Support NeoGAF

[EmCeeGramr]

My understanding of "Star Trek" teleporters is that the matter is disassembled and reconstructed at the new location - the matter is not destroyed, rather the same matter is used in the reconstruction.

In that sense, it would be 100% of the physicality that you are currently, and not entirely new matter making a secondary construct.

The current discussion is about the scenario if the original matter is destroyed, and the new body is created with new atoms.

Actually transporting the same matter would be fine if done in the Star Trek fashion. However, that fashion is pretty clearly TNG's technobabble workaround for the huge issues that real teleportation in such a fashion would cause in the real world.

 

[Pandaman]

Nope. Go transport yourself somewhere.

i wont say i dont understand your point of view, for the longest time i was opposed to the idea of 'downloading' people into computers, unless it was done by the slow replacement of neurons with a mechanical substitute.

 

[Angry Grimace]

Hell yeah I'd use a transporter , but of course it wouldn't be free, but say it takes less then a minute to get from Boston to Tokyo or to Austrailia, sign me up

Fuck that shit.

The shuttlecraft were capable of Impulse speed, which is more than 1/4 of light speed (depending on writer of course; in any case it's still something like thousands of miles a second). You could STILL get to Tokyo in 4 minutes.

 

[Dead Man]

i wont say i dont understand your point of view, for the longest time i was opposed to the idea of 'downloading' people into computers, unless it was done by the slow replacement of neurons with a mechanical substitute.

See my edit.

 

[Pandaman]

Edit: Actually, just stop being so obtuse.

are people allowed to complain about conversations they started?

If you clone yourself, would you shoot yourself in head afterwards?

no, why are you talking about cloning?

Edit2: And really, you think I am talking about the speed of the particle replacement? You have missed the point completely. It is not about the speed of the thing. If you took 1 atom a day from my body and added 1 atom a day to the clone, I would still be dead at the end of the process.

no, you're just alittle slow is all. there is no 'clone' here, on both ends its you. its a closed system, you're on one end being taken apart and you're on the other being rebuilt as one continuous existence of a pattern. transporters are not fax machines, there isnt a blank you waiting on the other end waiting for a memory download and there is no scientific basis for your special relationship to the specific atoms currently making up your body. hell, some of science would take issue with even being able to meaningfully state that a given atom is 'making up your body'.

 

[Deku]

(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?

Spoiler

My response : HELL NO.

I'm a realist here and even if the energy resource was there (which is pretty unlikely), re-assembling biology and things on an atomic level is virtually impossible, even if you ask crazy string theory physicists who thinks there are an infinite number of dimensions/parallel universe and the big bang was created by two 'planes' of parallel dimensions colliding to form our dimension.

Sadly, I won't use it either because I'm pretty sure no one will be able to.

 

[Dead Man]

are people allowed to complain about conversations they started?


no, why are you talking about cloning?


no, you're just alittle slow is all. there is no 'clone' here, on both ends its you. its a closed system, you're on one end being taken apart and you're on the other being rebuilt as one continuous existence of a pattern. transporters are not fax machines, there isnt a blank you waiting on the other end waiting for a memory download and there is no scientific basis for your special relationship to the specific atoms currently making up your body. hell, some of science would take issue with even being able to meaningfully state that a given atom is 'making up your body'.

Are you talking about argument 1 from the OP, or argument 2? I am talking about argument one. The one with the clone.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

no, you're just alittle slow is all. there is no 'clone' here, on both ends its you. its a closed system, you're on one end being taken apart and you're on the other being rebuilt as one continuous existence of a pattern. transporters are not fax machines, there isnt a blank you waiting on the other end waiting for a memory download and there is no scientific basis for your special relationship to the specific atoms currently making up your body. hell, some of science would take issue with even being able to meaningfully state that a given atom is 'making up your body'.

Oh, so you haven't been following the argument at all. That has been accepted as okay, when it's continuous in some kind of technobabble pattern nonsense in Star Trek.

The discussion you've been arguing against (without realizing it) concerns a different scenario entirely.

