I can't tell if people are purposely misinterpreting this because you used the word "soul", but whatever. I would liken it to being put on anesthetics and never realizing you ever woke up.
Star Trek and Teleportation
- Thread starter SymbiantXenos
- Start date
- Status
I can't tell if people are purposely misinterpreting this because you used the word "soul", but whatever. I would liken it to being put on anesthetics and never realizing you ever woke up.
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
Well, he would.
SolidusDave
Member
But you wrote going out by misunderstanding teleporters. A normal teleporter doesn't kill you as you will still end up at the destination.
You can't put yourself in the perspective of the one "dying" as it happens in one go.
Not really. It was made explicit that Simon's consciousness could not jump to another body, you can only create an exact copy. The 50% chance that was talked about at the end of the game was more philosophical than mathematical.
Would it still be your car if, instead of a slow and methodical replacement of parts, it was essentially vaporized and completely ceases to exist at once and you were then presented with a car that was exactly the same as the previously vaporized one? There is nothing that linearly or even semantically connects the cars in a way that would make them the same car. The car is the same one and yours only in so far as there has been a direct causal chain that connects all aspects of its existence both in terms of time and space. I would argue that the car is no more yours than another person is you (in the case of teleportation), no matter how identical, since your linear existence ends and the existence of a new and other entity altogether begins. There is nothing that connects the two entities expect the shape that they have (and the memories they would share, again in the case of teleportation).
But this has little to nothing to do with the teleportation presented in Star Trek.
LumpOfCole
Member
I meant thinking a functional transporter is going to preserve you and your consciousness all the way to Point B, instead of 'killing' you at Point A and making a perfect copy at Point B.
If a person went into a transporter thinking the former and it was really the latter, well, at least it was the best possible death.
well there's also the fact that his son got stuck in some kind of subspace whatever in a certain region of space for years, after a transporter accident, and they were able to complete the transport later and bring him out of whatever transporter energy form he was in.
If transporters were just making a copy and destroying the old person, there wouldn't be any person in-between. We've seen over and over again in Trek that the transporter instead converts you, moves you, then reconstructs you.
bit of a extreme example, but let's say an unspecified person has a kid. They watch some highly advanced machine create an identical clone of the kid. They know who the "clone" is because they watched the process. Then they have to decide to kill one of them because reasons. Does it not matter who they kill?
Let's say a computer scans the kid's brain and creates an identical virtual AI. Then the person is asked to either kill the kid of delete the AI. Does it still not matter who they kill?
btw I'm playing SOMA right now because it was recommended to me in another thread, it's pretty great
Octavianus
Banned
Again, if it had all of my experiences from up to the moment I get shot, yes. Why is this so hard to gasp?
Yeah, I'm disabled / live with chronic pain so geting my mind transported to a machine is pretty much a dream to me. I think about this a lot and honestly, Id be perfectly contend with ending the existence of the biological 'me' in this circumstance.
I have. One of my favourite games of this decade.
People want to believe in the supernatural -- that consciousness is something more than an illusion arising from natural physical processes.
excelsiorlef
Member
It's not supernatural....
It's just that a clone is not you.
Because you'd be dead. Gone. That clone isn't you.
Octavianus
Banned
But... it is.
Can we talk about how site to site transports are woefully underused in the star trek universe.
"Shes trapped in the engine room, and its about to blow!!!"
"Cant we just transport her out?"
"Captain we have a hostage situation on deck 3!!"
"Just transport them into a holding cell"
"Shes trapped in the engine room, and its about to blow!!!"
"Cant we just transport her out?"
"Captain we have a hostage situation on deck 3!!"
"Just transport them into a holding cell"
excelsiorlef
Member
That's literally nonsense...
Because if I woke it up before I shot you. If I slapped it in front of you, you wouldn't feel that slap... because that clone isn't you. I mean it's why I can even shoot you and it would still live on because you and your clone are not linked... because they are separate people.
A copy would be a replication of you with a replication of your memories and consciousness.. Indistinguishable, but not a continuation of the same stream.
UnemployedVillain
Member
I don't think suicide means what you think it means
Frozenprince
Banned
So we're just ignoring the Reg episodes where he was awake and alert the entire time he was being transported
excelsiorlef
Member
I think this thread moved beyond Star Trek and into the concept of teleportation in general.
No... it's the same as having a natural born twin. I can't tell if you're literally not smart enough to understand or just trolling.
It is to everyone else. But you are now dead. Your experience ends even though the new clone is convinced it never did.
He's trying to make the point that as our present snapshots of consciousness emerging potentially means that our conscious states from a moment ago(our past selves) fade away into oblivion, it's more or less the same as an exact copy of ourselves popping into existence while the old version is destroyed. He's not completely wrong if the illusion of self holds true to that extent but he's definitely wrong in claiming it's the exact same thing as one being's physical and mental continuity not being preserved.
I like to think of past conscious states as collapsing and cascading into memories and the present state. The old you is not so much dying as it is rolling forth and snowballing into those new states. Older states are being overwritten but not lost. If the stream is causing a true illusion then it's so convincing that it's not even worth worrying about.
