JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Tags star trek , teleportation

Reply
Old 28th November 2012, 12:20 PM   #121
phunk
Master Poster
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,660
Originally Posted by rocketdodger View Post
I told you the question was far more interesting

I expect a merger would entail somehow reconciling the neural network connectivity between the two instances, effectively teleporting both of them at the same time and modifying what is reconstructed. It can be done, but it would be pretty darn complicated.

It wouldn't be that jarring for you, though. Think about any events from your past that aren't directly related to each other. A trip you took to some city, for example. When did it happen? Was it you? I could have easily just slipped those memories into your mind, as if they were experienced by a copy of yourself, and you wouldn't know the difference.

Continuing that analogy, before I asked just now, were you thinking of those memories? I bet not. So a merge would just be like having more memories of stuff you didn't have memories of before, and you wouldn't know it, until you recalled those memories for some reason.
It may be more interesting, but it's a completely different question.
phunk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 12:22 PM   #122
Thunderchief
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 167
Originally Posted by rocketdodger View Post
To be specific, the copy can also ( or should, rather ) materialize in the state corresponding to the state of the original one planck time after it is vaporized.
This actually might be a transporter I would get into, but I will have to think about it for a bit. However it is not the same as the Startrek Transporter, which I will not be getting into. ;-)

Simon.
__________________
Heisenberg Probably Rules!
Thunderchief is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 12:23 PM   #123
phunk
Master Poster
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,660
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
It doesn't, except that if you're going to wait until later to form me elsewhere, then my reaction will depend on my feelings about being relocated AND sent to the future, plus I have to factor in the possibility that something will happen and I won't get formed elsewhere at all.
I was actually thinking the other way around, with you being recreated elsewhere first, then the original destroyed. Basically, if there's enough time for someone to say "ok, the copy is complete, we're going to vaporize you now", would you be ok with it?
phunk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 12:24 PM   #124
rocketdodger
Philosopher
 
rocketdodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Hyperion
Posts: 6,884
Originally Posted by phunk View Post
I can only think of one reason why it matters that the original dies instantly... so that they have no time to realize "oh crap, I've been copied but I'm still here, and I don't want to die".
Yep.

However it isn't as bad as it seems, because mathematically even if you exist for some time after a copy is made, the copy really *is* you 'up until the copy was made.'

Meaning, how bad the death of the original happens to be is a matter of perspective. Is death bad because it hurts? Or is death bad because of the snuffing of a conscious being that has both a future and a past full of experiences?

If you hold the latter view ( and I think most people do, after they think about it ), then the death of the original is only as bad as the amount of experience lost. You can think of it like the save points in a video game ( or any software, for that matter ). If you just saved, and you die a few minutes later, no big deal -- you only lost a few minutes. If you can't save at all and you die, well that utterly sucks. If you can't replay the game after you die ( how our lives are now ) then it really really totally sucks.

Conversely, in a game where you can't save, you get *really really* tense when you're character is in danger. If you just saved, you might treat dying so trivially that you don't even bother to take care of your character ( "I wonder if there is a secret down in that pit -- i might not be able to get back out, but I can just reload my last save point so who cares" ).
rocketdodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 12:25 PM   #125
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,853
Originally Posted by phunk View Post
I was actually thinking the other way around, with you being recreated elsewhere first, then the original destroyed. Basically, if there's enough time for someone to say "ok, the copy is complete, we're going to vaporize you now", would you be ok with it?
From a materialist point of view, absolutely. There's no reason not to be.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 12:29 PM   #126
rocketdodger
Philosopher
 
rocketdodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Hyperion
Posts: 6,884
Originally Posted by phunk View Post
It may be more interesting, but it's a completely different question.
Not really.

If you propose having teleporters around that don't destroy the original, then you probably need to think about what happens when there are thousands of instances of yourself walking around.

