This is a common thing in science fiction where you are 'teleported' by a machine that kills you, then reconstructs an exact copy of your body and mind at another point. The question is
Would you use it? (the copy really believes it is you and acts like and is indistinguishable from you. assume it's failsafe. the question is emotional rather than practical)
On August 06 2010 11:10 SilentCrono wrote: what is this from anyway?
The concept of teleporting, or becoming immortal by replicating yourself and killing the original is an old science fiction convention. The philosophical problem underlying it goes all the way back to greek philosophy, where it took the form of the ship of theseus. I find this version more interesting because the emotional resonance of evading death (or not) makes it hard to take the lazy way out by dismissing the whole issue as a matter of semantics.
common philosophical question...and if you believe that only the mind makes up who you really are then you would do it. but if you believe that both your body and mind makes you who you really are, then you wouldn't do it.
No, absolutely would not even consider it. I've thought about this concept a lot after reading Michael Crichton's(RIP) Timeline. The whole idea terrifies me. Sure it may be an exact copy of me down to the molecule, but it won't be ME. I'll be dead. Gone. Maybe if I was a religious type i would be willing but since i'm pretty atheist and don't really think anything happens after i die there's no way i would willingly kill my current body just to travel somewhere. Unless THIS body would die if I didn't teleport, like if the Earth was about to explode. Then yeah, sure, I would want to keep my ideas alive and have the chance for my genes to be carried on, but that would be the only acceptable reason to teleport for me.
First I would do it without destruction, and I would ask me if I am still me, or I am not me. If I am still me than i would kill me so there is only one me.
But if there would be two me... this leads me to an interesting question... if i would have sex with my other me, would it be gay sex or masturbation?
so it's basically what happened in The Prestige? eh i'd be sorta reluctant to do so. wouldn't use the device just for convenience. the original me is dying after all.
Isn't this more like The Prestige? I mean Tesla makes a machine that literally clones you in a different location and then you have to kill the clone/the clone has to kill you, just for a magic trick (lol).
But ya I wouldn't.
I do have an epic idea for this teleportation machinethough. It's a bit crude so spoiler tags.
So like, for this idea you need a girl. You get this girl and you pretty much fuck her except what you do is you put it in, then teleport her out/yourself out, then teleport her in/yourself in and let it repeat. I wonder what that would feel like.
The problem is one of you gets to remember what happened before, and keep living. The other just dies the second the teleportaiton begins. So is it worth dying in that instant so that a copy of you can go on living to experience the rest of your life? Nah.
i will never use a teleporter ever. good thing i probably won't see one in this lifetime. maybe future generations that can use this technology will be less religious.
How far of a teleport are we talking? Lightyears? I guess it doesn't really matter. I would probably do it eventually just to see if I would retain my consciousness of myself. It would really further research of the human brain.
Why ever disintegrate the original you? Just scan yourself and create a double far away. If the 2 were to meet later we'll figure out how to "merge" the two.
I'd use it no problem. I don't believe in a "mind" at all, except as a function of the body, but the new body will be identical to the old one, so it will work the same way and definitely be "me".
I'd even want to make a couple copies of myself instead of just one... I won't care for trivial stuff like who is the "real" me - both will be. If it could destroy and recreate you, why wouldn't it theoretically be able to just make copies without destroying the original? Duplicating people, money, everything.... imagine the world with such tech. Though if it is using some quantum teleportation effect, destroying the original might be a necessity in order to measure its properties and be able to recreate them on the other end.
Hey, one more tought - who's to say that the universe doesn't get destroyed and recreated in a new state every instant? You might be dieing and being re-created an infinite amount of times already and you don't even realize it
Now more seriously - if there are no observable differences between the original and copy, then by Occam's razor there are no differences at all. They are the same thing.
On August 05 2010 18:52 Coagulation wrote: so basically if you did this you would die.. regardless of the "cloned" you that comes out the other side.. you would cease to exist.
By which definition? What 'you' cease to exist?
OP states that both mind and body is copied. In that case I would argue that you have just been reassembled elsewhere.
The important question is: if you would die anyway because the earth would cease to exist, would you let yourself teleport out, even if it means you will be forced to have sex with yourself? (the machine will make like 5 copies of you which will have to participate in an orgy with each other) Would you?
On August 05 2010 19:11 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: ...okay, are you asking whether i would let myself die just so a copy of me whose conciousness i don't share can go somewhere else real quick?
fuck no, i'll take the bus.
if my conciousness is transferred through and i just feel like i teleported, then fuck yeah! atoms is just atoms.
This is exactly my thoughts on it.
I was like.. if I die... why would it matter if a copy of me existed?
On August 05 2010 18:54 Uriel_SVK wrote: First I would do it without destruction, and I would ask me if I am still me, or I am not me. If I am still me than i would kill me so there is only one me.
But if there would be two me... this leads me to an interesting question... if i would have sex with my other me, would it be gay sex or masturbation?
LOL. If you go through the back door then ya, it's homosexual because even if it's with yourself it still means you like taking it in the butt from a dude.
On the other hand(lol) if you just mutually masturbate yourselves(?) then I wouldn't call that gay because you're just pleasuring yourself. IDK man, it's a fine line. Especially if you go 69 on yourself. That may be pushing the limit.
Personally I wouldn't mind jacking myself off. I do it all the time anyway right? Some people may be too insecure with themselves though.
On August 05 2010 18:54 Uriel_SVK wrote: First I would do it without destruction, and I would ask me if I am still me, or I am not me. If I am still me than i would kill me so there is only one me.
But if there would be two me... this leads me to an interesting question... if i would have sex with my other me, would it be gay sex or masturbation?
LOL. If you go through the back door then ya, it's homosexual because even if it's with yourself it still means you like taking it in the butt from a dude.
On the other hand(lol) if you just mutually masturbate yourselves(?) then I wouldn't call that gay because you're just pleasuring yourself. IDK man, it's a fine line. Especially if you go 69 on yourself. That may be pushing the limit.
Personally I wouldn't mind jacking myself off. I do it all the time anyway right? Some people may be too insecure with themselves though.
On August 05 2010 19:11 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: ...okay, are you asking whether i would let myself die just so a copy of me whose conciousness i don't share can go somewhere else real quick?
fuck no, i'll take the bus.
if my conciousness is transferred through and i just feel like i teleported, then fuck yeah! atoms is just atoms.
This is exactly my thoughts on it.
I was like.. if I die... why would it matter if a copy of me existed?
Because it's like in the prestige, since it's an exact copy of yourself, with the exact state of mind, when you go out of the destination machine, you don't even realize you are a copy, so basically you didn't die. Because the copy doesn't feel he is a copy, he just stepped in the machine, teleported, and stepped out.
On August 05 2010 18:54 Uriel_SVK wrote: First I would do it without destruction, and I would ask me if I am still me, or I am not me. If I am still me than i would kill me so there is only one me.
But if there would be two me... this leads me to an interesting question... if i would have sex with my other me, would it be gay sex or masturbation?
LOL. If you go through the back door then ya, it's homosexual because even if it's with yourself it still means you like taking it in the butt from a dude.
On the other hand(lol) if you just mutually masturbate yourselves(?) then I wouldn't call that gay because you're just pleasuring yourself. IDK man, it's a fine line. Especially if you go 69 on yourself. That may be pushing the limit.
Personally I wouldn't mind jacking myself off. I do it all the time anyway right? Some people may be too insecure with themselves though.
what the fuck.
hahahahaha
These kind of teleporters are always the ones in SCI FI that have the problems. Like 'The Fly' or like in star trek where people get trapped in some unknown place and have X amount of time before they dematerialize indefinitely.
I'd say no for daily use, unless it was 100% necessary to survive.
The particular atoms that make up your body change all the time. Cells die and are replaced constantly, the person you are changes and yet the consciousness still appears to exist in a constant stream. This would be no different, all the atoms that make up your body would be different and all the ones that had previously been in your body would have been destroyed but there's still a you who remembers going into the machine and now finds himself walking out. Still not sure if I'd use it though, simply because the human instinct for self preservation might take over. I'm not sure if on a subconscious level I'd accept that I don't really die in any meaningful sense.
On August 05 2010 19:57 Navane wrote: The important question is: if you would die anyway because the earth would cease to exist, would you let yourself teleport out, even if it means you will be forced to have sex with yourself? (the machine will make like 5 copies of you which will have to participate in an orgy with each other) Would you?
Hmm... that's a bit tougher. I'm going to have to say yes. Although I'm not too keen on myself getting penetrated...by myself, it's far more important for me to carry out my biological purpose of perpetuating my genes than to throw away that opportunity just because of a few minutes of discomfort/pain. At least it'll be me doing the penetrating, so I'd know I'd go gentle hahaha. Also, if I get 5 copies of myself then that's even more chances to pass on my genes so it'd would be totally worth it in the end.
Thinking about all this stuff is hilarious! hahaha oh man.
On August 05 2010 19:39 Thratur wrote: I've thought about this and then I realized that what makes your consciousness is only your short term memory.
So I die every time I go to sleep, faint or get drugged before an operation.
I would do it no problem just like I go to sleep every night knowing my consciousness will vanish once again.
your subconscious is a huge, huge statistical engine which takes all the data you receive, figures out whats important and makes decisions in your best interest for you. it's shaped by your experiences, training, reading, schooling, everything you do.
what makes part of your consciousness is your short-term memory
@op: no. I wouldn't do this. I kind of see it as the same as suicide
On August 05 2010 18:54 Uriel_SVK wrote: First I would do it without destruction, and I would ask me if I am still me, or I am not me. If I am still me than i would kill me so there is only one me.
But if there would be two me... this leads me to an interesting question... if i would have sex with my other me, would it be gay sex or masturbation?
LOL. If you go through the back door then ya, it's homosexual because even if it's with yourself it still means you like taking it in the butt from a dude.
On the other hand(lol) if you just mutually masturbate yourselves(?) then I wouldn't call that gay because you're just pleasuring yourself. IDK man, it's a fine line. Especially if you go 69 on yourself. That may be pushing the limit.
Personally I wouldn't mind jacking myself off. I do it all the time anyway right? Some people may be too insecure with themselves though.
Can anyone define death? I wouldn't consider this dying. At every moment, my entire body from my skin to my brain is changing and growing. I could argue that the person I am right now is a different person from the person I was 2 seconds ago - he has died because he no longer and will never exist.
If you don't believe in an immortal soul, this machine should not trouble you at all because it is no different than what happens every day. If you do believe in an immortal soul, it still shouldn't trouble you because you should believe that your soul will follow your body. It would take a very specific kind of belief to disallow such a machine.
On August 05 2010 19:39 Thratur wrote: I've thought about this and then I realized that what makes your consciousness is only your short term memory.
So I die every time I go to sleep, faint or get drugged before an operation.
I would do it no problem just like I go to sleep every night knowing my consciousness will vanish once again.
your subconscious is a huge, huge statistical engine which takes all the data you receive, figures out whats important and makes decisions in your best interest for you. it's shaped by your experiences, training, reading, schooling, everything you do.
what makes part of your consciousness is your short-term memory
@op: no. I wouldn't do this. I kind of see it as the same as suicide
You're right. Short-term memory wasn't the best word, but at least it was close to what I wanted to say. Same thing anyway. What I mean is that your consciousness comes from the actual state of your brain and the feeling of continuity from the past 5 minutes and nothing more.
However I would not include experience, training, reading etc in consciousness. They affect your decisions and personality, etc, but I define consciousness as the feeling of existence someone may have. It is not affected by his experience as it has no relevant characteristics.
On August 05 2010 20:12 sikyon wrote: Can anyone define death? I wouldn't consider this dying. At every moment, my entire body from my skin to my brain is changing and growing. I could argue that the person I am right now is a different person from the person I was 2 seconds ago - he has died because he no longer and will never exist.
If you don't believe in an immortal soul, this machine should not trouble you at all because it is no different than what happens every day. If you do believe in an immortal soul, it still shouldn't trouble you because you should believe that your soul will follow your body. It would take a very specific kind of belief to disallow such a machine.
The word death is only used for lack of a better word I think. Since the you that steps out of the machine would think it was a success and that indeed it is the exact same 'you' that stepped into it, there would be no perceivable dying of any sort involved.
My opinion is the you that steps into the machine is lost the moment it is turned on. The you that is thinking these thoughts and seeing whatever your eyes happen to be looking at will never exist again, merely an exact copy that believes it's the original one. Therefore I would really only use it in a situation where I'm going to die anyways - impending apocalypse, etc. - in order to preserve my mind thoughts and ideas.
I wouldn't do it because its not really a teleportation just merely the illusion of such a feat, using a suicide machine at one location (and atom reader) combined with (an atom writter) cloning machine at another location connected with the internet...
If it's definitely going to kill me then I won't use it, I don't care if there's an exact copy of me going about the place if the real me is actually dead.
Now imagine you have a completely round white room, no doors, no windows, only transportation machines placed against each other and looking the same. You step into it, activate it, and the destruction mechanism wont work. You open your eyes and you see you standing in the teleportation machine. Now which of you is the original you and which one is the copy.
Also it will be interesting to see if both you would do exactly the same things, because if the teleporter is working properly the new you and the old you should have exactly the same memory and you should think on the exact same things.
And another question comes to my mind... if I would kill my self - I mean the other my self - would it be murder or suicide?
Talked about this a lot in metaphysics. The real concern to me is if there is some level of psychological continuity or if there is a gap there that would constitute a different person in essence.
I probably wouldn't use it but dunno. Would have to know more.
On August 05 2010 19:04 EpiK wrote: what difference does it make that the copy thinks/acts exactly like you? You will die and not be aware of the copies.
And yeah, I thought of The Prestige as well lol, except he didn't really do it for the sake of teleporting.
Sure he does, he teleports to the other door. Duh.
This idea of "dieing" this way is silly. You wouldn't know. How about this: The universe is destoyed and recreated infinite consecutive times slightly changing the place of some atoms in order to create the illusion of such things as "time" and "movement". Every universe is a new one, but since basically everything is the same, nobody knows.
On August 05 2010 19:11 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: ...okay, are you asking whether i would let myself die just so a copy of me whose conciousness i don't share can go somewhere else real quick?
fuck no, i'll take the bus.
if my conciousness is transferred through and i just feel like i teleported, then fuck yeah! atoms is just atoms.
Absolutely. The soul, conciousness, whatever, if there's a way to transport it, then sure, i'd do it.
On August 05 2010 18:54 Uriel_SVK wrote: First I would do it without destruction, and I would ask me if I am still me, or I am not me. If I am still me than i would kill me so there is only one me.
But if there would be two me... this leads me to an interesting question... if i would have sex with my other me, would it be gay sex or masturbation?
Wouldn't you run the risk of the other you having the same idea about killing you, and the world ending up with 0 Uriel_SVK's - which, after this post, I can't help but think would be a tragic outcome!
On August 05 2010 19:39 Thratur wrote: I've thought about this and then I realized that what makes your consciousness is only your short term memory.
So I die every time I go to sleep, faint or get drugged before an operation.
I would do it no problem just like I go to sleep every night knowing my consciousness will vanish once again.
your subconscious is a huge, huge statistical engine which takes all the data you receive, figures out whats important and makes decisions in your best interest for you. it's shaped by your experiences, training, reading, schooling, everything you do.
what makes part of your consciousness is your short-term memory
@op: no. I wouldn't do this. I kind of see it as the same as suicide
You're right. Short-term memory wasn't the best word, but at least it was close to what I wanted to say. Same thing anyway. What I mean is that your consciousness comes from the actual state of your brain and the feeling of continuity from the past 5 minutes and nothing more.
However I would not include experience, training, reading etc in consciousness. They affect your decisions and personality, etc, but I define consciousness as the feeling of existence someone may have. It is not affected by his experience as it has no relevant characteristics.
Ofc, I can't say you're wrong per se, since you only claim what you believe to be consciousness, but it seems to me you haven't thought this through.
Even though consciousness is always linked to your current state of mind, past experiences, valuesn and personality traits are carried with you to this very moment. They are represented as priorities, knowledge, feelings, etc. Even the future is represented in that current mental state as through motives, ambitions, and presumptions.
I don't really believe you see your "self" as something that is changes every 5 minutes or so. Normally this "self" is understood as the characteristics that are more or less stable through a myriad of different settings and times.
If the other copy of you comes out on the other side will all of your memories and is physically no different, how would we even find out that the consciousness is not transferred as well and that you die when you enter that machine? Since the copy is exactly the same as you and carries on where you left off with all memories, there would really be no way for people to know this or verify this...
On August 05 2010 21:52 LegendaryZ wrote: If the other copy of you comes out on the other side will all of your memories and is physically no different, how would we even find out that the consciousness is not transferred as well and that you die when you enter that machine? Since the copy is exactly the same as you and carries on where you left off with all memories, there would really be no way for people to know this or verify this...
That's the problem You walk in and die. A clone is created, yelling "Holy shit, i just teleport!"
This is strange, because I conceived this very dilemma by myself when I was quite young, and it has always interested me.
I would never use it, as I think I would cease to be, while another person just like me would continue to exist. To everyone else he would be me, but I would really be dead. What interests me about this philosophical quandry is that even though I do not believe that people have souls, my choice of not wanting to use this machine betrays that notion. It reveals to me the fact that I feel that there is some intangible part of me that would be lost, and that I am something more than just the molecules that make up my body.
And what if you would be able to copy all your memories, personality and stuff into computer (advanced neural computer able to work as brain) what about hormones? they have huge impact on your personality. Is consciousness able to exist outside blological brain?
or "cut and paste" yourself into someone else's body (like angent smith in matrix)
It's really is an interesting philosophical concept. The person created would, for all intensive purposes, be me. They would think like me, act like me, be me in every way, but not be my consciousness. Every time a new clone was created it would end and create a consciousness that are distinctly different, yet the same. It something I'm not sure how to feel about.
It's not that simple. Think about your body right now. What is it made of? Nerves, bones, muscles, all consisting of cells. Every moment of every day, your dead skin cells are floating into the air. Your excretions are ejecting parts of your body away from you, and the food that you eat replaces them. Even the cells which aren't replaced (as often? dunno), brain cells or whichever, still replaces parts of themselves, and within time they'll be composed of different molecules than they were before. So, your body from a year ago no longer exists; it's dust which has been spread all around the Earth. There is no overlap between your body from a certain time ago, and your body now; you are brand-new. And yet you're still you. If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and acts like a duck, what's stopping it from being a duck? Certainly not the arrangement of the atoms which make it.
my idea of teleportation is to create a circumstance where continous travel from your reference frame would appear to be quantized from an observer's reference frame, e.g. traveling through a wormhole you yourself would 'theoretically' experience the journey through but an observer would see you disappear at one point in space&time and then pop up somewhere else, notice that from the traveler's reference frame he has not teleported, only from the observer's reference frame.
why would you need to die at the 'entry device' in order for the 'exit device' to remake a copy of you? you haven't transported someone if you just scan and delete him somewhere and copypaste him somewhere else; you've simply deleted him somewhere and copypasted him somewhere else... this is not teleportation... and I would not use such a device as it would mean my death...
On August 05 2010 22:32 Redmark wrote: It's not that simple. Think about your body right now. What is it made of? Nerves, bones, muscles, all consisting of cells. Every moment of every day, your dead skin cells are floating into the air. Your excretions are ejecting parts of your body away from you, and the food that you eat replaces them. Even the cells which aren't replaced (as often? dunno), brain cells or whichever, still replaces parts of themselves, and within time they'll be composed of different molecules than they were before. So, your body from a year ago no longer exists; it's dust which has been spread all around the Earth. There is no overlap between your body from a certain time ago, and your body now; you are brand-new. And yet you're still you. If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and acts like a duck, what's stopping it from being a duck? Certainly not the arrangement of the atoms which make it.
you don't see the difference between very gradual replacement and sudden nonexistence and separate reconstitution?
I really can't. I mean, there's the obvious difference that one is very gradual and one is sudden, but what difference does it make? I don't see how it changes the argument at all.
On August 05 2010 22:32 Redmark wrote: It's not that simple. Think about your body right now. What is it made of? Nerves, bones, muscles, all consisting of cells. Every moment of every day, your dead skin cells are floating into the air. Your excretions are ejecting parts of your body away from you, and the food that you eat replaces them. Even the cells which aren't replaced (as often? dunno), brain cells or whichever, still replaces parts of themselves, and within time they'll be composed of different molecules than they were before. So, your body from a year ago no longer exists; it's dust which has been spread all around the Earth. There is no overlap between your body from a certain time ago, and your body now; you are brand-new. And yet you're still you. If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and acts like a duck, what's stopping it from being a duck? Certainly not the arrangement of the atoms which make it.
If it has the exact molecular arrangement as a duck I'd say... it's a duck. What exactly are your point? This conundrum boils down to whether or not you believe there is something more to life than the atoms we exists of, like a soul. I would argue that if you could create an exact copy of yourself down to the last atom, that would be you. At least at the exact moment of creating. After that the two "yous" would slowly start to separate since we are a product of our environment.
On August 05 2010 22:47 nam nam wrote: If it has the exact molecular arrangement as a duck I'd say... it's a duck. What exactly are your point? This conundrum boils down to whether or not you believe there is something more to life than the atoms we exists of, like a soul. I would argue that if you could create an exact copy of yourself down to the last atom, that would be you. At least at the exact moment of creating. After that the two "yous" would slowly start to separate since we are a product of our environment.
But why is the second one not 'you'? The obvious answer is that the original 'you' is still there; not the case with this scenario. The point was that a duck does not have to have a certain molecular arrangement to be a duck, btw.
edit: there does not have to be a soul for this to work. Humans think, but that is because of how the brain operates. Recreate the brain, and you recreate the human.
It's pretty easy to answer for me: No, obviously not.
i don't really think there is more to life than an arrangement of atoms, but think about what would happen if the 'original' you wouldn't be killed. The new you would have the same memories, the exact same character and everything, yet you will not see what your "clone" sees, nor will you feel what your "clone" feels. You don't see the world with 4 eyes and don't control the new body.
Therefore nobody else would see the difference (and when you ask the cloned one if he is still the same, he would obviously answer yes) but you aren't alive anymore.
I dont understand why so many people are against this, if it reconstructs your brain along with your body exactly as it was, its not a clone, it IS you. Just a reconstructed you. you'd essentially just be dead for a small amount of time
On August 05 2010 23:07 TheAntZ wrote: I dont understand why so many people are against this, if it reconstructs your brain along with your body exactly as it was, its not a clone, it IS you. Just a reconstructed you. you'd essentially just be dead for a small amount of time
yeah but it wouldn't be teleportation and if you could just scan someone up and make a copy why not just have a copy of yourself on the other end and agree on what needs to be done over there by the phone lol, the whole procedure isn't transportation it's real-time cloning and the technique would be much more useful in other areas
the whole idea is stupid and is obviously the result of some chump thinking out possible solutions to the question 'how would teleportation work' which I guess is a worthwhile question to ask but I think this is not how, (if we ever develop teleportation) it would work
I've thought about this and then I realized that what makes your consciousness is only your short term memory.
So I die every time I go to sleep, faint or get drugged before an operation.
I figured this out when I was like thirteen. You would not believe the suffering I went through, I literally did not sleep for three days straight, curled up in a foetal ball at night and clawed myself to stay awake. There's a reason they shouldn't teach this sort of psychophilosophy to kids >.>
On August 05 2010 22:32 Redmark wrote: It's not that simple. Think about your body right now. What is it made of? Nerves, bones, muscles, all consisting of cells. Every moment of every day, your dead skin cells are floating into the air. Your excretions are ejecting parts of your body away from you, and the food that you eat replaces them. Even the cells which aren't replaced (as often? dunno), brain cells or whichever, still replaces parts of themselves, and within time they'll be composed of different molecules than they were before. So, your body from a year ago no longer exists; it's dust which has been spread all around the Earth. There is no overlap between your body from a certain time ago, and your body now; you are brand-new. And yet you're still you. If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and acts like a duck, what's stopping it from being a duck? Certainly not the arrangement of the atoms which make it.
you don't see the difference between very gradual replacement and sudden nonexistence and separate reconstitution?
You make it sound like something can gradually change and still be the same thing.
If I take 1 and add 0.01 to it, I have 1.01 which is not equal in any sense to 1.
Even the slightest change in your body renders you a different being - (or for that matter the slightest change in your brain).
So I for one see no difference in having a little piece of my mind removed and replaced than I do in having my entire mind removed and replaced. Especially the fact that in the long run you'll have hte same result as if your entire mind was removed and replaced.
On August 05 2010 23:07 TheAntZ wrote: I dont understand why so many people are against this, if it reconstructs your brain along with your body exactly as it was, its not a clone, it IS you. Just a reconstructed you. you'd essentially just be dead for a small amount of time
So if it reconstructed multiples of "you", then all of them would be you? If not, which one would be you and which ones won't be you?
On August 05 2010 23:07 TheAntZ wrote: I dont understand why so many people are against this, if it reconstructs your brain along with your body exactly as it was, its not a clone, it IS you. Just a reconstructed you. you'd essentially just be dead for a small amount of time
So if it reconstructed multiples of "you", then all of them would be you? If not, which one would be you and which ones won't be you?
There is no "you". "You" is an undefined form since you're constantly changing from one moment to the next, anyways.
On August 05 2010 19:11 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: ...okay, are you asking whether i would let myself die just so a copy of me whose conciousness i don't share can go somewhere else real quick?
fuck no, i'll take the bus.
if my conciousness is transferred through and i just feel like i teleported, then fuck yeah! atoms is just atoms.
Yeah, I agree with this.
However, there would need to be some sort of verification process because who's to say that conciousness is the original you and not a copied you? yourself? Think about it.
This question is an age old question of science fiction. If the technology existed to reassemble molecules and atoms exactly the same somewhere else would that be considered "real" teleportation. As others have previously stated, the "you" you are right now is different than the "you" you were a few seconds or years ago. Knowing this, what is the difference between dissassembling the "you" here and reassembling the exact same "you" somewhere else - ie. would this constitute teleportation. Would this be different than say, dissassembling a person into atoms, packing those atoms into a box, transporting them somewhere else and then reassembling them?
The prestige presented a version of this "thought" of teleportation, and is one of the deeper science fiction references in the movie. Alternatively, there was an episode of Star Trek where the dissassembler was not working, basically turning the teleporter into a cloning machine. Yea, this is a very interesting topic and primarily relies on what a person associates as their identity. I, however, do consider it teleportation, since at one moment you exist at one place the next moment you pop into existance somewhere else.
there are too many paradoxes for this to work. what if the machine simply created an exact clone of you without killing the original? would consciousness suddenly be shared? No I dont think so. the clone would have a mind of its own.
On August 05 2010 22:47 nam nam wrote: If it has the exact molecular arrangement as a duck I'd say... it's a duck. What exactly are your point? This conundrum boils down to whether or not you believe there is something more to life than the atoms we exists of, like a soul. I would argue that if you could create an exact copy of yourself down to the last atom, that would be you. At least at the exact moment of creating. After that the two "yous" would slowly start to separate since we are a product of our environment.
But why is the second one not 'you'? The obvious answer is that the original 'you' is still there; not the case with this scenario. The point was that a duck does not have to have a certain molecular arrangement to be a duck, btw.
edit: there does not have to be a soul for this to work. Humans think, but that is because of how the brain operates. Recreate the brain, and you recreate the human.
I don't really see what you points is, maybe it's my lack of English reading skills. There would be two you at the moment of creating because there would be nothing to differentiate the two. If you switch the location of the copy and the original person you would not notice any difference.
On August 05 2010 23:48 ramen247 wrote: there are too many paradoxes for this to work. what if the machine simply created an exact clone of you without killing the original? would consciousness suddenly be shared? No I dont think so. the clone would have a mind of its own.
What do yo mean share consciousness? They would be the exact same person when created, then a natural progression would take place separating the two.
If the teleporter perfectly recreates your physical self down to the atom, then it's hard to claim that it wouldn't be "you". In fact, to assert that it'd be someone else you'd have to assert that there's something defining us that goes beyond the pure physical, in other words a 'soul'.
Now, I don't believe in souls really, but I doubt I'd take this teleporter anyway. I know all our atoms are gradually switched out so our physical self isn't permanent, but at least the change is continuous in nature. A teleporter like this would cause a strongly discontinuous break in consciousness, and I'm not at all comfortable with that. I guess at the end of the day I wouldn't do it because it feels to much like dying and my instinct of self-preservation makes the idea hella scary to me!
On August 05 2010 23:48 ramen247 wrote: there are too many paradoxes for this to work. what if the machine simply created an exact clone of you without killing the original? would consciousness suddenly be shared? No I dont think so. the clone would have a mind of its own.
Eh, this is nonsense. There's no such thing as "too many paradoxes for this to work", if it is truly a paradox, it is you premises that are false.
And I don't see any paradox at all. A copy would be an exact copy at that one point in time. From there on, as other have noted, the two would diverge. No share consciousness. Why do you even bring that up, it is not a logical result of cloning?
On August 05 2010 22:49 Redmark wrote: edit: there does not have to be a soul for this to work. Humans think, but that is because of how the brain operates. Recreate the brain, and you recreate the human.
