Not Night-of-the-Living-Dead zombies, my fine Cardiffian friend, philosophical zombies! They may have no more basis in reality, but perhaps they are a bit more logical—and I hear they are more socially acceptable at dinner parties.
And, as for arbitrarily labeling, I must heartily disagree. On the surface, I admit, my bone of contention, does seem to be nothing more than semantic shenanigans between the generic you and the specific “you”, but I assure you that it’s not. I simply believe that the diametrically opposed answers that we gave with regard to the question I posed 4 years ago, represents 2 philosophy of the mind sub-models, that, though seemingly minor, in actuality have quite divergent and profound implications. At least, I think so.
If I may paraphrase and condense the thought experiment question that was posed, and your answer to it, it was essentially:
*You’re told that an exact duplicate of yourself will be made in 10 minutes and this duplicate will be given $1-million. Only one of you may survive post-duplication and you (the original you being asked the question) must decide which one lives. Assumptions: you like money; you’re not suicidal; you appeal to logic, not emotion. *
(The original question involved black socks on the original and I believe 3 duplicates, #1 receiving the $1-million dollars. SentientMeat chose the duplicate with the money):
(SM, let me know if you believe your answer does not reflect your opinion on the question as rewritten above, I believe they are essentially the same).
I chose the original “me” to live.
The debate that followed involved appeals to occam’s razor; unique and continuous consciousness vs. stop and go consciousness dragging along memories; questions about the permanency of CNS cells…and much else. Things got a bit off track, but it was an interesting 280 post thread, in my opinion.
At least we now both agree that there is some permanence at the atomic level of the CNS (though apparently we don’t agree on its significance with regard to self awareness…yet).
I believe my premise is more logical; you believe yours is more logical. I think both models comply with a materialistic worldview, and either (or neither) may be correct. It’s just an odds thing, really. While proof either way is not at hand, and, both, I believe, qualify as non-falsifiable, all we really can expect to do, through debate, is shift each other’s % conviction of correctness one way or the other. I admit, that I had a significant shift of conviction in the correctness of my model (a hearty 75% in the beginning), as a result of our prior debate. However, through sheer will and logic, you and Mangetout managed to shrink my conviction of correctness down to a paltry 74%…so, there you go, I’m open to new ideas and willing to renegotiate my belief system as needed. 
Anyway, despite the long debate, eventual exasperation on both sides and, ultimately, no conversion of allegiance at hand…I still believe there is something lurking beneath the surface of this thought experiment that has not yet been revealed, is not arbitrary, and is worthwhile to explore. (A 500lb gorilla sitting in your skull). I feel we came close to debating that which needs exploration, but as a quark is to a proton, we just didn’t get down to the right level. I’ll put the blame on myself for being unable to fully express the problem as I perceive it (and I think you may perceive it too, at times, when self-contemplation beholds you). It’s a very fleeting perception that I find quite hard to hold on to, let alone adequately express. It’s a position that needs to be backed in to, one formulated more by exclusion and of paradox avoidance.
So, after a rethinking of approach, I now believe we just need a slightly re-worked thought experiment, one with a third choice, followed by analysis and debate! So as not to hijack this thread any longer, I’ll start a new one…pretty soon, when I get something typed up.
SentientMeat, your participation in the new thread will be, as always, welcome. However, I suspect your time may be as constrained as mine these days, so whatever you can contribute will be appreciated. In fact, I really just plan to post the new thought experiment, followed by a little analysis, then read what choices and arguments others make.