You should read the novel "Glasshouse," it really dives into all this stuff ( and is incidentally one of the best sci-fi novels ever written, its actually better than "Rainbows End" which stole the 2007 Hugo from it ).
rocketdodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 12:32 PM   #127
Croc411
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 97
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ
I think materialists still have this idea that there's something unique about the continuity of their experiences, as if the fact that the same physical brain cells are being used now as were being used 20 seconds ago is the reason you're still you. That's how you get this silly notion that if we suddenly replace the physical matter with different physical matter, it's a "different person" experiencing the thoughts - despite the fact that there's absolutely no physical evidence or other material fact you can point to that actually supports there being any difference.
Exactly.

There is absolutely no connection between the "you" from 20 seconds ago and the current "you" that could be relevant for the continuity of your self (both of these states of "you" emerged from the same physical body but we know that this cannot be relevant).

Why? Because everything that is required for the continuity of the self is part of the information represented by your nervous system (in particular our short-term memory), at any given moment.

There is no reason to assume otherwise. It'd only make things more complicated and create problems.
Croc411 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 12:33 PM   #128
phunk
Master Poster
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,660
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
From a materialist point of view, absolutely. There's no reason not to be.
I don't get how that is the materialistic point of view. From a materialistic point of view, the instant you are copied, there are two completely separate instances of you. There is no connection, no shared soul, no shared experience. It's not like the one who dies suddenly starts experiencing life from the other's point of view. From the point of view of the original, he's stepping into a transporter and dying, end of story. He'd experience nothing different stepping into a transporter vs a suicide booth.
phunk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 12:40 PM   #129
phunk
Master Poster
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,660
Originally Posted by rocketdodger View Post
Not really.

If you propose having teleporters around that don't destroy the original, then you probably need to think about what happens when there are thousands of instances of yourself walking around.

You should read the novel "Glasshouse," it really dives into all this stuff ( and is incidentally one of the best sci-fi novels ever written, its actually better than "Rainbows End" which stole the 2007 Hugo from it ).
The whole point of this thread is to discuss the implications of the "copy and destroy the original" style of transporter, and whether or not it's effectively suicide.

PS. Glasshouse is on my todo list, I liked some of Stross' other work.
phunk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 12:41 PM   #130
Croc411
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 97
Originally Posted by phunk
I don't get how that is the materialistic point of view. From a materialistic point of view, the instant you are copied, there are two completely separate instances of you. There is no connection, no shared soul, no shared experience. It's not like the one who dies suddenly starts experiencing life from the other's point of view. From the point of view of the original, he's stepping into a transporter and dying, end of story. He'd experience nothing different stepping into a transporter vs a suicide booth.
There is no "you" in that sense. We are just the sum of our memories and personality traits and nothing else.
Croc411 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 12:49 PM   #131
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,853
Originally Posted by phunk View Post
I don't get how that is the materialistic point of view. From a materialistic point of view, the instant you are copied, there are two completely separate instances of you. There is no connection, no shared soul, no shared experience. It's not like the one who dies suddenly starts experiencing life from the other's point of view. From the point of view of the original, he's stepping into a transporter and dying, end of story. He'd experience nothing different stepping into a transporter vs a suicide booth.
Again, the problem is that you're discussing "the one who died" as if he has some sort of metaphysically coherent "consciousness" outside of his brain and memory.

The physical brain has no point of view outside of the processes of the mind that it manifests. Moving those processes from one mind to another does not cause one point of view to cease and another point of view to begin; it's the same mind and the same point of view.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 01:03 PM   #132
phunk
Master Poster
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,660
The processes aren't moved though, they're duplicated. The original process continues until it's vaporised.

ETA: And no, I'm not discussing this as if there is anything outside the brain. I'm explicitly saying the opposite as a reason that the copy is not the original, because the original persists until it is destroyed.

Last edited by phunk; 28th November 2012 at 01:05 PM.
phunk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 01:13 PM   #133
zeggman
Graduate Poster
 
zeggman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,911
Originally Posted by Nick227 View Post
Yes, me too. So where's the drama about getting into a Teletransporter?

You cannot die in a correctly functioning Teletransporter. One body ceases to be and another is created. But "you" is only an emergent property of brain activity. If the body is perfectly reproduced then the "you", the "I", is identical.