The soul was brought up because someone argued that you had no reason not to use this machine unless you believed in a concept of essence or soul. I don't agree there, as emotions are not rational. But it raised the point that when people argue that the second copy would not be you, is seems to imply that there is a soul or essence, which is either altered or lost.
I wouldn't mind using such a device (provided it wasn't an unpleasant experience). In my eyes the second "me" would be just as much "me" as the initial one.
I wouldnt really have a problem with this. Sure it would kill me and then create a new person that is very similar to me, but every single second of every single day does the exact same thing. As time passes and I experince new things who I am changes. Now not all these events change me the same amount, clearly some are more important then others, but in the end they all change me. This death teleportation thing is just another event that changes me through my experiences.
No, I couldn't do that... Plus, imagine the implications for the 'new you', knowing that you're just a copy and not a true human being, born naturally and developed naturally, both physically and emotionally. Just, no.
On August 06 2010 00:42 skindzer wrote: I tought the topic was about some grindcore/death metal kind of band.
Like a lot have saif before, i wouldn't be me if i get killed. Its just a clone.
Lets say I'm a real magician. I ask you to close your eyes and when you open then I have created an exact replica of yourself. Every single thing is exactly the same, both of you have the exact same memories. Both of you remember me asking you to close your eyes and have the same experience when opening them. How would you know if you are the clone or not? This assuming there isn't any visual stimulation that can tell you what direction you were facing or something like that. You wake up face to face having the exact same experiences. Who are the "real you"?
I would use it. Who's to say that we haven't died already, got changed into a exact replica of ourselves with slightly different memories, and continued on our jolly way.
On August 06 2010 00:42 skindzer wrote: Like a lot have saif before, i wouldn't be me if i get killed. Its just a clone.
But noone who said this argued what changed.. what is this "you" that cease to exist? Why isn't the "clone" you? I am not saying it would be hard to tell the difference etc, I am asking, what the hell is the difference?
"I would be dead", doesn't make sense to me in this respect.
On August 06 2010 00:42 skindzer wrote: Like a lot have saif before, i wouldn't be me if i get killed. Its just a clone.
But noone who said this argued what changed.. what is this "you" that cease to exist? Why isn't the "clone" you? I am not saying it would be hard to tell the difference etc, I am asking, what the hell is the difference?
"I would be dead", doesn't make sense to me in this respect.
the difference is that it's a different person.. the same as the difference between you and me.
why am i not you?
how is this not obvious?
if you think the copy being "the same" as you would *make it you* then explain what happens when there is 2 copies.
On August 05 2010 18:36 UniversalSnip wrote: This is a common thing in science fiction where you are 'teleported' by a machine that kills you, then reconstructs an exact copy of your body and mind at another point.
ITS EXACTLY YOU!!! So I don't get it... OFC i wanna teleport. You guys dum er sumthn?
Like if I was in mid thought... I want cake... but I vaporized at I want... And I come out as a clone... I'd finish with cake right? I love cake!
atoms might be copied but the velocity + acceleration of those cant be re start when you try to create a new one. incase you can, the wave and projectile should also be recreated into its active form which is almost imposible. if those things can be done, im sure qill try out the machine!
On August 05 2010 18:36 UniversalSnip wrote: This is a common thing in science fiction where you are 'teleported' by a machine that kills you, then reconstructs an exact copy of your body and mind at another point.
ITS EXACTLY YOU!!! So I don't get it... OFC i wanna teleport. You guys dum er sumthn?
Like if I was in mid thought... I want cake... but I vaporized at I want... And I come out as a clone... I'd finish with cake right? I love cake!
I wouldn't do it. You guys are thinking of it wrong. What this machine is doing, is making an exact copy of your body, mind, and memories, and sending it somewhere else. Now imagine that the machine DIDN'T kill you, but just made this exact same copy and sent it right next to you. You would still be alive, staring at a copy of yourself with your exact memories. It would basically be a clone. It would be the same way with this teleportation machine. Your current consciousness, as you know it, would immediately end. What would live on would merely be a copy with your exact memories, but not the same stream of consciousness.
Basically, what Travis said.
NOW, imagine a different situation. The machine makes the copy first, and then kills the original you 30 seconds later. You would realize that your consciousness didn't transfer, and obviously would not after you were killed.
Only if it can be proven that the consciousness follows you through the teleporter. If I must suffer eternal blackness and oblivion (or nothing at all, really), just so that a copy of me, with a whole new consciousness, can get to a destination quicker? F-that.
Consciousness would not follow. As I said, imagine a scenario where you die just 30 seconds AFTER the copy is made. This alone PROVES that consciousness does not follow.
It is you, practically, and should be regarded as you philosophically as well.
As humans live, the atoms in our body get constantly replaced, so that the atoms in our bodies now, are not the same atoms that made up our bodies five years ago. This includes the brain too, so what essentially defines you is not your current components, but the pattern that persists throughout the years. If it was possible to copy that pattern, then it would be you.
On August 05 2010 18:36 UniversalSnip wrote: This is a common thing in science fiction where you are 'teleported' by a machine that kills you, then reconstructs an exact copy of your body and mind at another point.
ITS EXACTLY YOU!!! So I don't get it... OFC i wanna teleport. You guys dum er sumthn?
Like if I was in mid thought... I want cake... but I vaporized at I want... And I come out as a clone... I'd finish with cake right? I love cake!
Except it's not. YOU die. A clone of you is made. Just because it's a clone of you with all your same DNA, etc. does not make it YOU. It's a copy. Why should I die so a copy can live my life. Sure, that copy might not have realized it died, etc. But it's still no longer me. I go to heaven, hell, or am merely dead, depending on how you view the afterlife.
On August 05 2010 18:36 UniversalSnip wrote: This is a common thing in science fiction where you are 'teleported' by a machine that kills you, then reconstructs an exact copy of your body and mind at another point.
ITS EXACTLY YOU!!! So I don't get it... OFC i wanna teleport. You guys dum er sumthn?
Like if I was in mid thought... I want cake... but I vaporized at I want... And I come out as a clone... I'd finish with cake right? I love cake!
Well let's assume that the technology to precisely clone a human being exists in the first place down to every last detail. What if we take out the part where in a single instant one ceases to exist and another is created as in this teleportation example, but instead say that this machine simply cloned another version of you so that now suddenly in an instant there are two copies. Would you consider the "other" you to be the same exact person, or would you consider him to be a perfect physical replica, but not the same person?
Assuming that "you" as an individual human being is not only defined by your physical constitution, but also by your unique position in space and time, that copy of you would not actually be the same person because while he may begin with the same physical constitution, the simple fact that you are here and he is there means that your paths as individuals have diverged at that point. Though he is physically you, he cannot relate to your 100% simply because he is no longer experiencing the world exactly the way you do and indeed cannot simply because he cannot co-exist in the same exact point in space and time that you do. Instantly you'd be breathing different air, being subject to different amounts of radiation, having your bodies changed by your unique environments in different ways. Though the changes may initially be unnoticeable to our eyes, in the instant a machine makes a clone of you, your physical constitution diverges from that of your clone as does your consciousness and experience.
When you remove the issue of "teleportation" and simply think of it as cloning (which is what it essentially is), then you realize that it's really not a simple as you might make it seem. One could certainly argue that this is happening everyday and in every single moment, of course depending on your own belief in the way the universe, reality, and space-time works. Unfortunately there are still a lot of unanswered questions when it comes to the nature of reality so I'm pretty sure I would never use this technology simply due to the uncertainty...
On August 06 2010 01:56 LF9 wrote: Consciousness would not follow. As I said, imagine a scenario where you die just 30 seconds AFTER the copy is made. This alone PROVES that consciousness does not follow.
Well if consciousness transferred, your old body would probably fall lifeless and limp the moment you teleported. Does the soul/consciousness transfer with the process, or is it simply deconstruction and reconstruction with a spark of life zapped into it?
All depends on if you can create life (Dr. Frankenstein style), or if you can only transfer it and the teleportation only completes with the transfer of consciousness.
Okay here is an interesting thought. So let's say this technology was around today. Not common, but it did exist. The fact that it "kills" the "original" is hidden to the public.
One day you discover that you are not your "original." You find out you are the copy that came out the other end. How would you feel about that?
On August 06 2010 02:11 Mayerling wrote: Okay here is an interesting thought. So let's say this technology was around today. Not common, but it did exist. The fact that it "kills" the "original" is hidden to the public.
One day you discover that you are not your "original." You find out you are the copy that came out the other end. How would you feel about that?
I doubt I would really care in that instance. I certainly wouldn't because though I am a copy, my existence is now unique and valid and it's not as if I'm suffering some sort of negative side effects from being a copy. Some people might be disturbed by that fact, though... especially the type of people that would be bothered by the fact that they found out that they were conceived in a test tube. That scenario reminds me a bit of the movie, "The Island" where people make clones to use for body parts. Even there, though, the conflict that the characters faced wasn't really about the validity of their existence, but rather the purpose of it...
On August 05 2010 18:36 UniversalSnip wrote: This is a common thing in science fiction where you are 'teleported' by a machine that kills you, then reconstructs an exact copy of your body and mind at another point.
ITS EXACTLY YOU!!! So I don't get it... OFC i wanna teleport. You guys dum er sumthn?
Like if I was in mid thought... I want cake... but I vaporized at I want... And I come out as a clone... I'd finish with cake right? I love cake!
Except it's not. YOU die. A clone of you is made. Just because it's a clone of you with all your same DNA, etc. does not make it YOU. It's a copy. Why should I die so a copy can live my life. Sure, that copy might not have realized it died, etc. But it's still no longer me. I go to heaven, hell, or am merely dead, depending on how you view the afterlife.
Lets just assume that there is no soul or other spiritual influence attached to being alive. If that is the case what would be the difference between actually teleporting (instantly moving yourself from one spot to another) and making a replica of yourself in the exact same spot and killing the original body?
On August 06 2010 02:11 Mayerling wrote: Okay here is an interesting thought. So let's say this technology was around today. Not common, but it did exist. The fact that it "kills" the "original" is hidden to the public.
One day you discover that you are not your "original." You find out you are the copy that came out the other end. How would you feel about that?
For those that want a better understanding of the gravity behind the issue I can explain as my prior undergraduate work involved dealing with problems like these:
Teletransportation is often discussed in the context of what constitutes identity. The question is:
What makes you, John Smith, who you are?
Those who are biologically inclined have suggested that you are merely nothing more than your physical body and DNA, implying that if you somehow passed away, but an exact replica of you was made, it would be the same person (given that the same memories, etc. are still in the replica).
But there is something fundamentally strange about this belief: most people intuitively think that this can't be it; you can't just be your physical body - there must be something more. They cite replication and teletransportation as examples to back their claims. If you made a replica of someone, that replica can't be them, in a sense. The people belonging to this camp would have us believe that your identity, and who you are, depends the experiences that you, specifically you, experienced throughout your life. There is this extra qualitative component that is an aspect of your identity.
So they would conclude that teletransportation is NOT safe. Although an exact replica of you is created, you are not that person because that 'replicated' being did not on an important level, experience the same things you did. He/she might have shared memories of what has happened in your life, but it wouldn't be the same.
On August 05 2010 18:36 UniversalSnip wrote: This is a common thing in science fiction where you are 'teleported' by a machine that kills you, then reconstructs an exact copy of your body and mind at another point.
ITS EXACTLY YOU!!! So I don't get it... OFC i wanna teleport. You guys dum er sumthn?
Like if I was in mid thought... I want cake... but I vaporized at I want... And I come out as a clone... I'd finish with cake right? I love cake!
Except it's not. YOU die. A clone of you is made. Just because it's a clone of you with all your same DNA, etc. does not make it YOU. It's a copy. Why should I die so a copy can live my life. Sure, that copy might not have realized it died, etc. But it's still no longer me. I go to heaven, hell, or am merely dead, depending on how you view the afterlife.
Lets just assume that there is no soul or other spiritual influence attached to being alive. If that is the case what would be the difference between actually teleporting (instantly moving yourself from one spot to another) and making a replica of yourself in the exact same spot and killing the original body?
That your personal existence died. Your life is over. It's no different for you personally than if someone came out and shot you in the head. Everyone ELSE'S life might not be affected, but you are dead. Only difference between this machine and dying from a gun is that if you use the machine you're choosing to die, while the gun is murder.
On August 05 2010 18:36 UniversalSnip wrote: This is a common thing in science fiction where you are 'teleported' by a machine that kills you, then reconstructs an exact copy of your body and mind at another point.
ITS EXACTLY YOU!!! So I don't get it... OFC i wanna teleport. You guys dum er sumthn?
Like if I was in mid thought... I want cake... but I vaporized at I want... And I come out as a clone... I'd finish with cake right? I love cake!
Except it's not. YOU die. A clone of you is made. Just because it's a clone of you with all your same DNA, etc. does not make it YOU. It's a copy. Why should I die so a copy can live my life. Sure, that copy might not have realized it died, etc. But it's still no longer me. I go to heaven, hell, or am merely dead, depending on how you view the afterlife.
Lets just assume that there is no soul or other spiritual influence attached to being alive. If that is the case what would be the difference between actually teleporting (instantly moving yourself from one spot to another) and making a replica of yourself in the exact same spot and killing the original body?
Any difference would be impossible to perceive for anyone except the person entering the machine (but not necessarily the person coming out the other end). I suppose the question here would be, "What other manner of teleportation are we talking about and how would it work?" For instance, if I walked through a rift in space-time and ended up in another part of the universe, that's not really teleportation.
On August 06 2010 02:11 Mayerling wrote: Okay here is an interesting thought. So let's say this technology was around today. Not common, but it did exist. The fact that it "kills" the "original" is hidden to the public.
One day you discover that you are not your "original." You find out you are the copy that came out the other end. How would you feel about that?
That sounds like a movie plot.
Like a movie where Arnold Schwarzeneger would play ... hmmm...
On August 06 2010 02:11 Mayerling wrote: Okay here is an interesting thought. So let's say this technology was around today. Not common, but it did exist. The fact that it "kills" the "original" is hidden to the public.
One day you discover that you are not your "original." You find out you are the copy that came out the other end. How would you feel about that?
On August 05 2010 18:36 UniversalSnip wrote: This is a common thing in science fiction where you are 'teleported' by a machine that kills you, then reconstructs an exact copy of your body and mind at another point.
ITS EXACTLY YOU!!! So I don't get it... OFC i wanna teleport. You guys dum er sumthn?
Like if I was in mid thought... I want cake... but I vaporized at I want... And I come out as a clone... I'd finish with cake right? I love cake!
Except it's not. YOU die. A clone of you is made. Just because it's a clone of you with all your same DNA, etc. does not make it YOU. It's a copy. Why should I die so a copy can live my life. Sure, that copy might not have realized it died, etc. But it's still no longer me. I go to heaven, hell, or am merely dead, depending on how you view the afterlife.
Lets just assume that there is no soul or other spiritual influence attached to being alive. If that is the case what would be the difference between actually teleporting (instantly moving yourself from one spot to another) and making a replica of yourself in the exact same spot and killing the original body?
That your personal existence died. Your life is over. It's no different for you personally than if someone came out and shot you in the head. Everyone ELSE'S life might not be affected, but you are dead. Only difference between this machine and dying from a gun is that if you use the machine you're choosing to die, while the gun is murder.
I'm not sure I follow your point. What exactly do you mean by "personal existence"? It just seems you have some sort of sentimental attachment to the past when the two cases end up with the same result.
On August 05 2010 18:36 UniversalSnip wrote: This is a common thing in science fiction where you are 'teleported' by a machine that kills you, then reconstructs an exact copy of your body and mind at another point.
ITS EXACTLY YOU!!! So I don't get it... OFC i wanna teleport. You guys dum er sumthn?
Like if I was in mid thought... I want cake... but I vaporized at I want... And I come out as a clone... I'd finish with cake right? I love cake!
Except it's not. YOU die. A clone of you is made. Just because it's a clone of you with all your same DNA, etc. does not make it YOU. It's a copy. Why should I die so a copy can live my life. Sure, that copy might not have realized it died, etc. But it's still no longer me. I go to heaven, hell, or am merely dead, depending on how you view the afterlife.
Lets just assume that there is no soul or other spiritual influence attached to being alive. If that is the case what would be the difference between actually teleporting (instantly moving yourself from one spot to another) and making a replica of yourself in the exact same spot and killing the original body?
That your personal existence died. Your life is over. It's no different for you personally than if someone came out and shot you in the head. Everyone ELSE'S life might not be affected, but you are dead. Only difference between this machine and dying from a gun is that if you use the machine you're choosing to die, while the gun is murder.
This is exactly how I look at it. So given this thought the ONLY way I would use such a machine is if I were to die anyway. This would be a way of getting the image (used in the sense of how I affect the people I interact with) of me to a safe place so that I may still hold a place in this world. (or that world)
On August 05 2010 18:36 UniversalSnip wrote: This is a common thing in science fiction where you are 'teleported' by a machine that kills you, then reconstructs an exact copy of your body and mind at another point.
ITS EXACTLY YOU!!! So I don't get it... OFC i wanna teleport. You guys dum er sumthn?
Like if I was in mid thought... I want cake... but I vaporized at I want... And I come out as a clone... I'd finish with cake right? I love cake!
Except it's not. YOU die. A clone of you is made. Just because it's a clone of you with all your same DNA, etc. does not make it YOU. It's a copy. Why should I die so a copy can live my life. Sure, that copy might not have realized it died, etc. But it's still no longer me. I go to heaven, hell, or am merely dead, depending on how you view the afterlife.
Lets just assume that there is no soul or other spiritual influence attached to being alive. If that is the case what would be the difference between actually teleporting (instantly moving yourself from one spot to another) and making a replica of yourself in the exact same spot and killing the original body?
That your personal existence died. Your life is over. It's no different for you personally than if someone came out and shot you in the head. Everyone ELSE'S life might not be affected, but you are dead. Only difference between this machine and dying from a gun is that if you use the machine you're choosing to die, while the gun is murder.
I'm not sure I follow your point. What exactly do you mean by "personal existence"? It just seems you have some sort of sentimental attachment to the past when the two cases end up with the same result.
He's talking about consciousness. If there was a machine that could make a copy of you with the exact same thoughts, etc., there is no guarantee that your consciousness would be transferred to that copy. Consider: a machine that make an exact replica of you without killing you. You would still be only conscious of your original body, and the copy would seem like a separate entity.
There is no evidence to say that this would change if you died and the copy lived. Therefore, it seems logical that the machine described in the OP will kill you permanently (erase your consciousness) and the copy would be a separate entity.
On August 05 2010 18:36 UniversalSnip wrote: This is a common thing in science fiction where you are 'teleported' by a machine that kills you, then reconstructs an exact copy of your body and mind at another point.
ITS EXACTLY YOU!!! So I don't get it... OFC i wanna teleport. You guys dum er sumthn?
It's not you though, is it? Watch Moon, for example. There can only be one who is born naturally, and that matters a lot to your psyche if something like this did happen. It seems like so many of you aren't considering what it would feel like to be essentially an ersatz human/creation — the knowledge that I am now about because the real, original me died via teleportation would be way too much to handle.
Imagine the lack of true reality; imagine the feeling that comes with knowing you are created as a replacement for someone real, purely by scientific methods, not the will (or love) of two people. That is not something you just shrug off.
On August 05 2010 18:36 UniversalSnip wrote: This is a common thing in science fiction where you are 'teleported' by a machine that kills you, then reconstructs an exact copy of your body and mind at another point.
ITS EXACTLY YOU!!! So I don't get it... OFC i wanna teleport. You guys dum er sumthn?
Like if I was in mid thought... I want cake... but I vaporized at I want... And I come out as a clone... I'd finish with cake right? I love cake!
Except it's not. YOU die. A clone of you is made. Just because it's a clone of you with all your same DNA, etc. does not make it YOU. It's a copy. Why should I die so a copy can live my life. Sure, that copy might not have realized it died, etc. But it's still no longer me. I go to heaven, hell, or am merely dead, depending on how you view the afterlife.
Lets just assume that there is no soul or other spiritual influence attached to being alive. If that is the case what would be the difference between actually teleporting (instantly moving yourself from one spot to another) and making a replica of yourself in the exact same spot and killing the original body?
That your personal existence died. Your life is over. It's no different for you personally than if someone came out and shot you in the head. Everyone ELSE'S life might not be affected, but you are dead. Only difference between this machine and dying from a gun is that if you use the machine you're choosing to die, while the gun is murder.
I'm not sure I follow your point. What exactly do you mean by "personal existence"? It just seems you have some sort of sentimental attachment to the past when the two cases end up with the same result.
What are you talking about? If you have a problem with how I said "personal existence," then fine, but the next few sentences show exactly why it ISN'T the same result. You are DEAD. No different if you were shot in the head and died. Why would you willingly go to you death? How does the fact a copy of you will be formed change the fact your life is over completely.
I don't even like the idea of my gf getting boned by a clone of me.
Nope. I'm in the camp that considers this suicide.
I have created an exact copy, but it's not me. It's a copy, I'm dead. The copy carries all my same thoughts, and can effectively carry on life as if there was no change, but the original consciousness is gone and ends at the moment of being killed.
It's fine. Hell, it would probably be fine if someone created an exact copy and killed the original "me" 5 seconds later. Which one is the real me is entirely a matter of perception (or for some people irrational belief).
Identity, living and death are just abstractions of more complex phenomena. They work well in everyday life but there's no reason to conclude that they are in some sense fundamental.
For example normally you think the table in front of you as a distinct object. Someone might try to confuse you by asking if the objects on the table or the bolts or the paint is part of the table or not. With some thought you might answer these. But what if you go down to the molecular level? There are countless molecules exchanged between the surface and the surrounding air every time? Are these part of the table? Or is it only the ones that stay within a certain boundary?
It's clear that at certain point you need to create new concepts and ask different questions. Asking what the table is makes sense on a macroscopic level but not so much on the level of molecules or below.
I truly believe the same is true for identity or what "me" means. It makes sense in a situation where we either change somewhat slowly or very fast (i.e. die) So the problem with asking what sort of transformations preserve our identity and which ones don't is wrong exactly because in the most borderline cases the concept of identity is ambiguous or even meaningless. We have no trouble accepting this for tables but we have an emotional attachment to our identity.
It seems like some people who say they would use it don't understand that they will be volunteering to die... Consciousness is just a function of brain activity and ceases when you're disintegrated.
I would never use a teleporter, even if the designers claim that you will actually be "teleported" over instead of dying and a clone being created at the destination. The scary thing is that there is absolutely no way to know for sure whether you die or not. The clone will be an exact copy of you, so as far as the clone is concerned, he was successfully "teleported" to the destination. Like in The Prestige, the guy has no idea whether the guy standing on the machine is transported and a copy is left behind or a copy is transported and the one standing on the machine is left behind. That's what makes it so scary.
On August 06 2010 02:48 stafu wrote: It's not you though, is it? Watch Moon, for example. There can only be one who is born naturally, and that matters a lot to your psyche if something like this did happen. It seems like so many of you aren't considering what it would feel like to be essentially an ersatz human/creation — the knowledge that I am now about because the real, original me died via teleportation would be way too much to handle.
Imagine the lack of true reality; imagine the feeling that comes with knowing you are created as a replacement for someone real, purely by scientific methods, not the will (or love) of two people. That is not something you just shrug off.
That is entirely a matter of perception. I'm guessing it would be more cultural than anything. If people were convinced it was normal they'd live their lives the same way as before.
This is basically like sending a fax with a machine that shreds the document after faxing on the sending machine, the piece of paper on the other end will be exactly the same as the one that was sent but it won't ACTUALLY BE the same one, just a replica.
You would die, and another you would come into existence to replace you, but you yourself will not be transferred to the new body. So no, I would never use this teleporter.
On August 06 2010 03:20 B1nary wrote: It seems like some people who say they would use it don't understand that they will be volunteering to die... Consciousness is just a function of brain activity and ceases when you're disintegrated.
I would never use a teleporter, even if the designers claim that you will actually be "teleported" over instead of dying and a clone being created at the destination. The scary thing is that there is absolutely no way to know for sure whether you die or not. The clone will be an exact copy of you, so as far as the clone is concerned, he was successfully "teleported" to the destination. Like in The Prestige, the guy has no idea whether the guy standing on the machine is transported and a copy is left behind or a copy is transported and the one standing on the machine is left behind. That's what makes it so scary.
The scary thing is there's absolutely no way to know if you die every moment and are reborn the next moment as a different person.
For anyone elses eyes it is exactly me walking out of the teleporter. Even the clone walking out of the teleporter thinks that it's the same person that walked into the teleport, he's got my memories after all.
But I'd think that my brain, my mind, that is HERE, would stop existing, the perfect copy would be another entity even if it's identical to me and thinks it is the proper me.
if this machine constructed another replica of me without killing me, and i was standing next to my clone, i wouldn't be seeing out of its eyes, or feeling what it's feeling. this to me is proof that just because it's the same as me, doesn't make it me. so in that instant when i'm standing next to my clone, if u kill me, u have killed me and i'm dead. so it doesn't make a difference if u kill me at the exact same time that the clone comes into existence. the clone isn't me.
On August 06 2010 02:48 stafu wrote: It's not you though, is it? Watch Moon, for example. There can only be one who is born naturally, and that matters a lot to your psyche if something like this did happen. It seems like so many of you aren't considering what it would feel like to be essentially an ersatz human/creation — the knowledge that I am now about because the real, original me died via teleportation would be way too much to handle.
Imagine the lack of true reality; imagine the feeling that comes with knowing you are created as a replacement for someone real, purely by scientific methods, not the will (or love) of two people. That is not something you just shrug off.
That is entirely a matter of perception. I'm guessing it would be more cultural than anything. If people were convinced it was normal they'd live their lives the same way as before.
Perhaps, but I still think the fact that there is only one true human that lives until they first undergo this process would live in the minds of everyone who is aware. It's a bit of a scary thought in my opinion.
On August 06 2010 03:19 Zeromaxx wrote: I would use it to teleport to the fridge and back if it got me my beer/sandwich faster.
Not only would I use it but I would use it for everything that could possibly be beneficial.
Rofl so you would die for a sandwich/beer. You will die so your clone can have a sandwich. People who would use it have really messed up mind in my opinion or don't really understand the topic. It's not even comparable with gradual replacement. If the difference in replacement size doesn't matter to you then why haven't you tried killing yourself? Teleportation will do it to you and you are fine with it. Or is the purpose of life only to carry over your genes and ideas? I thought it was enjoying your life.
On August 06 2010 03:19 Zeromaxx wrote: I would use it to teleport to the fridge and back if it got me my beer/sandwich faster.
Not only would I use it but I would use it for everything that could possibly be beneficial.
Rofl so you would die for a sandwich/beer. You will die so your clone can have a sandwich. People who would use it have really messed up mind in my opinion or don't really understand the topic. It's not even comparable with gradual replacement. If the difference in replacement size doesn't matter to you then why haven't you tried killing yourself? Teleportation will do it to you and you are fine with it. Or is the purpose of life only to carry over your genes and ideas? I thought it was enjoying your life.
What do you mean by, "haven't you tried killing yourself" if I kill myself my conciousness ends, I cease to exist. If a reassembled me continues after I have been disassembled then conciousness continues and I continue to exist.
How about this. What if everything in your body was destroyed except for your brain and you transplanted your brain to a exact replica of a body. Is that body still you? Or say you completely die, through brain death, and by some process you are reanimated and brought back to life. Is that body or person the original you, even though that person is already technically dead by your definition?
If its only the sudden replacement of molecules that gets to you heres another hypothetical situation: What if you are disassembled into your base molecules, those molecules are brought to another location and then reassembeled to be exactly the same as before, would you count that as a new person or the same person?
Delving even deeper, say your body dies but I transfer your brain into a computer and store it there until a new body can be made for you. Then I transfer the brain file into your new body, is deleting that brain file the same as deleting the existance of a human?
On August 06 2010 04:28 RifleCow wrote: What do you mean by, "haven't you tried killing yourself" if I kill myself my conciousness ends, I cease to exist. If a reassembled me continues after I have been disassembled then conciousness continues and I continue to exist.
This is the very point that's being argued here. Just because you're being cloned doesn't mean your consciousness is being transferred to the new body. It just means a new consciousness is being created. This new consciousness, while possessing your memories is not necessarily your own. Really, the OP's question amounts to:
"If it was possible to create a perfect physical clone of yourself, would you care about dying so long as the clone continued to exist?"
Or
"If you died, but a perfect physical clone of you suddenly appeared in a different place at the same time, did you really die in the first place?"
On August 06 2010 04:09 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: lol this turned into a good thread!
I knew it would work out . The title is impossible not to click on, it can't be sidetracked into "but what if something goes wrong" (dead end) and the ship of theseus is always irresistable.
Fuck it, I'd jump in with both feet. Your going to die sooner or later anyway. This is a pretty kick ass way to go, and it will let you experience so much more shit in life before your body dies. Imagin being able to teleport to other planets and stuff. If there no afterlife I won't really give a crap if im dead, and if there is a afterlife me and my cloneselfs are going to have a alot of stuff to talk about. Who knows maybe your conciousness/soul will transfer over if your body is remade, and if that happens even better.
