Star Trek and Teleportation

Status
Not open for further replies.
JoshuaJSlone said:
Source for some episode where they talk about how they die each time they use a transporter? Other than McCoy or Barclay being scaredy-cats.
Click to expand...

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Replicator

A replicator was a device that used transporter technology to dematerialize quantities of matter and then rematerialize that matter in another form.
Click to expand...

There's tons and tons of dialogue on how replicators are just transporters set in duplicate mode.

ckohler said:
Actually, no. Nothing is destroyed in-so-far as the atoms being dissipated. Star Trek transporters disassemble your original matter and then beams it (move the original) to the new location using pattern buffers and an "angular confinement beam." Then it remotely reassembles your matter stream into its original configuration. It does this at a quantum level, thus preserving consciousness.
Click to expand...

How can you say "consciousness is preserved" when we have a clear cut example of two discrete streams of consciousness being produced:

latest


Whose consciousness was preserved there? Why would you expect consciousness to be preserved when it's computer information being transmitted as a digital signal?
 
ckohler said:
Again, "copy" suggests different matter is used to build another you. That's not how it works. Your original matter is deconstructed and then reassembled in a new place.
Click to expand...
In that post I said Star Trek aside. Based on what we know IRL if such a technology were to work it couldn't be the same matter. (e.g. more like Timeline or The Prestige)
 
Star Trek transporters do de-materialize and re-materialize the person.

The person is transported at a sub-atomic level via the matter stream and reconstructed on the other end from the pattern buffer.
 
excelsiorlef said:
The brain makes new neurons and neurons in the brain do die but in fact many if not most of the neurons we are born with are there until we die, brain cells are not like cells in other parts of the body.
Click to expand...

That's still some neurons dying, though. New synaptic connections being formed and broken. If consciousness is nothing more than a pattern in brain matter, then my original point still applies, even if the nuerons don't turn over as often as other cells.
 
McLovin said:
I never got why they didnt just save DNA patterns in case someone died.
Click to expand...
DNA isn't remotely enough. You need a complete pattern of the person's entire body, scanned at quantum resolution, and all of the matter that comprises thier body to remateralize them. The amount of data to store a person's complete pattern at that resolution is MASSIVE, even for Star Fleet computers in the 24th century. They can't just keep that amount of data around. The information itself is so large it's subject to degridation over time.
 
ckohler said:
DNA isn't remotely enough. You need a complete pattern of the person's entire body, scanned at quantum resolution, and all of the matter that comprises thier body to remateralize them. The amount of data to store a person's complete pattern at that resolution is MASSIVE, even for Star Fleet computers in the 24th century. They can't just keep that amount of data around. The information itself is so large it's subject to degridation over time.
Click to expand...

420 seconds is the time it can remain in the buffer. Unless you're scotty and can rig something to store yours until the enterprise D needs your help in the year whothehellcaresyourfriendsandfamilyaredead
 
SolidusDave said:
Isn't that how they make their instant food etc. ? Though maybe that's just some super advanced 3D printer as I can't answer why they don't use it for the latinum either.
Click to expand...

The reason latinum is used as currency is specifically because some technobabble means it can't be replicated.
 
I mean you can argue it's use is so strategically critical that only life forms willing to use it would survive long term.
 
excelsiorlef said:
The brain makes new neurons and neurons in the brain do die but in fact many if not most of the neurons we are born with are there until we die, brain cells are not like cells in other parts of the body.
Click to expand...

But if you want to go to a lower level then, yes, your brain has basically nothing in common physically with itself from a fraction of a second ago. It's all excitations in fields or whatever and looks completely different.

I do think this is the most compelling argument for the safety of teleportation-via-dematerialization. Yeah, it seems pretty plausible that in some important sense the person who comes out of the teleporter is distinct from the person who went in. But it's also pretty plausible that this is a problem for moving about without teleportation - consciousness may only exist at single moments in time, and we are fooled into believing that it is persistent in exactly the way that the person who steps out of a teleporter would believe that he's the same person who stepped in. If we're taking seriously the possibility that people are routinely fooled into thinking that they haven't popped into existence just now, then it's hard to see where we get off just assuming that we ourselves didn't pop into existence just now.
 
rootbeerafloat said:
Remember when Khan beamed from San Francisco to Kronos
Click to expand...
That was such complete bullshit. They tried to explain it away as if Scotty somehow magically invented "transwarp beaming" but the idea that you can beam anything across star systems not only breaks their own canon, it would make Star Fleet itself utterly meaningless. It would have been the greatest invention of all time.

