Support NeoGAF

Mama Robotnik · May 9, 2010

(I really enjoyed the responses to the "So say the holodeck was invented..." thread, so please humour me)

So say the matter-transporter from Star Trek was invented.

Its cheap to run, reliable and easy to mass-produce. You can be beamed to anywhere on the planet, and beamed back at your convenience. You can have one fitted in your home. Everyone assures you it is safe. Would you use it?

Consider the two opposing arguments:

Argument 1: When you use the transporter, a copy is being made (with identical memories of the original) and the original is destroyed. The copy that arrives at its destination is indistinguishable from the original, and believes itself to be the original.

Argument 2: When you beam, your matter is converted to energy and reconstructed at its intended destination. You are as original as ever.

Would you use it?

My response : HELL NO.

Zenith · May 9, 2010

No, no and no. A COPY IS NOT THE ORIGINAL. I was relieved when I saw it mentioned in The Big Bang Theory so I'm not the only who's spotted this glaring flaw in digitising matter.

This is even reinforced in Star Trek where they make two Commander Rikers. Even replicator technology is based off of transporter tech. It only goes down to molecular resolution instead of sub-atomic which is why the patterns don't occupy the entire computer memory (see DS9 holodeck/transporter malfunction) and why replomat food isn't as good as the real deal.

Puddles · May 9, 2010

No. Pretty sure that using one of those would end your consciousness forever. A copy would exist, but it wouldn't be you.

Megadragon15 · May 9, 2010

Star Trek: The Motion Picture is all that needs to be said.

user_nat · May 10, 2010

Heck yeah.

Even better if I get a slightly more evil twin because the original doesn't get killed (somehow this makes the copy more evil). Always wanted an evil twin, makes me look better.

Sure there is a chance of becoming slightly younger, or even turning into some hybrid with someone else and a plant. Could even be stuck in a dream where you can walk through walls but not floors.

Getting to work 15 minutes faster would be worth all that risk.

Medalion · May 10, 2010

Tralfamadore64 · May 10, 2010

Megadragon15 said:
Star Trek: The Motion Picture is all that needs to be said.

Fucking aye. All ethical concerns aside, I don't want to be melted.

WanderingWind · May 10, 2010

Hell yes. No commute for me, baby!

Also, I could do that thing where Scotty rigged one to act as a stasis chamber and live forever.

Nemo · May 10, 2010

Uh yeah? I'm not a Star Trek fan but those opposing arguments hardly seem to hold any merit.

Onemic · May 10, 2010

user_nat said:
Heck yeah.

Even better if I get a slightly more evil twin because the original doesn't get killed (somehow this makes the copy more evil). Always wanted an evil twin, makes me look better.

Sure there is a chance of becoming slightly younger, or even turning into some hybrid with someone else and a plant. Could even be stuck in a dream where you can walk through walls but not floors.

Getting to work 15 minutes faster would be worth all that risk.

You do know that just the copy and not the original, being you, would come out of the other end right?

adg1034 · May 10, 2010

We'd need to combine the Trek transporter with Dollhouse's consciousness-plucking technology before I'd get anywhere near it. I like living, and even the tiniest chance of my own personal consciousness winking out of existence is unacceptable. Duplicate body? No problem. Duplicate mind? Fuck no.

user_nat · May 10, 2010

onemic said:
You do know that just the copy and not the original, being you, would come out of the other end right?

If the copy thinks that they are the original.. does it matter?

WanderingWind · May 10, 2010

onemic said:
You do know that just the copy and not the original, being you, would come out of the other end right?

Unless you're religious, I fail to see how this is a problem.

Even if you are, it's still a pretty sweet deal.

elrechazado · May 10, 2010

if it's good enough for picard it's good enough for me.

Megadragon15 · May 10, 2010

Another problem that The Fly (1986) seemed to deal with is how would a machine interpret two separate organisms who beam at the same time in the same beam.

Gaborn · May 10, 2010

I'd probably wait for a few years for it to be thoroughly tested on a mass scale, but yes.

adg1034 · May 10, 2010

user_nat said:
If the copy thinks that they are the original.. does it matter?