The is a conundrum. If you cloned someone with this device instead of teleporting across some distance and we assumed that everything was recreated perfectly and exactly as it was before then both the original and the clone would think of themselves as the same person. Their sense of identity would be exactly the same.
At that instant there would be two copies of the same person. Only after the cloning process would their identities start diverging.
So the question that needs to be answered is if there is some special property of life that cannot be replicated by by perfect matter replication.
On August 06 2010 04:37 InToTheWannaB wrote: Fuck it, I'd jump in with both feet. Your going to die sooner or later anyway. This is a pretty kick ass way to go, and it will let you experience so much more shit in life before your body dies. Imagin being able to teleport to other planets and stuff. If there no afterlife I won't really give a crap if im dead, and if there is a afterlife me and my cloneselfs are going to have a alot of stuff to talk about. Who knows maybe your conciousness/soul will transfer over if your body is remade, and if that happens even better.
In that case, if you could die in order to teleport someone else you've never met to distant planets so that they could have loads to talk about, would you do it?
On August 06 2010 04:37 InToTheWannaB wrote: If there no afterlife I won't really give a crap if im dead, and if there is a afterlife me and my cloneselfs are going to have a alot of stuff to talk about. Who knows maybe your conciousness/soul will transfer over if your body is remade, and if that happens even better.
I like the optimism ^^ The absolute best-case scenario would be that the consciousness gets transfered over.
On August 06 2010 04:37 InToTheWannaB wrote: If there no afterlife I won't really give a crap if im dead, and if there is a afterlife me and my cloneselfs are going to have a alot of stuff to talk about. Who knows maybe your conciousness/soul will transfer over if your body is remade, and if that happens even better.
I like the optimism ^^ The absolute best-case scenario would be that the consciousness gets transfered over.
Well considering the fact that the OP clearly states that the machine kills you, I think the assumption is that your consciousness isn't actually getting transferred over.
On August 06 2010 04:37 InToTheWannaB wrote: If there no afterlife I won't really give a crap if im dead, and if there is a afterlife me and my cloneselfs are going to have a alot of stuff to talk about. Who knows maybe your conciousness/soul will transfer over if your body is remade, and if that happens even better.
I like the optimism ^^ The absolute best-case scenario would be that the consciousness gets transfered over.
Well considering the fact that the OP clearly states that the machine kills you, I think the assumption is that your consciousness isn't actually getting transferred over.
What do you mean by "consciousness transfered over". If the other you has been reassembled to be you, then you have the same consciouness, you only begin to differ if both individuals continue to exist after they step out of the machine. If one is destroyed then it is not death but teleportation.
To discuss the point that some have made that the constant molecular change that organisms undergo should be no less threatening than total molecular decomposition:
As someone mentioned, total decomposition introduces the unique problem of discontinuity. Once the organism is completely decomposes, it ceases to be qualified, at least in the scientific, biological sense, as a living thing. It is no longer alive. For previously sentient organisms, sentience, along with immediate consciousness and long-term memories, are destroyed.
To answer all versions of the original question: Termination of my life via disintegration of my body is final. I desire continued survival, and am opposed to any arrangement involving my body's total destruction.
True recreation of any being is impossible as it implies the recreation of a state of being which requires absolute control over the universe itself.
On August 06 2010 04:37 InToTheWannaB wrote: If there no afterlife I won't really give a crap if im dead, and if there is a afterlife me and my cloneselfs are going to have a alot of stuff to talk about. Who knows maybe your conciousness/soul will transfer over if your body is remade, and if that happens even better.
I like the optimism ^^ The absolute best-case scenario would be that the consciousness gets transfered over.
Well considering the fact that the OP clearly states that the machine kills you, I think the assumption is that your consciousness isn't actually getting transferred over.
What do you mean by "consciousness transfered over". If the other you has been reassembled to be you, then you have the same consciouness, you only begin to differ if both individuals continue to exist after they step out of the machine. If one is destroyed then it is not death but teleportation.
What I mean is there is no continuity for the person entering the machine - only the person exiting on the other side. If you believe they count as the same person simply because one ceased to exist as the other one was created, then that's fine. I don't see the two as the same because to me, it's like saying hydrogen atom A is the same atom as hydrogen atom B just because they have the same physical constitution. If hydrogen atom A was destroyed as hydrogen atom B was created on the other side of the universe at that exact moment, would we assume that they are the same atom just because they never co-existed and one was created the instant the other was born? We would recognize the two atoms as being separate. The conditions surrounding the creation of hydrogen atom B (whether purposely made or coincidentally made) would be irrelevant to us defining them as two separate things. Why would this be any different?
On August 06 2010 04:37 InToTheWannaB wrote: If there no afterlife I won't really give a crap if im dead, and if there is a afterlife me and my cloneselfs are going to have a alot of stuff to talk about. Who knows maybe your conciousness/soul will transfer over if your body is remade, and if that happens even better.
I like the optimism ^^ The absolute best-case scenario would be that the consciousness gets transfered over.
Well considering the fact that the OP clearly states that the machine kills you, I think the assumption is that your consciousness isn't actually getting transferred over.
What do you mean by "consciousness transfered over". If the other you has been reassembled to be you, then you have the same consciouness, you only begin to differ if both individuals continue to exist after they step out of the machine. If one is destroyed then it is not death but teleportation.
I guess consciousness transfered over would be most akin to falling asleep, being transported to your destination, and waking up as opposed to the dying/cloning thing. But yeah, the OP does say to assume you do die. Just wishful thinking ^^
To say in line with the OP, I'll pose another question: would you willingly send a friendly loved one into the teleporter?
Conceptually, you can make a very good case that the notion of "individual different particles" (and, scaling up, individual different atoms made up out of individual different particles) is just nonsense. If two particles in different places have identical properties -- as do, for example, all electrons -- then they are really the same particle in a serious way; if you don't treat them as the same particle, your math won't come out right. So it's a bit silly to quibble over whether you are made of the "same particles" or not.
Not going to write five more paragraphs on this, but you might be interested in http://lesswrong.com/lw/pl/no_individual_particles/ which is a good explanation (although it requires a little background on quantum states.)
On August 06 2010 05:05 catamorphist wrote: Conceptually, you can make a very good case that the notion of "individual different particles" (and, scaling up, individual different atoms made up out of individual different particles) is just nonsense. If two particles in different places have identical properties -- as do, for example, all electrons -- then they are really the same particle in a serious way; if you don't treat them as the same particle, your math won't come out right. So it's a bit silly to quibble over whether you are made of the "same particles" or not.
Not going to write five more paragraphs on this, but you might be interested in http://lesswrong.com/lw/pl/no_individual_particles/ which is a good explanation (although it requires a little background on quantum states.)
That's actually a really interesting link and I do remember having a discussion with my cousin regarding this a while back. Admittedly, I don't have any real background in quantum physics or theory except for the tidbits I get from books or various sources here and there...
I think quantum is pretty hard to swallow for a lot of people (even more so than relativity) simply because it completely flies in the face of just about everything we perceive the universe to be. Quantum gets pretty weird... -_-
I've thought about this exact situation before, so I've pretty much worked out my stance on the issue.
Personally, I can see the benefits of using such a device, but I'd never use it. I have this weird phobia where I'm abnormally frightened of losing consciousness. It just... scares me... the idea of not being aware of anything, not being able to control anything, and how intensely similar that state is... to death. I guess you might say my issue is "fear of death redux". Because of this, I am always leery of falling asleep, whether by exhaustion or administered (sleeping aids, anesthesia, etc).
So, as for the teleportation device, I'm just not sure I'd be able to handle it. If I were to use it, I would die for a small period of time, and an exact replica of myself would be created. That's all well and good; I'm familiar with the idea of "Is it really 'me'?", and I don't have any illusions about my "essence" or soul being absent.
But would this replica's consciousness be my own?
I know it's difficult to truly define consciousness, and whether a replica's consciousness would mirror yours. The possibility of not having the same consciousness, though, terrifies me. Maybe I'm just envisioning some surreal "prisoner in my own mind" ordeal, but even so, the idea scares me.
However, I wonder if my stance would change if the teleportation device not only recreated you, but improved you as well. Would your answer change if your new "you" suddenly was free of sickle cell anemia, or diabetes, or some such condition?
This is just a cloning machine with a really long reach. Like it makes the clone far away, then a guy kills you as you are getting out of the machine. I am very lazy but I would never be so lazy I'd rather die than take a trip.
To me its the exact same thing as what others would like teleportation to be where your are dissembled here, your particles move instantly to another spot, and are reassembled there.
Except in this, you are scanned and dissembled, and then reassembled in another place instantly with no transfer of anything but data.
I see no problem with it, no matter what with teleportation you are "dying" really. In one you just take your parts with you and the other you get new ones. Either way you come out the same person, the exact same person.
Edit: Not to mention, you wouldn't know that you've "died" really you would just think you came out the other end. I believe we are just atoms so well... there is no "consciousness" special to me, its just the way my atoms are put together and my brain perseveres things. Nothing special about any person on earth if we could make a clone of you 100% the same molecularity then they are you and you no difference at all. There is no original, no clone, just one person in two places at once.
Once things start taking their natural course and start changing, then yes you become different but for the instant that the other one is created there is no difference between you and you then have someone that is you 100%.
I've only read through the first page but wtf. Just because it's exactly the same as you doesn't make it you. YOU die. And then there's another version of you walking around. But it's not like your conscious transfers over to this new body.
Your personal experience would end. Only the new you would think he/she made the trip fine, but you've already died. It doesnt matter if the new person is exactly the same as you and shares your memories.
Alright, I feel like all of you who are so willing to jump into the machine and talking about how your atoms change all the time don't really understand the gravity of the situation, of killing yourself and some copy being made.
Consider this situation instead:
Same concept, there's a machine that scans you completely and at the other end reconstructs your physical being completely, wherever that may be. Now say the other end of the machine is like 10 feet away and it takes like 30 seconds to complete the reconstruction. Now imagine that the reconstruction process is perfect, but the deconstruction of your old body isn't perfect, so that instead of being vaporized instantly a knife just pops out and stabs you repeatedly all over your body. As you stumble backwards, fall down, gasping for air, groaning in agony as you slowly bleed to death you start to think "OMG, it was a trick, why the fuck did I step in that machine??" Feebly you call out for help "Someone help me...I'm dying...I'm dying." You suddenly see someone out of the corner of your eye approaching you and feel relieved. "Oh, I'll be saved, thank goodness." As you turn your head to look at your savior you see yourself peering down at you. It's your clone, your copy, your exact replica the machine made. He bends down and says something like "No man, don't worry, you're not dying. See? It worked. I'm right here. I'm YOU." You think to yourself "no, no I'm dying. I'm in pain. I'm dying."
In this position I can't see anyone feeling relieved that the copy machine worked and that you'll go on living. BECAUSE YOU WON'T! You'll be DEAD! Do you understand now?? Even if it's an exact copy of you. It's NOT YOU. It's someone else who doesn't deserve to own the memories that you have. It's a fake, a facade, an imitation, but it's not YOU.
On August 06 2010 07:23 BrogMaN wrote: Alright, I feel like all of you who are so willing to jump into the machine and talking about how your atoms change all the time don't really understand the gravity of the situation, of killing yourself and some copy being made.
Consider this situation instead:
Same concept, there's a machine that scans you completely and at the other end reconstructs your physical being completely, wherever that may be. Now say the other end of the machine is like 10 feet away and it takes like 30 seconds to complete the reconstruction. Now imagine that the reconstruction process is perfect, but the deconstruction of your old body isn't perfect, so that instead of being vaporized instantly a knife just pops out and stabs you repeatedly all over your body. As you stumble backwards, fall down, gasping for air, groaning in agony as you slowly bleed to death you start to think "OMG, it was a trick, why the fuck did I step in that machine??" Feebly you call out for help "Someone help me...I'm dying...I'm dying." You suddenly see someone out of the corner of your eye approaching you and feel relieved. "Oh, I'll be saved, thank goodness." As you turn your head to look at your savior you see yourself peering down at you. It's your clone, your copy, your exact replica the machine made. He bends down and says something like "No man, don't worry, you're not dying. See? It worked. I'm right here. I'm YOU." You think to yourself "no, no I'm dying. I'm in pain. I'm dying."
In this position I can't see anyone feeling relieved that the copy machine worked and that you'll go on living. BECAUSE YOU WON'T! You'll be DEAD! Do you understand now?? Even if it's an exact copy of you. It's NOT YOU. It's someone else who doesn't deserve to own the memories that you have. It's a fake, a facade, an imitation, but it's not YOU.
I literally have no idea what you're talking about. I would be fine with that scenario, except I would sure prefer that it were a painless death for my original rather than being knifed.
Could you explain exactly what problem you have with that? Do you believe in some dualist soul that is in the original and not the copy?
By definition, if you take my brain and reconstruct it somewhere else, it's me. The current state of my mind is me. If you construct it from scratch, or in a computer simulation, then there's two of me. If you kill the original, then there's one of me, which I can hardly complain about, since that's how many I had in the first place.
I don't think you can possibly change my mind, but I'm curious if you can articulate where you are coming from here.
I wouldn't do it because with my luck I would come out the otherside into the body of Andy Dick. Fortunately I'll never have that option, or likely see that sort of technology. If somebody sacrificed themselves to make sure it worked the right way, then that might change my mind.
On August 06 2010 07:23 BrogMaN wrote: Alright, I feel like all of you who are so willing to jump into the machine and talking about how your atoms change all the time don't really understand the gravity of the situation, of killing yourself and some copy being made.
Consider this situation instead:
Same concept, there's a machine that scans you completely and at the other end reconstructs your physical being completely, wherever that may be. Now say the other end of the machine is like 10 feet away and it takes like 30 seconds to complete the reconstruction. Now imagine that the reconstruction process is perfect, but the deconstruction of your old body isn't perfect, so that instead of being vaporized instantly a knife just pops out and stabs you repeatedly all over your body. As you stumble backwards, fall down, gasping for air, groaning in agony as you slowly bleed to death you start to think "OMG, it was a trick, why the fuck did I step in that machine??" Feebly you call out for help "Someone help me...I'm dying...I'm dying." You suddenly see someone out of the corner of your eye approaching you and feel relieved. "Oh, I'll be saved, thank goodness." As you turn your head to look at your savior you see yourself peering down at you. It's your clone, your copy, your exact replica the machine made. He bends down and says something like "No man, don't worry, you're not dying. See? It worked. I'm right here. I'm YOU." You think to yourself "no, no I'm dying. I'm in pain. I'm dying."
In this position I can't see anyone feeling relieved that the copy machine worked and that you'll go on living. BECAUSE YOU WON'T! You'll be DEAD! Do you understand now?? Even if it's an exact copy of you. It's NOT YOU. It's someone else who doesn't deserve to own the memories that you have. It's a fake, a facade, an imitation, but it's not YOU.
looool. See, I wouldn't be okay with that, because what's the point of teleporting yourself ten feet away?
More seriously, if the reconstructed person has the same body, mind, and thoughts as I do, I would still consider it to be me. Despite the fact that the original me would be dead, it wouldn't matter, since it is still making my mark (however small) on the universe.
Basically, my view is something like this: Who cares if the original is dead? In fact, what was the purpose of having the original exist in the first place (eg. why do I bother with life)? As long as the body fulfills its function (acting out my will), it doesn't really matter to me if the original is dead. The reconstructed person is, for all practical purposes, still me, even if it's not technically me.
I would pretty much only do this is a situation where I have to die. If I don't have to die I'd rather have this me live life instead of going to nothing or the afterlife (depending on your belief) earlier just for the sake of teleportation.
On August 06 2010 07:23 BrogMaN wrote: Alright, I feel like all of you who are so willing to jump into the machine and talking about how your atoms change all the time don't really understand the gravity of the situation, of killing yourself and some copy being made.
Consider this situation instead:
Same concept, there's a machine that scans you completely and at the other end reconstructs your physical being completely, wherever that may be. Now say the other end of the machine is like 10 feet away and it takes like 30 seconds to complete the reconstruction. Now imagine that the reconstruction process is perfect, but the deconstruction of your old body isn't perfect, so that instead of being vaporized instantly a knife just pops out and stabs you repeatedly all over your body. As you stumble backwards, fall down, gasping for air, groaning in agony as you slowly bleed to death you start to think "OMG, it was a trick, why the fuck did I step in that machine??" Feebly you call out for help "Someone help me...I'm dying...I'm dying." You suddenly see someone out of the corner of your eye approaching you and feel relieved. "Oh, I'll be saved, thank goodness." As you turn your head to look at your savior you see yourself peering down at you. It's your clone, your copy, your exact replica the machine made. He bends down and says something like "No man, don't worry, you're not dying. See? It worked. I'm right here. I'm YOU." You think to yourself "no, no I'm dying. I'm in pain. I'm dying."
In this position I can't see anyone feeling relieved that the copy machine worked and that you'll go on living. BECAUSE YOU WON'T! You'll be DEAD! Do you understand now?? Even if it's an exact copy of you. It's NOT YOU. It's someone else who doesn't deserve to own the memories that you have. It's a fake, a facade, an imitation, but it's not YOU.
looool. See, I wouldn't be okay with that, because what's the point of teleporting yourself ten feet away?
More seriously, if the reconstructed person has the same body, mind, and thoughts as I do, I would still consider it to be me. Despite the fact that the original me would be dead, it wouldn't matter, since it is still making my mark (however small) on the universe.
Basically, my view is something like this: Who cares if the original is dead? In fact, what was the purpose of having the original exist in the first place (eg. why do I bother with life)? As long as the body fulfills its function (acting out my will), it doesn't really matter to me if the original is dead. The reconstructed person is, for all practical purposes, still me, even if it's not technically me.
K his scenario is so far removed from what everyone else is talking about. We aren't talking about some guy recreating you, then stabbing you violently until you die. Because in that case, what the resassembled version and the nonexistant version experience are two different events. If one of the beings experiences a single thing differently than the other one then they automatically become two seperate entities and therefore are two different people. When you kill that person violently they expereince their own death and hence the one that does not experience is seperate. What true teleportation would be is if one person is instantly gone, deassembled, from the world, and the next moment somewhere else he is instantly reassembled. I liken this to an electron not smoothly transitioning between quantum states, but when absorbing a photon of proper frequency jumping instant to a higher orbital energy level. The electron does not exist between the energy states, it ceases to exist and then exists somewhere else.
I'd definately never do it. The inital question here states that I would die, and an exact copy of me would be created somewhere else, and I'm not a fan of dying. I can't see how anyone could advocate for this procedure at all. It seems like people have a very odd conception who 'me' in this scenario is.
BrogMaNs anecdote is pretty decent to explain a pretty central part that some people seem to forget or ignore. For anyone viewing the teleportation or interacting with the copied person post-teleportation, they would see no change - they'd assume nothing changed, and for everyone else in the world, that would be right - an exact copy with the same mind, same thoughts and whatever else. For the copy, too, everything would be right - he'd remember his morning wank, going to the teleporter, then popping up in the super-secret deep space base on Mars.
But you, who entered the teleport, would be dead. No more experiences, no more memories, no more anything. Wether a copy of you exists somewhere else or not is completely irrelevant - you're dead, so your conciousness doesn't exist any more. It's game over for you.
Speaking of the Prestige, that's also the kinda neat part about it. The stage trick dropped the original and created a copy, meaning the original magician died (since the original was the one dropped into the water) the first time the machine was used, and the copies kept living. While the copies thought they were the original who "just got lucky", the reality was that each and every time they used the machine, the current "original" would not be able to reap the benefits of the effect, as he would be dying.
So yea, while for all intents and purposes for anyone else, the teleport would work, it would be irrelevant for you since you'd be dead. If you want to die, why care about wether or not a copy of you wanks about pretending to be you somewhere else? You'd not see what he sees, experience what he experiences, think what he thinks. You'd not be thinking anything, becase you'd be dead.
The caveat with quantum teleportation is that by definition it's just long range entanglement, the original loses "all information" ie, is completely destroyed. It's basically cloning, and it's still bounded by the restrictions imposed by light speed, doing otherwise breaks the uncertainty principle.
On August 06 2010 00:42 skindzer wrote: Like a lot have saif before, i wouldn't be me if i get killed. Its just a clone.
But noone who said this argued what changed.. what is this "you" that cease to exist? Why isn't the "clone" you? I am not saying it would be hard to tell the difference etc, I am asking, what the hell is the difference?
"I would be dead", doesn't make sense to me in this respect.
the difference is that it's a different person.. the same as the difference between you and me.
why am i not you?
how is this not obvious?
if you think the copy being "the same" as you would *make it you* then explain what happens when there is 2 copies.
It's obvious that you and I aren't the same. We have different personas, experiences, and consciences (plural form of consciousness?). So what is there to confuse? We don't feel alike, we haven't lived along the same continuum.
On August 06 2010 04:31 LegendaryZ wrote: This is the very point that's being argued here. Just because you're being cloned doesn't mean your consciousness is being transferred to the new body. It just means a new consciousness is being created. This new consciousness, while possessing your memories is not necessarily your own.
Yes it would. Again, unless you guys offer some explanation as to what doesn't carry over in this copy-process there is absolutely no reason to believe consciousness wouldn't. The person being teleported should experience the whole thing along a typical continuum of experience. As the hypothetical situation was an instantaneous replication (it was right?) it would be like going through a door top you.
Someone said that it posed a problem for the continuity of consciousness if the two copies existed in the same time and space. I don't think it does, but the experience would likely be disturbing to them. Additionally, they would quickly diverge form this point in time and almost instantly become different entities.
On August 06 2010 04:31 LegendaryZ wrote:
Really, the OP's question amounts to:
"If it was possible to create a perfect physical clone of yourself, would you care about dying so long as the clone continued to exist?"
Or
"If you died, but a perfect physical clone of you suddenly appeared in a different place at the same time, did you really die in the first place?"
This is not what the question amounts to. You take for granted that these two instances of the same person is somehow separable. I still don't see why you would view it that way.
You people get to caught up on the words "death" and "copy". These are merely a presentation of the problem. There is nothing that ceases more to exist in this situation than in any other experience that alter you somehow.
Unless you propose there is some kind of soul or essence that can't be copied, there really isn't anything ending at all. "You would still be dead!!!", doesn't make sense here.
Eh. Just repeating myself and some other folks... Tengeng put it well here: + Show Spoiler +
On August 06 2010 04:38 TanGeng wrote: The is a conundrum. If you cloned someone with this device instead of teleporting across some distance and we assumed that everything was recreated perfectly and exactly as it was before then both the original and the clone would think of themselves as the same person. Their sense of identity would be exactly the same.
At that instant there would be two copies of the same person. Only after the cloning process would their identities start diverging.
So the question that needs to be answered is if there is some special property of life that cannot be replicated by by perfect matter replication.
The point is that one consciousness ends and another begins. Even though they are the same, they are still separate consciousnesses.
From the perspective of the created person, they are the same as they were before because they think the same as the person who was cloned. From the perspective of the person who was copied, they are dead because their consciousness no longer exists. The consciousness now doing the thinking is a different one then the one that it was created from.
It's like copying a game from one computer to another. They are identical in every way, but they are separate pieces of data on separate computers. In this case, our consciousness is the data and our brain is the computer.
On August 06 2010 10:56 Myles wrote: The point is that one consciousness ends and another begins. Even though they are the same, they are still separate consciousnesses.
From the perspective of the created person, they are the same as they were before because they think the same as the person who was cloned. From the perspective of the person who was copied, they are dead because their consciousness no longer exists. The consciousness now doing the thinking is a different one then the one that it was created from.
It's like copying a game from one computer to another. They are identical in every way, but they are separate pieces of data on separate computers. In this case, our consciousness is the data and our brain is the computer.
Its more like this. Say you have two folders. In one instance you drag and drop the file from one folder to the other. And the other instance you copy and past the file then delete the original file. Actually what you do is you copy the file to memory, then you delete the original file and then paste it into the other folder. Is there anything different between these options? Other than the obvious computer data storage semantics that anyone can argue. But conceptually and functionally are these two choices different?
On August 06 2010 10:56 Myles wrote: The point is that one consciousness ends and another begins. Even though they are the same, they are still separate consciousnesses.
From the perspective of the created person, they are the same as they were before because they think the same as the person who was cloned. From the perspective of the person who was copied, they are dead because their consciousness no longer exists. The consciousness now doing the thinking is a different one then the one that it was created from.
It's like copying a game from one computer to another. They are identical in every way, but they are separate pieces of data on separate computers. In this case, our consciousness is the data and our brain is the computer.
Its more like this. Say you have two folders. In one instance you drag and drop the file from one folder to the other. And the other instance you copy and past the file then delete the original file. Actually what you do is you copy the file to memory, then you delete the original file and then paste it into the other folder. Is there anything different between these options? Other than the obvious computer data storage semantics that anyone can argue. But conceptually and functionally are these two choices different?
You can't throw away the fact that data has been moved inside the hard drive and its the same thing with consciousness. I agree that, effectively, you are completely the same as the person who was cloned. But its two separate brains, and two separate awarenesses that are being conscious.
I think the root of the difficulty is, we just don't know. Is it the same person? Do I really die? Is there a soul that gets transferred to the new body/gets killed and is sad/is cloned perfectly along with the body?
Way I look at it, there's some significant chance that there is a ME that wants to be preserved but would be destroyed by this process. I have no idea if it's true or not, but just that chance makes me not want to use the machine.
Haha even ancient Greeks thought of this. Is a ship that has had damaged planks replaced the same ship? If yes, then what if overtime every single plank in that ship had been damaged and replaced, is it still the same ship? If yes then what would happen if every one of those damaged planks from the original were stored and then reconstructed, which of the two ships is the real ship?
Anyone who finds comfort in the fact that they have not gone through the machine and are therefore somehow "intact" hasn't understood a first grade science course in elementary school. Who is the real you? The first grader who failed science, or the high school senior many years later who still doesn't seem to grasp the concept.
Who is the real you? The one who decided to drink coffee at noon and consumed 200mg of caffeine which may have increased your performance resulting in a success which increased the levels of dopamine you would have otherwise produced and through complex nearly entirely unknown processes you gained a tiny fraction of intelligence.
Or the you who repainted a lead contaminated 1960's house a few years back which lead to high levels of the substance in your blood stream which readily crossed the blood brain barrier and proceeded to act as a neurotoxin which explains why your posting here about a boring philosophical question because somehow on some level it interests you.
On August 06 2010 11:10 SilentCrono wrote: what is this from anyway?
The concept of teleporting, or becoming immortal by replicating yourself and killing the original is an old science fiction convention. The philosophical problem underlying it goes all the way back to greek philosophy, where it took the form of the ship of theseus. I find this version more interesting because the emotional resonance of evading death (or not) makes it hard to take the lazy way out by dismissing the whole issue as a matter of semantics.
I really think that people who take theories like 'we are just atoms' and 'if there is no observable difference, there IS no difference' and 'my consciousness is just a manifestation of my brain and nothing more' as fact are making a BIG mistake in assuming that current lines of thought are correct.
It's analogous to a Christian person who says that he absolutely would not be willing to use the machine because that would be suicide and suicides go straight to hell.
What if you actually died last night during your sleep--or rather, the person you think you are died last night, and you are merely a copy, deluded into thinking you are the original?
On August 06 2010 13:04 Lysdexia wrote: Lets say I have two Starcraft 2 CDs. What happens If I disintegrate one of them? It no longer exists.
Now lets say I only have one Starcraft 2 CD. What happens if I disintegrate it? It no longer exists.
Notice how no matter how many other identical Starcraft 2 CDs I have, when I disintegrate one of them the same thing happens to it.
When you die you die no matter how many other yous there are.
Horrible analogy. You stop at the "disintegrate.." is if it was equivalent to the situation in question, just as too many here stop at the word "die" in that case. Not a single one of you defending that line of thought has cared to explain by which criteria this "death" has occurred and why it constitutes a significant change. The reassemblance of my molecules? Not a good argument as many has pointed out.
I just don't think that line of thinking (the "you would still be dead!" one) has brought anything at all to the table yet.
EDIT: I guess you could make the point that since the OP (who defined the problem) says you would die, it is so, and "death" as a significant event has occurred. That's only a rhetorical point, however, since I would say that "dying and then having a perfect copy reassembled was only OP's way of presenting the problem. Substitute the word "die" for "broking into atoms" and you have no point.
Substitute the word "die" for "broking into atoms" and you have no point.
And while we're at it lets substitute the word sandwich with tablespoon, just, you know, while we're at it.
[/i]
So.. You honestly want to say that the point is you are die in this situation because the OP uses that exact phrase? Stating the obvious is meaningful to you? I'm pretty sure I understood the problem at is was meant to be understood, and only added the disclaimer in the edit to avoid misunderstandings. I do not try to alter the concept by substituting words, I try to present it more loyally. If understood as you suggest it is simply a tautology - self-proving and meaningless.