 

[Tater Tot]

transport into your house, use toilet and not flush

 

[Pandaman]

Are you talking about argument 1 from the OP, or argument 2? I am talking about argument one. The one with the clone.

argument 1 of course, thered be no point to my initial post if we were discussing beaming the matter itself.

edit: lets try to be clear here:

case 1:
take an atom from your body, put it somewhere else and rebuild you: okay.
case 2:
take an atom from your body, destroy it and in the process duplicate it, put it back in the body: okay
case 3:
take an atom from your body, destroy it and in the process duplicate it, put it somewhere else and rebuild you: OMFG WE'RE DOOMED.

does that sound about right?

 

[phisheep]

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

Would you use it?

Depends. Not if was made by Microsoft.

 

[dejay]

Actually transporting the same matter would be fine if done in the Star Trek fashion.

I see a lot of people making this point but in reality there is no difference if you are moving matter or cutting and pasting matter - the person stepping out of the teleporter wouldn't know the difference and similarly the person stepping into the teleporter wouldn't know the difference. Their friends and family wouldn't know the difference, and a psychiatrist or doctor couldn't tell the difference.

You're not just cut and pasting matter, you're cutting and pasting memories, consciousness and personality.

I could see much of today's society being against this, but in a society where such concepts were seen as commonplace, I can see people being more accepting of it. It is a freaky idea and I don't see it ever happening, because scanning a human to such a level and reassembling them is god-like in terms of the amount of computational power required. It's interesting to see how people respond to it though.

 

[jakershaker]

From a biological standpoint, why not.

There is no "stream of consciousness" or soul. You are the result of the electrical and chemical signals between your cells. If those are replicated identically that would still be the same organism that previously was "you", no difference. The arrangement of cells that your life has led you to have will still be intact, which makes it hard to call it death. "You" are the current status of the cells in and living on/in your body, in a moment "you" will be different.

Cloning does not produce the same results, just someone with the same genes. An identical rebuilt version of your molecular structure would not be a clone as it would include so much more(memories and results from living the life you have etc.). This is however going by the current idea of what a clone and cloning is.

But in the end when looking past the usual religion and superstition about the human being you find it hard to argue against the Star Trek type of transporter, regardless of which type it is. There is always the philosophical angle but why wait for 1000s of years until they figure out anything when you can be awesome and teleport.

 

[xelv]

I don't know if I'll be able to convince anyone but here goes: In case 1 you effectively die. You will never wake up from this eternal sleep. You will never know what happened after you used the machine. You won't appear somewhere else. You will never experience anything again. The only people who will effectively continue living in the other side is everyone else but you. That other "you" stole your life and you'll never know it because you'll be asleep! The other "you" will swear that he is you because he will be identical, but you won't experience none of that feeling because he is someone else. I can't believe this is such a controversial question!

 

[selig]

From a biological standpoint, why not.

There is no "stream of consciousness" or sou

You dont get it. It isnt a matter of soul or no soul. YOU die when you beam yourself. Your current body dies, and your mind is bound to your body, thus, you die. You create another you with the same thought and everything, but you yourself will die. No soul crap or anything, just you as a person.

Basically, answering this question comes down to: Are you suicidal? Im not.

 

[sarcastor]

i don't care if a copy is made and i die. if i can't tell difference, AND i can go to bangkok in 20 seconds to get a thai massage for $5 an hour, then transport to France for some good ol' french baguette without having to spending hours on a plane, i'm sooooo fucking in.

 

[selig]

i don't care if a copy is made and i die. if i can't tell difference, AND i can go to bangkok in 20 seconds to get a thai massage for $5 an hour, then transport to France for some good ol' french baguette without having to spending hours on a plane, i'm sooooo fucking in.

You cant. Your clone can.
Kill yourself now. That´s the same as what would happen would you beam yourself.

 

[Jay Sosa]

Hell yeah, no more public transportation, no more traffic jams. I can visit all the places I always wanted to visit and so on.. What the fuck is taking them so long?

i don't care if a copy is made and i die. if i can't tell difference

.

All the people on the Enterprise had no problems with it so why should I care?

 

[sarcastor]

You cant. Your clone can.
Kill yourself now. That´s the same as what would happen would you beam yourself.

the key part of my response was where i said "if i can't tell the difference". If i live on as a clone, i'm all for it.

it worked fine for starfleet, the klingons, the vulcans, etc. etc. none of them had any moral dilemma with it. holy shit this is by far the nerdiest thing i've ever typed in my life....