Nick
I agree with this, and don't think I'd have a problem stepping into a tested, functioning transporter.

Still, when the scenario is changed only slightly, it gives me pause.

Suppose you're transported five feet from where you are right now, and the "original" is not vaporized. You now exist as two virtually identical individuals. You can even have a brief conversation with yourself to verify that your memories are exactly the same.

Would you be happy now to step into the vaporization chamber, knowing that your emergent brain activity is cycling along just fine in the other body?
zeggman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 01:21 PM   #134
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,853
Originally Posted by phunk View Post
The processes aren't moved though, they're duplicated. The original process continues until it's vaporised.
I disagree that these descriptions are meaningful. A process isn't an object and can't be vaporized. What is the difference between a process being moved and being duplicated?

Again, I think you're making the mistake of conflating the brain with the mind.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 01:27 PM   #135
Croc411
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 97
Originally Posted by Aepervius
OK let us change a bit the parameter. Imagine that for an incredible accident, random happenning of cosmic proportion, somebody in 2000 years has the same thought / emerging property as I have now, same memory, same thought. I have died 1900+ years before him.

Do you really think this would be me, that the I of now would be seeing what that person would be seeing, because essentially the teleporter experiment comes down to that.
Of course it would be you. In the very sense you mean here. You could even turn it around (that "other you" having existed 2000 years ago) or put it to a place causally disconnected from us (different universe). The only question is: does that conscious state exist somewhere or doesn't it.

Our time dimension is of no direct relevance here. What matters is how you perceive time, and this is solely based on your memories and the workings of your brain.
Croc411 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 01:34 PM   #136
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 25,603
I would have to be very careful that nothing else got into the transporter chamber with me...like a fly.

Wow, a thread about matter tranporters and it took 4 pages for a "The Fly" reference.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 01:42 PM   #137
Thunderchief
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 167
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
I disagree that these descriptions are meaningful. A process isn't an object and can't be vaporized. What is the difference between a process being moved and being duplicated?

Again, I think you're making the mistake of conflating the brain with the mind.

Hmm, in a materialistic point of view the Brain is the mind, so when you vaporise the brain the mind goes too. Is that not obvious? So when I step into the vaporising machine, it would be no comfort to me that a copy of me exists elsewhere. Can you honestly say that you would happily step in to a vaporiser after being copied?
__________________
Heisenberg Probably Rules!
Thunderchief is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 01:58 PM   #138
Croc411
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 97
Originally Posted by Thunderchief
Hmm, in a materialistic point of view the Brain is the mind, so when you vaporise the brain the mind goes too.
But materialism also says that the mind is just information. And information can be copied or reproduced.
Croc411 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 01:59 PM   #139
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
 
BenBurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
Posts: 35,135
Originally Posted by Thunderchief View Post
Hmm, in a materialistic point of view the Brain is the mind, so when you vaporise the brain the mind goes too. Is that not obvious? So when I step into the vaporising machine, it would be no comfort to me that a copy of me exists elsewhere. Can you honestly say that you would happily step in to a vaporiser after being copied?
But is the mind just the current configuration of your brain?

If I replicate that configuration elsewhere with different atoms, how is that different?

Nature replaces the atoms in your body and over the course of your life there is significant turnover.

Was there some point where the cycling of material left you not you?
__________________
For what doth it profit a man, to fix one bug, but crash the system?
BenBurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 02:05 PM   #140
macdoc
Philosopher
 
macdoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Planet earth on slow boil
Posts: 6,165
Quote:
Again, I think you're making the mistake of conflating the brain with the mind.
and I think you are making a mistake in not doing so.

All transporter scenarios envisions an instanteous duplication of the material state of the person and that includes processes down to the quantum level.

Possible? not in my view.

But I do think some sort of ongoing consciousness of a person uploaded to a machine has potential.
macdoc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 02:14 PM   #141
Nick227
Illuminator
 
Nick227's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dorset, UK
Posts: 3,417
Originally Posted by zeggman View Post
I agree with this, and don't think I'd have a problem stepping into a tested, functioning transporter.

