Support NeoGAF

[WanderingWind]

...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?

...seriously? Don't be obtuse. The information that is typed arrives exactly the same way.

Go download a car. :lol

 

[jett]

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

It would be a copy of you. Not you. You would be fucking DEAD. That is, according to "Arguement 1".

How is this so hard to understand?

 

[EmCeeGramr]

...seriously? Don't be obtuse. The information that is typed arrives exactly the same way.

Go download a car. :lol

If I had a 3D printer I could. Which is what a teleporter essentially is.

 

[WanderingWind]

It would be a copy of you. Not you. You would be fucking DEAD. That is, according to "Arguement 1".

How is this so hard to understand?

How is it so hard to understand that everything that made you "you" would still exist exactly as it always had? Meaning nothing was lost. Meaning, not dead.

 

[Shanadeus]

...seriously? Don't be obtuse. The information that is typed arrives exactly the same way.

Go download a car. :lol

And you defining your existence with such loose parameters isn't really a big issue, others just have narrower definitions.

How is it so hard to understand that everything that made you "you" would still exist exactly as it always had? Meaning nothing was lost. Meaning, not dead.

There is a person at point A, he is destroyed and "die" as the teleporter deconstruct all his atoms and note down where each individual atom and electron is relative to each others. Then this teleporter create a person using this blueprint of what the person at point A "was" at point B. Being A that stepped into the teleporter at ceased to exist while being B was created at point B with the exact same consciousness that being A possessed prior to destruction.

 

[Harpuia]

The clone thing is pretty creepy to me. So I say nope.

 

[Medalion]

]

 

[jett]

How is it so hard to understand that everything that made you "you" would still exist exactly as it always had? Meaning nothing was lost. Meaning, not dead.

Still a copy. Original still dead. dead dead dead dead.

 

[Zophar]

If I had a 3D printer I could. Which is what a teleporter essentially is.

Trek makes a point to say that it's the exact same bits of matter being whisked away to the receiving end that were deconstructed at the source, so it's not quite analogous to a fax machine. So is it really a copy? The brain patterns probably would be.

 

[WanderingWind]

Still a copy. Original still dead. dead dead dead dead.

Nope. Not dead dead dead dead.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

Trek makes a point to say that it's the exact same bits of matter being whisked away to the receiving end that were deconstructed at the source, so it's not quite analog to a fax machine. R

We were talking about situation 1, where it's a copy being made rather than de-/reconstruction.

 

[Shanadeus]

Trek makes a point to say that it's the exact same bits of matter being whisked away to the receiving end that were deconstructed at the source, so it's not quite analog to a fax machine. R

And in this second scenario I wouldn't really mind it so much, it's just the whole destroying and creating version I would personally never use. Anyone else could use it for all I care, as it from my perspective wouldn't change a single thing.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

Nope. Not dead dead dead dead.

If I shot you dead right here but made a clone of you, you would still be alive?

You'd be dead, your identical twin with your memories would be alive.

 

[Atrus]

I'd only use the type in Argument 1 if it lead to the creation of clones or if Me 2.0 benefitted in some way i.e. It got a million dollars and so forth. Simple A to B travel doesn't seem worth the effort of annihilating 1 for 1.

My own identity is oddly pluralistic. In this sense, 'I' turns into 'We' very easily so long as all copies are exactly the same as the original.

 

[WanderingWind]

If I shot you dead right here but made a clone of you, you would still be alive?

You'd be dead, your identical twin with your memories would be alive.

What was lost?

 

[Shanadeus]

What was lost?

You could ask the dead person, except he'd be dead.

 

[Wired]

What was lost?

To me, or anyone else for that matter? Nothing. To you? Well apparently not much either.

 

[WanderingWind]

You could ask the dead person, except he'd be dead.

That's dodging the question. In scenario 1, what is lost?

To me, or anyone else for that matter? Nothing. To you? Well apparently not much either.

I would like to think that a theoretical discussion on Star Trek magic science devices could pass without needless insults.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

What was lost?

The first you. Your identical twin brother is alive and thinks he lived your life, but the person who was there was dead.

The person I am talking to would no longer exist, and your thought processes would be gone. The brain that was created on the other end would be a copy of your brain, not your actual brain.