In the grand scheme of things? Nope. Life will go on. To you, personally? Your consciousness will cease to exist upon being transported. The resulting transportee will look like you, talk like you, have your memories, personality, etc, but won't actually be you. You will have effectively died. Actually, you will effectively have been cloned. Cloned you will go on living, while original you will not.

teruterubozu · May 10, 2010

Beam Me Up, Scotty!

Onemic · May 10, 2010

WanderingWind said:
Unless you're religious, I fail to see how this is a problem.

Even if you are, it's still a pretty sweet deal.

Wait what?

Why don't you just blow your brains out then?

If the copy thinks that they are the original.. does it matter?

sure, but you are dead, so yes it does matter.

Shanadeus · May 10, 2010

Nope, I don't want this stream of consciousness to end.

EmCeeGramr · May 10, 2010

WanderingWind said:
Unless you're religious, I fail to see how this is a problem.

Even if you are, it's still a pretty sweet deal.

Because the real you would be dead and a copy who has your memories would be living your life.

DrForester · May 10, 2010

Medalion said:

fixed

Tesseract · May 10, 2010

no one cares about the man in the box, the man who disappears.

NekoFever · May 10, 2010

Megadragon15 said:
Another problem that The Fly (1986) seemed to deal with is how would a machine interpret two separate organisms who beam at the same time in the same beam.

The machine in that movie could recognise the two organisms, as shown when Brundle was trying to work out what had happened. He just hadn't thought to put any safety protocols in there for that eventuality.

Of course, no mention was made of the innumerable microscopic organisms that would have been in the air and on the pods in his apartment. But half-man, half-bacteria isn't as exciting.

WanderingWind · May 10, 2010

EmCeeGramr said:
Because the real you would be dead and a copy who has your memories would be living your life.

But why should that matter? Again, unless you believe in a soul (I'm not debating this point one way or the other) then your consciousness is just a collection of your memories and experiences.

It'd be like downloading an mp3 into a new iPod. Nothing is lost.

speculawyer · May 10, 2010

elrechazado · May 10, 2010

WanderingWind said:
But why should that matter? Again, unless you believe in a soul (I'm not debating this point one way or the other) then your consciousness is just a collection of your memories and experiences.

It'd be like downloading an mp3 into a new iPod. Nothing is lost.

Exactly. Unless you believe the self is something more than the chemical memory and combination of cells, then what's the problem?

Zophar · May 10, 2010

Puddles said:
No. Pretty sure that using one of those would end your consciousness forever. A copy would exist, but it wouldn't be you.

The matter that composes you is 99% empty space. Your consciousness is, in all likelihood, and illusion generated by your brain. Freaked out yet?

To blow your mind further, understand this: There isn't a single atom in your body that was there even 10 years ago. You are, in a physical sense, quite literally something different from what you were born as.

Anyway, as O'Brien put it, transporters are the safest way to travel. So sure, I'd give it a whirl.

Zenith · May 10, 2010

Teetris said:
Uh yeah? I'm not a Star Trek fan but those opposing arguments hardly seem to hold any merit.

I don't think you quite grasp the technicals or metaphysics.

You are scanned by the computer and all your cells are broken down and converted into digital information (the transporter pattern). You are dead. The database or "map" of all the atoms in your body, complete with their precise locations and vectors, is stored on a big harddrive (the pattern buffer in ST's case). It is transmitted digitially to another computer in another location. This computer now reads the transporter pattern and manufactures the matter so an exact duplicate is created (like a replicator does). It is identical to you in every single way, but it is not you. This duplicate will go on to experience life and react exactly the way you would. But it won't be you experiencing it, it'll be the duplicate. You will be dead.

To put it another way, imagine if the person somehow arrived at their destination before they were broken down. Would the person standing waiting to be broken down be experiencing what their duplicate at their destination is? Of course not. This is what happened with Riker. His pattern was duplicated just like any software can be. He didn't experience what his original (Thomas) did and vice versa. Why would they? Completely separate brains in completely separate bodies.

edit:

If the copy thinks that they are the original.. does it matter?

If a copy of you walked in right now, would you be happy to just off yourself and let the copy take over?

Onemic · May 10, 2010

user_nat · May 10, 2010

onemic said:
sure, but you are dead, so yes it does matter.

But as far as you are concerned, nothing has happened. Apart from travelling some distance in a short time.