Still, when the scenario is changed only slightly, it gives me pause.

Suppose you're transported five feet from where you are right now, and the "original" is not vaporized. You now exist as two virtually identical individuals. You can even have a brief conversation with yourself to verify that your memories are exactly the same.

Would you be happy now to step into the vaporization chamber, knowing that your emergent brain activity is cycling along just fine in the other body?
Well, to be honest, I wouldn't step into it anyway. I'm hard-wired to resist death.

But, having participated in a lot of these debates over the years, what I see repeatedly is that people always go into these scenarios with the chamber malfunctioning, or the idea of meeting your twin.

And actually these things have nothing to do with the original thought experiment. They're just emotive concerns, biological pre-programming.

The thought experiment is usually used to demonstrate that many people who profess to be materialists won't actually choose to believe it when their own body and sense of self is at stake. Me neither.

Most well-functioning human beings will choose an inconsistent belief over hard reality when their sense of self is at stake. Because, at the end of the day, no one really cares that much about philosophy or science.

Nick
__________________
If you want to know what neural processing looks like... open your eyes!
Nick227 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 02:18 PM   #142
Thunderchief
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 167
Originally Posted by BenBurch View Post
But is the mind just the current configuration of your brain?

If I replicate that configuration elsewhere with different atoms, how is that different?

Nature replaces the atoms in your body and over the course of your life there is significant turnover.

Was there some point where the cycling of material left you not you?
It's not different, it would be identical, excepting it's temporal location of course. That does not mean that the brain you copied suddenly stops existing though, so niether does the mind it creates. So you would have two identical minds but not the same mind, so one can die and the other could live on, however the one that dies, does not magically transfer to the other brain, it is dead. As would the original in the transporter.

As I have stated, I would agree that if it is true that all my atoms have been replaced, then the Simon who existed 10 years ago (made up number I don't know how long it takes.) is not the same Simon who is typing this.
__________________
Heisenberg Probably Rules!
Thunderchief is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 02:23 PM   #143
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,853
Originally Posted by Thunderchief View Post
Hmm, in a materialistic point of view the Brain is the mind, so when you vaporise the brain the mind goes too.
In the materialistic point of view, the mind is the process that the brain manifests. I can copy a file from one hard drive to another, in fact I can copy it back and forth or even have it stored dynamically, and it's still the same file.

I don't think there's any meaningful distinction at all between moving a file or copying the file while deleting it from the original location - the two are the same thing. Neither is there any materialistic distinction between moving your mind from one brain to another or copying your mind into a new brain - it's the same thing.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 02:41 PM   #144
Thunderchief
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 167
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
In the materialistic point of view, the mind is the process that the brain manifests. I can copy a file from one hard drive to another, in fact I can copy it back and forth or even have it stored dynamically, and it's still the same file.

I don't think there's any meaningful distinction at all between moving a file or copying the file while deleting it from the original location - the two are the same thing. Neither is there any materialistic distinction between moving your mind from one brain to another or copying your mind into a new brain - it's the same thing.
It is an identical file, not the same file, if it were the same file when you delete it all other copies would disappear. You can not move a file on a computer by the way, you can only copy it and then delete the original, what we call a "moving a file" does no such thing, it just rewrites the file location information. It's not a useful analogy for you in this case, in fact i would say it helps my case more. No data is ever moved in a computer, it is only ever copied and then deleted. Just like the poor sap in the transporter. ;-)

The "me" on earth does not get to go to mars, and the "me" on mars never gets to come to earth. Not via transporter anyway.
__________________
Heisenberg Probably Rules!
Thunderchief is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 02:43 PM   #145
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
The chances of me appearing in an episode of Star Trek are very small.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 03:50 PM   #146
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,853
Originally Posted by Thunderchief View Post
No data is ever moved in a computer, it is only ever copied and then deleted. Just like the poor sap in the transporter. ;-)
And yet we talk about moving files, because we recognize that when we create an identical file elsewhere, nothing is lost.

