.

While I am not confident if the running gag with Blackwing is just a that, a running gag, or the effect of Blackwing coming close to the rift, it could mean that the rift may have affected Blackwingi somehow. Also notice how blackwing did not start speaking before after he'd looked into the rift. This is far out, but I don't think it's far out that there's more to the rifts than what we've been told.

You do make a very interesting point in regard to the reaction of deminse given a lack of afterlife. Is Roy crazy for having a committed relationship and maybe a future child with Celia who I believe he won't spend eternity with? Will Roy's reaction to Celia's demise be similar, but worse, to that demonstrated by the scribble to Kraagor's?


For all intents and purposes, an Epic-magic brain simulation activated on death and reincorporated into the body on Resurrection is still a soul.
It was an example to show how what we've observed could co-exists with the notion of a person not being more than an arrangement of brain cells inside their skull.
I know the example is far out due to unnecessary complexity, I just wanted to demonstrate it that a physical consciousness and a soul doesn't exclude one another.

[The Pilgrim]

Tell me that the "May the Twelve Gods forgive you if Azure City falls while under your rule, Hinjo" guy from the bottom of 414 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0414.html) (months before Familicide) does not look like our second-favorite Illusionist (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0693.html) (whose message was recorded decades before when Soon was still alive, and thus would not have white hair yet).

No, he does not.

[Belkar<3]

It is possible Girard lived on as a energy spirit or something of that sort. It would be ironic for him to be in the same incorporeal form as his enemy.

[Holy_Knight]

That would raise interesting questions about the nature of souls in OotS - if the Epic-illusion Girard clone was a perfect replica of his mind (memories, personality etc.) would it be him? In our world, yes, but in the OotS world, it might be a new soul produced, Girard's soul might inhabit the clone (I favour this - if an Epic characer hasn't found a creative way to cheat death they're not even trying) or just a "personality imprint."

^^ Setting spiritual belief aside for the moment, a purely physical interpretation is that an exact copy of a human, down to the last quark, is that same consciousness - ]if you could somehow destroy somebody and make a perfect copy at the exact same time, then they wouldn't notice[/B]. NB that nobody actually knows how consciousness works as yet, but that seems a reasonable guess. If you believe in a soul, then fine, but there is still some relationship between your brain and who you are (brain damage can affect your memories, for instance), even if the brain is only some form of "soul receiver".
It still wouldn't be the same person. This is clear from the fact that the process you describe can be conceived as operating without destroying the original person. What you would have is the original and a copy that believed itself to be the same person as the original. The copy is a copy regardless of whether the original is destroyed or not.

[BaronOfHell]

It still wouldn't be the same person. This is clear from the fact that the process you describe can be conceived as operating without destroying the original person. What you would have is the original and a copy that believed itself to be the same person as the original. The copy is a copy regardless of whether the original is destroyed or not.

That entirely depends on what exactly does happen. If we've two individuals not aware of each others reality, then you're right. If we've one individual experiencing reality through each body then you're wrong.

If consciousness is perceived as the definition of the unique you that receives information from the world through your senses and process these through your thoughts and memory, then if the same consciousness is in two different, not connected, bodies, it'd still be the same consciousness receiving information, now from two sources, where each source has its own tools of processing.

It can imply a lot of strange stuff, because existence itself does not necessarily come with the ability to reflect, so maybe one would observe both realities simultaneously, but be unable to be aware of this going on at the same time, or similar strangeness.

Edit: I mean there's no doubt that we exists, I observe so I must exist to observe, but it's anyone's own personal thing if they want to guess of this existence, this unique you, to be derived through a physical process within the body it experiences the world through, or be something more intangible. In my opinion, the only reasonable approach to understand this phenomena, is to assume it's indeed a physical process, in which case it can be re-expressed.

E.g. think about this, a person goes from not existing (death) to be alive through birth to then dying again. Is it not a bit far out claim to imagine that whatever process could turn someone from non-existence into existence (birth), wouldn't be able to happen again given the laws of physics?

[Peelee]

Not all considering to be alive would be somehow avoiding Familicide.



Is there such thing as an epic level illusion of yourself that is permanent and has all your memories and your personality? It'd be like backing yourself up onto the internet, only with an epic magic illusion spell instead.

Yes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/clone.htm). If you take out the "epic level" and "illusion" parts.