It's like saying that if I cloned you, that "you" would exist in two places at once.



And let's not even go into the impossibility of truly identical copies on the sub-atomic level, meaning that the brain and biology would be altered in small ways.

 

[Gaborn]

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.


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.

You sound remarkably like some stereotypical native afraid that if he gets his picture taken the camera will take his soul. You have no evidence that humanity is any more than a complex pattern of matter and of course stored electrical signals in the mind.

 

[Shanadeus]

That's dodging the question. In scenario 1, what is lost?

You are lost, to yourself that is.
To me, nothing would be lost.

 

[beef3483]

The ethical implications of this would make a great science fiction movie. Here's my ending: After the protagonist convinces the world/government/society that transporting does constitute murder, discovers later that the entire world in which he lives in was a copy of a world already destroyed/murdered by transportation.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

You sound remarkably like some stereotypical native afraid that if he gets his picture taken the camera will take his soul. You have no evidence that humanity is any more than a complex pattern of matter and of course stored electrical signals in the mind.

That's irrelevant to the question. The question is, if I copy those patterns to an entirely new brain, is that brain you? Especially if the original brain is not connected to the new one in any way.

 

[Shanadeus]

You sound remarkably like some stereotypical native afraid that if he gets his picture taken the camera will take his soul. You have no evidence that humanity is any more than a complex pattern of matter and of course stored electrical signals in the mind.

I don't need to think that we are anything more than a complex pattern of matter and energy, that's precisely what we are. I just have a more narrow definition of what constitute me, seen from my own subjective viewpoint, whereas some of you guys are happy with defining yourself as your consciousness, period. I'm having a little issue properly showing what my version of existence really mean, but it has nothing to do with souls or anything like that really.

What if a person wasn't destroyed in the teleportation process, but lived on instead while the copy ended up at point B?
Would you still define A and B as the same person? And I'm not speaking of a nano- or millisecond after they'd undeniably diverge, but the exact moment A is copied and B is created.

They would in one sense be the same person, and that's just a failing of our own language to precisely define who we are. Because while they'd have identical consciousnesses, they couldn't be the same person as they'd exist as separate entities simultaneously.

 

[adamsappel]

But, what if it made your dick bigger?

 

[WanderingWind]

The first you. Your identical twin brother is alive and thinks he lived your life, but the person who was there was dead.

The person I am talking to would no longer exist, and your thought processes would be gone. The brain that was created on the other end would be a copy of your brain, not your actual brain.


It's like saying that if I cloned you, that "you" would exist in two places at once.



And let's not even go into the impossibility of truly identical copies on the sub-atomic level, meaning that the brain and biology would be altered in small ways.

But what made the first "you." What, exactly, was lost in the creation of the new "you," that the original had?

 

[jett]

The ethical implications of this would make a great science fiction movie.

 

[Trurl]

I think that the idea that there is a "you" that exists from birth to death is an illusion.

 

[Gaborn]

That's irrelevant to the question. The question is, if I copy those patterns to an entirely new brain, is that brain you? Especially if the original brain is not connected to the new one in any way.

Does it matter though? Look, if "you" is simply defined as "The infant that came out of a vagina all those years ago" then it's a pretty static and uninteresting definition, don'tcha think? Or is the "you" your thoughts, experiences, beliefs, etc that have happened over the course of your life? If your thoughts experience no interruption or "gap" as a result of the transporter, that is, you started to think about something before being transported and continued the thought in your new location... what is lost? From what perspective have you lost something? The body is pretty irrelevant compared to the mind. Put it like this, would you rather wake up and have no body, be basically a head in a jar like Futurama, or be a mindless Frankenstein-esque monster with no thoughts or emotions of any kind? The mind is what matters, not your body (even assuming the body is truly "lost" and not simply reconstituted)

I don't need to think that we are anything more than a complex pattern of matter and energy, that's precisely what we are. I just have a more narrow definition of what constitute me, seen from my own subjective viewpoint, whereas some of you guys are happy with defining yourself as your consciousness, period.

Then what ARE you? Your body? So every time you cut yourself the "you" that is "you" dies? Your body naturally replaces every cell in your body every 7 years or so, so unless you're 6 or so you're not really "you" by the definition you seem to be suggesting.