Just as a materialist has to recognize that his experience is identical whether you call him "the original" or "the copy," and that the distinction between waking up in your own body or waking up in a different body is entirely based on your mistaken intuition regarding indentity continuity, and not based on fact.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 04:13 PM   #147
AlBell
Philosopher
 
AlBell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,362
Not unless a painful and certain death was the alternative.
AlBell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 04:31 PM   #148
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,666
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
I disagree that these descriptions are meaningful. A process isn't an object and can't be vaporized. What is the difference between a process being moved and being duplicated?

Again, I think you're making the mistake of conflating the brain with the mind.
Process being moved:

I walk out of the transporter and into the next room.


Process being duplicated:

I stand in the transporter, and it briefly hums.

The technician tells me "OK, we confirm you've arrived in the next room so I'm now going to evaporate you. All right?"

But I look around and realise that I'm not in the next room. Some other dude is in the next room. I'm still here, listening to a guy who's just said he's about to kill me and am I cool with that. I sense that I am not cool with that.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 05:30 PM   #149
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe
Posts: 15,820
If it worked as advertised in ST, then I'd do it in a second
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 06:01 PM   #150
Cainkane1
Philosopher
 
Cainkane1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The great American southeast
Posts: 7,818
Originally Posted by Travis View Post
I don't think I would. I would be too afraid that a mess up in the transmission would leave me without skin on the other side or something. Or, for that matter, that I might apparate someplace where I shouldn't be apparating. You know like half of me is in a rock or something.

And what would happen if a person was standing where I beam into?
No I'd be afraid a fly would be in the teleporter and I'd end up half human and half fly.
__________________
If at first you don't succeed try try again. Then if you fail to succeed to Hell with that. Try something else.
Cainkane1 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 08:50 PM   #151
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
 
dasmiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon
Posts: 4,428
Originally Posted by Cainkane1 View Post
No I'd be afraid a fly would be in the teleporter and I'd end up half human and half fly.
Now . . . you do understand that even if we were careful to screen out any flies, there would still be a few thousand dust mites, a hundred trillion (!) E. coli bacteria, and a host of other non-human-DNA critters going through the teleporter with you . . . .
__________________
"In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt
dasmiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 09:14 PM   #152
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
 
BenBurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
Posts: 35,135
Originally Posted by Thunderchief View Post
...

As I have stated, I would agree that if it is true that all my atoms have been replaced, then the Simon who existed 10 years ago (made up number I don't know how long it takes.) is not the same Simon who is typing this.
Mostly painless, wasn't it?
__________________
For what doth it profit a man, to fix one bug, but crash the system?
BenBurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 09:16 PM   #153
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
 
BenBurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
Posts: 35,135
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
If it worked as advertised in ST, then I'd do it in a second
IF Lt. Cmdr. Montgomery Scott is running them, of course.
__________________
For what doth it profit a man, to fix one bug, but crash the system?
BenBurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 09:45 PM   #154
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Third in line
Posts: 18,042
No; the individual human who enters the transporter is killed, and a duplicate is created in the new location. Word games about the duplicate being able to call itself "me" aside: objectively, one subject's brain processes ended at one point, and the other subject's brain processes began at a later point, with no continuity bridge in between. It's not the same subject. Identical, perhaps, but not the same.

If I have two cassette tape copies of the same album, and I stop listening to one tape at 14:33 and start the other tape at 14:33, you could say I was listening to the same album, but demonstrably not the same tape. I can take the first tape out and show it to you, even as the second one was playing. You could theoretically do this with the transporter too, as the "what if it didn't destroy you when duplicating you" thought experiment proves. If the original subject goes to McDonald's afterwards while the duplicated subject visits the Library of Mars, the subject at McDonald's will not be able to see the Library of Mars, and the subject on Mars will not be able to see the menu board at the McDonald's. They are demonstrably two different subjects.