Not trying to win a discussion on words here. I'm trying not to get caught up in them and hoping for the other side to do the same.
Just because a molecule of water is the same as another one doesn't mean if you made an exact copy that it's the same molecule. A copy of you isn't going to have your conscience. If your atoms moved then you'd probably actually "teleport" and come back to life. If you're reconstructed with different atoms then no, YOU are dead as far as your world is concerned.
How could anyone even consider doing this? Though the clone believes it is you, and will act and live like you would, you obviously won't consciously control that clone. Your conscious would be gone. Basically your dead but you have a clone...That's beat.
On August 06 2010 18:38 Anther wrote: Just because a molecule of water is the same as another one doesn't mean if you made an exact copy that it's the same molecule. A copy of you isn't going to have your conscience. If your atoms moved then you'd probably actually "teleport" and come back to life. If you're reconstructed with different atoms then no, YOU are dead as far as your world is concerned.
I find life to be pretty well defined by - your physical attributes - your behavior (a bit a wide definition here) - your memory - other's memories of you
If you were recreated at another spot with the same physical attributes (that is assumed to happen) with the same memory (that is assumed to happen as well), then it just needs that extra bit of you having the same behavior, which I assume in the given hypothetical scenario would be transported as well. Memories of you by others will be left untouched and they will not be able to distinguish between the old and the new you.
From the point of the new you, you have the memory of being in the old place, and suddenly being in the new place. Your old body, yeah that's gone, I don't think you care much as you can sense you're still alive and well. (But perhaps the old you would never have gone as far as teleporting out of fear.)
If we have such a basis established, then the rest of the discussion is whether your 'soul' is gonna be transferred. Since I'm a nonbeliever, I got no problem with that.
On August 06 2010 18:38 Anther wrote: If your atoms moved then you'd probably actually "teleport" and come back to life. If you're reconstructed with different atoms then no, YOU are dead as far as your world is concerned.
That depends on who are looking does it not? It is the very difference between the two sides in this discussion. To that part of the rest of the that i belong to, the person won't be dead (just teleported), to the part you belong to, the person would.
On August 06 2010 18:38 Anther wrote: Just because a molecule of water is the same as another one doesn't mean if you made an exact copy that it's the same molecule. A copy of you isn't going to have your conscience.
I think it would. I believe consciousness to be you current aware mental state situated in a body, living in a world, and having a history, memory, knowledge, and intention. All of these are transfered if an exact physical copy* is made. At least they are if the world functions as I believe it to - that is everything is bound in material. If there is a "soul" or an equivalent, I'm wrong.
The situation with two clones living at the very same moment doesn't constitute a problem to this way of viewing things. Those clones wouldn't share a consciousness, but they would only be the same at exactly one point in time. From that point on, merely the difference in space (as they couldn't stand in the very same place) would mean their consciences and experiences would diverge. They would both be equally much "me" where "me" refers to the pre-teleportation entity. Such separate consciences are not a paradox to me - they are merely two different instances of continuations of the one consciousness that once were. Just as your consciousness exists and changes across experiences all the time, two different versions of it would do so in this case.
Shortly put, unless you propose that "you" are defined by more than your body in a physical sense, consciousness is transfered as well. I believe experienes, motives, feelings, etc to be represented in your current biological setup, so I don't see what is lost in this teleportation process.
* I don't like to use the word "copy" too much as people seem to jump on it and go "see you said copy it is not you!"
I feel like nobody in this thread knows what a clone is. A clone is not you, it is a genetic copy of you. Twins are clones. If you froze your twin brother at birth and then defrosted him when you were older you would be able to raise a clone of yourself. That does not mean he would be you. This device would not be creating clones of you, it would be recreating you. Not a separate person but rather the thought patterns, memories and beliefs that define you.
potentially a great tool for suicidal people. off yourself and let your copy take over for a day. your copy can then use the machine at the end of the day. repeat until you die to something else.
it changes almost nothing for them, but it might improve the quality of their life knowing they'll find rest without introducing a burden on loved ones. but you don't really need a machine for that. you could just imagine that every time you sleep you die, and every time you wake up you wake up as a copy.
On August 06 2010 19:27 Daimon wrote: potentially a great tool for suicidal people. off yourself and let your copy take over for a day. your copy can then use the machine at the end of the day. repeat until you die to something else.
it changes almost nothing for them, but it might improve the quality of their life knowing they'll find rest without introducing a burden on loved ones. but you don't really need a machine for that. you could just imagine that every time you sleep you die, and every time you wake up you wake up as a copy.
Except the guy who steps out of the machine will say "fuck, that didn't work" and shoot himself in the head.
On August 06 2010 19:39 Ramsing wrote: It sounds like you're saying that my soul would not be transfered to my body. If that's the case, then no I would not commit suicide.
well that depends on what you believe. if you believe that your soul can actually transfer body to body then you would partake in the teleportation. but if you believe that your soul can only be within oneself then you wouldn't partake in the teleporation. there is no right or wrong answer. its just a question to see how a person perceives their life.
On August 06 2010 19:39 Ramsing wrote: It sounds like you're saying that my soul would not be transfered to my body. If that's the case, then no I would not commit suicide.
well that depends on what you believe. if you believe that your soul can actually transfer body to body then you would partake in the teleportation. but if you believe that your soul can only be within oneself then you wouldn't partake in the teleporation. there is no right or wrong answer. its just a question to see how a person perceives their life.
I don't believe in anything, including life, so teleport away!
On August 06 2010 19:24 KwarK wrote: I feel like nobody in this thread knows what a clone is. A clone is not you, it is a genetic copy of you. Twins are clones. If you froze your twin brother at birth and then defrosted him when you were older you would be able to raise a clone of yourself. That does not mean he would be you. This device would not be creating clones of you, it would be recreating you. Not a separate person but rather the thought patterns, memories and beliefs that define you.
I wouldn't mind dieing and letting a clone take my place, since I probably won't notice at all. As long as the clone can live as long as I did, I'm totally fine with it~ ^.^
Our bodies replace themselves over time anyway. I'm not totally sure of brain cells, but if your body replaces itself every 7 years, what difference does it make? You are not the you of yesterday or tomorrow, or a second ago. You simply are.
On August 06 2010 19:24 KwarK wrote: I feel like nobody in this thread knows what a clone is. A clone is not you, it is a genetic copy of you. Twins are clones. If you froze your twin brother at birth and then defrosted him when you were older you would be able to raise a clone of yourself. That does not mean he would be you. This device would not be creating clones of you, it would be recreating you. Not a separate person but rather the thought patterns, memories and beliefs that define you.
I wouldn't mind dieing and letting a clone take my place, since I probably won't notice at all. As long as the clone can live as long as I did, I'm totally fine with it~ ^.^
You missed the point: the clone is only genetically the same as you, it doesn't have any of the results of your individual life experiences, ie memories, learned thought processes, habits and so on.
Bottom line is that he's defining clone in the traditional medical sense, which means someone who is genetically the same but not necessarily (and almost certainly not) any more than that.
Anyway, this is more interesting with respect to the specifics of Star Trek and their transporter system. Does the transporter kill someone every time it is used, then recreate them somewhere else? And why can't they just create new people with it from stored "patterns"?
I have one thing to say. This way of teleporting SUCKS!
I don't want to have my body torn apart and put back together, wtf? Ouch.
I'll let all the scientists go threw first and see what happens, but then again, "they" on the other side might not be "them" anymore but someone who thinks they are "them". Wtf? Im so glad this wont be happening in my lifetime. Hopefully.
On August 06 2010 19:24 KwarK wrote: I feel like nobody in this thread knows what a clone is. A clone is not you, it is a genetic copy of you. Twins are clones. If you froze your twin brother at birth and then defrosted him when you were older you would be able to raise a clone of yourself. That does not mean he would be you. This device would not be creating clones of you, it would be recreating you. Not a separate person but rather the thought patterns, memories and beliefs that define you.
I wouldn't mind dieing and letting a clone take my place, since I probably won't notice at all. As long as the clone can live as long as I did, I'm totally fine with it~ ^.^
You missed the point: the clone is only genetically the same as you, it doesn't have any of the results of your individual life experiences, ie memories, learned thought processes, habits and so on.
Bottom line is that he's defining clone in the traditional medical sense, which means someone who is genetically the same but not necessarily (and almost certainly not) any more than that.
The "clone" in this case does have all of your memories, experiences, habits etc. It's not really the traditional clone we think of, it's an exact copy, a new you, but it's still not you, you're dead after going through this thing and someone else that's exactly the same as you were has taken your place.
On August 06 2010 21:06 cz wrote: Does the transporter kill someone every time it is used, then recreate them somewhere else?
No, there's an episode where you can see it from the teleportee's point of view and he's alive and conscious throughout teleportation.
On August 06 2010 21:06 cz wrote: And why can't they just create new people with it from stored "patterns"?
Because there's only one set of their atoms, one person goes in, one person comes out.
On August 06 2010 19:24 KwarK wrote: I feel like nobody in this thread knows what a clone is. A clone is not you, it is a genetic copy of you. Twins are clones. If you froze your twin brother at birth and then defrosted him when you were older you would be able to raise a clone of yourself. That does not mean he would be you. This device would not be creating clones of you, it would be recreating you. Not a separate person but rather the thought patterns, memories and beliefs that define you.
I wouldn't mind dieing and letting a clone take my place, since I probably won't notice at all. As long as the clone can live as long as I did, I'm totally fine with it~ ^.^
You missed the point: the clone is only genetically the same as you, it doesn't have any of the results of your individual life experiences, ie memories, learned thought processes, habits and so on.
Bottom line is that he's defining clone in the traditional medical sense, which means someone who is genetically the same but not necessarily (and almost certainly not) any more than that.
The "clone" in this case does have all of your memories, experiences, habits etc. It's not really the traditional clone we think of, it's an exact copy, a new you, but it's still not you, you're dead after going through this thing and someone else that's exactly the same as you were has taken your place.
On August 06 2010 21:06 cz wrote: And why can't they just create new people with it from stored "patterns"?
Because there's only one set of their atoms, one person goes in, one person comes out.
I was reading on a Star Trek forum that the transporter doesn't transport at all, despite all the "stuck in transport" stuff. It really does just read your pattern, get rid of you then recreate you somewhere else. I don't have the citations tho as I don't know the show by heart.
On August 06 2010 21:06 cz wrote: And why can't they just create new people with it from stored "patterns"?
Because there's only one set of their atoms, one person goes in, one person comes out.
But it's not using the same atoms. The atoms aren't moving, the information about how to assemble any old atoms into you is what is teleported. There's no reason why that information can only be used once, other than ethical concerns.
There would be 2 of me. Simple. Elegant. There would now be 2 sikyons. Which one would be the original? Well they're indistinguashable so they're both the original, they're both me. If the machine killed one of me 30 seconds after... well one copy of me would continue to exist, so I would exist.
Why should I believe conciousness is unique? If I believed that my clone did not have it's own conciousness and was not me, then I'm entering territority in which I only believe that I exist, and I can never prove that anybody else, clone or not, exists or thinks.
I think alot of people are hamstringed by their belief that they are unique. If you could make a copy of yourself, you would be non-unique.... and that would have no impact on anything.
I'd say from others perspective I would live on like nothing happened but i believe that my soul (or whatever to call it) would die so from "my" perspective (not me as in all my atribtutes but ather my conscious) I would be dead
When an electron absorbs a photon of a certain frequency it jumps outta existance only to reappear at a higher energy state with no fluid transition in between. We observe this happening as the same electron teleporting from one place to another; from a lower orbital to a higher orbital.
Alternatively you could say that when absorbing the photon the electron and the photon annhilates only to be recreated later at an energy level that represents the sum of their energies. However, in the case of this electron and the case of the "death teleportation" you may argue the later but the former is what is truly believed.
In the case of teleportation, what happens is a person, an identity, a consciousness is brought out of existence and then brought into existence again, continuing to live on in another location. The only requirement for this to happen is that the original must be destroyed before they are continued in the recreation. The moment when two completely the same individuals occupy the same universe their experiences differ and they become different people. Which begs the question, if I killed you in your sleep and then recreated you in the morning, would you still be the same person? I say yes - you were dead and then brought back to life, the same you was brought back to life, not a clone.
On August 06 2010 19:27 Daimon wrote: potentially a great tool for suicidal people. off yourself and let your copy take over for a day. your copy can then use the machine at the end of the day. repeat until you die to something else.
it changes almost nothing for them, but it might improve the quality of their life knowing they'll find rest without introducing a burden on loved ones. but you don't really need a machine for that. you could just imagine that every time you sleep you die, and every time you wake up you wake up as a copy.
Except the guy who steps out of the machine will say "fuck, that didn't work" and shoot himself in the head.
no, you didn't understand. that's why you tell yourself that you'll only do it at the end of the day. that way the clone will have the benefit of eternal rest as well. all he has to do is live through another day and pass the baton on to the next copy
On August 06 2010 19:27 Daimon wrote: potentially a great tool for suicidal people. off yourself and let your copy take over for a day. your copy can then use the machine at the end of the day. repeat until you die to something else.
it changes almost nothing for them, but it might improve the quality of their life knowing they'll find rest without introducing a burden on loved ones. but you don't really need a machine for that. you could just imagine that every time you sleep you die, and every time you wake up you wake up as a copy.
Except the guy who steps out of the machine will say "fuck, that didn't work" and shoot himself in the head.
no, you didn't understand. that's why you tell yourself that you'll only do it at the end of the day. that way the clone will have the benefit of eternal rest as well. all he has to do is live through another day and pass the baton on to the next copy
No, you don't understand what you're trying to say. As far as the copy (not clone) is concerned, he's as old as the original. He lived through your "only one more day". This machine is no more an interuption to the consciousness than blinking would be. Each copy that came out would have lived for all the previous days, you could say to them "but you were just created by that machine" but they'd think, feel and remember for the past however many years they were alive. And if they intended to commit suicide yesterday and decided to have just one more day then they'd remember that day being over, even if their particular atoms didn't live it.
On August 06 2010 19:27 Daimon wrote: potentially a great tool for suicidal people. off yourself and let your copy take over for a day. your copy can then use the machine at the end of the day. repeat until you die to something else.
it changes almost nothing for them, but it might improve the quality of their life knowing they'll find rest without introducing a burden on loved ones. but you don't really need a machine for that. you could just imagine that every time you sleep you die, and every time you wake up you wake up as a copy.
Except the guy who steps out of the machine will say "fuck, that didn't work" and shoot himself in the head.
no, you didn't understand. that's why you tell yourself that you'll only do it at the end of the day. that way the clone will have the benefit of eternal rest as well. all he has to do is live through another day and pass the baton on to the next copy
No, you don't understand what you're trying to say. As far as the copy (not clone) is concerned, he's as old as the original. He lived through your "only one more day". This machine is no more an interuption to the consciousness than blinking would be. Each copy that came out would have lived for all the previous days, you could say to them "but you were just created by that machine" but they'd think, feel and remember for the past however many years they were alive. And if they intended to commit suicide yesterday and decided to have just one more day then they'd remember that day being over, even if their particular atoms didn't live it.
exactly the suicidal copy of you would never benefit anything from this process as the most recent copy would never have committed suicide in its consciousness it would perceive the continuation of its desire for death over and over with no results.
however the copys that do initiate the suicide will be dead. this doesn't matter to the current copy however.
On August 06 2010 21:06 cz wrote: And why can't they just create new people with it from stored "patterns"?
Because there's only one set of their atoms, one person goes in, one person comes out.
But it's not using the same atoms. The atoms aren't moving, the information about how to assemble any old atoms into you is what is teleported. There's no reason why that information can only be used once, other than ethical concerns.
FWIW, it's impossible to replicate quantum states. You can copy them by moving it to a different system and destroy the original, but copying it while keeping the original intact isn't allowed by the laws of physics as we know them.
On August 06 2010 21:06 cz wrote: And why can't they just create new people with it from stored "patterns"?
Because there's only one set of their atoms, one person goes in, one person comes out.
But it's not using the same atoms. The atoms aren't moving, the information about how to assemble any old atoms into you is what is teleported. There's no reason why that information can only be used once, other than ethical concerns.
FWIW, it's impossible to replicate quantum states. You can copy them by moving it to a different system and destroy the original, but copying it while keeping the original intact isn't allowed by the laws of physics as we know them.
Because you need to destroy the original to accurately measure it. But once you've copied it you could paste several times. I'm not suggesting keeping the original intact. I'm pointing out that after the original has been scanned and destroyed the data regarding them will be digital and will not expire after a single reading. You could make several copies.
A copy of you isn't going to have your conscience.
I think you meant to say "soul"
which doesn't exist brah.
Stop mythologizing consciousness. Its a physical phenomenon that is the result of physical, and possibly quantum processes. It should hold a very special place of value in our hearts, being sentient living beings and all, but it is nevertheless just a very complicated scientific phenomenon, just like the rest of us.
If you feel the need to use a mythical entity, please use "spirit" or "soul".
Basically this devolves into a question of whether or not consciousness is anything more than a current set of chemical systems.
There is no evidence that it is not, but the vast majority of people like to fall back on the concept of a soul or some kind of mystic exceptionalism that only applies to humans.
And why can't they just create new people with it from stored "patterns"?
They could. But I feel like any society that is advanced enough to accomplish this feet would be ready to cope with the societal consequences of an infinite amount of physical personas for any given person.
fyi you actually can build a wormhole that transmits data, at least theoretically. The only thing you need is an oscillating "tube" with height that is equal...
to the size of the universe.
I doubt any society working with multi-universal levels of energy would be limited physical bodies anymore.
So if it reconstructed multiples of "you", then all of them would be you?
Yes! Is it that hard for our chimp brains to get that?
Are you saying we should stop using defibrillators because once a person goes brain dead the person we bring back is a different person?
Because you need to destroy the original to accurately measure it. But once you've copied it you could paste several times. I'm not suggesting keeping the original intact. I'm pointing out that after the original has been scanned and destroyed the data regarding them will be digital and will not expire after a single reading. You could make several copies.
I'm 100% sure this is incorrect. For example this would allow making more precise measurements than allowed by the uncertainty principle by making multiple copies and measuring the momentum and position on different copies to any precision.
The problem is that you can't make a digital copy of the original state. You make a copy using entanglement and store the information as a quantum state of a new system. Then again, the only way to retreive the information in the "copy" you have to destroy the copy itself.
Because you need to destroy the original to accurately measure it. But once you've copied it you could paste several times. I'm not suggesting keeping the original intact. I'm pointing out that after the original has been scanned and destroyed the data regarding them will be digital and will not expire after a single reading. You could make several copies.
I'm 100% sure this is incorrect. For example this would allow making more precise measurements than allowed by the uncertainty principle by making multiple copies and measuring the momentum and position on different copies to any precision.
The problem is that you can't make a digital copy of the original state. You make a copy using entanglement and store the information as a quantum state of a new system. Then again, the only way to retreive the information in the "copy" you have to destroy the copy itself.
Well now we're getting into the technological limitations of a hypothetical machine.
Because you need to destroy the original to accurately measure it. But once you've copied it you could paste several times. I'm not suggesting keeping the original intact. I'm pointing out that after the original has been scanned and destroyed the data regarding them will be digital and will not expire after a single reading. You could make several copies.
I'm 100% sure this is incorrect. For example this would allow making more precise measurements than allowed by the uncertainty principle by making multiple copies and measuring the momentum and position on different copies to any precision.
The problem is that you can't make a digital copy of the original state. You make a copy using entanglement and store the information as a quantum state of a new system. Then again, the only way to retreive the information in the "copy" you have to destroy the copy itself.
Really? Thats actually really cool that the universe somehow prevents a potentially socially challenging result (infinite people who are identical) of this problem :o.
Anyway, to anyone who is still in the suicide camp, lets illustrate the issue.
He's talking about consciousness. If there was a machine that could make a copy of you with the exact same thoughts, etc., there is no guarantee that your consciousness would be transferred to that copy. Consider: a machine that make an exact replica of you without killing you. You would still be only conscious of your original body, and the copy would seem like a separate entity.
There is no evidence to say that this would change if you died and the copy lived. Therefore, it seems logical that the machine described in the OP will kill you permanently (erase your consciousness) and the copy would be a separate entity.
This is probably what you're fearing.
If I duplicate myself, identically, without killing the original (lets pretend thats possible, idk if it is), you might look at him and say "Hey, I'm still conscious", therefor, he is not me. Killing "me" (The physical entity with this though) would kill "me" forever, and I would not become "him".
Right? No. Wrong.
Lets use an alternate example of this paradox. Lets say I make a wormhole that is incredibly large, so big I can not only transmit information ftl, it can transmit actual matter. It is 100% stable, and I can walk through it np np without dieing, on a simple walkway.
But instead of connecting it to some far off exotic destination, I connect it to another walkway exactly ten feet of it. The end result is I actually walk into the past. This is how FTL travel works.
( A wormhole, like this one, or the one used in the OP to transmit information/particle states, is theoretically doable, but requires an beam of energy with a height bigger then the universe (according to one model done by a physicist, though obviously, it has not been proven), so we're not talking about events that could possibly physically impossible. )
The end result is I end up meeting me....before I step into the wormhole.. Lets for a moment, ignore the thousands of batshit crazy things that defy all logic that could occur from this meet up, and move on.
Now, I still have consciousness, because I am still in my original body with a state of mind that was never interrupted. It is still "my" body, my original body, the one that I was born with. At the same time, I know that is true for me in the past. After all, when I entered the portal, I was still all of those.
So which one is the real you? They both are, and you know that, because you physical are/were in both positions, with an uninterrupted consciousness.
You've created an identical deliemna without creating a scenario that could possibly result in either versions of you not being the real you.
So. How do you solve this problem? The only answer is that regardless of how many times "you" are duplicated, then erased, is as long as some version of you still exist, so does your consciousness, because it is a local phenomenon bound by the rules of space and time. Their is no alternative that manages to answer the above phenomenon.
On August 07 2010 08:52 KwarK wrote: Well now we're getting into the technological limitations of a hypothetical machine.
Haha true. Then again you might not even need a perfect copy to recreate consciousness. After all you're not a perfect copy of the you that existed 5 minutes ago yet most people would argue you are the same person.
Actually, I think the set of memories, thinking patterns and emotions and the relations between these, that define a person are relatively small, in the sense that it wouldn't take too much space to store them digitally. Add the belief that he is the person who lived through these things and a physical shell he can relate to, and voila, you recreated him.
On August 06 2010 19:27 Daimon wrote: potentially a great tool for suicidal people. off yourself and let your copy take over for a day. your copy can then use the machine at the end of the day. repeat until you die to something else.
it changes almost nothing for them, but it might improve the quality of their life knowing they'll find rest without introducing a burden on loved ones. but you don't really need a machine for that. you could just imagine that every time you sleep you die, and every time you wake up you wake up as a copy.
Except the guy who steps out of the machine will say "fuck, that didn't work" and shoot himself in the head.
no, you didn't understand. that's why you tell yourself that you'll only do it at the end of the day. that way the clone will have the benefit of eternal rest as well. all he has to do is live through another day and pass the baton on to the next copy
No, you don't understand what you're trying to say. As far as the copy (not clone) is concerned, he's as old as the original. He lived through your "only one more day". This machine is no more an interuption to the consciousness than blinking would be. Each copy that came out would have lived for all the previous days, you could say to them "but you were just created by that machine" but they'd think, feel and remember for the past however many years they were alive. And if they intended to commit suicide yesterday and decided to have just one more day then they'd remember that day being over, even if their particular atoms didn't live it.
On August 06 2010 19:27 Daimon wrote: potentially a great tool for suicidal people. off yourself and let your copy take over for a day. your copy can then use the machine at the end of the day. repeat until you die to something else.
it changes almost nothing for them, but it might improve the quality of their life knowing they'll find rest without introducing a burden on loved ones. but you don't really need a machine for that. you could just imagine that every time you sleep you die, and every time you wake up you wake up as a copy.
Except the guy who steps out of the machine will say "fuck, that didn't work" and shoot himself in the head.
no, you didn't understand. that's why you tell yourself that you'll only do it at the end of the day. that way the clone will have the benefit of eternal rest as well. all he has to do is live through another day and pass the baton on to the next copy
No, you don't understand what you're trying to say. As far as the copy (not clone) is concerned, he's as old as the original. He lived through your "only one more day". This machine is no more an interuption to the consciousness than blinking would be. Each copy that came out would have lived for all the previous days, you could say to them "but you were just created by that machine" but they'd think, feel and remember for the past however many years they were alive. And if they intended to commit suicide yesterday and decided to have just one more day then they'd remember that day being over, even if their particular atoms didn't live it.
yes i've already accounted for that in my answer
No, no you haven't. I understand your argument fully but unfortunately you seem not to. The man stepping out of the machine would have lived all of the previous days when he didn't kill himself. He would not think this machine was helping him in any way. This is what would happen.
Man says "I can't go on living, I'm horribly depressed, in 24 hours I'll step into this machine that destroys and recreates me". Man steps out of machine. Man says "I can't go on living, I'm horribly depressed, I just spent the last 24 hours waiting to step into a machine. Stepping into the machine doesn't appear to have improved my situation. I've done my 24 hours of being depressed and I don't want to do another 24." Man shoots himself in the head.
If he could cope with having one more day forever then you can just remove the teleporter and tell the guy to keep living life one day at a time.
On August 06 2010 19:27 Daimon wrote: potentially a great tool for suicidal people. off yourself and let your copy take over for a day. your copy can then use the machine at the end of the day. repeat until you die to something else.
it changes almost nothing for them, but it might improve the quality of their life knowing they'll find rest without introducing a burden on loved ones. but you don't really need a machine for that. you could just imagine that every time you sleep you die, and every time you wake up you wake up as a copy.
Except the guy who steps out of the machine will say "fuck, that didn't work" and shoot himself in the head.
no, you didn't understand. that's why you tell yourself that you'll only do it at the end of the day. that way the clone will have the benefit of eternal rest as well. all he has to do is live through another day and pass the baton on to the next copy
No, you don't understand what you're trying to say. As far as the copy (not clone) is concerned, he's as old as the original. He lived through your "only one more day". This machine is no more an interuption to the consciousness than blinking would be. Each copy that came out would have lived for all the previous days, you could say to them "but you were just created by that machine" but they'd think, feel and remember for the past however many years they were alive. And if they intended to commit suicide yesterday and decided to have just one more day then they'd remember that day being over, even if their particular atoms didn't live it.
yes i've already accounted for that in my answer
No, no you haven't. I understand your argument fully but unfortunately you seem not to. The man stepping out of the machine would have lived all of the previous days when he didn't kill himself. He would not think this machine was helping him in any way. This is what would happen.
Man says "I can't go on living, I'm horribly depressed, in 24 hours I'll step into this machine that destroys and recreates me". Man steps out of machine. Man says "I can't go on living, I'm horribly depressed, I just spent the last 24 hours waiting to step into a machine. Stepping into the machine doesn't appear to have improved my situation. I've done my 24 hours of being depressed and I don't want to do another 24." Man shoots himself in the head.
If he could cope with having one more day forever then you can just remove the teleporter and tell the guy to keep living life one day at a time.
yeah, i got that :p
you shouldn't just state someone isn't getting something in that way. i expected you to not make an error like that. if you don't understand something or think the other person is wrong, you should ask a question rather than coming from a position of superiority. it's condescending and makes you seem more interested than winning the argument than having a real discussion.
Would not use, too lazy to explain through phone's tiny keyboard, but has to do with contradicting human's most basic instinct (no, the other one, pervert).
I'd never do it. At least if we're talking about a realistic teleporter here. A teleporter in our world could never "teleport" our atoms and molecules from one part of the universe to the other, it would work more like a copy machine that kills the template. and that would suck obv.
(theres no use for me if I'm dead after all. doesn't make it better that an exact copy of me is walking around)
people expect to walk into a teleporter and then "wake up" or somethign on the other side. you wouldn't, unless they find a way to teleport by bending spacetime, which is unlikely. you'd walk into the teleporter and die. your consiousness would be gone. on the other side, someone else would "wake up" and think he'd be you, but you'd be gone.
On August 08 2010 02:02 heishe wrote: I'd never do it. At least if we're talking about a realistic teleporter here. A teleporter in our world could never "teleport" our atoms and molecules from one part of the universe to the other, it would work more like a copy machine that kills the template. and that would suck obv.
(theres no use for me if I'm dead after all. doesn't make it better that an exact copy of me is walking around)
people expect to walk into a teleporter and then "wake up" or somethign on the other side. you wouldn't, unless they find a way to teleport by bending spacetime, which is unlikely. you'd walk into the teleporter and die. your consiousness would be gone. on the other side, someone else would "wake up" and think he'd be you, but you'd be gone.
The other person would wake up and think he'd be you. Now argue how he would _not_ be you? (and really, that strand of hair that stands on my head, does not define me, and neither do the individual atoms in the rest of my body.)
On August 08 2010 02:02 heishe wrote: I'd never do it. At least if we're talking about a realistic teleporter here. A teleporter in our world could never "teleport" our atoms and molecules from one part of the universe to the other, it would work more like a copy machine that kills the template. and that would suck obv.
