It's still an unrealistic hypothetical, but I know what you're getting at. I would say yes, because we are more than just neurons and chemicals. As two separate entities, these two hypothetical people are indubitably seeing life from two distinct vantage points because they are in unarguably different spatial relation to the stimulus.

Just for a little bit of explanation. "Physicalism" is the position that claims physical existence is all there is. Everything can be explained by mindless molecules and chemical neural events, and all perception of reality is governed by the laws of neurobiology. But if this is the case, I believe that reason, volition, and even language are suspect. Reason necessitates considering unique paths of cause and effect, possibilities, plausibilities, and even nonsense. I believe that determinism is reductionistic. Reason requires dynamic neuronal processes including not just data processing, but also social-relational processes and an assessment of possibilities and probabilities. As such, deterministic neural connections are inadequate to explain the capabilities and functioning of the brain. And since language is effective only if it is endowed with meaning, and meaning is non-material (neither matter nor energy), the essence of meaning is entirely distinct from both energy and matter. Language therefore demands a non-material source, since it is impossible that the meaning of language has a material cause. The laws of chemistry and physics offer no clue whatsoever that matter can assign meaning or otherwise deal with meaning at even the most rudimentary level. Atoms cannot assign meaning to meaningless symbols to form vocabulary or to give meaning to vocabulary. Therefore I conclude that high-level conscious thought, including free will, is non-reducible to mere neural activity.

Therefore it is entirely possible that two people, despite their identicalness as outlined in your hypothetical, are separate entities with distinct spatial perspectives, distinct consciousness, given the dynamic nature of neuronal possibilities, and therefore capable of unique reactions to the exact same stimuli.

Then let me change my thought experiment into a more specific question: Could two people with exactly the same brains in exactly the same neurophysiological state act differently given the exact same stimuli?

I think your thought experiment is a bit contrived, but I think I'll bite anyway. If I am correct (and I wouldn't suggest this if I thought I were remembering wrong), geneticists have claimed that even if they were to create a clone of Abraham Lincoln or Albert Einstein from their own DNA, that we would not necessarily be guaranteeing we'd get another Abe or Albert. People are more than just their physicality (their genes), and you can't just reduce them to synapses and chemicals. Brains and personalities, values and morals, develop based on many factors: genetic makeup, upbringing, experiences, environment, relationships, and chance factors.

But your hypothetical specified, "...and immediately after that." While I'd like to comment, it's too contrived to contribute to the discussion.

> the idea that we get to choose choose what we believe, at least in some cases

I thought about it a bit, and I think this is definitely a crucial issue and fundamental to Christianity, this notion of choosing to believe in Jesus in order to be saved. In the end it'll probably boil down to free will, but first I want to fully understand your position. Consider the following thought experiment: If I created a perfect clone of you and immediately after that presented evidence for some claim to both of you, could you be convinced to a different degree?

> Do you think this is an important disagreement because it plays a role in how we get from evidence to conviction and belief, or do you think it's a superficial one?

I think it's important, but I'm not sure it's resolvable.

> It seems to me that if we both had the exact same evidence presented to us, consisting of everything that could possibly be important to know, we should be convinced to exactly the same degree that the claim in question is true or not.

There's a new discovery. One archaeologist thinks the item at hand may be a ritual spoon like hammer used to create musical tones for the gods. Another may think it's a part of a system of weights and measures for fair business trade. They're both trying to be objective, weighing the evidences at hand, but arriving at completely different conclusions. For many years there were debates about what caused the aurora borealis. There are still many hypotheses about the nature of dark matter, the way life began, and the existence of extra-terrestrial life, even though we have the same evidence at hand.

Juridically, there are still disagreements about OJ Simpson's guilt or innocence, who killed JonBenet Ramsey, and what really happened to JFK and RFK. We all have exactly the same evidence consisting of everything that could be important to know, and yet we arrive at different conclusions. To me this bolsters the idea that we get to choose what we believe, at least in some cases.

Do you think this is an important disagreement because it plays a role in how we get from evidence to conviction and belief, or do you think it's a superficial one? It seems to me that if we both had the exact same evidence presented to us, consisting of everything that could possibly be important to know, we should be convinced to exactly the same degree that the claim in question is true or not.