The word games over what "you" and "I" and "self" would mean vis-a-vis the dissolving subject in one location and the resolving subject in the other location are as practically useless as the mathematical "fact" that no one can ever touch another person because they would first have to traverse half the remaining distance ad infinitum, a fact which can be easily contested by walking up and swiftly kicking someone in the genitals. If a train consist is disassembled in one location and a second train consist is created many miles away on the same line, made up of the same types of cars and number of engines arranged in the same order which starts moving in the same direction as the original was, nobody could accuse it of being the "same train".

Last edited by Checkmite; 28th November 2012 at 09:48 PM.
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 09:50 PM   #155
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
 
Travis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Tuolumne City, CA
Posts: 20,293
Travis has a birthday
Originally Posted by Nick227 View Post
For me you can't realistically claim to be a materialist and then be in a drama about getting in the Teletransporter. It's just talking the talk without the walking the walk.

Nick
I really have no issue with the ethics or sense of self. Maybe who I am is destroyed and the new copy just goes on thinking it is part of the same continuity. I wouldn't know. Neither would anyone else that makes use of the technology. So long as it actually works correctly.

However another part of me thinks this is an awful waste. If it could create a new me without needing to destroy the original I would prefer that. That way there are now two of me that can get twice the stuff done.


Originally Posted by Nick227 View Post
Yes, me too. So where's the drama about getting into a Teletransporter?

You cannot die in a correctly functioning Teletransporter. One body ceases to be and another is created. But "you" is only an emergent property of brain activity. If the body is perfectly reproduced then the "you", the "I", is identical.

Nick
All it takes is one disgruntled technician to upload a virus into the machine that makes all the people come out the other side with a penis on their face and the thing would never be trusted again.

Originally Posted by zeggman View Post
I agree with this, and don't think I'd have a problem stepping into a tested, functioning transporter.

Still, when the scenario is changed only slightly, it gives me pause.

Suppose you're transported five feet from where you are right now, and the "original" is not vaporized. You now exist as two virtually identical individuals. You can even have a brief conversation with yourself to verify that your memories are exactly the same.

Would you be happy now to step into the vaporization chamber, knowing that your emergent brain activity is cycling along just fine in the other body?
As noted above it would seem like such a waste to destroy the original. So there are now two of you. So what? So long as both you existing doesn't cause a rift in the universe or something I say carry on.
__________________
"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com
Travis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 12:08 AM   #156
Aepervius
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Somewhere on earth
Posts: 9,607
Originally Posted by Nick227 View Post
But we're not talking about something substantial here.
wrong we are definitively speaking of something substancial and material : the brain. You can play around with saying the I is an illusion or whatever. I am saying the I *IS* the brain. You are merely associating the apparence & functionning of the brain , the emerging property and say they are illusion, but you are not following trhru with acknowleding what is the important and only part for a materialist/physicalist : the substrat , the brain.

Kill the brain, you kill the I. Destroy the cube it is gone. You can make a new copy of the cube or brain but it will not be the original isntanced I. It will be a similar one with the same cubic/thought property but not the same.

Again, let me ask you , what if the process was not in reality a simple transfer, but first you get excruciatingly murdered over a long time, then the copy emerge without memory of it (the memory copy stops at the point where the torture murder starts).

There is no basic difference with the transporter the effect in the end is the same : you were at point A, and a copy identical in property appear at point B. Would you take the transporter ? If you say no, I have to ask you why not. The End state is fully identical with the transporter , the process is exactely the samer up to the point you push the button. The only difference is that the dematerialisation is killing you in painful way, which the copy will not be aware of.
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 12:44 AM   #157
Thunderchief
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 167
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
And yet we talk about moving files, because we recognize that when we create an identical file elsewhere, nothing is lost.