(theres no use for me if I'm dead after all. doesn't make it better that an exact copy of me is walking around)
people expect to walk into a teleporter and then "wake up" or somethign on the other side. you wouldn't, unless they find a way to teleport by bending spacetime, which is unlikely. you'd walk into the teleporter and die. your consiousness would be gone. on the other side, someone else would "wake up" and think he'd be you, but you'd be gone.
The other person would wake up and think he'd be you. Now argue how he would _not_ be you? (and really, that strand of hair that stands on my head, does not define me, and neither do the individual atoms in the rest of my body.)
Rather simple, actually. If one defines life as a continuity, then that break would essentially mean that the other person is living a different life.
Sure, no problem. There's nothing very special about the processes of death and life. As long as the brain state and physical state are preserved without any losses, I'm fine with it. I won't be wondering afterwards whether I'm the same person; I will be the same person.
What do you mean by, "haven't you tried killing yourself" if I kill myself my conciousness ends, I cease to exist. If a reassembled me continues after I have been disassembled then conciousness continues and I continue to exist.
Have you even read what op said? Teleportation that will destroy you and make a "clone" in new place. Same particals won't be moved from one place to other. Just copy is created.
How about this. What if everything in your body was destroyed except for your brain and you transplanted your brain to a exact replica of a body. Is that body still you? Or say you completely die, through brain death, and by some process you are reanimated and brought back to life. Is that body or person the original you, even though that person is already technically dead by your definition?
What do you mean by "technically dead by your definition"? My definition is just if you get erased from this world and replaced by a clone then you are dead and your clone is alive. Transplanting a brain to your clone body would mean that conciousness continues and if you reanimate dead person in some magical way really fast then I believe he is still the same person too (because important parts of brain haven't destroyed or else they would've needed a replacement = new person). Anyway this part is really offtopic.. don't even know why you wrote it.
If its only the sudden replacement of molecules that gets to you heres another hypothetical situation: What if you are disassembled into your base molecules, those molecules are brought to another location and then reassembeled to be exactly the same as before, would you count that as a new person or the same person?
Again haven't you read op? Let me quote because you obviously skipped it... I have written my post based on op.
This is a common thing in science fiction where you are 'teleported' by a machine that kills you, then reconstructs an exact copy of your body and mind at another point. The question is
Would you use it? (the copy really believes it is you and acts like and is indistinguishable from you. assume it's failsafe. the question is emotional rather than practical)
Delving even deeper, say your body dies but I transfer your brain into a computer and store it there until a new body can be made for you. Then I transfer the brain file into your new body, is deleting that brain file the same as deleting the existance of a human?
Transfer brain into a compter? wtf.... you probably mean that all information hidden in brain will be created in computer (you can't transfer it, obviously) and brain gets destroyed. Same answer as creating a clone => you die!
This has probably been written, but yourself 10 years ago and yourself now do not share the same atoms, so technically you arent the same you as you were. There is no such this as the "soul" or anything else etheral that cant be transferred
If you are saying every molecule, every atom, every base particle is exactly the same and your entire consciousness is downloaded exactly then you can't really call it much of a copy either. If it took your place the universe would continue on and you it would live your life exactly as you have and will. Heck if you can do this whats to keep you from shaving off a few pounds or adding muscle mass, removing cancer or disease. What if the "copy" could come out a BETTER you? Then what?
We are all just a bunch of particles and having my consciousness in this body or that one over there isn't going to make much of a difference. I will still have my wife and kids and be reading the same stuff on TL. I am not dead my container just changed.
If you are copied and both you and the copy exist leading seperate lives then you are not exactly the same. You began having different experiences the exact moment you existed together.
On August 08 2010 06:23 Zeromaxx wrote: If you are saying every molecule, every atom, every base particle is exactly the same and your entire consciousness is downloaded exactly then you can't really call it much of a copy either. If it took your place the universe would continue on and you it would live your life exactly as you have and will. Heck if you can do this whats to keep you from shaving off a few pounds or adding muscle mass, removing cancer or disease. What if the "copy" could come out a BETTER you? Then what?
We are all just a bunch of particles and having my consciousness in this body or that one over there isn't going to make much of a difference. I will still have my wife and kids and be reading the same stuff on TL. I am not dead my container just changed.
If you are copied and both you and the copy exist leading seperate lives then you are not exactly the same. You began having different experiences the exact moment you existed together.
The point is that you, the human being experiencing whats happening around you, would no longer exist. You would no longer experience your thoughts, someone else would. You would close your eyes and never experience anything ever again. Someone else would open their eyes and take your place. In the end, nothing has changed and the copy feels no different from the original, but it is not the same person experiencing things in both cases.
On August 08 2010 02:32 Phrujbaz wrote: If the copy is perfect, recreating your full consciousness in the brain of "the other", then I'd think that person IS you.
However, how many imperfections would it take before that is no longer true?
It's much easier to see things into perspective, if you think about these:
If it makes 10 copies are they all you? If not, which one is you and which one isn't?
If it doesn't kill the original, how does this change things? Is the original you still you and the clone not you, despite absolutely nothing changing for the clone itself?
It could also kill you some time after creating the clone. During that period which one of them is you and how does the close suddenly become you?
If it doesn't kill the original, how does this change things? Is the original you still you and the clone not you, despite absolutely nothing changing for the clone itself?
They are both you. Did everyone just ignore my analogy?
What do you mean by "technically dead by your definition"? My definition is just if you get erased from this world and replaced by a clone then you are dead and your clone is alive. Transplanting a brain to your clone body would mean that conciousness continues and if you reanimate dead person in some magical way really fast then I believe he is still the same person too (because important parts of brain haven't destroyed or else they would've needed a replacement = new person). Anyway this part is really offtopic.. don't even know why you wrote it.
Consciousness does not transcend time or space lols. It is a local phenomenon that is the result of any given state of mind. If two identical things are identical, down to the spin of every last sub-atomic particle, then in order for them not to be contiguous to one another, then consciousness would have to be the product of something that is not entirely encapsulated within those two identical entities.
aka: a soul.
The question is not "would your soul" transfer, which would make for a funny mythical discussion on religious and spiritual viewpoints, but would your consciousness transfer.
"If I could make an identical duplicate myself without killing the original (lets pretend thats possible, idk if it is), you might look at him and say "Hey, I'm still conscious", therefor, he is not me. Killing "me" (The physical entity with this thought) would kill "me" forever, and I would not become "him"."
Right? No. Wrong.
Lets use an alternate example of this paradox. Lets say I make a wormhole that is incredibly large, so big I can not only transmit information ftl, it can transmit actual matter. It is 100% stable, and I can walk through it without being vaporized or whatever, on a simple walkway.
But instead of connecting it to some far off exotic destination, I connect it to another walkway exactly ten feet of it. The end result is I actually walk into the past. This is how FTL travel works.
( A wormhole, like this one, or the one used in the OP to transmit information/particle states, is theoretically doable, but requires an beam of energy with a height bigger then the universe (according to one model done by a physicist, though obviously, it has not been proven), so we're not talking about events that could possibly physically impossible. )
The end result is I end up meeting me....before I step into the wormhole.. Lets for a moment, ignore the thousands of batshit crazy things that defy all logic that could occur from this meet up, and move on.
Now, I still have consciousness, because I am still in my original body with a state of mind that was never interrupted. It is still "my" body, my original body, the one that I was born with. At the same time, I know that is true for me in the past. After all, when I entered the portal, I was still all of those.
So which one is the real you? They both are, and you know that, because you physical are/were in both positions, with an uninterrupted consciousness.
You've created an identical deliemna without creating a scenario that could possibly result in either versions of you not being the real you.
So. How do you solve this problem? The only answer is that regardless of how many times "you" are duplicated, then erased, is as long as some version of you still exist, so does your consciousness, because it is a local phenomenon bound by the rules of space and time. Their is no alternative that manages to answer the above phenomenon.
The point is that you, the human being experiencing whats happening around you, would no longer exist. You would no longer experience your thoughts, someone else would. You would close your eyes and never experience anything ever again. Someone else would open their eyes and take your place. In the end, nothing has changed and the copy feels no different from the original, but it is not the same person experiencing things in both cases.
Their isn't a cell in my body which has existed since I was born. Am I not the same conscious entity I was born as?
On August 08 2010 06:23 Zeromaxx wrote: If you are saying every molecule, every atom, every base particle is exactly the same and your entire consciousness is downloaded exactly then you can't really call it much of a copy either. If it took your place the universe would continue on and you it would live your life exactly as you have and will. Heck if you can do this whats to keep you from shaving off a few pounds or adding muscle mass, removing cancer or disease. What if the "copy" could come out a BETTER you? Then what?
We are all just a bunch of particles and having my consciousness in this body or that one over there isn't going to make much of a difference. I will still have my wife and kids and be reading the same stuff on TL. I am not dead my container just changed.
If you are copied and both you and the copy exist leading seperate lives then you are not exactly the same. You began having different experiences the exact moment you existed together.
The point is that you, the human being experiencing whats happening around you, would no longer exist. You would no longer experience your thoughts, someone else would. You would close your eyes and never experience anything ever again. Someone else would open their eyes and take your place. In the end, nothing has changed and the copy feels no different from the original, but it is not the same person experiencing things in both cases.
On August 08 2010 06:23 Zeromaxx wrote: If you are saying every molecule, every atom, every base particle is exactly the same and your entire consciousness is downloaded exactly then you can't really call it much of a copy either. If it took your place the universe would continue on and you it would live your life exactly as you have and will. Heck if you can do this whats to keep you from shaving off a few pounds or adding muscle mass, removing cancer or disease. What if the "copy" could come out a BETTER you? Then what?
We are all just a bunch of particles and having my consciousness in this body or that one over there isn't going to make much of a difference. I will still have my wife and kids and be reading the same stuff on TL. I am not dead my container just changed.
If you are copied and both you and the copy exist leading seperate lives then you are not exactly the same. You began having different experiences the exact moment you existed together.
The point is that you, the human being experiencing whats happening around you, would no longer exist. You would no longer experience your thoughts, someone else would. You would close your eyes and never experience anything ever again. Someone else would open their eyes and take your place. In the end, nothing has changed and the copy feels no different from the original, but it is not the same person experiencing things in both cases.
what is "you"?
You is the person experiencing your thoughts right now. A clone is not you, a clone is someone else is who exactly like you. You do not experience a clones thoughts as a clones brain is not connected to your body.
Their isn't a cell in my body which has existed since I was born. Am I not the same conscious entity I was born as?
That's a horrible comparison as its still the same brain connected to your body. How do I experience the thoughts of a brain in a different body that I'm not connected to at all? Oh, and there's a reason time travel is a paradox, so I don't buy your previous example at all/
The only problem is the nature of consciousness. How exactly does it clone you. Are we assuming some quasi religious idea in which you live on in the clone, or am I going to kill myself.
If I get to step in the machine and wake up as a clone then maybe I'd use it, but if this wouldn't slow my aging process what would be the point?
If it was an immortality machine then yeah, I'd use it.
I think the more traditional way of presenting this argument is a matter transporter that destroys you then rebuilds you at the other location from different materials. And like the Greek question this has the possibility of changing everything physical about your being, while you retain you're consciousness.
On August 08 2010 06:23 Zeromaxx wrote: If you are saying every molecule, every atom, every base particle is exactly the same and your entire consciousness is downloaded exactly then you can't really call it much of a copy either. If it took your place the universe would continue on and you it would live your life exactly as you have and will. Heck if you can do this whats to keep you from shaving off a few pounds or adding muscle mass, removing cancer or disease. What if the "copy" could come out a BETTER you? Then what?
We are all just a bunch of particles and having my consciousness in this body or that one over there isn't going to make much of a difference. I will still have my wife and kids and be reading the same stuff on TL. I am not dead my container just changed.
If you are copied and both you and the copy exist leading seperate lives then you are not exactly the same. You began having different experiences the exact moment you existed together.
The point is that you, the human being experiencing whats happening around you, would no longer exist. You would no longer experience your thoughts, someone else would. You would close your eyes and never experience anything ever again. Someone else would open their eyes and take your place. In the end, nothing has changed and the copy feels no different from the original, but it is not the same person experiencing things in both cases.
what is "you"?
You is the person experiencing your thoughts right now. A clone is not you, a clone is someone else is who exactly like you. You do not experience a clones thoughts as a clones brain is not connected to your body.
Their isn't a cell in my body which has existed since I was born. Am I not the same conscious entity I was born as?
That's a horrible comparison as its still the same brain connected to your body. How do I experience the thoughts of a brain in a different body that I'm not connected to at all? Oh, and there's a reason time travel is a paradox, so I don't buy your previous example at all/
"The person experiencing your thoughts" that is still valid if you were to teleport yourself. Or you would have to explain what "person" is
Personally, I wouldn't do it. My reasoning being (I hope I understand the OP correctly):
Even if the clone has the same everything as the original, from memories to appearance, It won't really be "me" in the sense that This "soul" of me is no longer in control.
This is what I mean by soul: Lets say you have a robot. Lets say this robot has X functions and Y information inside of it. Now lets say there are Pilots A and B. Both pilots want to use the functions and information of said robot for the same purpose, but only Pilot A gets assigned to the robot. Now lets say some time after pilot A uses the robot, pilot A gets killed in some sort of accident and pilot B gets assigned the robot. Though the same functions and information are being used in the exact same way, its not the same person controlling it.
(I dunno if i explained it correctly, but that was the best example that came to mind =\)
On August 08 2010 06:23 Zeromaxx wrote: If you are saying every molecule, every atom, every base particle is exactly the same and your entire consciousness is downloaded exactly then you can't really call it much of a copy either. If it took your place the universe would continue on and you it would live your life exactly as you have and will. Heck if you can do this whats to keep you from shaving off a few pounds or adding muscle mass, removing cancer or disease. What if the "copy" could come out a BETTER you? Then what?
We are all just a bunch of particles and having my consciousness in this body or that one over there isn't going to make much of a difference. I will still have my wife and kids and be reading the same stuff on TL. I am not dead my container just changed.
If you are copied and both you and the copy exist leading seperate lives then you are not exactly the same. You began having different experiences the exact moment you existed together.
The point is that you, the human being experiencing whats happening around you, would no longer exist. You would no longer experience your thoughts, someone else would. You would close your eyes and never experience anything ever again. Someone else would open their eyes and take your place. In the end, nothing has changed and the copy feels no different from the original, but it is not the same person experiencing things in both cases.
what is "you"?
You is the person experiencing your thoughts right now. A clone is not you, a clone is someone else is who exactly like you. You do not experience a clones thoughts as a clones brain is not connected to your body.
Consciousness is a local phenomenon. If you cloned me down to the last bits of data, two of "me" exist. Consciousness is a bunch of bio-electric signals produced by the brain at any given time. As this happens thousands of times every second, the illusion of a contiguous experience is created. If you duplicate these signals, you duplicate the consciousness. The fact that their is a physical gap between these objects is irrelevant, because their are gaps between your consciousness ALL THE TIME, because your brain can only process information so fast.
This is what I mean by soul: Lets say you have a robot. Lets say this robot has X functions and Y information inside of it. Now lets say there are Pilots A and B. Both pilots want to use the traits and information of said robot for the same purpose, but only Pilot A gets assigned to the robot. Now lets say some time after pilot A uses the robot, pilot A gets killed in some sort of accident and pilot B gets assigned the robot. Though the same functions and information are being used in the exact same function, its not the same person controlling it.
That doesn't explain what you mean by soul, that just explains why you wouldn't do assuming souls existed.
What do you mean by soul? An intangible, invisible force that supersedes your body and brain entirely unbound by the laws of physics?
That's a horrible comparison as its still the same brain connected to your body. How do I experience the thoughts of a brain in a different body that I'm not connected to at all? Oh, and there's a reason time travel is a paradox, so I don't buy your previous example at all
Oh, and there's a reason time travel is a paradox, so I don't buy your previous example at all/
I'm time traveling using the same preconditions as the OP. FTL information transfer IS time travel. You arrive before you left, its just irrelevant if your going somewhere really far.
Moreover time travel isn't a paradox. It causes paradoxes, but demonstrably plausible within the current laws of physic under many models. The only problem is that it requires infinite energy.
On August 08 2010 06:23 Zeromaxx wrote: If you are saying every molecule, every atom, every base particle is exactly the same and your entire consciousness is downloaded exactly then you can't really call it much of a copy either. If it took your place the universe would continue on and you it would live your life exactly as you have and will. Heck if you can do this whats to keep you from shaving off a few pounds or adding muscle mass, removing cancer or disease. What if the "copy" could come out a BETTER you? Then what?
We are all just a bunch of particles and having my consciousness in this body or that one over there isn't going to make much of a difference. I will still have my wife and kids and be reading the same stuff on TL. I am not dead my container just changed.
If you are copied and both you and the copy exist leading seperate lives then you are not exactly the same. You began having different experiences the exact moment you existed together.
The point is that you, the human being experiencing whats happening around you, would no longer exist. You would no longer experience your thoughts, someone else would. You would close your eyes and never experience anything ever again. Someone else would open their eyes and take your place. In the end, nothing has changed and the copy feels no different from the original, but it is not the same person experiencing things in both cases.
what is "you"?
You is the person experiencing your thoughts right now. A clone is not you, a clone is someone else is who exactly like you. You do not experience a clones thoughts as a clones brain is not connected to your body.
Their isn't a cell in my body which has existed since I was born. Am I not the same conscious entity I was born as?
That's a horrible comparison as its still the same brain connected to your body. How do I experience the thoughts of a brain in a different body that I'm not connected to at all? Oh, and there's a reason time travel is a paradox, so I don't buy your previous example at all/
"The person experiencing your thoughts" that is still valid if you were to teleport yourself. Or you would have to explain what "person" is
Huh? It's destroys your body and creates a new one at the location you want to go and copies your mind into that body. Since my brain is destroyed, I can no longer thing/feel/ect. A different brain and body are, it doesn't matter if they think the same way I do and am me in every way, its not my body and brain and I don't experience it.
I'm not arguing from the clones perspective that anything has changed, they feel completely normal. I'm saying from the person who is cloned that they close their eyes and never experience anything again because if their brain and body are gone then how do expedience something? Just because an identical set is created somewhere else doesn't magically transfer my thoughts from this brain to that one, its two separate sets of thoughts.
On August 08 2010 06:23 Zeromaxx wrote: If you are saying every molecule, every atom, every base particle is exactly the same and your entire consciousness is downloaded exactly then you can't really call it much of a copy either. If it took your place the universe would continue on and you it would live your life exactly as you have and will. Heck if you can do this whats to keep you from shaving off a few pounds or adding muscle mass, removing cancer or disease. What if the "copy" could come out a BETTER you? Then what?
We are all just a bunch of particles and having my consciousness in this body or that one over there isn't going to make much of a difference. I will still have my wife and kids and be reading the same stuff on TL. I am not dead my container just changed.
If you are copied and both you and the copy exist leading seperate lives then you are not exactly the same. You began having different experiences the exact moment you existed together.
The point is that you, the human being experiencing whats happening around you, would no longer exist. You would no longer experience your thoughts, someone else would. You would close your eyes and never experience anything ever again. Someone else would open their eyes and take your place. In the end, nothing has changed and the copy feels no different from the original, but it is not the same person experiencing things in both cases.
what is "you"?
You is the person experiencing your thoughts right now. A clone is not you, a clone is someone else is who exactly like you. You do not experience a clones thoughts as a clones brain is not connected to your body.
Their isn't a cell in my body which has existed since I was born. Am I not the same conscious entity I was born as?
That's a horrible comparison as its still the same brain connected to your body. How do I experience the thoughts of a brain in a different body that I'm not connected to at all? Oh, and there's a reason time travel is a paradox, so I don't buy your previous example at all/
"The person experiencing your thoughts" that is still valid if you were to teleport yourself. Or you would have to explain what "person" is
Huh? It's destroys your body and creates a new one at the location you want to go and copies your mind into that body. Since my brain is destroyed, I can no longer thing/feel/ect. A different brain and body are, it doesn't matter if they think the same way I do and am me in every way, its not my body and brain and I don't experience it.
I'm not arguing from the clones perspective that anything has changed, they feel completely normal. I'm saying from the person who is cloned that they close their eyes and never experience anything again because if their brain and body are gone then how do expedience something? Just because an identical set is created somewhere else doesn't magically transfer my thoughts from this brain to that one, its two separate sets of thoughts.
Your brain has not been destroyed, it has simply been moved. If be destroyed you mean that its not the same atoms, atoms change every nano second in your brain. Is it not still the same brain?
When you say "I" cannot feel things. The "I" is simply your memory and experiences. Which comes along to your next location.
Huh? It's destroys your body and creates a new one at the location you want to go and copies your mind into that body. Since my brain is destroyed, I can no longer thing/feel/ect. A different brain and body are, it doesn't matter if they think the same way I do and am me in every way, its not my body and brain and I don't experience it.
What you're arguing here is that consciousness supersedes your brain. In other words, it represents a phenomenon that cannot be contained within the context of your brain.
Huh? It's destroys your body and creates a new one at the location you want to go and copies your mind into that body. Since my brain is destroyed, I can no longer thing/feel/ect. A different brain and body are, it doesn't matter if they think the same way I do and am me in every way, its not my body and brain and I don't experience it.
What you're arguing here is that consciousness supersedes your brain. In other words, it represents a phenomenon that cannot be contained within the context of your brain.
I think you mean "soul".
No, I'm arguing the exact opposite. Without a brain there is no consciousness. If you destroy a brain, you destroy the thoughts inside it. Creating a new one with the same thoughts somewhere else doesn't make the first one experience those thoughts.
Huh? It's destroys your body and creates a new one at the location you want to go and copies your mind into that body. Since my brain is destroyed, I can no longer thing/feel/ect. A different brain and body are, it doesn't matter if they think the same way I do and am me in every way, its not my body and brain and I don't experience it.
What you're arguing here is that consciousness supersedes your brain. In other words, it represents a phenomenon that cannot be contained within the context of your brain.
I think you mean "soul".
No, I'm arguing the exact opposite. Without a brain there is no consciousness. If you destroy a brain, you destroy the thoughts inside it. Creating a new one with the same thoughts somewhere else doesn't make the first one experience those thoughts.
Again your thoughts arent destroyed. They are simply moved. Thinking nothing for a certain amount of time does not kill "you".
Huh? It's destroys your body and creates a new one at the location you want to go and copies your mind into that body. Since my brain is destroyed, I can no longer thing/feel/ect. A different brain and body are, it doesn't matter if they think the same way I do and am me in every way, its not my body and brain and I don't experience it.
What you're arguing here is that consciousness supersedes your brain. In other words, it represents a phenomenon that cannot be contained within the context of your brain.
I think you mean "soul".
No, I'm arguing the exact opposite. Without a brain there is no consciousness. If you destroy a brain, you destroy the thoughts inside it.
Right...except in this case I'm not destroying the thoughts inside of it. These thoughts are being preserved identically, then they continue as they left off. .
Creating a new one with the same thoughts somewhere else doesn't make the first one experience those thoughts.
Experience doesn't precede the brain, the Brain precedes experience. The entire terminology your using is wrong. Their is no "first" consciousness. Consciousness is the makeup of the current processes of any given brain that is capable of initiating developed self-feedback loops (human consciousness). Since these happen incredibly fast, an illusion of contiguity is made.
As long as these processes occur, then you still exist. "You" exist as a local phenomenon at any given point in time, the current action of this process.
Huh? It's destroys your body and creates a new one at the location you want to go and copies your mind into that body. Since my brain is destroyed, I can no longer thing/feel/ect. A different brain and body are, it doesn't matter if they think the same way I do and am me in every way, its not my body and brain and I don't experience it.
What you're arguing here is that consciousness supersedes your brain. In other words, it represents a phenomenon that cannot be contained within the context of your brain.
I think you mean "soul".
No, I'm arguing the exact opposite. Without a brain there is no consciousness. If you destroy a brain, you destroy the thoughts inside it. Creating a new one with the same thoughts somewhere else doesn't make the first one experience those thoughts.
So loosing consciousness kills you? If you have no memory of a certain time you were dead when it happened
What does that have to to do with destroying my brain thus destroying my thoughts? Not having a memory doesn't make you dead.
Like I said before, from the perspective of the person created nothing has changed. But from the perspective of the brain that's been destroyed, thought can no longer happen.
What does that have to to do with destroying my brain thus destroying my thoughts? Not having a memory doesn't make you dead.
Destroying your thoughts kill you, but in this case your thoughts are NOT DESTROYED.
But from the perspective of the brain that's been destroyed, thought can no longer happen.
You need to abandon this sentimental and unrealistic perception of consciousness if you're going to make sense of this. A brain that no longer exists can not no longer experience perspective. Their is no "perspective of a brain thats been destroyed" because brains precede perception. And in this case, their is a brain to perceive, but no brain not to perceive.
I need to reiterate this. Their is no you that exists outside of your consciousness. You, is your consciousness, and your consciousness is the product of a brain configured in a specific way. If you have that brain configured, down to a certain level, the same, then you have your consciousness, and you have "you".
On August 08 2010 02:02 heishe wrote: I'd never do it. At least if we're talking about a realistic teleporter here. A teleporter in our world could never "teleport" our atoms and molecules from one part of the universe to the other, it would work more like a copy machine that kills the template. and that would suck obv.
(theres no use for me if I'm dead after all. doesn't make it better that an exact copy of me is walking around)
people expect to walk into a teleporter and then "wake up" or somethign on the other side. you wouldn't, unless they find a way to teleport by bending spacetime, which is unlikely. you'd walk into the teleporter and die. your consiousness would be gone. on the other side, someone else would "wake up" and think he'd be you, but you'd be gone.
The other person would wake up and think he'd be you. Now argue how he would _not_ be you? (and really, that strand of hair that stands on my head, does not define me, and neither do the individual atoms in the rest of my body.)
Rather simple, actually. If one defines life as a continuity, then that break would essentially mean that the other person is living a different life.
Reasoning about life as a continuity is different from reasoning about which defines a person to be 'the same'. Continuity in this case depends on how the theoretical teleporting device operates. Another thought experiment is that of being cryogenically frozen and revived later on. Being frozen, you are dead by most common definitions, and life continuity does end. But if you get revived, life picks up again. And in this case there is much less debate whether the person would still be that same person.
But from the perspective of the brain that's been destroyed, thought can no longer happen.
You need to abandon this sentimental and unrealistic perception of consciousness if you're going to make sense of this. A brain that no longer exists can not no longer experience perspective. Their is no "perspective of a brain thats been destroyed" because brains precede perception. And in this case, their is a brain to perceive, but no brain not to perceive.
I need to reiterate this. Their is no you that exists outside of your consciousness. You, is your consciousness, and your consciousness is the product of a brain configured in a specific way. If you have that brain configured, down to a certain level, the same, then you have your consciousness, and you have "you".
Would you still do it if, instead of simply ceasing to exist, your original body is instead put into a deep drug-induced sleep and then stabbed in the face repeatedly?
I don't know man... I might have to side with Arnold on this one.
Because I hate people who just stop posting mid-argument, I'll just say we should probably end this here. We're all just reiterating things we've already said. I do agree to an extent, but at this point its better if I leave it at I'll see ya later.
The question to be asked here is: how is this different from falling into a coma and gaining consciousness? Most people would want (and see no problem) in continuing on their lives after recovering from a coma.
In both cases, there is a distinct break in consciousness and you are, more or less, the same person afterwards. (Actually, even more so in the teleportation sitaution). The only distinction is that there's no break in the continuity of the existence of material matter in the coma situation. But is that important at all?
On August 08 2010 07:44 KhaosKreator wrote: To the people who would do this...
Would you still do it if, instead of simply ceasing to exist, your original body is instead put into a deep drug-induced sleep and then stabbed in the face repeatedly?
I don't know man... I might have to side with Arnold on this one.
No because quantum mechanics requires the original to be destroyed in order pinpoint spin or acceleration. In fact we can't even do both, but lets just assume we could.
If that wasn't a law of physics, sure, why not.
That would actually make for an awesome science fiction novel. A man steps through a teleporter, and it malfunctions. He is still here, despite his replacement still materializing on the other end, but the law demands that he die, a individual can only exist in once instance at a time. But he doesn't want to die, he still feels alive and feels he has as much as a right to life as his "clone". Drama and deep existential angst ensue.
On August 06 2010 19:27 Daimon wrote: potentially a great tool for suicidal people. off yourself and let your copy take over for a day. your copy can then use the machine at the end of the day. repeat until you die to something else.
it changes almost nothing for them, but it might improve the quality of their life knowing they'll find rest without introducing a burden on loved ones. but you don't really need a machine for that. you could just imagine that every time you sleep you die, and every time you wake up you wake up as a copy.