What I'm asserting is that our knowledge and ability to decide is not an all-or-nothing proposition, all the time and in every situation. It matters what the subject is. Our experiences and previous decisions factor into these things. Sometimes we are able to decide outright (Do I believe Harris's tweet that Judge Kavanaugh is a misogynist), sometimes our decisions are part of a long chain of decisions and are influenced by previous decision (the veracity of human contribution to global warming), and sometimes our decisions are completely outside of our control (that the earth is round).

It seems that your statement ("As I see it...") is a fair summary of our disparate positions. You seem to think nothing is within our control to decide, and I think that some things are.

I'm not sure I totally get what you're saying. Do you think the following is an accurate summary of our disagreement? : As I see it, people are slaves of their rational or irrational mind and have no control over the degree to which they find a particular evidence convincing. You seem to suggest that at least in part we can control that because, as you said, "Skepticism and evaluation of evidence often pertain to our experiences, worldview (that has been formed by our experiences and cognitive decisions through the years), cognitive environment, and cultural context. Some of these things I decide along the way and then they become part of me."

You are wrong on every count.

1. These arguments are not riddled with logical fallacies. They are carefully crafted arguments that are both strong and plausible, and also carry more weight than the refutations. While they are not airtight arguments, they are strong, and their cumulative effect creates a formidable argument for the veracity of theism.

2, 3, 4, & 5. A "God of the gaps" argument states that we don't know such things now, but we can assume that what we do know is enough to fill in the holes in the argument so that we can assume the credibility of the conclusion. These arguments (God makes sense of abstract entities, the origin of the universe, complex order, and objective moral values), but contrast, are not "God of the gaps" arguments bur rather abductive reasoning, using premises to infer plausibility by weight of argument.

6. You are guilty of reductionism is you claim the only evidence for the resurrection is in the Bible. It is indisputable sociologically and culturally that a new religion arose right in the core and capital city of Judaism that was completely different from Judaism (Trinity, no priests, no temple, no sacrifices, no circumcision, no Sabbath). Neither the empty tomb by itself nor the appearances by themselves could have generated the early Christian belief. The empty tomb alone would be a puzzle and a tragedy. Sightings of an apparently alive Jesus, by themselves, would have been classified as visions or hallucinations, which were well enough known in the ancient world. However, an empty tomb and appearances of a living Jesus, taken together, would have presented a powerful reason for the emergence of the belief.

7. You're right, it's not. But given its historical, archaeological, cultural, and geographical reliability, we have to give an honest appraisal of the theological claims it makes. And taken with the other 12 items on the list, it becomes a source of credibility for the truth of Christianity.

8 & 9. Of course they are not, but personal testimonies can have quite a bit of truth and reliability to them if we can establish that the source (the person) is credible. Personal testimony is admissible in court under penalty of perjury. Its strength depends on the reliability of the source. In our culture we use personal testimony in journalism (what the secret mole says about in the inside dynamics of the Trump administration, what Omorosa says happened in staff meetings, what Strzok says was going on inside the FBI, etc.) and in court (the calling of witnesses to speak of evidences not available through the sciences). Personal testimonies can be valid contributions to the God debate.

10. This is not a God of the gaps argument but rather a personal opinion, in my analysis and observations.

11. This is true, but we must subject such worldviews to evidentiary analysis. By my assessments, Christianity squares best and tells an honest and accurate story. This is not a science experiment, but a response to the question that was asked: "What methodology can be used to determine your god is the right one?" I was giving my list of why I consider Christianity to be true. This item (#11) is a legitimate reason in answer to that question.

12. Whether or not these require a god is a matter for discussion. Many have argued, I think successfully, that they honestly do require a god. These are much longer discussions, however, and cannot be handled in the scope of one post.

13. Of course you can say the same for Christianity, and apparently you do, based on your toss-off list here. That's OK. You are entitled to your analysis and conclusion. I, obviously, differ, based on the list of the other 12 items.

1. Riddled with logical fallacies

2. God of the gaps

3. God of the gaps

4. God of the gaps

5. God of the gaps

6. The only evidence for the resurrection is in the bible

7. The bible is not valid evidence for proving a god.

8. Personal testimonies are not valid evidence for proving a god.

9. Personal testimonies are not valid evidence for proving a god.

10. God of the gaps.

11. So does any other religion within their own wordlview.

12. Those things do not necessarily require a god.

13. I can say the same for christianity.