Jackpot said:
http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Replicator
How can you say "consciousness is preserved" when we have a clear cut example of two discrete streams of consciousness being produced. Whose consciousness was preserved there? Why would you expect consciousness to be preserved when it's computer information being transmitted as a digital signal?
Click to expand...
According to the episode, Riker's consciousness from the instant he was dematerialized was preserved in both his original matter reconstruction on the ship and the duplicate on the planet. From that point forward, there was a duplicate consciousness that existed separate from the original that was reconstructed back on the Enterprise. In Star Trek, consciousness is nothing more than the very, very, very specific arrangement of subatomic particles that makes up your brain at the moment you are scanned by the transporter system.

For the record, I think that episode glossed over a VERY big issue... reconstruction... to the point of being implausible. It doesn't make sense that just pointing at an angular confinement beam at a weird radiation cloud would cause it to reconstruct on the planet with no computer intervention. I guess that's the part we're supposed to take as a complete and utter fluke. Still, even in that universe it's completely far fetched.

prag16 said:
In that post I said Star Trek aside. Based on what we know IRL if such a technology were to work it couldn't be the same matter. (e.g. more like Timeline or The Prestige)
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I agree that real world teleportation is more complicated and dirty. I'm just talking about how Star Trek explains it.

StalkerUKCG said:
420 seconds is the time it can remain in the buffer. Unless you're scotty and can rig something to store yours until the enterprise D needs your help in the year whothehellcaresyourfriendsandfamilyaredead
Click to expand...
Yeah, another bit of license for dramatic effect where the show pushes beyond its own rules.
 
vivftp said:
It's also worth pointing out that if transporters are matter duplicators then what's to stop someone from duplicating all the gold pressed latinum they could ever want?

Nope, they're not duplicators.
Click to expand...

Latinum is a mined liquid. It's complex at the quark level and cannot be replicated since replicates are just Atom assemblers
 
This whole notion about being assembled from the "same atoms" is just silly. There's no such thing as "the same atoms." Any two atoms of the same isotope of carbon are identical to the point that you can't even claim they're distinct. It's like asking if a math equation is using "the same 3s" that you used in a different problem. There aren't distinct 3s. There's just 3. There aren't distinct carbon-12 atoms. There's just carbon-12.
 
Juneau Joe said:
This whole notion about being assembled from the "same atoms" is just silly. There's no such thing as "the same atoms." Any two atoms of the same isotope of carbon are identical to the point that you can't even claim they're distinct. It's like asking if a math equation is using "the same 3s" that you used in a different problem. There aren't distinct 3s. There's just 3. There aren't distinct carbon-12 atoms. There's just carbon-12.
Click to expand...

What they mean is that "stock matter" isn't used. The matter that makes up you is just moved but in a way where it's a stream. Kinda like spagettification. Your body's original carbon-12 atoms (and all the others) are pulled apart and then transmitted to be put back together rather in the same configuration. This is different from a purely digital copy of your configuration instructions being used to build a new you out of different atoms.
 
Juneau Joe said:
That's still some neurons dying, though. New synaptic connections being formed and broken. If consciousness is nothing more than a pattern in brain matter, then my original point still applies, even if the nuerons don't turn over as often as other cells.
Click to expand...

Not really.

For example Murphy is dead and Robocop is arguably a new being, but Luke Skywalker is still Luke Skywalker even though he has a a robotic hand.
 
Gotchaye said:
But if you want to go to a lower level then, yes, your brain has basically nothing in common physically with itself from a fraction of a second ago. It's all excitations in fields or whatever and looks completely different.

I do think this is the most compelling argument for the safety of teleportation-via-dematerialization. Yeah, it seems pretty plausible that in some important sense the person who comes out of the teleporter is distinct from the person who went in. But it's also pretty plausible that this is a problem for moving about without teleportation - consciousness may only exist at single moments in time, and we are fooled into believing that it is persistent in exactly the way that the person who steps out of a teleporter would believe that he's the same person who stepped in. If we're taking seriously the possibility that people are routinely fooled into thinking that they haven't popped into existence just now, then it's hard to see where we get off just assuming that we ourselves didn't pop into existence just now.
Click to expand...


I think the crucial difference is how the transporter works, if it moves your very molecules and atoms though space via the stream and reconstitutes you then yes absolutely it's still you. However if it just sends your information as data to the destination and then that end constitutes you then you're dead and a new you takes over.
 
excelsiorlef said:
Not really.