 

[eggandI]

My god, so many people talking matter-of-factly. I was expecting a thread full of Star Trek references and whatnot, but instead I got a bunch of armchair physicists poorly rewriting shit actual physicists (who are still no closer to understanding what concsiouness is, if anything, themselves.) have said.

Truth of the matter is, if a technology like this would be completely pain-free, have a near non-existant margin of error and can be easily accesible in both price and location... people would be all over it. Myself included. Same with all the technology seen in Blade Runner/Ghost in the Shell/Ender's Game/etc. I would give up my humanity in a heartbeat. Robots, clones, cyborgs, etc are much cooler than our cancerous bodies

 

[selig]

the key part of my response was where i said "if i can't tell the difference". If i live on as a clone, i'm all for it.

If dying = not being able to tell the difference, youre right

 

[OgTheClever]

Oh, so you haven't been following the argument at all. That has been accepted as okay, when it's continuous in some kind of technobabble pattern nonsense in Star Trek.

The discussion you've been arguing against (without realizing it) concerns a different scenario entirely.

To be honest, I still wouldn't be at all comfortable with this scenario. Just because the same atoms are used, where is the guarantee that your 'stream' of consciousness will continue and a duplicate isn't put in its place? For me this is just to much of a risk to take and even if the system caused death relative to the individual it would probably be impossible to prove anyway.

 

[Troidal]

The answer is simple. If we are 100% certain that our own consciousness will also be 'transported' into the 'new body' than I don't see why it's a problem at all.

I do like the Ship of Theseus argument though. The Japanese do think that the Gold Pavilion Temple is the one and same temple. But it's been burned down twice and was reconstructed, I would think of it as a replica. They can use the same wood materials, gold ornaments, even blessed by the priest or what not, but it is not the original temple. Now in the case of Egypt's Abu Simbel Temple, they relocated the temple, but the original construct was divided into parts and transported to the new location. It is still the same old temple, but a new location. I'd still say that is the same and one Abu Simbel Temple.

 

[Shanadeus]

I once again have to say that this is more of a debate on what the word "you" and more really mean. If I were to use the marble example again:

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.

Some of you would say that both marbles are the same marble, that if the marble was a person we'd call them both the same "you". Yet at the same time, they wouldn't really be the same marble as there are two of them. In a similar fashion, the clone that steps out of the teleporter will be qualitatively identical to the person taht is destroyed when stepping in to the teleporter.

But it won't be numerically identical to the first one, its physical existence started the moment it stepped out of the end destination - and that is regardless of it's own memories of its existence. Even if the atoms in its body were the exact same age as the atoms in the person that was destroyed, it would be new and someone different while at the same time the same person.

If any of you entered the teleporter I wouldn't mourn you as dead as you'd in my perspective still live on - that's not what we're arguing really. It just wouldn't matter what the outside perspective think of my existence as I have a choice and would from my point of view die, while a qualitatively (but not numerically) identical "me" steps out of the teleporter and would just as rightly view himself as me.

 

[Dead Man]

I once again have to say that this is more of a debate on what the word "you" and more really mean. If I were to use the marble example again:



Some of you would say that both marbles are the same marble, that if the marble was a person we'd call them both the same "you". Yet at the same time, they wouldn't really be the same marble as there are two of them. In a similar fashion, the clone that steps out of the teleporter will be qualitatively identical to the person taht is destroyed when stepping in to the teleporter.

But it won't be numerically identical to the first one, its physical existence started the moment it stepped out of the end destination - and that is regardless of it's own memories of its existence. Even if the atoms in its body were the exact same age as the atoms in the person that was destroyed, it would be new and someone different while at the same time the same person.

If any of you entered the teleporter I wouldn't mourn you as dead as you'd in my perspective still live on - that's not what we're arguing really. It just wouldn't matter what the outside perspective think of my existence as I have a choice and would from my point of view die, while a qualitatively (but not numerically) identical "me" steps out of the teleporter and would just as rightly view himself as me.

Yeah, I've thought of 2 ways to try to clarify my thinking.

1. Say there are 2 replicas created at the end of the process. Which is you? One of them must be according to some here, since the data is uninterrupted. But which one? The both have divergent experience upon creation, so which is correct? Which one is equivalent to the 'you' that stepped into the transporter?