I think it was Terry Pratchett that came up with the analogy of a hunting knife. It's been passed down in a family for almost 200 years. Oh sure, the blade's been sharpened over time, it even got replaced once when it snapped off. The handle too, that handle has been repaired, rebuffed, and replaced - But it's still a 200 year old knife. Or is it?

 

[GDGF]

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

Imagine that you had an identical twin who had a mental disorder that made him believe that he was you. Then imagine that someone killed the actual you, but your twin went on thinking he was you. Would it matter then?


Fuck that! :lol

 

[beef3483]

I've seen it and it only really scratched the surface. Make an entire Movie about Tesla's machine is what I'm saying.

 

[jett]

Then what ARE you? Your body? So every time you cut yourself the "you" that is "you" dies? Your body naturally replaces every cell in your body every 7 years or so, so unless you're 6 or so you're not really "you" by the definition you seem to be suggesting.

Neurons aren't replaced.

 

[Shanadeus]

Then what ARE you? Your body? So every time you cut yourself the "you" that is "you" dies? Your body naturally replaces every cell in your body every 7 years or so, so unless you're 6 or so you're not really "you" by the definition you seem to be suggesting.

I think it was Terry Pratchett that came up with the analogy of a hunting knife. It's been passed down in a family for almost 200 years. Oh sure, the blade's been sharpened over time, it even got replaced once when it snapped off. The handle too, that handle has been repaired, rebuffed, and replaced - But it's still a 200 year old knife. Or is it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned [from Crete] had thirty oars, and was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of Demetrius Phalereus, for they took away the old planks as they decayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their place, insomuch that this ship became a standing example among the philosophers, for the logical question of things that grow; one side holding that the ship remained the same, and the other contending that it was not the same.

Yep, it's an age old argument that's been brought up in mind uploading discussions as well.
And many attempts have been made at solving this paradox:

In one sense things can be "qualitatively identical", by sharing some properties. In another sense they might be "numerically identical" by being "one". As an example, consider two different marbles that look identical. They would be qualitatively, but not numerically, identical. A marble can be numerically identical only to itself.

One solution to this paradox may come from the concept of four-dimensionalism. Ted Sider and others have proposed that these problems can be solved by considering all things as four-dimensional objects. An object is a spatially extended three-dimensional thing that also extends across the fourth dimension of time. This four-dimensional object is made up of three-dimensional time-slices. These are spatially extended things that exist only at individual points in time. An object is made up of a series of causally related time-slices. All time-slices are numerically identical to themselves. And the whole aggregate of time-slices, namely the four-dimensional object, is also numerically identical with itself. But the individual time-slices can have qualities that differ from each other.

As a four-dimensional object in spacetime, I would be destroyed at point A and reconstituted at point B. But I assume you will simply see it as your four-dimensional existance "skipping" or taking a big jump between point A and B while staying the same individual. Which would then make me have to reiterate what I previously said:

What if a person wasn't destroyed in the teleportation process, but lived on instead while the copy ended up at point B?
Would you still define A and B as the same person? And I'm not speaking of a nano- or millisecond after they'd undeniably diverge, but the exact moment A is copied and B is created.

They would in one sense be the same person, and that's just a failing of our own language to precisely define who we are. Because while they'd have identical consciousnesses, they couldn't be the same person as they'd exist as separate entities simultaneously.

The simplest way I can convey what I mean is to think of your consciousness as a river moving through time and space, parts of it being lost and others being added to the entire flow until it at one point could be considered to contain none of the original fluids from when the stream started - while remaining the same river as these changes would have taken time and the whole of the river adapted to the gradual loss and addition of water.

And even this metaphore doesn't precisly encapsulate my views on the matter, and I chalk it up to my, perhaps our, language not being precise enough. Words such as "same", "me" and "existence" are too wide and loose definitionally speaking for a discussion such as this.

 

[YulB.Yeung]

I feel like half of you don't realize this is a very common philosophical debate that has existed for thousands of years.

 

[L00P]

Thanks guys, now I'm scared of teleportation

 

[Shanadeus]

Thanks guys, now I'm scared of teleportation

If this stops the creation of a society where I'd be forced to teleport then I'm happy.