Would someone be able to just randomly transport whoever/whatever they wanted to wherever? Because I can see that causing problems to society.

krae_man · May 10, 2010

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6vYKJerstg

WanderingWind · May 10, 2010

onemic said:
You don't need to believe in a soul to know that you would be dead if you used the device.

You may want to take some time to examine your beliefs, if you think this.

XiaNaphryz · May 10, 2010

Mama Robotnik said:
Consider the two opposing arguments:

Argument 1: When you use the transporter, a copy is being made (with identical memories of the original) and the original is destroyed. The copy that arrives at its destination is indistinguishable from the original, and believes itself to be the original.

Argument 2: When you beam, your matter is converted to energy and reconstructed at its intended destination. You are as original as ever.

Would you use it?

My response : HELL NO.

In Star Trek canon, Argument 1 was early transporter tech. Argument 2 is what transporters eventually became from TOS forward. People shouldn't have an issue with the later version.

Shanadeus · May 10, 2010

elrechazao said:
Exactly. Unless you believe the self is something more than the chemical memory and combination of cells, then what's the problem?

Zophar said:
The matter that composes you is 99% empty space. Your consciousness is, in all likelihood, and illusion generated by your brain. Freaked out yet?

Anyway, as O'Brien put it, transporters are the safest way to travel. So sure, I'd give it a whirl.

WanderingWind said:
But why should that matter? Again, unless you believe in a soul (I'm not debating this point one way or the other) then your consciousness is just a collection of your memories and experiences.

It'd be like downloading an mp3 into a new iPod. Nothing is lost.

Except, you know, I am lost, transporters have a 100% death rate in my view so I wouldn't classify it as the safest way of traveling.

And I do not define myself as my consciousness (the sum of my thoughts, memories and feelings), I define myself as the current line or stream my consciousness is currently following - a rather rough metaphor but it describes my position pretty good. And the moment I would use this transported, my stream of consciousness would end and a new stream would be created at location be - which while it wouldn't bother me after the transport would definitely be something I'd try to avoid to any price before any transportation.

I'd definitely use a teleporter or digitally upload my mind if the alternative was death, but it's nothing

To blow your mind further, understand this: There isn't a single atom in your body that was there even 10 years ago. You are, in a physical sense, quite literally something different from what you were born as.

Right, but my atoms haven't all been replaced at the same time. There's always been some form of continuity - or a stream if you so want.

Zenith · May 10, 2010

WanderingWind said:
You may want to take some time to examine your beliefs, if you think this.

It's not a question of belief, philosophy or even debate. It's either you grasp what transmitting matter digitally entails, or you don't. Simple as.

Mama Robotnik · May 10, 2010

I envision this scenario:

The device takes off, people who use it claim they are as much themselves after the beam as they were before. They don't feel like copies, ergo they are not copies.

It becomes more popular. The air industry collpases as people can get anywhere cheaply and instantly. Its military and security applications are staggering and it becomes a compulsory clause in certain lines of work.

The metaphysics argument, as terrifying as it is, is ignored as people find it convenient and eventually cannot imagine life without it.

Eventually, a society develops in which billions are killing themselves everyday, while their copies are living on.

(Note - this horror story is what is happening in Star Trek's 'utopia')

jett · May 10, 2010

Zenith said:
If a copy of you walked in right now, would you be happy to just off yourself and let the copy take over?

This.

Sometimes gaffers surprise me with the new levels of idiocy they reach.

Hasphat'sAnts · May 10, 2010

WanderingWind said:
You may want to take some time to examine your beliefs, if you think this.

Put it this way, if a clone of me with my memories is having sex with Scarlett Johansson this very moment, it doesn't benefit the version of me that's the loser posting on GAF.

WanderingWind · May 10, 2010

Zenith said:
It's not a question of belief, philosophy or even debate. It's either you grasp what transmitting matter digitally entails, or you don't. Simple as.

When I send an email, it arrives in the same state in which I typed it.

Hasphat6462 said:
Put it this way, if a clone of me with my memories is having sex with Scarlett Johansson this very moment, it doesn't benefit the version of me that's the loser posting on GAF.

Except that would be you. Not the you that was transmitted, but you all the same.