Except the guy who steps out of the machine will say "fuck, that didn't work" and shoot himself in the head.
no, you didn't understand. that's why you tell yourself that you'll only do it at the end of the day. that way the clone will have the benefit of eternal rest as well. all he has to do is live through another day and pass the baton on to the next copy
No, you don't understand what you're trying to say. As far as the copy (not clone) is concerned, he's as old as the original. He lived through your "only one more day". This machine is no more an interuption to the consciousness than blinking would be. Each copy that came out would have lived for all the previous days, you could say to them "but you were just created by that machine" but they'd think, feel and remember for the past however many years they were alive. And if they intended to commit suicide yesterday and decided to have just one more day then they'd remember that day being over, even if their particular atoms didn't live it.
yes i've already accounted for that in my answer
No, no you haven't. I understand your argument fully but unfortunately you seem not to. The man stepping out of the machine would have lived all of the previous days when he didn't kill himself. He would not think this machine was helping him in any way. This is what would happen.
Man says "I can't go on living, I'm horribly depressed, in 24 hours I'll step into this machine that destroys and recreates me". Man steps out of machine. Man says "I can't go on living, I'm horribly depressed, I just spent the last 24 hours waiting to step into a machine. Stepping into the machine doesn't appear to have improved my situation. I've done my 24 hours of being depressed and I don't want to do another 24." Man shoots himself in the head.
If he could cope with having one more day forever then you can just remove the teleporter and tell the guy to keep living life one day at a time.
yeah, i got that :p
you shouldn't just state someone isn't getting something in that way. i expected you to not make an error like that. if you don't understand something or think the other person is wrong, you should ask a question rather than coming from a position of superiority. it's condescending and makes you seem more interested in winning the argument than having a real discussion.
On August 06 2010 19:27 Daimon wrote: potentially a great tool for suicidal people. off yourself and let your copy take over for a day. your copy can then use the machine at the end of the day. repeat until you die to something else.
it changes almost nothing for them, but it might improve the quality of their life knowing they'll find rest without introducing a burden on loved ones. but you don't really need a machine for that. you could just imagine that every time you sleep you die, and every time you wake up you wake up as a copy.
Except the guy who steps out of the machine will say "fuck, that didn't work" and shoot himself in the head.
no, you didn't understand. that's why you tell yourself that you'll only do it at the end of the day. that way the clone will have the benefit of eternal rest as well. all he has to do is live through another day and pass the baton on to the next copy
No, you don't understand what you're trying to say. As far as the copy (not clone) is concerned, he's as old as the original. He lived through your "only one more day". This machine is no more an interuption to the consciousness than blinking would be. Each copy that came out would have lived for all the previous days, you could say to them "but you were just created by that machine" but they'd think, feel and remember for the past however many years they were alive. And if they intended to commit suicide yesterday and decided to have just one more day then they'd remember that day being over, even if their particular atoms didn't live it.
yes i've already accounted for that in my answer
No, no you haven't. I understand your argument fully but unfortunately you seem not to. The man stepping out of the machine would have lived all of the previous days when he didn't kill himself. He would not think this machine was helping him in any way. This is what would happen.
Man says "I can't go on living, I'm horribly depressed, in 24 hours I'll step into this machine that destroys and recreates me". Man steps out of machine. Man says "I can't go on living, I'm horribly depressed, I just spent the last 24 hours waiting to step into a machine. Stepping into the machine doesn't appear to have improved my situation. I've done my 24 hours of being depressed and I don't want to do another 24." Man shoots himself in the head.
If he could cope with having one more day forever then you can just remove the teleporter and tell the guy to keep living life one day at a time.
yeah, i got that :p
you shouldn't just state someone isn't getting something in that way. i expected you to not make an error like that. if you don't understand something or think the other person is wrong, you should ask a question rather than coming from a position of superiority. it's condescending and makes you seem more interested than winning the argument than having a real discussion.
KwarK is right though. Your argument doesn't make any sense and you haven't accounted for what he objected to in your post. If you want to have a better discussion you should clarify your post.
well, he said that the clones would be exactly the same, where it would seem to them like nothing had really changed at all, and so the suicidal relief idea wouldn't work, and i'm not saying otherwise. i'm saying something different though. i'm saying that whoever does step into the machine will lose consciousness, even though an exact copy of that person will live in in the form of a clone. the suicidal in that case is free from consciousness, even though his clone would retain consciousness and effectively make it seem like nothing had happened at all.
now the second point i made was that even though the clone retained consciousness and was still in a suicidal state, he can still find respite at the end of the day, when he too could step into the machine. this cycle would continue as if passing a baton on to the next, and it's plausible that all of the baton carriers would live through the agony of existence for however long he/she continued to live, but in any case, there MIGHT still be some solace for this being in knowing that at the end of the day, the current clone/copy/person would find relief.
of course, the only way this could work is if the person using the machine in this way makes an agreement with themselves that they will only use it once every day so that whoever does step out on the other end of the machine will have to accept the fact that they'll need to carry the weight of existence for just one more day.
On August 08 2010 19:22 Daimon wrote: well, he said that the clones would be exactly the same, where it would seem to them like nothing had really changed at all, and so the suicidal relief idea wouldn't work, and i'm not saying otherwise. i'm saying something different though. i'm saying that whoever does step into the machine will lose consciousness, even though an exact copy of that person will live in in the form of a clone. the suicidal in that case is free from consciousness, even though his clone would retain consciousness and effectively make it seem like nothing had happened at all.
now the second point i made was that even though the clone retained consciousness and was still in a suicidal state, he can still find respite at the end of the day, when he too could step into the machine. this cycle would continue as if passing a baton on to the next, and it's plausible that all of the baton carriers would live through the agony of existence for however long he/she continued to live, but in any case, there MIGHT still be some solace for this being in knowing that at the end of the day, the current clone/copy/person would find relief.
of course, the only way this could work is if the person using the machine in this way makes an agreement with themselves that they will only use it once every day so that whoever does step out on the other end of the machine will have to accept the fact that they'll need to carry the weight of existence for just one more day.
Sorry, if I'm harsh but it still seems you haven't grasped what he is saying.
In the line of thought you present here there is no argument why we should differentiate between "one clone" and the "next clone". You talk of "different beings" and "whoever does step out" when what we have been trying to get across is that there seems to be no reasonable difference between them. Perhabs we can call them "different instances" of same person, but note that I really just want to call them all the same person, because they/he/she is to me.
Using you baton metaphor I propose that one person uses this machine, realize he still has the baton, and then is left with the option to attempt (and fail) again or actually deal with his death wish in a more reasonable manner.
On August 08 2010 19:22 Daimon wrote: well, he said that the clones would be exactly the same, where it would seem to them like nothing had really changed at all, and so the suicidal relief idea wouldn't work, and i'm not saying otherwise. i'm saying something different though. i'm saying that whoever does step into the machine will lose consciousness, even though an exact copy of that person will live in in the form of a clone. the suicidal in that case is free from consciousness, even though his clone would retain consciousness and effectively make it seem like nothing had happened at all.
now the second point i made was that even though the clone retained consciousness and was still in a suicidal state, he can still find respite at the end of the day, when he too could step into the machine. this cycle would continue as if passing a baton on to the next, and it's plausible that all of the baton carriers would live through the agony of existence for however long he/she continued to live, but in any case, there MIGHT still be some solace for this being in knowing that at the end of the day, the current clone/copy/person would find relief.
of course, the only way this could work is if the person using the machine in this way makes an agreement with themselves that they will only use it once every day so that whoever does step out on the other end of the machine will have to accept the fact that they'll need to carry the weight of existence for just one more day.
Sorry, if I'm harsh but it still seems you haven't grasped what he is saying.
In the line of thought you present here there is no argument why we should differentiate between "one clone" and the "next clone". You talk of "different beings" and "whoever does step out" when what we have been trying to get across is that there seems to be no reasonable difference between them. Perhabs we can call them "different instances" of same person, but note that I really just want to call them all the same person, because they/he/she is to me.
Using you baton metaphor I propose that one person uses this machine, realize he still has the baton, and then is left with the option to attempt (and fail) again or actually deal with his death wish in a more reasonable manner.
no need to apologize. i don't get offended. if there is a misunderstanding then that's all it is. if you think there is an inconsistency with what i'm saying you just need to point it out what you think it might be, as you have. that said, i'll try to address what you've brought up.
"In the line of thought you present here there is no argument why we should differentiate between "one clone" and the "next clone". You talk of "different beings" and "whoever does step out" when what we have been trying to get across is that there seems to be no reasonable difference between them. Perhabs we can call them "different instances" of same person, but note that I really just want to call them all the same person, because they/he/she is to me. "
yeah, i'm not saying that there isn't a difference between them. for all practical purposes we can consider them the same person. i'm taking for granted that if someone steps into a teleporter, his consciousness is destroyed and a copy of him is created at the output end of the teleporter. so there's only one person that there is a difference for, and that person is destroyed, and with him, his consciousness. i'm not debating whether or not his consciousness is in fact destroyed; in actuality, i'm not debating at all. again, i'm taking for granted that it is possible for a man's consciousness to be destroyed using this machine, albeit taken over--like a baton-- by another copy of him--and if that's the case, then there's nothing wrong with what i've said, as all i've suggested is a possible practical use for such a machine, and that use happens to be in the service of suicidal people. my idea wasn't meant to be taken seriously; more as a macabre kind of humor; something you'd find in a sci-fi novel. again, i wasn't debating whether or not a person would retain consciousness or not. personally, i just don't see a benefit for debating something like that.
Not that I can identify with a suicidal person, but I don't get how this machine would help in any way. What you seem to be saying it would give some sort of placebo effect in that the person would know he had died, but you don't need such a device to accomplish the same thing. I might have misunderstood you though since I've come in a bit mid argument and my english skills isn't the best.
nah, whether or not the machine would be good is another issue. personally, i don't think it would be good at all, and i think most people wouldn't. but i do think it's interesting and that it would make a great element to add to a chrome novel featuring a dystopic mega city.
I wouldn't do it because the original you would be dead even if the copy thinks nothing happened and he just teleported, the real you would have been completely destroyed. Every time you do it you die again and again tho i guess you already died the first time and you would only die twice. It also have to take in the law of diminishing returns. Eventually you teleport copy will come out allot different then the original you.
On August 08 2010 06:35 Half wrote: Consciousness does not transcend time or space lols. It is a local phenomenon that is the result of any given state of mind. If two identical things are identical, down to the spin of every last sub-atomic particle, then in order for them not to be contiguous to one another, then consciousness would have to be the product of something that is not entirely encapsulated within those two identical entities.
aka: a soul.
The question is not "would your soul" transfer, which would make for a funny mythical discussion on religious and spiritual viewpoints, but would your consciousness transfer.
Of course 2 completly identical humans would have same sort of consciousness, but why are you making this useless offtopic shit so complicated? We are not talking about time travels here and again if teleportation according to op happens then like he said original body gets erased while clone is built who lives. So "consciousness" in your definition will continue to exist but original you will no longer have it. Your long and short term memory is destroyed while clone gets them. If this type of teleportation carries "my consciousness" over in your opinion then you seem to be the religious one here.
On August 08 2010 07:44 KhaosKreator wrote: To the people who would do this...
Would you still do it if, instead of simply ceasing to exist, your original body is instead put into a deep drug-induced sleep and then stabbed in the face repeatedly?
I don't know man... I might have to side with Arnold on this one.
No because quantum mechanics requires the original to be destroyed in order pinpoint spin or acceleration. In fact we can't even do both, but lets just assume we could.
If that wasn't a law of physics, sure, why not.
That would actually make for an awesome science fiction novel. A man steps through a teleporter, and it malfunctions. He is still here, despite his replacement still materializing on the other end, but the law demands that he die, a individual can only exist in once instance at a time. But he doesn't want to die, he still feels alive and feels he has as much as a right to life as his "clone". Drama and deep existential angst ensue.
On August 08 2010 07:44 KhaosKreator wrote: To the people who would do this...
Would you still do it if, instead of simply ceasing to exist, your original body is instead put into a deep drug-induced sleep and then stabbed in the face repeatedly?
I don't know man... I might have to side with Arnold on this one.
No because quantum mechanics requires the original to be destroyed in order pinpoint spin or acceleration. In fact we can't even do both, but lets just assume we could.
If that wasn't a law of physics, sure, why not.
That would actually make for an awesome science fiction novel. A man steps through a teleporter, and it malfunctions. He is still here, despite his replacement still materializing on the other end, but the law demands that he die, a individual can only exist in once instance at a time. But he doesn't want to die, he still feels alive and feels he has as much as a right to life as his "clone". Drama and deep existential angst ensue.
Would you be content to die in that situation?
You mean in my "science fiction novel"? Hell no. Because once two separate physical entities are created, they diverge. They have a common point of origin, the moment they experience two different inputs they become two different entities with the potential to develop entirely different personalities. In other words, they become separate people because they're brains are no longer identical to each other, and would want to preserve their "being" as much as the next guy.
Of course 2 completly identical humans would have same sort of consciousness, but why are you making this useless offtopic shit so complicated? We are not talking about time travels here and again if teleportation according to op happens then like he said original body gets erased while clone is built who lives. So "consciousness" in your definition will continue to exist but original you will no longer have it. Your long and short term memory is destroyed while clone gets them. If this type of teleportation carries "my consciousness" over in your opinion then you seem to be the religious one here.
Because you don't understand what consciousness is. The phrase "My consciousness carries over" or "My consciousness doesn't carry over" is a logical contradiction. The brain precedes consciousness. If I have an exact duplicate of my Brain, I have an exact duplicate of my consciousness, and that all that matters. Consciousness cannot "not" carry over because the idea of consciousness "Carrying" over at all is not a scientific statement. Consciousness is not a physical object, it cannot "carry" over at all. Its just the internal and local state of a brain that exists for one instant in time.
We are not talking about time travels here and again if teleportation according to op happens then like he said original body gets erased while clone is built who lives.
Teleporting ftl is time travel. I was using "time travel" to illustrate the local nature of consciousness.
So "consciousness" in your definition will continue to exist but original you will no longer have it
Exactly. But whether or not "the original me" has it or not is entirely irrelevant to my continued "being".
On August 08 2010 21:09 Daimon wrote: yeah, i'm not saying that there isn't a difference between them. for all practical purposes we can consider them the same person. i'm taking for granted that if someone steps into a teleporter, his consciousness is destroyed and a copy of him is created at the output end of the teleporter. so there's only one person that there is a difference for, and that person is destroyed, and with him, his consciousness. i'm not debating whether or not his consciousness is in fact destroyed; in actuality, i'm not debating at all. again, i'm taking for granted that it is possible for a man's consciousness to be destroyed using this machine, albeit taken over--like a baton-- by another copy of him--and if that's the case, then there's nothing wrong with what i've said, as all i've suggested is a possible practical use for such a machine, and that use happens to be in the service of suicidal people. my idea wasn't meant to be taken seriously; more as a macabre kind of humor; something you'd find in a sci-fi novel. again, i wasn't debating whether or not a person would retain consciousness or not. personally, i just don't see a benefit for debating something like that.
Again you've missed the point.
"all i've suggested is a possible practical use for such a machine, and that use happens to be in the service of suicidal people"
This machine isn't practical for a suicidal person to use because it provides them no service. Besides teleporting themselves.
On August 09 2010 03:03 Half wrote: You mean in my "science fiction novel"? Hell no. Because once two separate physical entities are created, they diverge. They have a common point of origin, the moment they experience two different inputs they become two different entities with the potential to develop entirely different personalities. In other words, they become separate people because they're brains are no longer identical to each other, and would want to preserve their "being" as much as the next guy.
Ok, but what if your clone is created in the same drug-induced state. The only difference here is that he is not stabbed in the face to death.
They both have the same "point of origin" and thus the same consciousness according to you, since they both experience no difference inputs while being unconscious. (Assume the drugs prevent you from feeling pain, obviously.)
Would you still use this teleporter to go to work in the morning?
On August 08 2010 21:09 Daimon wrote: yeah, i'm not saying that there isn't a difference between them. for all practical purposes we can consider them the same person. i'm taking for granted that if someone steps into a teleporter, his consciousness is destroyed and a copy of him is created at the output end of the teleporter. so there's only one person that there is a difference for, and that person is destroyed, and with him, his consciousness. i'm not debating whether or not his consciousness is in fact destroyed; in actuality, i'm not debating at all. again, i'm taking for granted that it is possible for a man's consciousness to be destroyed using this machine, albeit taken over--like a baton-- by another copy of him--and if that's the case, then there's nothing wrong with what i've said, as all i've suggested is a possible practical use for such a machine, and that use happens to be in the service of suicidal people. my idea wasn't meant to be taken seriously; more as a macabre kind of humor; something you'd find in a sci-fi novel. again, i wasn't debating whether or not a person would retain consciousness or not. personally, i just don't see a benefit for debating something like that.
Again you've missed the point.
"all i've suggested is a possible practical use for such a machine, and that use happens to be in the service of suicidal people"
This machine isn't practical for a suicidal person to use because it provides them no service. Besides teleporting themselves.
I don't understand. It kills the suicidal person and creates an exact copy of him in his place. He no longer has to suffer because he's dead, it's his copy that will be miserable.
On August 09 2010 11:33 HavePairImAllin wrote: I don't understand. It kills the suicidal person and creates an exact copy of him in his place. He no longer has to suffer because he's dead, it's his copy that will be miserable.
How is this not the case?
I was going to type a response about how you were obviously wrong... but I'm kind of confused now myself.
I guess we need an example. Let's say that your mom is so fat, she can manipulate space-time. In a fit of rage over your nerdiness, she stops time. While time is stopped, she rips your brain apart. After thinking about it for a while, she decides that that perhaps wasn't the best idea. She then puts your brain back together, and resumes time. Are you still you? I would say you are; but I don't exactly have any proof lol.
... I have to think about this...
edit: by 'are you still you' I mean does your consciousness carry over etc.
1. I don't know how consciousness works or what is is made of. What I know is my feelings are linked to my consciousness. So when I get hurt I(= my consciousness) feel it. Now if I make a copy a person on the other side of the universe : a) It has the same consciousness - So if he gets burned by fire I on the other side of the universe feel it too. Should also mean that what he sees now I see too aswell, so if I have 10 clones I should be having 10 visions. b) The consciousness does not transfer - If my other self gets hurt I don't feel it, if I die he won't notice a thing.
2. You are in the cinema in the middle of a good movie. Suddenly the film stops - and in a distant cinema the movie starts to unfold from the same moment it stopped in your cinema.
3. Teleportation is socially acceptable. Whether or not does the consciousness transfer is of no relevance to social means. If you teleport yourself from school to home, your wife or children.. nobody won't give a damn. They'll perceive you as the same person as before. Your teleported self will be the only one aware of the fact.
4. For software developers(c++) : class Person{ ... public string Name; ... }
...
Person You("John"); Person Cloned_You(You); if(&You != &Cloned_You){ cout << "it's not you!" << endl; }
// Common problem of reference equality and value equality.
On August 05 2010 18:36 UniversalSnip wrote: This is a common thing in science fiction where you are 'teleported' by a machine that kills you, then reconstructs an exact copy of your body and mind at another point. The question is
Would you use it? (the copy really believes it is you and acts like and is indistinguishable from you. assume it's failsafe. the question is emotional rather than practical)
On August 06 2010 11:10 SilentCrono wrote: what is this from anyway?
The concept of teleporting, or becoming immortal by replicating yourself and killing the original is an old science fiction convention. The philosophical problem underlying it goes all the way back to greek philosophy, where it took the form of the ship of theseus. I find this version more interesting because the emotional resonance of evading death (or not) makes it hard to take the lazy way out by dismissing the whole issue as a matter of semantics.
haha I already asked myself that question, would consienceness survive thrue teleportation or would it be replaced by an exact copy ?
What would be fun if you loose your soul in the process, is that nobody would be able to notice.
And if telportation become widely used, billions of people would be suiciding every day without anyone noticing.
On August 05 2010 18:49 deisel wrote: common philosophical question...and if you believe that only the mind makes up who you really are then you would do it. but if you believe that both your body and mind makes you who you really are, then you wouldn't do it.
Most people, whether a part of these forums or not, would add a soul to that list, which would make your 2 options a little more complicated.
I was talking with my gf about the death teleportation question. I was curious about her opinion as a philosophy student, and she lightened me up about Swampman, almost the same as we were talking about in this thread. You may want to read this: Swampman
On August 08 2010 21:09 Daimon wrote: yeah, i'm not saying that there isn't a difference between them. for all practical purposes we can consider them the same person. i'm taking for granted that if someone steps into a teleporter, his consciousness is destroyed and a copy of him is created at the output end of the teleporter. so there's only one person that there is a difference for, and that person is destroyed, and with him, his consciousness. i'm not debating whether or not his consciousness is in fact destroyed; in actuality, i'm not debating at all. again, i'm taking for granted that it is possible for a man's consciousness to be destroyed using this machine, albeit taken over--like a baton-- by another copy of him--and if that's the case, then there's nothing wrong with what i've said, as all i've suggested is a possible practical use for such a machine, and that use happens to be in the service of suicidal people. my idea wasn't meant to be taken seriously; more as a macabre kind of humor; something you'd find in a sci-fi novel. again, i wasn't debating whether or not a person would retain consciousness or not. personally, i just don't see a benefit for debating something like that.
Again you've missed the point.
"all i've suggested is a possible practical use for such a machine, and that use happens to be in the service of suicidal people"
This machine isn't practical for a suicidal person to use because it provides them no service. Besides teleporting themselves.
I don't understand. It kills the suicidal person and creates an exact copy of him in his place. He no longer has to suffer because he's dead, it's his copy that will be miserable.
How is this not the case?
The guy who walked in is dead. But the guy who walks out is alive and as far as he's concerned that suicide attempt failed. He remembers walking in and then walking out. So he'd not do it again. He'd off himself some other way.
Or he is so certain that it should work and the fact that all the memories etc should be exactly the same as the copy before that he does it anyway. I think you don't believe enough in this guys capability of using logic
I've read something similar to this before. "Think Like a Dinosaur" by James Patrick Kelly. Very nice short story. Probably why I wasn't as impressed when I saw "The Prestige".
"Think Like a Dinosaur" by James Patrick Kelly (Golden Gryphon Press, $22.95, 275 pages). August 1997.
The most traditionally science-fictional story in the book, "Think Like a Dinosaur", uses two props of the genre, aliens and matter transmitters, to set up the narrator's moral dilemma. Michael Burr works for the hanen, an alien race resembling dinosaurs: he guides infrequent human star-travellers through the 'migration' process. In the course of the transfer, the humans are copied, one of the copies travelling on to their stellar destination, while the other is exterminated before regaining consciousness - the hanen way of thinking (hence the story's title) allows no sentimentality over the eradication of the copy left behind. When Burr releases a traveller from a malfunctioning device, only to discover that transfer has actually been effected, he must end the life of the copy he can only view as human...
I was just perusing some of EVE Online's lore, and their 'cloning' concept is very similar to this, except that the assumption is that there IS technology that transfers the consciousness to the new destination..huh
this is probably the easiest way to commit suicide.you can die without feeling a bit of guilt. because to everyone else, the replacement will be the exactly same as you, but you'll be dead.
Well Prestige used a similar concept, but didn't invent it. Also the original wasn't killed in the machine from prestige, it was a more of a pure cloning device, killing the original was a mechanism added by the magician afterwards by adding the trap door.
On April 14 2012 12:58 .Sic. wrote: this is probably the easiest way to commit suicide.you can die without feeling a bit of guilt. because to everyone else, the replacement will be the exactly same as you, but you'll be dead.
The you that popped out the other side a moment later wouldn't feel this way though. He'd just be you again and have the same feelings of worthlessness, etc...
In a sense, the "death" that happens in this sort of teleportation is virtually indistinguishable from the type of death that happens to us each time we blink. The continuity of consciousness is just an illusion constructed from memory. The person you were 5 seconds ago is now dead. You just remember being alive 5 seconds ago...
The question of continuity is decided only by the "receiver."
If my conscience is transfered then I would do it. Although I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the issue: If my mind and body was destroyed and then rebuild the exact same way it was destroyed, would I still have the same self awareness I do now? This stuff is really deep...
For those interested see Derek Parfit's book Reasons and Persons or his article "Personal Identity"--he's the go to contemporary philosophical voice on this. In his opinion, there is a sense in which we are identical with the person who leaves the teleporter afterwards, and a sense in which we are not (this is slight inaccuracy, since he considers slightly more complicated cases.) Because we don't obviously exist or cease to exist, he thinks it can't possibly be as bad as normal, ordinary death. For that reason, he recommends that we care not about our identities, but those futures which contain people continuous with us (psychologically continuous, mostly). This continuity he calls "survival" (his technical term).
On April 14 2012 13:13 GreenFaction wrote: For those interested see Derek Parfit's book Reasons and Persons or his article "Personal Identity"--he's the go to contemporary philosophical voice on this. In his opinion, there is a sense in which we are identical with the person who leaves the teleporter afterwards, and a sense in which we are not (this is slight inaccuracy, since he considers slightly more complicated cases.) Because we don't obviously exist or cease to exist, he thinks it can't possibly be as bad as normal, ordinary death. For that reason, he recommends that we care not about our identities, but those futures which contain people continuous with us (psychologically continuous, mostly). This continuity he calls "survival" (his technical term).
Well Prestige used a similar concept, but didn't invent it. Also the original wasn't killed in the machine from prestige, it was a more of a pure cloning device, killing the original was a mechanism added by the magician afterwards by adding the trap door.
The original died in the Prestige? I thought it was the original killing off his clones repeatedly. It's been a while since I saw it.
Well Prestige used a similar concept, but didn't invent it. Also the original wasn't killed in the machine from prestige, it was a more of a pure cloning device, killing the original was a mechanism added by the magician afterwards by adding the trap door.
The original died in the Prestige? I thought it was the original killing off his clones repeatedly. It's been a while since I saw it.
No the original died each time. That was so terrible about it! Hugh Jackman had to die each time he did the trick. So much suffering for his art.
Well Prestige used a similar concept, but didn't invent it. Also the original wasn't killed in the machine from prestige, it was a more of a pure cloning device, killing the original was a mechanism added by the magician afterwards by adding the trap door.
The original died in the Prestige? I thought it was the original killing off his clones repeatedly. It's been a while since I saw it.
No the original died each time. That was so terrible about it! Hugh Jackman had to die each time he did the trick. So much suffering for his art.
I don't think this was exactly the case. The point is that you could not distinguish between the original and the clone. You might be able to say that the new one appears at the same place each time, and so distinguish, but they don't really go into all that detail in the movie. The new copy has all the memories of the original and could make the case that he was the original and had been teleported while a clone had been left in his place. If I remember correctly, the movie poses this question by suggesting that you could not know if you would be the prestige or the man in the box.
Well Prestige used a similar concept, but didn't invent it. Also the original wasn't killed in the machine from prestige, it was a more of a pure cloning device, killing the original was a mechanism added by the magician afterwards by adding the trap door.
The original died in the Prestige? I thought it was the original killing off his clones repeatedly. It's been a while since I saw it.
No the original died each time. That was so terrible about it! Hugh Jackman had to die each time he did the trick. So much suffering for his art.
I don't think this was exactly the case. The point is that you could not distinguish between the original and the clone. You might be able to say that the new one appears at the same place each time, and so distinguish, but they don't really go into all that detail in the movie. The new copy has all the memories of the original and could make the case that he was the original and had been teleported while a clone had been left in his place. If I remember correctly, the movie poses this question by suggesting that you could not know if you would be the prestige or the man in the box.
It's ambiguous as I recall, yeah. I like to think that the original magician dies and the clone is the survivor, but the magician doesn't know that because he was the clone last time, with all the memories -- including the start of the trick -- as if they were his own. He thought he survived, but really he was only just born, so he's willing to do it again; and realizes his mistake as he falls into the tank and stares at his new self as he dies.
This is exactly the theme of Gantz, a manga where a black ball stores people but the trick is it makes a copy of a person at a certain point, if that copy dies and another one is made the memories will be the ones at the moment the copy was first made because the chemicals in the brain and what not are a exact replicate or something like that. Gantz is amazing, even if you're not into manga, actually it's the first one I've read, but since I love all sci-fi it's all good. Give it a try, there is a TL thread about it somewhere that's where I found it.
Well Prestige used a similar concept, but didn't invent it. Also the original wasn't killed in the machine from prestige, it was a more of a pure cloning device, killing the original was a mechanism added by the magician afterwards by adding the trap door.
The original died in the Prestige? I thought it was the original killing off his clones repeatedly. It's been a while since I saw it.
No the original died each time. That was so terrible about it! Hugh Jackman had to die each time he did the trick. So much suffering for his art.
I don't think this was exactly the case. The point is that you could not distinguish between the original and the clone. You might be able to say that the new one appears at the same place each time, and so distinguish, but they don't really go into all that detail in the movie. The new copy has all the memories of the original and could make the case that he was the original and had been teleported while a clone had been left in his place. If I remember correctly, the movie poses this question by suggesting that you could not know if you would be the prestige or the man in the box.
It's ambiguous as I recall, yeah. I like to think that the original magician dies and the clone is the survivor, but the magician doesn't know that because he was the clone last time, with all the memories -- including the start of the trick -- as if they were his own. He thought he survived, but really he was only just born, so he's willing to do it again; and realizes his mistake as he falls into the tank and stares at his new self as he dies.