This doesn't seem like it would be out of line for Girard to have prepared (in a "I'm prepared for things!" way, not a "let me prepare my spells for the day" way), but if he died of old age, it wouldn't work anyway.

[Katuko]

That entirely depends on what exactly does happen. If we've two individuals not aware of each others reality, then you're right. If we've one individual experiencing reality through each body then you're wrong.

If consciousness is perceived as the definition of the unique you that receives information from the world through your senses and process these through your thoughts and memory, then if the same consciousness is in two different, not connected, bodies, it'd still be the same consciousness receiving information, now from two sources, where each source has its own tools of processing.

It can imply a lot of strange stuff, because existence itself does not necessarily come with the ability to reflect, so maybe one would observe both realities simultaneously, but be unable to be aware of this going on at the same time, or similar strangeness.

Edit: I mean there's no doubt that we exists, I observe so I must exist to observe, but it's anyone's own personal thing if they want to guess of this existence, this unique you, to be derived through a physical process within the body it experiences the world through, or be something more intangible. In my opinion, the only reasonable approach to understand this phenomena, is to assume it's indeed a physical process, in which case it can be re-expressed.

E.g. think about this, a person goes from not existing (death) to be alive through birth to then dying again. Is it not a bit far out claim to imagine that whatever process could turn someone from non-existence into existence (birth), wouldn't be able to happen again given the laws of physics?

I don't see why we should assume a clone becomes a "second body" for the original, no matter what "rule set" we go by. If we define a being as being just their body/brain build, then the two bodies are still separate. The consciousness exists in the brain, and with the brain changed/destroyed we change/destroy the being's perception and life. Making a perfect clone of me would in this case not make me perceive the world from its view, it would just make a new human being run around. I die, nothing happens to it. It dies, nothing happens to me.

If we do have a soul, then we have to start guessing, but it still seems like once a body dies, the soul is gone. We could call the body a unique car, and the soul the driver. Building a second car might allow the driver to jump into it and control it, perhaps. Maybe once a person has died and moved on to whatever afterlife, they could come back to drive again if we build a new, exact duplicate of their original body/car/"meat suit". I see no reason why a single soul would suddenly operate seamlessly through every body at once. If anything, I'd assume one body would be inert, soulless, until my soul was somehow freed to inhabit it.

Finally, we have the Order of the Stick / D&D rules. In these rules, there is a single soul. This soul is released from the body and goes on to an afterlife. If someone uses a Resurrection spell or makes a clone or something, the soul can be drawn back to either the same body it departed from, a brand new body created by the spell, or some empty body (like reincarnation or a phylactery or something) constructed for it. In any case, if you make a new body, the old one can not be resurrected to have the same soul. If you make a clone, it will not "share" the soul with the original. You will either get a separate construct or being (undead, "Roy" the bone golem), or you will have the soul pulled into a new body. No duplicates.


So yeah, in short: I see no reason why cloning would create a shared-soul experience. It would either make a new, independent being, or an inert shell ready to be inhabited.

[Procyonpi]

If Girard were to infiltrate the Azure nobles, he'd at least change his hairstyle.

[BaronOfHell]

In short, there's a unique "you". It's derived through processes within your body. If those processes are copied exactly, the unique "you" would re-emerge. If not there's something more to it, than simply processes within your body.

If you observe through two bodies, you get two observations. If not, it's not "you" in both bodies, but if the copy is completely identical, it'd make the consciousness something intangible from reality, or at least to what I'm imaging.


If anything, I'd assume one body would be inert, soulless, until my soul was somehow freed to inhabit it.
That's a possibility too, but it'd mean that whatever is required to express the soul, it can't be copied. E.g. in stead of imagining a clone of Roy, imagine a clone of Roy's soul. Is that Roy? If not it's not Roy's soul, but a different soul, but then it's certainly not a clone of Roy's soul.

Btw. I know it's very well possible that the consciousness could simply be the current interaction between neuron's, meaning that our existence now is not identical to our existence at any other time, and we only believe so due to memory and that'd explain why we don't observe all times at once, if one wants to go from the two location in space (bodies) example to two location in time example. But that could simply also be a misunderstanding on the mechanics of time.