 

[OgTheClever]

It's probably been said at some point or another in this thread, but a teleporter doesn't transport matter but only the information about it's current state (this also applies to past experiments where photons of light have been teleported).

 

[Zophar]

Neurons aren't replaced.

On a cellular level, sure. On a molecular level though, that's a different story. Quite literally the atoms in your body now are not the same ones that were there when you were born, or when you were conceived, or when you were 10 years old, etc.

 

[ultron87]

I would never use a dematerializing transporter.

If it was a wormhole kind of thing however that you just stepped through I would be all for it.

 

[Unknown One]

As long as I die in a painless way and my clone is fine, yes.

 

[bachikarn]

For those that think the "copy" is still you, how would you explain this scenario?

By argument 1, the teleporter destroys the original and makes a copy somewhere else. You guys are arguing this copy would be "you." What if the teleporter made a copy, but kept the original intact? Would "you" be both entities? Obviously not. So it should reason that if you destroy the original, you don't magically become the new entity. To everyone else, it might seem that the copy is the same as the original, but your consciousness has been destroyed.

Don't try and pretend you know how that shit works when science hasn't been able to truly explain it yet.

 

[Shanadeus]

For those that think the "copy" is still you, how would you explain this scenario?

By argument 1, the teleporter destroys the original and makes a copy somewhere else. You guys are arguing this copy would be "you." What if the teleporter made a copy, but kept the original intact? Would "you" be both entities? Obviously not. So it should reason that if you destroy the original, you don't magically become the new entity. To everyone else, it might seem that the copy is the same as the original, but your consciousness has been destroyed.

Don't try and pretend you know how that shit works when science hasn't been able to truly explain it yet.

This is really an issue of imprecise and ambiguous language, where we end up using different interpretations of what "you" really is - and even lack a proper word for what we're trying to describe by what we mean when we say"you".

 

[bachikarn]

This is really an issue of imprecise and ambiguous language, where we end up using different interpretations of what "you" really is - and even lack a proper word for what we're trying to describe by what we mean when we say"you".

They way I would define it is that after I am "transported," would "I" cease to exist. I.e., would I stop being able to perceive the outside world. Would it be exactly like how it was before I was born (assuming there is no afterlife and whatnot)?

 

[Snaku]

Bunch of narcissistic babies around here.

 

[Fuzz Rez]

Hell naw, gives you cancer.

 

[ColtraineGF]

I would only use it (my opinion at this time, considering what I know), if it was shown to be an actual teleporter, in that it actually transported a person instead of destroying them and reconstructing them elsewhere.

Primarily because even though I skew closer to a materialist perspective than a dualist, I have no absolute proof that consciousness can be experienced outside of one's own body.

 

[ckohler]

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.

This. The transporters from TOS on used matter-streams and pattern buffers to dematerialize you, send your molecules through space and reconstruct them at the destination. You were not destroyed and a copy made, you were simply taken apart and put back together.

[SUPER TREK NERD]

A lot of people assume this is NOT the case because of the Riker duplicate episode but that was a bizarre fluke involving a weird alien cloud where a second matter stream was created and redirected back at the planet. The matter duplication occurred in the planet's atmosphere and NOT as part of the actual transporter process.

[/SUPER TREK NERD]

 

[ArjanN]

One could also argue that you while the original is dead, he would immidiately be resurrected at another location.

Anyway, I think it's fairly obvious that if a transporter was invented eventually nearly everyone would use it. At least as much as everyone uses cars and airplanes now.

Teleportation would totally change society as we know it.

 

[elrechazado]

This. The transporters from TOS on used matter-streams and pattern buffers to dematerialize you, send your molecules through space and reconstruct them at the destination. You were not destroyed and a copy made, you were simply taken apart and put back together.

[SUPER TREK NERD]

A lot of people assume this is NOT the case because of the Riker duplicate episode but that was a bizarre fluke involving a weird alien cloud where a second matter stream was created and redirected back at the planet. The matter duplication occurred in the planet's atmosphere and NOT as part of the actual transporter process.

[/SUPER TREK NERD]

The act of physically separating every molecule in your body would kill you.

 

[RustyNails]

Haha. This actually was a question posed by our Technology Management professor...We said that it was too risky

wait, do you go to Devry by any chance?