If he was smart he would have just made one clone and cooperated with himself to pull off the trick without killing any clones, but that wouldn't have been quite as entertaining haha.
I can imagine if I could clone myself I would do it in a second, two or more me's could accomplish so much...
Nice blog, and an interesting question. I would use it. If it makes an exact copy of my mind and body, who's to say it's still not "me"?
I think the question goes down to this: do you believe in a soul? If you do, you probably will think your soul might depart after killing your own body. It would be another being. Perhaps not.
If not, being that it's a being just like you and since there will be just 1 of you in the whole universe, what's to say that he's not "you"? Excet from being consiously unaware that you just "died", you will still be there. As someone mentioned, what makes you "you" and what defines your reality, in the end, is nothing more that the perception of yur mind and your short-term memory. If both are kept just as before, you'll just remember momentarily ceasing to exist and appearing somewhere else.
What if he didn't "kill" you? What if he deassembled and reassembled you in a different place? Would it be any different? I mean, considering the machin copies and reassembles every single atom just as before, there wouldn't be any difference in the end result.
A more interesting question might actually be: how would your conscience be affected in the short lapse you're dead? Would you feel the time lapse in real life? Would you be aware you're dead? Woluld you be aware of anything at all?
There's a short story by Stephen King that actually explores this question: "The Jaunt". Highly recommended.
Well Prestige used a similar concept, but didn't invent it. Also the original wasn't killed in the machine from prestige, it was a more of a pure cloning device, killing the original was a mechanism added by the magician afterwards by adding the trap door.
The original died in the Prestige? I thought it was the original killing off his clones repeatedly. It's been a while since I saw it.
No the original died each time. That was so terrible about it! Hugh Jackman had to die each time he did the trick. So much suffering for his art.
the original falls into the watertank under the machine "entrance" through a trapdoor, while a duplicate aappears at the "exit"
i think that's how it worked
anyway, the point i was trying to make is that the machine in the movie didn't necessarily kill anything, he just had to get rid of one version of himself to make the trick work so he added the trapdoor+water tank himself
remember the scene at tesla's lab where had shitloads of tophats because he replicated them while testing his machine
Curiously I've been pondering a similar question over the past couple of days, specifically in concern to 'cloning'. I can't decide whether I would.
On the one hand, I believe that I'm a different being from one moment the next, regardless of whether there is an implicit 'death'. Consequently this should solve any concerns I should have about 'dying', as it in fact isn't a death (really).
But then I can't adhere to that previous notion if I'm asked whether I would be willing to die, for another to live in my stead (for the sake of teleportation [or immortality]), because if 'I' die, I'm not there to witness 'myself' living, as it were.
Questions about being (me).
I somehow need to conclude that I don't exist as an individual at all. Not only not as an individual, but simply do not exist.
Well Prestige used a similar concept, but didn't invent it. Also the original wasn't killed in the machine from prestige, it was a more of a pure cloning device, killing the original was a mechanism added by the magician afterwards by adding the trap door.
The original died in the Prestige? I thought it was the original killing off his clones repeatedly. It's been a while since I saw it.
No the original died each time. That was so terrible about it! Hugh Jackman had to die each time he did the trick. So much suffering for his art.
I don't think this was exactly the case. The point is that you could not distinguish between the original and the clone. You might be able to say that the new one appears at the same place each time, and so distinguish, but they don't really go into all that detail in the movie. The new copy has all the memories of the original and could make the case that he was the original and had been teleported while a clone had been left in his place. If I remember correctly, the movie poses this question by suggesting that you could not know if you would be the prestige or the man in the box.
With the prestige the problem really comes from the audience.
The idea of a perfect clone, one that truly cannot be distinguish itself, or be distinguished from the original. People have trouble with the idea that you could be a clone with perfect memory, but not somehow have an evil mustache twirling "har-har, shoot him, not me!"-persona on the inside.
The problem comes from the idea that the original and clone can't tell. They both think they always existed. People seem to find this concept hard to grasp, believing that on some level, they should know.
The question of course, does the machine teleport the original and create a clone, or does it simply create a clone some distance away.
The truth of this question is one that cannot be answered, and this is intentional to the story.
Even if it teleports, the original can't be sure that he isn't a clone with perfect memory.
Having said that, the prestige suffers from a single mistake, which is a shame because it is one of my favorite films.
The real version doesn't exist in the movie.
The machine does one of two things:
A. It creates a clone and teleports the original to another location.
B. It creates a clone at a different location.
If B is true, then the original has died when he first performed the trick, with each clone dying on each night.
If A is true, then the real version was teleported away, only to be shot by the clone when he was testing the machine, after which the clone proceeded to perform the trick every night, killing off future versions with the water tank.
But in the end, it isn't very important. The core of the story is obsession and rivalry, not a question on how important it is to be an "original" compared to a perfect imitation.
This form of teleportation is utterly retarded. YOU'RE DEAD PEOPLE. You know, if the machine is going to rebuild your body atom by atom in another location, is the whole, killing the original really that important. Might as well just make a clone to do what's needed to be done. Better yet, might as well just do what you want to do electronically and send it. It's not like the information carrying your body plan travels any faster than an email. If your doing this for a fast way to get to something pleasurable, like going on vacation, don't. Your dead. Someone else is enjoying your life.
On April 14 2012 16:28 Brutaxilos wrote: This form of teleportation is utterly retarded. YOU'RE DEAD PEOPLE. You know, if the machine is going to rebuild your body atom by atom in another location, is the whole, killing the original really that important. Might as well just make a clone to do what's needed to be done. Better yet, might as well just do what you want to do electronically and send it. It's not like the information carrying your body plan travels any faster than an email. If your doing this for a fast way to get to something pleasurable, like going on vacation, don't. Your dead. Someone else is enjoying your life.
But why are you necessarily dead? You're still alive, in a sense. Objectively nobody would know the difference. Subjectively, well I'm not sure. But how can you be so sure that you are in effect dead if there is another you in existence?
It's an interesting conundrum. Eg the teleporters in Star Trek - the body is being annihilated in one location and rebuilt in another. The body is not being 'moved'; one body is destroyed, and an exact copy re-created elsewhere. Does this mean "you" essentially die using the teleporter?
The question boils down to: Do you believe "you" (i.e. your conscious, thinking mind) are something that inhabits your brain, or are "you" simply the physical brain itself.
I don't remember quite this kind of salami slicing argument being brought up.
It's a bad argument. The author bases his conception on the idea that if you clone someone, killing the clone is okay, but killing a clone is no more acceptable than killing a twin sibling.
I definately wouldn't use it, i mean, why would i want to be replaced by a clone of myself ? If this machine can really recreate a body, do so when i'm about to die ( with the informations of a younger me ) and recreate a younger me when i die, but then again, when i'm dead i don't really care anymore so i'd probably find it pointless at that point. In short : no
On April 14 2012 16:53 Hairy wrote: It's an interesting conundrum. Eg the teleporters in Star Trek - the body is being annihilated in one location and rebuilt in another. The body is not being 'moved'; one body is destroyed, and an exact copy re-created elsewhere. Does this mean "you" essentially die using the teleporter?
The question boils down to: Do you believe "you" (i.e. your conscious, thinking mind) are something that inhabits your brain, or are "you" simply the physical brain itself.
Star Trek actually adresses this in an episode, saying that this was a very prevalent fear during the early days of the teleporter, but in the end, those fears just came from people that didn't understand the science.
So no, in Star Trek the person being beamed up continues to exist. Though you could argue that perhaps nobody truly knows and they are all perfect clones thinking that they are real.
Which would make the Star Trek series far more hilarious to watch.
On April 14 2012 16:53 Hairy wrote: It's an interesting conundrum. Eg the teleporters in Star Trek - the body is being annihilated in one location and rebuilt in another. The body is not being 'moved'; one body is destroyed, and an exact copy re-created elsewhere. Does this mean "you" essentially die using the teleporter?
The question boils down to: Do you believe "you" (i.e. your conscious, thinking mind) are something that inhabits your brain, or are "you" simply the physical brain itself.
Without questioning wether the you inhabits the mind (e.g. as a soul) I'd still argue that a re-creating is a separate creation so it is another object, be it inhabited with an identical 'you(ness)', so not infact 'you'.
On April 14 2012 16:53 Hairy wrote: It's an interesting conundrum. Eg the teleporters in Star Trek - the body is being annihilated in one location and rebuilt in another. The body is not being 'moved'; one body is destroyed, and an exact copy re-created elsewhere. Does this mean "you" essentially die using the teleporter?
The question boils down to: Do you believe "you" (i.e. your conscious, thinking mind) are something that inhabits your brain, or are "you" simply the physical brain itself.
You're both; two halves to one whole. The "true" you is your mind, however your body hosts that mind. If your body is destroyed, then that mind is destroyed, and thus you are. It doesn't matter if the machine copies your mind and places it in a new body somewhere else, because your old body, and in extension your old/current mind, has already been destroyed.
Easiest way to realize this is to assume the following: your old body is not destroyed.
Nothing else changes, the machine still copies your mind into a new body and a new "you" is created. As a result, you'll each probably think you're the "real" you. However, the one that was copied is not you, they are a clone. You won't be simultaneously living your life through both bodies, so whoever is in the newly created body, is not "you".
Though only "you" would realize this. As for all intensive purposes, either version of you would be considered the real you by anyone else but you.
There was an interesting movie that played with the concept of cloning, and showed this quite well. In the movie they thought they achieved immortality, by cloning themselves and copying their mind into the new clones. Sadly I forget the name of it.
Have to convince / promise myself if I ever get cloned we will work together. The second you decide you'd shoot your clone your clone will shoot you when he gets the chance!
On April 14 2012 17:28 Nibbler89 wrote: Read this and had to go watch the prestige... + Show Spoiler +
Have to convince / promise myself if I ever get cloned we will work together. The second you decide you'd shoot your clone your clone will shoot you when he gets the chance!
Better not have any doubts or your clone will kill you and you have to live with that experience, minus the pain.
On April 14 2012 16:28 Brutaxilos wrote: This form of teleportation is utterly retarded. YOU'RE DEAD PEOPLE. You know, if the machine is going to rebuild your body atom by atom in another location, is the whole, killing the original really that important. Might as well just make a clone to do what's needed to be done. Better yet, might as well just do what you want to do electronically and send it. It's not like the information carrying your body plan travels any faster than an email. If your doing this for a fast way to get to something pleasurable, like going on vacation, don't. Your dead. Someone else is enjoying your life.
But why are you necessarily dead? You're still alive, in a sense. Objectively nobody would know the difference. Subjectively, well I'm not sure. But how can you be so sure that you are in effect dead if there is another you in existence?
You would know the difference, since you're dead. Your life is at an end. From a neurological viewpoint, it would certainly be the same as having a normal death, since all your brain function seizes. Whatever is created on the other side isn't you, it's someone else. It could, in the very same way, create a completely different person on the other side of the teleportation device. It would make absolutely no difference for you.
Imo this is one of thousands of useless purely philosophical questions (pure philosophy rarely does something else than raise pointless questions), since they're easily answered using real facts (anybody who would use this device knowingly what it does would be a fool, or suicidal).
Teleport me, but keep the original. Then we meet up and have shitloads of fun and fuck with people's minds. I know myself well enough that I'd know we'd be the ultimate trolls.
If you don't believe that "you" is some kind of (immortal) soul attached to your physical body, being rebuild from new atoms shouldn't impose a problem. A video from a lovely (old) game (imo the best turn based strategy game):
On August 05 2010 19:22 meegrean wrote: i will never use a teleporter ever. good thing i probably won't see one in this lifetime. maybe future generations that can use this technology will be less religious.
yeah that will definitely help!
On August 05 2010 18:49 BrogMaN wrote:No, absolutely would not even consider it ... Maybe if I was a religious type i would be willing but since i'm pretty atheist and don't really think anything happens after i die there's no way i would willingly kill my current body just to travel somewhere.
people who say "absolutely not".. do you REALLY think you are special/ you have a soul? if so you're probably pretty ignorant and ignore modern science. we're just a bunch of atoms, that includes our brain which truely makes you, you.
quantum teleportation (the process in which the atoms/molecules in your body would get teleported) would teleport all of your atoms exactly to the other place. quantum entanglement is beyond "trustworthy" as it would transmit your atom's information to the destinations location with 100% precision. all of your brain signals, memories, etc exactly the same assuming the machine works properly. if it works? hell yeah i would do it. It would be like blinking, but when you open your eyes you are on the other side of the world.
and yes quantum teleportation/entanglement is a real thing and has been done with a Proton I believe. AFAIK it also destroys the original Atom, so this process is not "cloning". It's teleportation.
So you ask, would you still be.. you? Absolutely and I wish the intelligent bunch of atoms that is myself came into existence.. 2000 years in the future so I could experience this.
On April 14 2012 18:07 AegiS_ wrote: people who say "absolutely not".. do you REALLY think you are special/ you have a soul? if so you're probably pretty ignorant and ignore modern science. we're just a bunch of atoms, that includes our brain which truely makes you, you.
quantum teleportation (the process in which the atoms/molecules in your body would get teleported) would teleport all of your atoms exactly to the other place. quantum entanglement is beyond "trustworthy" as it would transmit your atom's information to the destinations location with 100% precision. all of your brain signals, memories, etc exactly the same assuming the machine works properly. if it works? hell yeah i would do it. It would be like blinking, but when you open your eyes you are on the other side of the world.
and yes quantum teleportation/entanglement is a real thing and has been done with a Proton I believe.
So you ask, would you still be.. you? Absolutely and I wish the intelligent bunch of atoms that is myself came into existence.. 2000 years in the future so I could experience this.
I think what gets confusing is like.. whatever there is after you die, let's just say it's blackness/nothing for all eternity for example. If you were to use the teleport, would you just experience blackness/nothing for all eternity and just an exact copy of you went on to live? Even if it's exactly you, would the original body that is killed still be experiencing nothing for all eternity? If so, then I wouldn't do it because that would just suck because I'd only be experiencing what the original body does, right? I don't think it has to do with souls or anything of the sort. If none of that happened and you just blinked and would start experiencing your next body's life then yes, I'd be fine with doing it.
On April 14 2012 18:07 AegiS_ wrote: people who say "absolutely not".. do you REALLY think you are special/ you have a soul? if so you're probably pretty ignorant and ignore modern science. we're just a bunch of atoms, that includes our brain which truely makes you, you.
quantum teleportation (the process in which the atoms/molecules in your body would get teleported) would teleport all of your atoms exactly to the other place. quantum entanglement is beyond "trustworthy" as it would transmit your atom's information to the destinations location with 100% precision. all of your brain signals, memories, etc exactly the same assuming the machine works properly. if it works? hell yeah i would do it. It would be like blinking, but when you open your eyes you are on the other side of the world.
and yes quantum teleportation/entanglement is a real thing and has been done with a Proton I believe.
So you ask, would you still be.. you? Absolutely and I wish the intelligent bunch of atoms that is myself came into existence.. 2000 years in the future so I could experience this.
The interesting thing is- maybe 2000 years into the future, your atoms will recombine. What if time is actually infinite? Surely then at some other time possibly billions of years into the future, the exact stuff which makes you could come back together as one, whether through chance or through some strange process.
On April 14 2012 18:07 AegiS_ wrote: people who say "absolutely not".. do you REALLY think you are special/ you have a soul? if so you're probably pretty ignorant and ignore modern science. we're just a bunch of atoms, that includes our brain which truely makes you, you.
quantum teleportation (the process in which the atoms/molecules in your body would get teleported) would teleport all of your atoms exactly to the other place. quantum entanglement is beyond "trustworthy" as it would transmit your atom's information to the destinations location with 100% precision. all of your brain signals, memories, etc exactly the same assuming the machine works properly. if it works? hell yeah i would do it. It would be like blinking, but when you open your eyes you are on the other side of the world.
and yes quantum teleportation/entanglement is a real thing and has been done with a Proton I believe.
So you ask, would you still be.. you? Absolutely and I wish the intelligent bunch of atoms that is myself came into existence.. 2000 years in the future so I could experience this.
I think what gets confusing is like.. whatever there is after you die, let's just say it's blackness/nothing for all eternity for example. If you were to use the teleport, would you just experience blackness/nothing for all eternity and just an exact copy of you went on to live? If so, then I wouldn't do it because that would just suck, it has nothing to do with souls or anything of the sort. If none of that happened and you just blinked and would start experiencing your next body's life then yes, I'd be fine with doing it.
This whole death thing is a curious and common misconception, which leads to a lot of fear imo. You don't experience some void- you do not experience anything. There is no perception of endless time passing or blackness. These are directly attached to human experience. You do not experience anything!
Of course, if the idea in my post above holds any water, maybe in a universe of infinite time everybody will live again anyway. If time repeats.... then I don't even know what to think any more.
On April 14 2012 18:07 AegiS_ wrote: people who say "absolutely not".. do you REALLY think you are special/ you have a soul? if so you're probably pretty ignorant and ignore modern science. we're just a bunch of atoms, that includes our brain which truely makes you, you.
quantum teleportation (the process in which the atoms/molecules in your body would get teleported) would teleport all of your atoms exactly to the other place. quantum entanglement is beyond "trustworthy" as it would transmit your atom's information to the destinations location with 100% precision. all of your brain signals, memories, etc exactly the same assuming the machine works properly. if it works? hell yeah i would do it. It would be like blinking, but when you open your eyes you are on the other side of the world.
and yes quantum teleportation/entanglement is a real thing and has been done with a Proton I believe. AFAIK it also destroys the original Atom, so this process is not "cloning". It's teleportation.
So you ask, would you still be.. you? Absolutely and I wish the intelligent bunch of atoms that is myself came into existence.. 2000 years in the future so I could experience this.
On August 05 2010 18:36 UniversalSnip wrote: This is a common thing in science fiction where you are 'teleported' by a machine that kills you, then reconstructs an exact copy of your body and mind at another point. The question is
You're an idiot. The OP specifically stated that the machine kills you, then reconstructs you elsewhere. You are not truly teleported in his scenario, so what you're saying has nothing to do with the situation presented. The fact that you're trying to talk down to everyone only makes your idiocy worse.
you don't actually die though. someone died, someone at the starting destination, but your not that guy. your completely and fully yourself. and your alive
On April 14 2012 16:53 Hairy wrote: It's an interesting conundrum. Eg the teleporters in Star Trek - the body is being annihilated in one location and rebuilt in another. The body is not being 'moved'; one body is destroyed, and an exact copy re-created elsewhere. Does this mean "you" essentially die using the teleporter?
The question boils down to: Do you believe "you" (i.e. your conscious, thinking mind) are something that inhabits your brain, or are "you" simply the physical brain itself.
You're both; two halves to one whole. The "true" you is your mind, however your body hosts that mind. If your body is destroyed, then that mind is destroyed, and thus you are. It doesn't matter if the machine copies your mind and places it in a new body somewhere else, because your old body, and in extension your old/current mind, has already been destroyed.
Easiest way to realize this is to assume the following: your old body is not destroyed.
Nothing else changes, the machine still copies your mind into a new body and a new "you" is created. As a result, you'll each probably think you're the "real" you. However, the one that was copied is not you, they are a clone. You won't be simultaneously living your life through both bodies, so whoever is in the newly created body, is not "you".
Though only "you" would realize this. As for all intensive purposes, either version of you would be considered the real you by anyone else but you.
There was an interesting movie that played with the concept of cloning, and showed this quite well. In the movie they thought they achieved immortality, by cloning themselves and copying their mind into the new clones. Sadly I forget the name of it.
it was arnold schwazinegger movie bro.. the 6th day. It was pretty bad because the real arnie and the clone just accepted their fates and team up lol
Yes, if they can reconstruct me perfectly down to the atom. I would have zero obligations. I don't believe in a soul, if they can recreate my brains exactly the way they are with my memories still intact then what's there to oppose?
uhh, why would I use such a device? what's in it for me?
A copy of my mind, body and personality is not me. I'm dead.
It reminds me of that Schwarzenegger movie ( I think) where the bad guy was dying and created a clone of himself, then he was somehow shocked that first thing his clone did was kill him.
It's similar to losing your whole memory. A person is no more, while another is born.
e. It would make more sense if your consciousness was transferred to another body, while your body dies. Now that would actually be useful.
On April 14 2012 16:28 Brutaxilos wrote: This form of teleportation is utterly retarded. YOU'RE DEAD PEOPLE. You know, if the machine is going to rebuild your body atom by atom in another location, is the whole, killing the original really that important. Might as well just make a clone to do what's needed to be done. Better yet, might as well just do what you want to do electronically and send it. It's not like the information carrying your body plan travels any faster than an email. If your doing this for a fast way to get to something pleasurable, like going on vacation, don't. Your dead. Someone else is enjoying your life.
But why are you necessarily dead? You're still alive, in a sense. Objectively nobody would know the difference. Subjectively, well I'm not sure. But how can you be so sure that you are in effect dead if there is another you in existence?
You would know the difference, since you're dead. Your life is at an end. From a neurological viewpoint, it would certainly be the same as having a normal death, since all your brain function seizes. Whatever is created on the other side isn't you, it's someone else. It could, in the very same way, create a completely different person on the other side of the teleportation device. It would make absolutely no difference for you.
Imo this is one of thousands of useless purely philosophical questions (pure philosophy rarely does something else than raise pointless questions), since they're easily answered using real facts (anybody who would use this device knowingly what it does would be a fool, or suicidal).
Similarly, when I move through time I am displaced from being one person to the next. So that with each 'interval' I'm a different being. That being so, I can understand that I am that thing that has been teleported as it's no different (or I don't see how it is, [explain to me how it is]) from me just passing from one moment to the next.
on another note if you are teleported and in fact 'dead' then there is no 'you' for you to know about some other you.
In fact you should retain the memory of being 'killed' as you're reconstructed as the being with all memories prior to the teleportation, so it is you.
if you are moving a file from one disk to the next its information is being read then writtrn on the other disk and then the old is deleted and its still the same file. If the teleportation copying process was perfect, I would not mind. A human is just a machine there is no soul or something out of the ordinary, a human consists of matter and he stores information in matter and his whole being is matter and nothing else.
The problem is that you can never know. For all practical purposes the new person is the same as the old one and he can legitimatley say that he feel the same, but you can never know how it actually "felt" until it is too late and you are dead.
This is not a question of soul, religion, whatever. It is a problem based on the fact that we all live this "human experience" and we have no idea at all what it is... wait, I know that I have this experience but I can never know if anybody else does!
All the people that would use such device either know/feel something that I don't, or did not really think this through. I would not even use a teleport if it was based on some quantum technlogogy or whatever. There just can ever be any guarantee that it would not feel like death to me (whatever that means) and a new conscious entity would not be created.
To be very clear: I am not saying it is like that, maybe it is the complete opposite and teleporting is totally fine. I am only saying that there is no reliable way to find that out. You cannot just ask the teleportees, their answers have zero informaiton value on the issue.
I think it's just called teleportation and not death teleportation. Because you are not dead but your soul is which does not exist. Too add to point whatever teleportation is called it does also not exist.
I dont know why people are getting the idea that your consciousness isnt made up of atoms either. Of course I'd be fine with being transported, and of course I'd still be conscious because the atom make up would be the same.
Saw a documentary on this the other day (about quantum physics and how to apply them in different scenarios). And I must say, I would NEVER EVER enter a teleporter that works in such a fassion. Basicly, you would cease to excist (I'm an Atheist) and a clone of you would take your place, believing it is you, and always has been. That is just a too scary thought.
I wouldn't share the thoughts of the other me, our minds would not be connected. I would have to say no... From my point of view, getting into that machine is the end for me.
On April 14 2012 21:48 Sovern wrote: I dont know why people are getting the idea that your consciousness isnt made up of atoms either. Of course I'd be fine with being transported, and of course I'd still be conscious because the atom make up would be the same.
No you wouldn't be conscious because you would be dead. There would just be another guy exactly like you on the other side but you would be gone.
On August 05 2010 23:07 TheAntZ wrote: I dont understand why so many people are against this, if it reconstructs your brain along with your body exactly as it was, its not a clone, it IS you. Just a reconstructed you. you'd essentially just be dead for a small amount of time
So if you just cloned without destroying the original, you would suddenly be 2 people`? I don't think so. Think about it dude.
On April 15 2012 01:59 KookyMonster wrote: As long as my consciousness is retained, I don't see why not if it is 100% fool proof.
For people that seem not to get the idea. If the machine works by replicating you, there might be no need for it to kill you. So basically you enter the chamber and at the end one guy(you) leaves the original chamber and the "teleported" guy exactly like the original leaves the destination chamber. Are you the destination guy ? Of course not, you are the guy who never moved one inch and left the original chamber.
So if the machine actually kills you during the replication process (or after it) , who is the remaining guy at the destination ? Not you. People saying that the "teleported" guy is you are saying that if someone created a copy of you, both the copy and you would be you. That of course makes no sense.
Startrek teleporters, stargate, ring transport, ... all of them kill the person entering the device and create a copy that is not the original. There are even episodes in those shows where accidents happen that showcase this (not the writers intentions really).
The only exceptions that comes to mind might be Asgard teleport, but I might be wrong it still might work the same way, I just do not recall there ever being malfunction with someone stored in a "buffer" like with the others.
It depends on how you look at it. Obviously, if you think you are your body, then going through a teleporter kills you. BUT, if you think of yourself as your mind, then going through a teleporter would only destroy your body. Your mind will be intact, just reconstructed in another body.
I think I would be okay with going through a teleporter. Sure I leave my old body behind, but I know my mind will be the same.
The problem could come up that the teleporter accidentally recreates your body and mind, but doesn't destroy your old one immediately. At that point, your mind has diverged into two minds. In that case, you can't justify killing either of them, because they are now unique people.
On April 15 2012 02:14 KevinIX wrote: It depends on how you look at it. Obviously, if you think you are your body, then going through a teleporter kills you. BUT, if you think of yourself as your conciousness/mind, then going through a teleporter would only destroy your body. Your mind will be intact, just reconstructed in another body. I think I would be okay with going through a teleporter.
Sure I leave my old body behind, but I know my mind will be the same.
Note that all those teleporters in sci-fi easily allow multiple bodies to be recreated at the end, all exactly the same. Which of those 5 copies is the original person ?
On April 15 2012 02:14 KevinIX wrote: It depends on how you look at it. Obviously, if you think you are your body, then going through a teleporter kills you. BUT, if you think of yourself as your mind, then going through a teleporter would only destroy your body. Your mind will be intact, just reconstructed in another body. I think I would be okay with going through a teleporter.
Sure I leave my old body behind, but I know my mind will be the same.
What makes you think your consciousness would move to a new body?
If you're cloned, will your consciousness be in two bodies at once? Since the answer is obviously no, then what makes you think your consciousness will still be around when you die and a duplicate is made somewhere else?
On April 15 2012 02:14 KevinIX wrote: It depends on how you look at it. Obviously, if you think you are your body, then going through a teleporter kills you. BUT, if you think of yourself as your conciousness/mind, then going through a teleporter would only destroy your body. Your mind will be intact, just reconstructed in another body. I think I would be okay with going through a teleporter.
Sure I leave my old body behind, but I know my mind will be the same.
Note that all those teleporters in sci-fi easily allow multiple bodies to be recreated at the end, all exactly the same. Which of those 5 copies is the original person ?
I edited in a bit at the end there. I think that if you recreate multiple copies or fail to destroy the old one, they all become unique individuals. You can't destroy any of them.
On April 15 2012 02:14 KevinIX wrote: It depends on how you look at it. Obviously, if you think you are your body, then going through a teleporter kills you. BUT, if you think of yourself as your mind, then going through a teleporter would only destroy your body. Your mind will be intact, just reconstructed in another body. I think I would be okay with going through a teleporter.
Sure I leave my old body behind, but I know my mind will be the same.
What makes you think your consciousness would move to a new body?
If you're cloned, will your consciousness be in two bodies at once? Since the answer is obviously no, then what makes you think your consciousness will still be around when you die and a duplicate is made somewhere else?
There's a difference between cloning and teleporting. I'm assuming that a teleporter would create an identical copy of you with all your experiences and genetics identical to your old body. Cloning doesn't pass on your memories only your genetics. I think that the experience you have in life defines you as an individual. If both your experiences and genetics are identical, you are the same person.
On April 15 2012 02:14 KevinIX wrote: It depends on how you look at it. Obviously, if you think you are your body, then going through a teleporter kills you. BUT, if you think of yourself as your conciousness/mind, then going through a teleporter would only destroy your body. Your mind will be intact, just reconstructed in another body. I think I would be okay with going through a teleporter.
Sure I leave my old body behind, but I know my mind will be the same.
Note that all those teleporters in sci-fi easily allow multiple bodies to be recreated at the end, all exactly the same. Which of those 5 copies is the original person ?
I edited in a bit at the end there. I think that if you recreate multiple copies or fail to destroy the old one, they all become unique individuals. You can't destroy any of them.