2. A bit oversimplified, but I hope it makes sense to to those saying that since the data stream loses no information, you continue to exist. Take a box. Break down the box, making instructions as you go on how to re make it. Send the instructions to another person, have them make the box from material at hand. Is it the same box?

3. Just something I wanted to point out. Just because a copy will have the memories of the person that stepped into the transporter does not mean they are the same consciousness. Memory is a fuzzy thing (I think that was the only thing i learned in 5 years of Psych!) but implanted memories are not memories of real events. They are a false recollection of events that happened to another actor. So saying the continuity of memory means it is still you is false. If you could plant you memory into someone else, would that make them you?

Anyway, that's my thoughts, ymmv of course.

 

[Kozak]

 

[Zenith]

Yeah, I have. I feel like we're making assumptions about the consciousness based on what we know now rather than what we might know 200-300 years from now when transporter technology might be a reality.

This ISN'T about consciousness. It's the simple fact that the original matter is completely destroyed. No philosophy enters into it. Priceless works of art would also be prohibited from teleportation. The only things that could are cargo, livestock, etc.

From a biological standpoint, why not.

because it's not the original person experiencing everything from that point on, it's a duplicate that interprets things and reacts exactly as you do. But his sensations aren't fed to your brain, you're dead.

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

ST transporters have a "dispersal" function for the transporter pattern if they ever detect dangerous cargo being transported.

Might've been mentioned but there are numerous ST episodes where people continue to live (and find other alien life forms as well) inside the pattern buffer.

those aren't people, those are transporter patterns that haven't been erased. The computer still has the information to make a person. It's not an actual person stuck in there.

The answer is: If the transporter transported me, and didn't make a copy that would be fine.

I always assumed the transporter moved the original item from A to B and didn't work by constructing an identical copy, etc.

The only "safe" form of teleportation is where space is folded on itself to shorten a distance between 2 points. But I think the precise definition of teleportation is when matter is broken down and trasported digitally. The previous example is a portal/wormhole.

Every time you go to sleep your consciousness is destroyed and a virtually identical copy created by the chemical reactions in brain takes your place as controller of your body when "you" wake up in the morning.

People really don't seem to understand the science involved. In sleep your brain dials down to theta and delta activity. That's it. It doesn't deactivate. You are the "controller" even when aslepp. If every single brain cell was wiped out and then a new brain grew in the empty space than maybe you'd have a point.

If it was lossless, that means the copy is indistinguishable from the original. If something is truly indistinguishable from something else, then it is the same thing.

............... No. Place 2 identical objects next to each other. Is there only 1? If you destroyed one would the other also be destroyed? No.

You're wrong. I can quote the official TNG Technical manual if you like.

So can I, and it's most specific about the process.

I Love how the trekkies are wtfpwning the naysayers in this thread.

I'm a trekkie, and so far all the counter-arguments are based on the principle "I don't understand properly".

 

[Nexus Zero]

Some people aren't realising that yes, for most extents and purposes, the copy would be you. If you went home to your mom after teleportation, she'd have no reason to love you any less or treat you any different. But those with even the simplest knowledge of computing would know that as far as you, right now, are concerned, well you would be dead, and I imagine this would matter to you very greatly. If I move a file from one hard drive to the other, as far as I care, it's the same file. But if the file was sentient, its existence on hard drive A would be over, thus its life would be gone.

Some guy said that because we're all atheists we shouldn't be worried because hey after all we're just molecular patterns, right? This is backwards. If you believe in a soul then don't worry about it (well, do, because souls aren't real) but once you snap the pattern so abruptly, 4 dimensionally, then the pattern is gone, there's no continuity - you're dead.

And no, I'm not the same person I was five/ten years ago. Because I have temporal continuity from that person, no-one died, exactly. But he's gone, I am ultimately a different being.

Edit: Some very simple thought experiments prove this.

As has been suggested - think of yourself getting in a teleporter and being teleported to another destination, except your original isn't destroyed. Do you experience the universe from two places at once? No, the original, you, and your clone now have divergent experiences. The continuation of your clone's experiences are not contingent on the existence of the original, hence, it isn't you.