For example Murphy is dead and Robocop is arguably a new being, but Luke Skywalker is still Luke Skywalker even though he has a a robotic hand.
Click to expand...

Well, so say you. I think Empire Luke is distinct from ANH Luke. His brain matter is certainly configured in a different way. Sure, we call them both Luke, but is there really any evidence for a "stream of consciousness" between the two?
 
Exactly why I wouldn't use any teleportation device except it's some kind of Stargate thing where I could stick an arm in to test.


It's a fun/scary idea though to think this is what happens in Trek every time there's beamage going on.
 
Does it even matter whether you're destroyed and recreated or not if there's no soul/afterlife? I mean, it's virtually no difference, there's not a thousand copies of you in Hades.
 
Juneau Joe said:
Well, so say you. I think Empire Luke is distinct from ANH Luke. His brain matter is certainly configured in a different way. Sure, we call them both Luke, but is there really any evidence for a "stream of consciousness" between the two?
Click to expand...
Yes so say me, I'm trying to base my arguments in some sort of rationality instead of whatever you're doing with this.

Luke is still Luke, Murphy is not still Murphy.

_Ryo_ said:
Does it even matter whether you're destroyed and recreated or not if there's no soul/afterlife? I mean, it's virtually no difference, there's not a thousand copies of you in Hades.
Click to expand...

Well I mean it does if you like being alive. Because if you're destroyed and recreated you are dead.
 
ckohler said:
What they mean is that "stock matter" isn't used. The matter that makes up you is just moved but in a way where it's a stream. Kinda like spagettification. Your body's original carbon-12 atoms (and all the others) are pulled apart and then transmitted to be put back together rather in the same configuration. This is different from a purely digital copy of your configuration instructions being used to build a new you out of different atoms.
Click to expand...

But there's not really a distinction! It'd be like if you asked me "What's five minus two?" And rather than tell you three, I wrote three on a piece of paper and carried it to your house because I wanted you to have my three, instead of a stock three.
 
At various points Star Trek has waved the quantum mechanics magic wand to explain why transporters aren't suicide machines. Something like the operation of consciousness is superpositioned with another location and then collapsed to that location.

Even if that doesn't make sense outside of Star Trek, I guess when a transporter duplicate is created like Riker, it's The Prestige effect: both are real, nobody died.
 
excelsiorlef said:
Yes so say me, I'm trying to base my arguments in some sort of rationality instead of whatever you're doing with this.
Click to expand...

The point I'm trying to make is this:
Either you believe that individual fundamental pieces of matter (atoms, quarks, molecules) have distinct identities from each other, in which case you're definitely not the same person you were just months ago, as atoms have been cycled out of your body and been replaced.

Or! You accept that fundamental particles don't have distinct individual identities and therefore, all consciousness is nothing but patterns in matter. In which case, you are definitely not the same person you were just months ago, as your atoms are now in a different configuration.

Either way, there's no way to say that you're the same person you were before, and we haven't even needed to invent teleporters!
 
Juneau Joe said:
The point I'm trying to make is this:
Either you believe that individual fundamental pieces of matter (atoms, quarks, molecules) have distinct identities from each other, in which case you're definitely not the same person you were just months ago, as atoms have been cycled out of your body and been replaced.

Or! You accept that fundamental particles don't have distinct individual identities and therefore, all consciousness is nothing but patterns in matter. In which case, you are definitely not the same person you were just months ago, as your atoms are now in a different configuration.

Either way, there's no way to say that you're the same person you were before, and we haven't even needed to invent teleporters!
Click to expand...

Luke is still Luke, Murphy is not still Murphy. The analogy is simple yes some brain cells die and some get reassigned and some are created but the core of it still remains from birth to death, this is Luke's hand, yes part of his body was destroyed and replaced but the core of Luke still remains. In a data conversion transporter theory your brain is destroyed, its data sure is uploaded and reconstructed elsewhere but it's still destroyed, that's Murphy enough of him was destroyed that while he was rebuilt he's not Murphy anymore.

If my current computer broke but I was able to transfer all the data to a new one, that old computer still died. My new one is not my old one even if it has all the data.
 
They explore this sort of stuff in a few different episodes, in both TOS and TNG.

Obviously it is just a TV show, but it would be wrong to say they haven't thought about it.
 