It wouldn't make one consciousness two bodies impossible, but the two bodies might be forced to observe the exact same unchanging reality, forever, without knowing time has "stopped". But I find that view rather... unpleasant, and I prefer not to go too deep into it.

[veti]

If you observe through two bodies, you get two observations. If not, it's not "you" in both bodies, but if the copy is completely identical, it'd make the consciousness something intangible from reality, or at least to what I'm imaging.

In 1e AD&D, 'Clone' created a living, breathing copy of the original that was identical in every respect and lived at the same time. No suggestion of shared consciousness.

If I remember rightly, the rules said that if the original and the clone were aware of each other's existence, each would probably try to destroy the other, or go mad. But if they were kept unaware of each other, they could live quite independent lives. Presumably, in that case, they would start to diverge as they had different experiences.

In the SRD, somefoolone has added the idea of a 'soul' to the mix, and ruled that you can't have two bodies animated by the same soul. Seems pretty clear-cut. (Although it makes me wonder what happens if you clone someone who's undead...)

[BaronOfHell]

I believe that's identical from the perspective of others. For one self, it's pretty clear cut that one is oneself, and as such has a way to distinguish from the otherwise identical clone in your example (though not necessarily be able to tell which one is the clone).

For others, the usual way to determine who's whom is through actions, and if every action, including looks, etc., is identical, then it becomes impossible for others to distinguish between the two through this method. At least, like you say, for as long as the non-shared experience doesn't start to add up.

[Katuko]

That's a possibility too, but it'd mean that whatever is required to express the soul, it can't be copied. E.g. in stead of imagining a clone of Roy, imagine a clone of Roy's soul. Is that Roy? If not it's not Roy's soul, but a different soul, but then it's certainly not a clone of Roy's soul.
I contest that statement. It is a clone by virtue of being an exact copy. Being a clone does not mean that it actually is the original by definition of the word. A clone of Roy's Soul can certainly be The Copy of Roy's Soul, even if by necessity the two are from then on mutually exclusive in any of their experiences.

True, it is not Roy's Original Soul. It's The Copy of Roy's Soul. It's not Original!Roy, it will never be Original!Roy, and Original!Roy will never perceive it as such, since it came into being and continues to exist independently of him. Still, it something that can conceivably be called "Roy". For all intents and purposes, Clone!Roy is Roy, and believes himself to be Roy, and would live as if he was Roy so long as the two never knew of each other. If Original!Roy was dead, and Clone!Roy was created to fill his space, it would likely do so unless it was informed of its status as a clone.

This is a well-known concept known on TV Tropes as the "Tomato In The Mirror" event, or also "Cloning Blues". A horror idea is a world where teleportation is used commonly... but since teleporting involves breaking a person's atoms apart and then recreating the body at the other end, what arrives in the teleporter is not Original!Roy, but rather Clone!Roy, believing himself to be the original. In this case, Original!Roy would experience death the moment he teleported, while the rest of the world is clueless. A nicer outlook simply has the person's Soul follow the reconstructed body as if it was the original one. This is the version commonly seen in every media with teleports. No harm to the user.

In reality, though, I think teleportation and such would be of the horror kind. Kills the user by deconstructing every part of its being (without the creators realizing this), then creates a clone at the receiving end. A scary thought.

If Original!Roy and Clone!Roy were to meet, the differences in perception would become immediately apparent. Maybe their thoughts would go the same way, maybe they would instantly know what the other would be thinking. But they would do so out of prediction of their own actions and memory, not due to any shared bond between souls or such things. The idea of a soul is that it is something unique, something that exists even after your body perishes. With the idea of a soul in mind, us making a clone of a body should not copy or transfer the soul. Without the idea of a soul, a clone is still just a clone.

Only if we somehow exists as beings capable of transcending both our bodily containers and the idea of a unique soul can we really become such a "dual" being. I think most atheists (like me) and religious people alike would dismiss the idea of a soul being able to be copied and then exist as the same being. Like you say, a copy of a soul is a copy of a soul, not the original. I will, however, contest that a copy of the soul should be called "not a copy" just because it isn't the original; since "clone" just means something akin to "exact copy". It does not imply the copy to actually be the original.

[rodneyAnonymous]

If you are a complete materialist, and I am, the two people would be the same the moment you duplicate one, but then they'd immediately begin to diverge. Identical twins but diverging since the "clone" instead of since the embryonic cell division that separated them.