Existence must exist at all times.

[bennyboy]

4) I agree. But that is exactly my question. Is there something about Bob which remains continuous while other things change and which allows us to rationally say it is still Bob? Either Bob is a "thing" (a "whatever-he-is") that is changing, or Bob is not "a" thing at all. The latter seems a bit too absurd for me.

It must not be forgotten that "Bob" the word is a label. It's the word we use to represent the "whatever-he-is," and it doesn't matter if there is a philosophical continuity from moment to moment or not. Let's say Bob secretly stepped into a quantum teleporter, such that the "new Bob" was exactly identical to the old one, but had completely new particles. There's a complete discontinuity in a physical sense, but he's still going to fart in the office and never replace the toner when he's supposed to. For me, the label "Bob" is perfectly fine.

7) Exactly. Not only do we experience coherence and continuity, but others also observe the same sort of coherence and continuity IN US. Are we both deluded?

I perceive geometric flatness in my desk. However, upon inspection under a microscope, there's no such thing. Is my desk not really flat?

9) Maybe just a semantics thing, but wouldn't this mean that plants are not "beings"?

I wouldn't call a plant a being, personally, unless I knew it to be sentient.

10) I don't buy into the Cartesian/Enlightenment conception of the soul which is what you describe as "at the core". The first part of your sentence is, ironically, very close to the classical/platonic/aristotelian/thomistic conception of the sensitive soul which is much more like an "idea/form" than a "supernatural" pilot of the body. Maybe your reluctance to entertain the concept of a soul is colored by this more modern conception?

I dunno. I don't think I've read enough for that to be true.

11) Indeed. Seems like an important question to consider, IF death is not the end, no? The question is not if you HAVE a soul. The question is "What are 'you'?" IF you are a unified and identifiable "thing", then, despite your continuous changes, 'you' continue as-that-thing. If you continue as-that-thing, then it may be important to ask, "Do I continue as-that-thing after death?" Maybe yes, maybe no. Just a thought.

Well, when I'm in deep sleep, I'm still a thing, but not in any way that I much care about. I define myself by my capacity for experience. So unless my soul can grow a new body, and be engaged in a new world full of interesting things with which to interact, it doesn't matter much.

Even if there IS something like a soul, I think it's more likely that it would dissipate upon death and "melt" back into that universal soul, than that it would continue on as Benjamin, with memories of first kisses, favorite things to talk about, what it's like to drink hot chocolate, etc. And it is THOSE things which I'm interested in-- those details of this worldly life which I've invested myself in.

[Edwardo Piet]

Just so I understand you correctly:

Suppose I lose my memory/psychological continuity permanently:

As a subject (in the context of my own experience of "me"), I would have lost my "self-ness".

Yes.

As an object (in the context of your experience of "me"), you would describe "me" as a different object than the one before the memory loss, or the same object?

Same object; different subject.

Same human; different person.

Same body; different self.