Another - you get into a teleporter, your original is destroyed, and you are output in two seperate locations. Which is you?

 

[Steppenwolf]

I wouldn't. The copy of me would just be that. A copy. The original me gets killed and with that my concious space stops to exist. The concious space of the copy is not my own one.

 

[jakershaker]

because it's not the original person experiencing everything from that point on, it's a duplicate that interprets things and reacts exactly as you do. But his sensations aren't fed to your brain, you're dead.

But it's still you if you look at it objectively. You're the sum of your parts and none of the parts or the sum has gone missing. So it's still you. The organism reacting to the world is still you and does the things you're supposed to do. There isn't anything putting a value on what brain is receiving the signals.

If the organism is the same, the chemistry is the same, the biology is the same, the way it reacts is the same then it is the same organism. It is not a clone, it's the same thing that went into the teleporter that comes out.

Saying anything else is kind of hard without taking the "soul" argument or just using mind/matter dualism in general.

But I guess some people here would say if people we're kept in a coma for over six years it's not the same person coming out of that coma, as the cells are all new. The person has been rebuilt so the old one must have died when the coma started and a new copy of the person wakes from it(this is assuming there has been no brain activity).

There is no person behind the human walking into the teleport, there are just memories and cells making it react the way it does. Everything else is pretty much an illusion we build to make ourselves feel important.

So, in short, nothing died because nothing was there.

 

[BluWacky]

I don't have my old Philosophy of Mind reading lists from university any more, damn it! This is a classic problem, and not one we're going to solve in a NeoGAF thread...

As for me... well, it's not a teleporter if it doesn't transfer the original from one place to another, it's a long-distance cloning machine with an unfortunate side effect. It's only interesting if you frame the question in a different way i.e. is the clone you etc. But then this has been said a million times in the thread already.

Ah, university. How I miss you.

 

[Ghost]

I definitely sign up to the 'you are dead, person on the other end is just an exact duplicate of you who doesn't realise' theory, so yeah I'd never use one.

 

[Zenith]

But it's still you if you look at it objectively. You're the sum of your parts and none of the parts or the sum has gone missing.

except when the body was destroyed and stored as info on a computer.

If the organism is the same, the chemistry is the same, the biology is the same, the way it reacts is the same then it is the same organism. It is not a clone

That doesn't make any sense.

This is a classic problem, and not one we're going to solve in a NeoGAF thread...

seemed rather easy to me. As an object like the Ship of Theseus, no it's not the same if you replace all the parts. When viewing cell division in a human body, yes you as a person the same. The stream of consciousness was never interrupted. A few cells died and the electrical impulses travelled down alternate routes until the cells were replaced and integrated into the brain. If all cells were wiped out at once (like with teleportation) then there'd be a problem.

 

[PjotrStroganov]

You dont get it. It isnt a matter of soul or no soul. YOU die when you beam yourself. Your current body dies, and your mind is bound to your body, thus, you die. You create another you with the same thought and everything, but you yourself will die. No soul crap or anything, just you as a person.

Basically, answering this question comes down to: Are you suicidal? Im not.

I wouldn't do it either, but what's your point and what's the problem?

 

[Dead Man]

I definitely sign up to the 'you are dead, person on the other end is just an exact duplicate of you who doesn't realise' theory, so yeah I'd never use one.

Yep. If it is not a wormhole type of device, with a constant sensory perception all the way through, I'out.

 

[RedShift]

I thought about this when I was younger, and how there's no way I'd be getting in that thing.

Now recently I've been thinking, what if every time you lose conciousness (sleep, pass out, whatever), your conciousness ceases to exist and a new one forms when you wake up? There's no way you'd know.

 

[jakershaker]

That doesn't make any sense.

I guess you understand where I'm coming from so just for curiosity:

What is lost in the process? Which part of the organism is gone so you would call it another one or a "clone" etc.

 

[Nexus Zero]

But it's still you if you look at it objectively. You're the sum of your parts and none of the parts or the sum has gone missing. So it's still you. The organism reacting to the world is still you and does the things you're supposed to do. There isn't anything putting a value on what brain is receiving the signals.

If the organism is the same, the chemistry is the same, the biology is the same, the way it reacts is the same then it is the same organism. It is not a clone, it's the same thing that went into the teleporter that comes out.