Shanadeus · May 10, 2010

Mama Robotnik said:
I envision this scenario:

The device takes off, people who use it claim they are as much themselves after the beam as they were before. They don't feel like copies, ergo they are not copies.

It becomes more popular. The air industry collpases as people can get anywhere cheaply and instantly. Its military and security applications are staggering and it becomes a compulsory clause in certain lines of work.

The metaphysics argument, as terrifying as it is, is ignored as people find it convenient and eventually cannot imagine life without it.

Eventually, a society develops in which billions are killing themselves everyday, while their copies are living on.

(Note - this horror story is what is happening in Star Trek's 'utopia')

And I don't even believe there's anything horrific about that, people have different views of what constitute their being - as they are entitled to. If they think that they don't die when they use the transporter then it's their business, I would raise these arguments against it still so that I wouldn't end up in a society where I pretty much have to use the transporter.

Escape Goat · May 10, 2010

Think of how easy it would be to kill people? Just beam their ass out of their home and into traffic.

Shanadeus · May 10, 2010

WanderingWind said:
When I send an email, it arrives in the same state in which I typed it.

Except that would be you. Not the you that was transmitted, but you all the same.

When you send a mail, a duplicate arrive at the destination looking exactly the same as the original.
That wouldn't be you. Not the you that was destroyed, but you all the same.

Teh Hamburglar said:
Think of how easy it would be to kill people? Just beam their ass out of their home and into traffic.

Or just don't create a copy of them at the end destination, a teleporter would function great as a disintegrator.

Gaborn · May 10, 2010

adg1034 said:
In the grand scheme of things? Nope. Life will go on. To you, personally? Your consciousness will cease to exist upon being transported. The resulting transportee will look like you, talk like you, have your memories, personality, etc, but won't actually be you. You will have effectively died. Actually, you will effectively have been cloned. Cloned you will go on living, while original you will not.

Descartes hypothesized that the world might be instantly destroyed and recreated at every moment that we experience, so it's at least possible that this is already happening.

WanderingWind · May 10, 2010

Shanadeus said:
When you send a mail, a duplicate arrive at the destination looking exactly the same as the original.
That wouldn't be you. Not the you that was destroyed, but you all the same.

Nah, it'd still be you. Nothing changes from point A to B, save the location of your matter. There is nothing lost.

Escape Goat · May 10, 2010

Shanadeus said:
When you send a mail, a duplicate arrive at the destination looking exactly the same as the original.
That wouldn't be you. Not the you that was destroyed, but you all the same.

Or just don't create a copy of them at the end destination, a teleporter would function great as a disintegrator.

Thats not nearly as satisfying.

/creepy serial killer

Shanadeus · May 10, 2010

WanderingWind said:
Nah, it'd still be you. Nothing changes from point A to B, save the location of your matter. There is nothing lost.

Yes, it'd still be you. But creature A that existed at point A would be lost, while creature B with the exact same contents of creature A would be created at point B.
Creature A is lost.

Descartes hypothesized that the world might be instantly destroyed and recreated at every moment that we experience, so it's at least possible that this is already happening.

And there's not much I can do about such an situation, what I can do though is avoid using a teleporter which will with full certainty destroy this running process that at the moment is typing this post.

EmCeeGramr · May 10, 2010

WanderingWind said:
When I send an email, it arrives in the same state in which I typed it.

...no it doesn't. It's information copied to a database that your computer retrieves and processes for you. Do you think that the e-mail is somehow physically moving along the wires?

Do you think a fax machine sends an actual piece of paper across space?

Raging Spaniard · May 10, 2010

Fuck no Im not letting my atoms be reorganized, fuck that!

Onemic · May 10, 2010

WanderingWind said:
Except that would be you. Not the you that was transmitted, but you all the same.

So this is what we're arguing then? smh

Support NeoGAF

So say the Star Trek transporter was invented. Would you use it?

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

THE WORDS! They'll drift away without the _!

Banned

Banned

Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper

Will Eat Your Children

Member

Member

THE WORDS! They'll drift away without the _!

Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Kills Photobucket

Banned

Member

Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

THE WORDS! They'll drift away without the _!

Member

Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper

LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT

Banned

Banned

Member

D-Member

Member

Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper

Member

Banned

Member

If they are Dutch, upright and breathing they are more racist than your favorite player

Member

Similar threads