These are the type of questions that keep me up at night
Why stop there? Why not have the nanomachines slowly rebuild your mind into an android brain? That should technically work, no? Given that's how cells are replaced anyway, but this time they're replaced with something a bit more lasting.
Why stop there? Why not have the nanomachines slowly rebuild your mind into an android brain? That should technically work, no? Given that's how cells are replaced anyway, but this time they're replaced with something a bit more lasting.
I think this is the best solution, however, even if you completely transform your brain into a cybernetic brain, unless we fully understand consciousness, the role of chemicals, and the parts of the brain where conscious states coalesce from(and implement them correctly in the new brain), you may not be the same person or entity for very long. There is probably a lot about the human brain and body that makes us who we are. Once your mind has lost that spark that is a product of human biology who knows what kind of alien version of yourself you would become.
Look at Caroline->GLaDOS in Portal 2. A human seed who's original consciousness was modified beyond recognition once they turned her brain into a core.
The concept of "you" and "me" as distinct entities is entirely reliant on belief in the supernatural. Scientifically, you're nothing more than your body. The idea of having a continuous consciousness is merely a cultural meme.
Merry Christmas.
excelsiorlef
Member
And my body is not your body.
Nothing supernatural about that.
Merry Christmas to you as well...
Right, but if you are your body and your body exists each day until your death, what reason do you have to worry about a loss of self? You do have a continuous consciousness in the sense that it is a present stream emerging from brain patterns, memories, and chemicals.
Rodney McKay
Member
Eh, he used tech (an equation) that Spock from the far-future gave Scotty to create a long distance teleporter.
It was only used once in Star Trek (new one) and once in Into Darkness (which Khan stole) and then was classified I think which is why it didn't totally change the entire universe (like tech that important would). Star Fleet has a temporal secret agency I think, so it makes sense they would classify that tech.
Orbis Tabula
Member
I think we're gonna have to better define what it means to "be the same person" or "be the real you." Because we've got half the argument saying "there's no way to distinguish between the two, so it must be the real me." And the other half saying "but it's not the real, real real, real you!" Clearly some terms need to be better defined.
excelsiorlef
Member
I mean a clone and you existing ay the same time are not occupying the same space.
A clone and the original are two distinct beings.
Orbis Tabula
Member
Ah, but a clone is a different idea than an atomically identical object. I'd agree that a clone is not the same as the original.
But if I take you apart and then rebuild you on a spaceship, and the thing on the spaceship has all the memories you had when I took you apart, and it remembers signing up to be teleported and it remembers stepping in to the teleporter, what test exists that can show that this thing isn't you? Is there any actual physical property that can act as evidence that that thing is a clone, and not "really" you?
the test always seems to involve removing the original. If the original and the copy exist at the same time, the very existence of the original proves that the copy isn't a continuation of the same person
hm, but you're familar
with the ending
Coriolanus
Banned
this thread is why it's better to base your teleportation tech around creating tears in the fabric of spacetime. No one argues if it's the same chell going through those damn portals.
i'm afraid you didn't quite understand the story.
i'm afraid you didn't quite understand the story.
Orbis Tabula
Member
But does it prove that? I'd say it just means there are two continuations of the original person. They both have an equally strong claim or being "the same person." How strong that claim is just depends on how much you believe in "the same person" being a meaningful idea.
excelsiorlef
Member
That literally makes no sense, a clone is a separate being that can and will form different memories and thus behaviours than the original.
If I punch your clone, you won't feel it, because you are two distinct beings. If I send your clone to Paris and leave it there it will do different things than you who is not in Paris and change accordingly.
It is a new conscience not an extension of yours.
It is how Ben Reilly and Peter Parker became two distinct people
If anyone has read the novel Kraken by China Mieville he has a character who specializes in teleportation that is basically the same exact idea as what's used in Star Trek. Lets just say the repercussions of his constant use of said teleportation technique are rather fucked up and clever.
Orbis Tabula
Member
Well, yeah. If you punch the copy, I won't feel it. Once you punch the copy, it's no longer the same, because one has a "got punched" memory and the other doesn't. And both are different from the pre-copy version, since they both have "got copied" memories. Same for Paris.
It's consciousness is an extension of the one it was copied from, just as is the consciousness of the other copy. Both are extensions of the single, pre-copy consciousness. They would just evolve differently once you put them in different circumstances.
Correctomundo
Member
I was using it in reference to the paragraph I quoted. Still, in terms of relevance to Star Trek, it's already shown that that chain everyone thinks is somehow broken isn't actually broken at all by conscious persistence during transport. So it is the same thing, except for the duration of time between when a "part" is removed and replaced.
No I get what they meant by it.
New one goes in but the old one's still there with the coin toss being that the odds weren't in your favor to be the new one so you're screwed right off the bat pretty much.
excelsiorlef
Member
They are different before I punch the clone, that's the only reason you don't feel it. Like if they weren't different you'd both form the got punched memory, but you don't because the clone isn't actually you it's just an identical copy, the same way two copies of a novel are not the same physical book they are two copies. It is not an extension of your consciousness it is a copy, you are not linked at all, you exist as two different beings made up of different atoms that just happen to be configured to be identical but they are still separate hence why doing something to one has no affect on the other. You and your clone are two versions of the exact same thing. your clone is no more an extension of your consciousness than your identical twin would be an extension of your consciousness.