Except you don't look at it objectively, you look at it subjectively.

 

[kinoki]

I wonder if this will dampen the suicidal tendancies in the youth? Basicly, you could commit suicide a couple of times per day without all the emo.

 

[jakershaker]

Except you don't look at it objectively, you look at it subjectively.

I prefer to try too look at things with as many facts as possible(even though it's science fiction in this case). Science is objective.

 

[Dead Man]

I thought about this when I was younger, and how there's no way I'd be getting in that thing.

Now recently I've been thinking, what if every time you lose conciousness (sleep, pass out, whatever), your conciousness ceases to exist and a new one forms when you wake up? There's no way you'd know.

There is a mental illness that can have that symptom, I think it as a type of Schizophrenia. Must really suck.

 

[Shanadeus]

I wonder if this will dampen the suicidal tendancies in the youth? Basicly, you could commit suicide a couple of times per day without all the emo.

Pretty much what I was wondering about, they'd get the pleasure of suiciding over and over again without things getting messy. I would expect loads of cults to arise doing stuff like this.

 

[yeoz]

Its like playing a video game. When you die, and you respawn a few seconds later, is that you that just respawned the same you as the one that died prior? No, of course not. But, you're still playing and spamming rockets, and hurtling towards your next death and respawn. Its as if that prior death was only a minor inconvenience.

Or, for a more poignant example, say you're playing Team Fortress 2. Your character steps on a teleporter entrance and is whisked away to another location instantly. From the viewpoint of the player, no death has occured (because you'd have to wait to respawn, duh), and your character in-game happily shouts "Engineer is credit to team!" before running off to his actual death. I suppose you could basically see the teleporter exit as an "instant respawn", but, to the player, there's no observable difference. It simply doesn't matter.

I don't really understand why people have such a problem with death or dying or being killed. What's the big deal about dying anyway? You're all going to die eventually. Might as well get some benefit out of it in the short run. Someone's gotta cap the flag, and if I can't do on my first life, I'll still get the points anyway if one of my clones does it. :lol

 

[Shanadeus]

Its like playing a video game. When you die, and you respawn a few seconds later, is that you that just respawned the same you as the one that died prior? No, of course not. But, you're still playing and spamming rockets, and hurtling towards your next death and respawn. Its as if that prior death was only a minor inconvenience.

Or, for a more poignant example, say you're playing Team Fortress 2. Your character steps on a teleporter entrance and is whisked away to another location instantly. From the viewpoint of the player, no death has occured (because you'd have to wait to respawn, duh), and your character in-game happily shouts "Engineer is credit to team!" before running off to his actual death. I suppose you could basically see the teleporter exit as an "instant respawn", but, to the player, there's no observable difference. It simply doesn't matter.

I don't really understand why people have such a problem with death or dying or being killed. What's the big deal about dying anyway? You're all going to die eventually. Might as well get some benefit out of it in the short run. Someone's gotta cap the point, and if I can't do on my first life, I'll still get the points anyway if one of my clones does it. :lol

I'd assume that by the time we have this god-level teleporting technology, biological immortality will also be a possibility. Thus you'd be able to live infinitely if you just chose to not kill yourself by avoiding teleportation.

 

[Gilgamesh]

I'm with the people who don't think it's cool to die if an exact duplicate is created in your place. That shit ain't me, homeboy.

 

[Dorrin]

We would not benefit from a society without commutes you would simply be expected to work longer, your not getting that free time, get real.

Then of course you would have the impact of this technology and what it would do to were/how people live, communities etc would change in ways we can't imagine. There would be huge implications to war/terrorism/crime.

I'd have to pass.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

I watched

Spoiler

The Prestige

, so no.

Fixed.

 

[Dead Man]

Another question for those that would use it. If the process of mapping all your atoms was non lethal, how would you like to be killed?

 

[Gowans]

The Star Trek style transporter, no chance.

 

[Android18a]

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_the_human_body_regenerate_every_7_years

Technically, since your cells are not the ones you were born with, and indeed every 7 years you consist pretty much entirely of different cells, you are not the original you, even without molecular deconstruction. The original you died when your final birth cell did. I guess.

So yeah, I'd use it. I haven't been me for 20 years.