Just as a materialist has to recognize that his experience is identical whether you call him "the original" or "the copy," and that the distinction between waking up in your own body or waking up in a different body is entirely based on your mistaken intuition regarding indentity continuity, and not based on fact.
We may talk about it, however that does not change the fact that nothing is "moved" it is only ever "copied" like I've said before, we just don't care in this case, it makes no difference to us that the file we now have is a copy, because it is identical we don't mourn the loss of the original, condemned to a slow "death" of being partially overwritten until nothing remains. Sounds painful! ;-)

We are not talking about waking up in a different body, I have already said that the "me" on Mars is a real "me" but it is not the same me as the "me" on earth. He could come back via spaceship and tell me all about his adventures on Mars but the "me" on Earth will never experience being on Mars this way, so I don't know how you can meaningfully say that they are the same. (Identical yes, but not the same.)
__________________
Heisenberg Probably Rules!
Thunderchief is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 12:46 AM   #158
Thunderchief
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 167
Originally Posted by BenBurch View Post
Mostly painless, wasn't it?
Yep, I wonder if I can claim my life insurance? ;-)
__________________
Heisenberg Probably Rules!
Thunderchief is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 02:01 AM   #159
Recovering Agnostic
Back Pew Heckler
 
Recovering Agnostic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 710
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
Process being moved:

I walk out of the transporter and into the next room.


Process being duplicated:

I stand in the transporter, and it briefly hums.

The technician tells me "OK, we confirm you've arrived in the next room so I'm now going to evaporate you. All right?"

But I look around and realise that I'm not in the next room. Some other dude is in the next room. I'm still here, listening to a guy who's just said he's about to kill me and am I cool with that. I sense that I am not cool with that.
I wouldn't be cool with that, and I see no reason why materialism should oblige you to be cool with that. If the "copy" can be created without any harm to me, it would be wasteful and ridiculous (practical issues aside) to insist on killing the "original" because that's just how it works. This, like Aepervius's insistence on inflicting agonising deaths on everyone, is adding extraneous elements to the thought experiment to try to tip the balance, by confusing the principle with the practicalities.

So let's say the Earth was about to be destroyed by an alien fleet. You can hop on a spaceship bound for the nearest human colony, or you can step into a transporter, which will painlessly and perfectly disassemble your body, and use that information to instantly recreate an identical body at your destination. The transporter will always work, but the spaceship has a high probability (call it 50%) of being destroyed by the aliens.

So do you choose the transporter, or the spaceship? What if the chance of the spaceship being destroyed was 75%? 99%? What if the transporter was the only option? Would you stay put for the last 5 minutes of "real" life before being blown up, just because the person who stepped out of the transporter wouldn't be made of the same atoms?
__________________
My glorified brain dump, ranting space and navel fluff collection

The art and science of asking questions is the source of all knowledge - Thomas Berger
Recovering Agnostic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 02:16 AM   #160
Thunderchief
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 167
Originally Posted by Recovering Agnostic View Post
This, like Aepervius's insistence on inflicting agonising deaths on everyone, is adding extraneous elements to the thought experiment to try to tip the balance, by confusing the principle with the practicalities.
I don't think its extraneous at all, it is getting to the bottom of how the transporter would work, revealing that it does not "move" you, it copies and then deletes you. If you could come up with a transporter that "moves" you I would happily step in.


Originally Posted by Recovering Agnostic View Post
So let's say the Earth was about to be destroyed by an alien fleet. You can hop on a spaceship bound for the nearest human colony, or you can step into a transporter, which will painlessly and perfectly disassemble your body, and use that information to instantly recreate an identical body at your destination. The transporter will always work, but the spaceship has a high probability (call it 50%) of being destroyed by the aliens.

So do you choose the transporter, or the spaceship? What if the chance of the spaceship being destroyed was 75%? 99%? What if the transporter was the only option? Would you stay put for the last 5 minutes of "real" life before being blown up, just because the person who stepped out of the transporter wouldn't be made of the same atoms?
In the first instance I would get on the Spaceship, 50% chance of life verses, 0% chance in the transporter. if you increase the risk, then at some point it would not be worth the risk, but I'm not sure where I would draw the line, above 50% but below 99% I would think.

If the transporter was the only option I would get on, its better that my genetics continue despite my death. If the time was long though, say a year of life, then I would not get on.
__________________
Heisenberg Probably Rules!

Last edited by Thunderchief; 29th November 2012 at 02:31 AM. Reason: Typo, "This" instead of "IF" in the last line.
Thunderchief is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:19 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.