Orbis Tabula
Member
But the question that really matters is, how do you know the one you're punching is the copy? I'll agree that when you make a copy, the are now two instances of Joe. I'd further agree that there's no psychic link between the two, so punching one doesn't hurt the other. But the original question was whether or not teleporting is murdering and copying. Is there any way to determine which one is the copy? Because if not, then teleporting being copying doesn't matter! Since the copy is me.
I think the teleporter question is an unsolvable paradox that you can easily see solutions too, but upon inspection you realize they can't happen and that's why things don't peice up correctly.
For example, look at the speed of light: 299.7million mps. Okay, so what if you just went faster? It's easy to let your brain go "well, what if you just went 600 trillion mps?" and you envision it, this craft moving at insane speeds. What if you could just appear anywhere instantly because you go infinity speed. Again, easy to imagine in your head, but it's not physically possible in our universe.
We have weird hard universal limits in places you wouldn't expect. A teleporter is one of them, just like c. I'm going to guess that you cannot ever replicate the functionality of a Star Trek teleporter in real life, and thus, the question of "do you die?" just like my example a paragraph above "what if you just went 600 trillion mps?" is a meaningless question.
So the posters who are saying "It's science fiction, don't put to much stock into it" win this round, because it actually adds up, since whatever universe Star Trek is taking place in allows the rules to be bent to teleport, so maybe it allows you to not die. Who knows.
For example, look at the speed of light: 299.7million mps. Okay, so what if you just went faster? It's easy to let your brain go "well, what if you just went 600 trillion mps?" and you envision it, this craft moving at insane speeds. What if you could just appear anywhere instantly because you go infinity speed. Again, easy to imagine in your head, but it's not physically possible in our universe.
We have weird hard universal limits in places you wouldn't expect. A teleporter is one of them, just like c. I'm going to guess that you cannot ever replicate the functionality of a Star Trek teleporter in real life, and thus, the question of "do you die?" just like my example a paragraph above "what if you just went 600 trillion mps?" is a meaningless question.
So the posters who are saying "It's science fiction, don't put to much stock into it" win this round, because it actually adds up, since whatever universe Star Trek is taking place in allows the rules to be bent to teleport, so maybe it allows you to not die. Who knows.
That's just called lazy writing. Like how the holodeck is suppose to 100% safe yet there's some kind of malfunction in like 2% of the episodes.
If I can't tell the difference and I can go to Fiji or another planet in 5 seconds, sign me up.
ManDudeChild
Member
Technology has always been a help and hindrance in the Star Trek universe. Your points are entirely valid; and so too is the point that many problems faced could be solved by a Smart Phone... but seemingly a Tricorder isn't able to get the job done. Another technological bit of wtf'kery is the amount of times simply flooding a room with random gas (which is often used for virus of the week episodes) would fix everything.
But this is a franchise that featured one of the first interracial kisses on TV ... as well as an episode highlighting why women shouldn't be captains. Wacky contradictions are just part of the fun!
excelsiorlef
Member
That I don't know which is which is irrelevant to fact that they are distinct beings. Ergo killing you .the original. still kills you even if this clone lives on. Also if I was the one cloning you I'd in fact know which one is which because your clone would likely materialize in a different physical space than you.
To society no it makes no difference, but I'm arguing from the perspective of the person not from society
If teleporter works by essentially materializing a clone of me on the other side, I'm dead and a clone continues my life, society will never notice but I'm gone because my psychical self has been destroyed and a separate being has been created to continue my life.
But in my scenario you don't go to Fiji in 5 seconds, you die and a separate being that is identical to you appears in Fiji 5 seconds later
If a teleporter physically transports me (in whatever fashion) to the destination I'm still alive.
Orbis Tabula
Member
But it is relevant! You can't talk about killing the "original you" if you can't identify reliably what that means! If there is no trait that can identify between the two versions of you, than in what way can anyone claim there's a distinction.
I feel like we're talking around the real hidden question here. Do you think that there is a non-physical component to your identity? That what makes you "you" is distinct from the physical components?
excelsiorlef
Member
No I do not, conscienceless is a biological process.
The punch scenario was just to highlight that you an da clone are distinct beings that are not extensions of each other.
The teleporter in my scenario is much more like shooting you in the head dead and then creating a clone of you to continue your life.
You are still dead, you will not continue through your clone, your clone being a distinct being will continue your life but it is no longer you just someone who looks and thinks like you.
Orbis Tabula
Member
But how is that scenario any different from what happens to you every minute? Right now, you're a guy who looks and thinks like the guy that started this conversation in the first place. But that guy who started the conversation is gone. Dead. Now it's just you. So what property is present in one scenario (you aging from younger you to older you) that is absent in the other scenario (you moving from Earth to the spaceship)? How can you know the difference?
- Status