Because who gives a fuck? if I'm being reconstructed in the exact same way at another location, same memories and everything, why should I care?
 
excelsiorlef said:
Luke is still Luke, Murphy is not still Murphy. The analogy is simple yes some brain cells die and some get reassigned and some are created but the core of it still remains from birth to death, this is Luke's hand, yes part of his body was destroyed and replaced but the core of Luke still remains. In a data conversion transporter theory your brain is destroyed, its data sure is uploaded and reconstructed elsewhere but it's still destroyed, that's Murphy enough of him was destroyed that while he was rebuilt he's not Murphy anymore.

If my current computer broke but I was able to transfer all the data to a new one, that old computer still died. My new one is not my old one even if it has all the data.
Click to expand...

You're asserting a lot of things about the nature of consciousness which, if we agreed they were true, would mean that we didn't need to have the argument at all. Demonstrate that Luke is still Luke! What is the "core" of Luke that is consistent over time? Is it is atoms? Because those are indistinguishable. Is it the configuration of his cells? Because those are constantly in flux. Or is "core" just a more scientific sounding word for soul?
 
excelsiorlef said:
Yes so say me, I'm trying to base my arguments in some sort of rationality instead of whatever you're doing with this.

Luke is still Luke, Murphy is not still Murphy.



Well I mean it does if you like being alive. Because if you're destroyed and recreated you are dead.
Click to expand...

But it doesn't matter because you're essentially be reborn in a fraction of seconds exactly as you were before. Which is to say, you'd be even more of the you that you were then than if you stood still for that same amount of time because it is a copy of you whereas the present you would have changes in the cells/neurons/etc.

How is it any different than sleeping? I mean, yeah you die but your death is entirely irrelevant. You continue you from point A to point A, again.
 
_Ryo_ said:
But it doesn't matter because you're essentially be reborn in a fraction of seconds exactly as you were before. Which is to say, you'd be even more of the you that you were then than if you stood still for that same amount of time because it is a copy of you whereas the present you would have changes in the cells/neurons/etc.

How is it any different than sleeping? I mean, yeah you die but your death is entirely irrelevant. You continue you from point A to point A, again.
Click to expand...

Relative to the world? Nothing, relative to me everything... I'm dead.

This is of course assuming a data transmission rather than an physical molecular and atomic stream.

A copy of me is not me.

The fact that you actually have to say yeah you die but is hilarious btw.
 
the horrifying part is that there's no way to determine if the original consciousness is killed as the person on the end of the teleportation would believe it was the same one that entered.

_Ryo_ said:
But it doesn't matter because you're essentially be reborn in a fraction of seconds exactly as you were before. Which is to say, you'd be even more of the you that you were then than if you stood still for that same amount of time because it is a copy of you whereas the present you would have changes in the cells/neurons/etc.

How is it any different than sleeping? I mean, yeah you die but your death is entirely irrelevant. You continue you from point A to point A, again.
Click to expand...

It's not like sleeping. Your body isn't destroyed when you go to sleep.
 
_Ryo_ said:
How is it any different than sleeping? I mean, yeah you die but your death is entirely irrelevant. You continue you from point A to point A, again.
Click to expand...

Because you'd go to sleep and never wake up again, 'cause you're atoms and all will be shattered. Then a new, carbon copy you wakes up on the other side of the transporter with completely new atoms. He remembers being you, but your now-alive conscience died in that teleporter room.
 
I will say suicide by teleporter would be the most painless way to do it. Well for your friends and family. You'd die. They still have their loved one.

Of course the new you still has all the pain you had. So then I guess it could just become an endless cycle.
 
MC Safety said:
It goes straight to Voyager.
Click to expand...
I lol'd.

Just started Voyager season 5 and the series hasn't been as bad as I thought it would be. There were some concepts that had real potential but they just failed in the execution. Braga may have been terrible for the series overall but the episodes he developed the story for were some of the more interesting ones that at least made you think a bit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Star Trek: Section 31 Trailer
2
86
4K
Captain Zyrain replied
Watching Star Trek and Realized Something.....
15
2K
ChazAshley replied
Merry Christmas: ‘Star Trek: Discovery’ Officially Erased From Canon
News 
36
3K
Illiterate Actual replied
Section 31 Rottenwatch: Kurtzman makes a worse Star Trek movie than Into Darkness, Nemesis, and Final Frontier combined
2
93
5K
Fluffytheterrible replied
  • Poll
Which Star Trek series (TNG/DS9/VOY) is your favorite and why?
2
95
4K
BillMaxwell replied
Top Bottom