That makes no sense. There is no magical mind splitting that happens only if we fail to destroy the copies, but not otherwise. Unless you believe in some immaterial soul, but that would have its own set of problems. The physical process is the same. Thus the being at the destination is always unique and not the original. Original dies or not, but never moves a bit.
On April 15 2012 01:56 GreEny K wrote: I wouldn't share the thoughts of the other me, our minds would not be connected. I would have to say no... From my point of view, getting into that machine is the end for me.
But the copy is a perfect copy. An instant before you teleport, your memories and thoughts would be copied over. So while it isn't the same consciousness, it IS an exact copy of it, so it may as well be the same one.
Does anyone have a response to my post earlier in this thread? Genuinely curious:
"The question to be asked here is: how is this different from falling into a coma and gaining consciousness? Most people would want (and see no problem) in continuing on their lives after recovering from a coma.
In both cases, there is a distinct break in consciousness and you are, more or less, the same person afterwards. (Actually, even more so in the teleportation sitaution). The only distinction is that there's no break in the continuity of the existence of material matter in the coma situation. But is that important at all?
On April 15 2012 02:14 KevinIX wrote: It depends on how you look at it. Obviously, if you think you are your body, then going through a teleporter kills you. BUT, if you think of yourself as your mind, then going through a teleporter would only destroy your body. Your mind will be intact, just reconstructed in another body. I think I would be okay with going through a teleporter.
Sure I leave my old body behind, but I know my mind will be the same.
What makes you think your consciousness would move to a new body?
If you're cloned, will your consciousness be in two bodies at once? Since the answer is obviously no, then what makes you think your consciousness will still be around when you die and a duplicate is made somewhere else?
There's a difference between cloning and teleporting. I'm assuming that a teleporter would create an identical copy of you with all your experiences and genetics identical to your old body. Cloning doesn't pass on your memories only your genetics. I think that the experience you have in life defines you as an individual. If both your experiences and genetics are identical, you are the same person.
By cloning I think he does not mean the biological cloning, just the process of creating exactly the same individual with exactly the same brain and thus memories and experiences. The teleporters in question are actually cloning (in this sense of the word) machines that just clone you in different location.
EDIT: Also so if your identical twin and you were placed in identical virtual worlds with exactly the same events happening. You would be both the same person ?
I've read that Star Trek: TNG-style teleporting = you're dead, copy of you on the other side reconstructed from your information (gained through the process of destroying you). And Star Trek the original series style teleporting = it's still the original you on the other side, you aren't destroyed, no copy is made.
On April 15 2012 02:14 KevinIX wrote: It depends on how you look at it. Obviously, if you think you are your body, then going through a teleporter kills you. BUT, if you think of yourself as your mind, then going through a teleporter would only destroy your body. Your mind will be intact, just reconstructed in another body. I think I would be okay with going through a teleporter.
Sure I leave my old body behind, but I know my mind will be the same.
What makes you think your consciousness would move to a new body?
If you're cloned, will your consciousness be in two bodies at once? Since the answer is obviously no, then what makes you think your consciousness will still be around when you die and a duplicate is made somewhere else?
There's a difference between cloning and teleporting. I'm assuming that a teleporter would create an identical copy of you with all your experiences and genetics identical to your old body. Cloning doesn't pass on your memories only your genetics. I think that the experience you have in life defines you as an individual. If both your experiences and genetics are identical, you are the same person.
By cloning, I meant duplicating. Even if we make a copy of you with the same memories, experiences, and brain, your consciousness won't suddenly exist in two places.
Identical ≠ same. Two identical hard drives with identical data on them still aren't the same hard drive.
On April 15 2012 01:56 GreEny K wrote: I wouldn't share the thoughts of the other me, our minds would not be connected. I would have to say no... From my point of view, getting into that machine is the end for me.
But the copy is a perfect copy. An instant before you teleport, your memories and thoughts would be copied over. So while it isn't the same consciousness, it IS an exact copy of it, so it may as well be the same one.
I would do it for sure.
And you would cease to exist with someone else exactly like you living instead of you. Basically your proposition is that if two bodies are the same they are the same person, that is patently absurd, as such technology would allow to create multiple exactly the same bodies.
On April 15 2012 02:14 KevinIX wrote: It depends on how you look at it. Obviously, if you think you are your body, then going through a teleporter kills you. BUT, if you think of yourself as your mind, then going through a teleporter would only destroy your body. Your mind will be intact, just reconstructed in another body. I think I would be okay with going through a teleporter.
Sure I leave my old body behind, but I know my mind will be the same.
What makes you think your consciousness would move to a new body?
If you're cloned, will your consciousness be in two bodies at once? Since the answer is obviously no, then what makes you think your consciousness will still be around when you die and a duplicate is made somewhere else?
There's a difference between cloning and teleporting. I'm assuming that a teleporter would create an identical copy of you with all your experiences and genetics identical to your old body. Cloning doesn't pass on your memories only your genetics. I think that the experience you have in life defines you as an individual. If both your experiences and genetics are identical, you are the same person.
By cloning I think he does not mean the biological cloning, just the process of creating exactly the same individual with exactly the same brain and thus memories and experiences. The teleporters in question are actually cloning (in this sense of the word) machines that just clone you in different location.
Well, I think that your identity is two parts: your experiences in life and your genetics. They must be identical to be considered the same person. If you clone yourself, your experiences instantly begin to diverge. You can't be in the exact same place at the same time. So you are now 2 people.
On the other hand, if your old body is destroyed, it's the same as if you teleported. You have the same body and the same experiences, you're just in a different place.
On April 15 2012 02:14 KevinIX wrote: It depends on how you look at it. Obviously, if you think you are your body, then going through a teleporter kills you. BUT, if you think of yourself as your mind, then going through a teleporter would only destroy your body. Your mind will be intact, just reconstructed in another body. I think I would be okay with going through a teleporter.
Sure I leave my old body behind, but I know my mind will be the same.
What makes you think your consciousness would move to a new body?
If you're cloned, will your consciousness be in two bodies at once? Since the answer is obviously no, then what makes you think your consciousness will still be around when you die and a duplicate is made somewhere else?
There's a difference between cloning and teleporting. I'm assuming that a teleporter would create an identical copy of you with all your experiences and genetics identical to your old body. Cloning doesn't pass on your memories only your genetics. I think that the experience you have in life defines you as an individual. If both your experiences and genetics are identical, you are the same person.
By cloning, I meant duplicating. Even if we make a copy of you with the same memories, experiences, and brain, your consciousness won't suddenly exist in two places.
Identical ≠ same. Two identical hard drives with identical data on them still aren't the same hard drive.
They are not physically the same, because they're constructed of different molecules. But for all practical purposes, they are the same. You could use either hard drive interchangeably and the output would be identical. If you put one hard drive in one side, and got the other hard drive out the other side, I would consider that teleportation.
I guess what it comes down to is, do you HAVE to be made of the exact same molecules to be considered identical. I argue: no.
On April 15 2012 02:26 phosphorylation wrote: Does anyone have a response to my post earlier in this thread? Genuinely curious:
"The question to be asked here is: how is this different from falling into a coma and gaining consciousness? Most people would want (and see no problem) in continuing on their lives after recovering from a coma.
In both cases, there is a distinct break in consciousness and you are, more or less, the same person afterwards. (Actually, even more so in the teleportation sitaution). The only distinction is that there's no break in the continuity of the existence of material matter in the coma situation. But is that important at all?
Difficult question indeed"
All the problems with such teleporters are linked to destruction of the original, to the end of "space-time" continuity of your body. So the answer is most likely that it is actually important. Seems gradual changes that keep the continuity are ok, quick ones are not.
People place too much importance on consciousness (even I used that word incorrectly in this thread I think), but person is not equal to his consciousness, far from it. All the rest of mental processes and even non-mental processes are part of that identity. In the coma your consciousness might not be active, but it is not destroyed and all the rest of you continues to exist.
Definitely not. A teleportation process would work by first measuring the position and structure of all your atoms. In doing so it would destroy you in a pretty dramatic fashion, essentially no different than blowing you up in a nuke blast. That's because quantum mechanics doesn't allow you to measure something to arbitrary precision without disturbing what you're measuring.
But then the information would be sent off to some degenerate lump of matter and used to reconstruct a copy of you. I don't believe you're anything but your atoms so it would be murder to me. Imagine the scenario where you skip the last step and its not hard to see why.
Wow, this is an interesting approach to the more fundamental question: "Who am I?".
It seems that most in this thread are so called rational people who don't seem to believe that the consciousness is nothing more than the sum of ones memories, experiences, senses and personality - and perhaps the ability to control the "body". If this is true, then "you" - does not really exist in the first place. The component listed above are constantly changing and thus the old "you" are destroyed and a new "you" are created - every hour - every second - every moment of "your" life - you do not exist. One could of course argue that "you" are constantly evolving as new memories, experiences, skills, feelings etc. are joined with past experiences. But that would be the same as saying that "you" in fact are something more than the sum of your experiences, memories, senses and personality.
Not sure if this made any sense at all . Things are much easier for those who believe that you are a soul.
I don't believe the parts that make me up aremore important than the result and if the result was that I would remember stepping in to a machine and then stepping out of the machine (with no horrible death in between, just ceasing to exist in one place) and I knew for certain that I would still be me on t he other end, I'd go along with it.
Hell, I might even ask if they could make some improvements on the other end.
I wouldn't have any ethical or philosophical qualms with it, but if the machine malfunctions, then you're just dead or worse yet, partially reconstructed lol.
On April 15 2012 02:14 KevinIX wrote: It depends on how you look at it. Obviously, if you think you are your body, then going through a teleporter kills you. BUT, if you think of yourself as your mind, then going through a teleporter would only destroy your body. Your mind will be intact, just reconstructed in another body. I think I would be okay with going through a teleporter.
Sure I leave my old body behind, but I know my mind will be the same.
What makes you think your consciousness would move to a new body?
If you're cloned, will your consciousness be in two bodies at once? Since the answer is obviously no, then what makes you think your consciousness will still be around when you die and a duplicate is made somewhere else?
There's a difference between cloning and teleporting. I'm assuming that a teleporter would create an identical copy of you with all your experiences and genetics identical to your old body. Cloning doesn't pass on your memories only your genetics. I think that the experience you have in life defines you as an individual. If both your experiences and genetics are identical, you are the same person.
By cloning I think he does not mean the biological cloning, just the process of creating exactly the same individual with exactly the same brain and thus memories and experiences. The teleporters in question are actually cloning (in this sense of the word) machines that just clone you in different location.
Well, I think that your identity is two parts: your experiences in life and your genetics. They must be identical to be considered the same person. If you clone yourself, your experiences instantly begin to diverge. You can't be in the exact same place at the same time. So you are now 2 people.
On the other hand, if your old body is destroyed, it's the same as if you teleported. You have the same body and the same experiences, you're just in a different place.
Now compare both those situations. 1) Person at point A is cloned at point B and both of them live 2) Person at point A is cloned at point B and during/after person at A is disintegrated
You are saying that there is some qualitative difference between those two situations, that physical laws in effect are behaving differently. Although both processes are the same in their important aspects in 1) you stayed where you were, in 2) you were teleported. That violates principle of parsimony. It is much more reasonable to assume that in both cases exactly the same thing happens. Person's duplicate is created at B. That is given as that is what the machine does. In 1) person at A stays at A. In 2) person at A dies. So unless you invoke some magical laws, in both cases duplicate is created at B and in 2) person at A is killed. Anything else is extremely violating principle of parsimony as it posits that at the destruction of person at A some magic happens that turns the duplicate at B into person at A.
On April 15 2012 02:14 KevinIX wrote: It depends on how you look at it. Obviously, if you think you are your body, then going through a teleporter kills you. BUT, if you think of yourself as your mind, then going through a teleporter would only destroy your body. Your mind will be intact, just reconstructed in another body. I think I would be okay with going through a teleporter.
Sure I leave my old body behind, but I know my mind will be the same.
What makes you think your consciousness would move to a new body?
If you're cloned, will your consciousness be in two bodies at once? Since the answer is obviously no, then what makes you think your consciousness will still be around when you die and a duplicate is made somewhere else?
There's a difference between cloning and teleporting. I'm assuming that a teleporter would create an identical copy of you with all your experiences and genetics identical to your old body. Cloning doesn't pass on your memories only your genetics. I think that the experience you have in life defines you as an individual. If both your experiences and genetics are identical, you are the same person.
By cloning, I meant duplicating. Even if we make a copy of you with the same memories, experiences, and brain, your consciousness won't suddenly exist in two places.
Identical ≠ same. Two identical hard drives with identical data on them still aren't the same hard drive.
They are not physically the same, because they're constructed of different molecules. But for all practical purposes, they are the same. You could use either hard drive interchangeably and the output would be identical. If you put one hard drive in one side, and got the other hard drive out the other side, I would consider that teleportation.
I guess what it comes down to is, do you HAVE to be made of the exact same molecules to be considered identical. I argue: no.
Exact same molecules are not the issue, even with them the original is still dead, because as he said identical <> same.
On April 15 2012 02:44 L3gendary wrote: Definitely not. A teleportation process would work by first measuring the position and structure of all your atoms. In doing so it would destroy you in a pretty dramatic fashion, essentially no different than blowing you up in a nuke blast. That's because quantum mechanics doesn't allow you to measure something to arbitrary precision without disturbing what you're measuring.
But then the information would be sent off to some degenerate lump of matter and used to reconstruct a copy of you. I don't believe you're anything but your atoms so it would be murder to me. Imagine the scenario where you skip the last step and its not hard to see why.
Well it is thought experiment so we do not necessarily have to assume that QM would be an obstacle. But you have a good point that thinking that such teleportation is not death is equal to thinking that there is a immaterial soul.
Okay, I heard an interesting development on this: Lets say you wake up in one of these machines, you have memories of yourself going to the facility where it is housed, and seeing two identical booth-style machines side by side, one on the left, and another on the right. However, you cannot remember anything beyond that.
You get out of the booth, which turns out to be the left one, and out of the opposite booth to the right comes an apparently identical copy of you. You get chatting, and you both have the same memories and personality down to every single detail, even not remembering if you went into the left or right booth.
Now, the question is, is there any way of determining which one of you is the 'real' (i.e. the one which is not a copy) you? (Assuming for simplicity's sake that there was no external evidence which might prove which booth 'the original' went into) If not, should you kill the other anyway, just because there shouldn't be another one of you?
On April 15 2012 02:45 Warent wrote: Wow, this is an interesting approach to the more fundamental question: "Who am I?".
It seems that most in this thread are so called rational people who don't seem to believe that the consciousness is nothing more than the sum of ones memories, experiences, senses and personality - and perhaps the ability to control the "body". If this is true, then "you" - does not really exist in the first place. The component listed above are constantly changing and thus the old "you" are destroyed and a new "you" are created - every hour - every second - every moment of "your" life - you do not exist. One could of course argue that "you" are constantly evolving as new memories, experiences, skills, feelings etc. are joined with past experiences. But that would be the same as saying that "you" in fact are something more than the sum of your experiences, memories, senses and personality.
Not sure if this made any sense at all . Things are much easier for those who believe that you are a soul.
Actually your last inference does not follow in my opinion. I think the concept of "me" is tightly linked to a my body gradually changening(evolving) in space-time. And any non-gradual changes are the end of "me".
I don't see a problem with this method even if the original is instantly destroyed, and the exact copy goes on to live at the destination (like in Prestige, except the original is instantly destroyed, doesn't die a terrible death). Even though you are the original, and not the copy, you don't get to experience death. You stop to exist and lose the ability to observe anything. If you don't exist anymore, you can't observe the fact that you don't exist.
Unrelated to teleportation, I think if you were guaranteed that your death will be instant (at unknown point in time in future), you could consider yourself immortal.
On April 15 2012 02:47 Iyerbeth wrote: I don't believe the parts that make me up aremore important than the result and if the result was that I would remember stepping in to a machine and then stepping out of the machine (with no horrible death in between, just ceasing to exist in one place) and I knew for certain that I would still be me on t he other end, I'd go along with it.
Hell, I might even ask if they could make some improvements on the other end.
Ok, now imagine, you step into the machine, information about you are copied and then you are brutally and painfully murdered. Then in another place 5 copies of you are created all of them remembering that they stepped into the machine and are now stepping out of it without anything bad happening. Still sure about that ?
On April 15 2012 02:58 Iskusstvo wrote: Okay, I heard an interesting development on this: Lets say you wake up in one of these machines, you have memories of yourself going to the facility where it is housed, and seeing two identical booth-style machines side by side, one on the left, and another on the right. However, you cannot remember anything beyond that.
You get out of the booth, which turns out to be the left one, and out of the opposite booth to the right comes an apparently identical copy of you. You get chatting, and you both have the same memories and personality down to every single detail, even not remembering if you went into the left or right booth.
Now, the question is, is there any way of determining which one of you is the 'real' (i.e. the one which is not a copy) you? (Assuming for simplicity's sake that there was no external evidence which might prove which booth 'the original' went into) If not, should you kill the other anyway, just because there shouldn't be another one of you?
That's an interesting question indeed, exactly like the one in the video someone linked on the previous page.
I think the answer will depend on who answers it. Each of the copies will insist on being the original (just human nature ). From the point of view of society (employer, wife, etc) it won't make a difference. So, the answer will depend on convenience. In case of teleportation, it is more convenient that the copy is considered the original (and original destroyed). In case you describe, it will be difficult to determine and a huge moral panic and a shitstorm would occur.
On April 15 2012 02:58 Iskusstvo wrote: Okay, I heard an interesting development on this: Lets say you wake up in one of these machines, you have memories of yourself going to the facility where it is housed, and seeing two identical booth-style machines side by side, one on the left, and another on the right. However, you cannot remember anything beyond that.
You get out of the booth, which turns out to be the left one, and out of the opposite booth to the right comes an apparently identical copy of you. You get chatting, and you both have the same memories and personality down to every single detail, even not remembering if you went into the left or right booth.
Now, the question is, is there any way of determining which one of you is the 'real' (i.e. the one which is not a copy) you? (Assuming for simplicity's sake that there was no external evidence which might prove which booth 'the original' went into) If not, should you kill the other anyway, just because there shouldn't be another one of you?
Unlike the original problem this is easy. If there was no logging by the operators there is no way to determine which one is you. That follows from the definition of how the machine works I would say. And killing the other "you" would be a murder, so no you should not do it.
On April 15 2012 01:56 GreEny K wrote: I wouldn't share the thoughts of the other me, our minds would not be connected. I would have to say no... From my point of view, getting into that machine is the end for me.
But the copy is a perfect copy. An instant before you teleport, your memories and thoughts would be copied over. So while it isn't the same consciousness, it IS an exact copy of it, so it may as well be the same one.
I would do it for sure.
And you would cease to exist with someone else exactly like you living instead of you. Basically your proposition is that if two bodies are the same they are the same person, that is patently absurd, as such technology would allow to create multiple exactly the same bodies.
That wasn't specified by the OP. The OP doesn't say that the tech can create multiple bodies. Think of it like the process of copying destroys the original, and only one copy can be made at a time.
If your memories are identical, and the body is identical, what else is there? What distinguishes the copy from the original? Nothing.
On April 15 2012 02:47 Iyerbeth wrote: I don't believe the parts that make me up aremore important than the result and if the result was that I would remember stepping in to a machine and then stepping out of the machine (with no horrible death in between, just ceasing to exist in one place) and I knew for certain that I would still be me on t he other end, I'd go along with it.
Hell, I might even ask if they could make some improvements on the other end.
Ok, now imagine, you step into the machine, information about you are copied and then you are brutally and painfully murdered. Then in another place 5 copies of you are created all of them remembering that they stepped into the machine and are now stepping out of it without anything bad happening. Still sure about that ?
Brutally and painfully murdered would probably change my mind on it, even with the new version of me not remembering it. As to there being 5 of me, I'm not sure that would really bother me though I do prefer just the one. So long as the concept I recognise as "me" is still around that's really all I care about in that regard. I might change my mind after giving it more thought but so long as the other me's were free to do what they wanted and weren't slaves or something I can't see it changing my mind.
I guess what I'm trying to say is I don't feel I have to be absolutely unique to be happy and myself (and I don't believe in anything like a soul to worry about).
I don't understand one thing, why are people assuming that they will "step out" of the other machine, or "keep being alive", it's not how this works (to my understanding).
The machine analyzes every atom/molecule/etc, and sends the INFORMATION to another place, which then reconstructs your being based on the information it received. It does not send the actual molecules and then puts them back together, right?
In which case, it would be like destroying a hard drive, reading the information straight from the disks, and sending that information to be written on another hard drive. Sure, it's the same information, but the original hard drive is gone. So yes, the other person would be like you, in every matter, but it will be a new-born version of you, with all the life experience you had and whatnot. The YOU that entered the machine is gone.
If, on the other hand, you assume that it transports the actual molecules to the other place, then it didn't kill you, just... took you apart for a little while. The end result is the same, in both cases, but in the first case, something is lost in the process, and that something is the "you" you used to be.
On April 15 2012 02:58 Iskusstvo wrote: Okay, I heard an interesting development on this: Lets say you wake up in one of these machines, you have memories of yourself going to the facility where it is housed, and seeing two identical booth-style machines side by side, one on the left, and another on the right. However, you cannot remember anything beyond that.
You get out of the booth, which turns out to be the left one, and out of the opposite booth to the right comes an apparently identical copy of you. You get chatting, and you both have the same memories and personality down to every single detail, even not remembering if you went into the left or right booth.
Now, the question is, is there any way of determining which one of you is the 'real' (i.e. the one which is not a copy) you? (Assuming for simplicity's sake that there was no external evidence which might prove which booth 'the original' went into) If not, should you kill the other anyway, just because there shouldn't be another one of you?
Unlike the original problem this is easy. If there was no logging by the operators there is no way to determine which one is you. That follows from the definition of how the machine works I would say. And killing the other "you" would be a murder, so no you should not do it.
Its funny I always have trouble playing single player games by myself (I need someone watching or Ill watch someone else, someone to talk to basically) so having another me solves that problem. lol If this happens though, do we think the same since we are the same in every way O.O?
On April 15 2012 01:56 GreEny K wrote: I wouldn't share the thoughts of the other me, our minds would not be connected. I would have to say no... From my point of view, getting into that machine is the end for me.
But the copy is a perfect copy. An instant before you teleport, your memories and thoughts would be copied over. So while it isn't the same consciousness, it IS an exact copy of it, so it may as well be the same one.
I would do it for sure.
And you would cease to exist with someone else exactly like you living instead of you. Basically your proposition is that if two bodies are the same they are the same person, that is patently absurd, as such technology would allow to create multiple exactly the same bodies.
That wasn't specified by the OP. The OP doesn't say that the tech can create multiple bodies. Think of it like the process of copying destroys the original, and only one copy can be made at a time.
If your memories are identical, and the body is identical, what else is there? What distinguishes the copy from the original? Nothing.
I agree, if you think about it, its even a less of a change then getting some kind of organ transplant. I see it as transferring memory from one harddrive to the other with it being the same exact harddrive.
Interesting OP, unfortunately i don't take time to think out things like paradoxes because they usually make me frustrated and give me a headache, kinda like math... -__-
No, I wouldn't do it. No matter how you look at it, you would be dead and the new copy of yourself wouldn't be 'you', even if it would be completely indistinguishable to other people and it would THINK it was you.
I think the more interesting question is just how much of 'you' would need to be transported manually in order for an artificial body to remain the same consciousness.
Just your brain? Just a part of your brain?
It sort of follows the old thought experiment about becoming a cyborg: You slowly replace all of your body with machinery, at what point do you cease to be you? Do you even cease to be you at 100% mechanical/0% organic?
On April 15 2012 02:58 Iskusstvo wrote: Okay, I heard an interesting development on this: Lets say you wake up in one of these machines, you have memories of yourself going to the facility where it is housed, and seeing two identical booth-style machines side by side, one on the left, and another on the right. However, you cannot remember anything beyond that.
You get out of the booth, which turns out to be the left one, and out of the opposite booth to the right comes an apparently identical copy of you. You get chatting, and you both have the same memories and personality down to every single detail, even not remembering if you went into the left or right booth.
Now, the question is, is there any way of determining which one of you is the 'real' (i.e. the one which is not a copy) you? (Assuming for simplicity's sake that there was no external evidence which might prove which booth 'the original' went into) If not, should you kill the other anyway, just because there shouldn't be another one of you?
Unlike the original problem this is easy. If there was no logging by the operators there is no way to determine which one is you. That follows from the definition of how the machine works I would say. And killing the other "you" would be a murder, so no you should not do it.
Its funny I always have trouble playing single player games by myself (I need someone watching or Ill watch someone else, someone to talk to basically) so having another me solves that problem. lol If this happens though, do we think the same since we are the same in every way O.O?
On April 15 2012 01:56 GreEny K wrote: I wouldn't share the thoughts of the other me, our minds would not be connected. I would have to say no... From my point of view, getting into that machine is the end for me.
But the copy is a perfect copy. An instant before you teleport, your memories and thoughts would be copied over. So while it isn't the same consciousness, it IS an exact copy of it, so it may as well be the same one.
I would do it for sure.
And you would cease to exist with someone else exactly like you living instead of you. Basically your proposition is that if two bodies are the same they are the same person, that is patently absurd, as such technology would allow to create multiple exactly the same bodies.
That wasn't specified by the OP. The OP doesn't say that the tech can create multiple bodies. Think of it like the process of copying destroys the original, and only one copy can be made at a time.
If your memories are identical, and the body is identical, what else is there? What distinguishes the copy from the original? Nothing.
I agree, if you think about it, its even a less of a change then getting some kind of organ transplant. I see it as transferring memory from one harddrive to the other with it being the same exact harddrive.
Its even closer than that. It might not be the same exact hard drive, but its the same model of hard drive. and RAM too, since you would remember short-term things as well, hopefully.
I don't think some people understand what this means. Are you seriously saying that you would kill yourself just so an exact copy of yourself (that's not you) could be made in another place?
On April 15 2012 03:38 Maitolasi wrote: I don't think some people understand what this means. Are you seriously saying that you would kill yourself just so an exact copy of yourself (that's not you) could be made in another place?
If its an exact copy, memories and all, then it IS me.
On April 15 2012 03:38 Maitolasi wrote: I don't think some people understand what this means. Are you seriously saying that you would kill yourself just so an exact copy of yourself (that's not you) could be made in another place?
If its an exact copy, memories and all, then it IS me.
To everyone else it is exactly you. But YOU would be dead.
I never actually thought about teleportation this way.... So if the machine fucked up and didnt kill me the other me would have seperate thoughts and feelings to me from that moment? Nah I will steer clear of it
On April 15 2012 01:56 GreEny K wrote: I wouldn't share the thoughts of the other me, our minds would not be connected. I would have to say no... From my point of view, getting into that machine is the end for me.
But the copy is a perfect copy. An instant before you teleport, your memories and thoughts would be copied over. So while it isn't the same consciousness, it IS an exact copy of it, so it may as well be the same one.
I would do it for sure.
And you would cease to exist with someone else exactly like you living instead of you. Basically your proposition is that if two bodies are the same they are the same person, that is patently absurd, as such technology would allow to create multiple exactly the same bodies.
That wasn't specified by the OP. The OP doesn't say that the tech can create multiple bodies. Think of it like the process of copying destroys the original, and only one copy can be made at a time.
If your memories are identical, and the body is identical, what else is there? What distinguishes the copy from the original? Nothing.
It is possible that copying might require the destruction of the original. But nothing in the laws of physics prevents creation of multiple copies. Especially not in any of the mentioned sci-fi universes.
So you are actually trying to contend that if there are 5 bodies with the same memories and bodies there is nothing to distinguish them ? Because you are actually saying that. What about physical continuity, that is what distinguishes them. That distinguishes the original and the copy in the standard teleport scenario, that is what distinguishes original and the copy in the scenario with the original surviving, that is what distinguishes original and copies in the scenario with multiple copies. Nice simple (not that simple as you can start making even crazier scenarios) distinction that unlike the alternatives does not violate logical principles.
The everyday continuity of consciousness is an illusion. You are not the same person every time you wake up. You are not the same person every time you blink. Teleportation in this manner is really no different from what happens any time you go to sleep or even just walk around. You are not one continuous person in the manner most conceive of themselves, just a succession of different states of consciousness in time. People saying a copy of you wouldn't really be "you" are operating off some unsubstantiated, illusory definition of self.
On April 15 2012 02:47 Iyerbeth wrote: I don't believe the parts that make me up aremore important than the result and if the result was that I would remember stepping in to a machine and then stepping out of the machine (with no horrible death in between, just ceasing to exist in one place) and I knew for certain that I would still be me on t he other end, I'd go along with it.
Hell, I might even ask if they could make some improvements on the other end.
Ok, now imagine, you step into the machine, information about you are copied and then you are brutally and painfully murdered. Then in another place 5 copies of you are created all of them remembering that they stepped into the machine and are now stepping out of it without anything bad happening. Still sure about that ?
Brutally and painfully murdered would probably change my mind on it, even with the new version of me not remembering it. As to there being 5 of me, I'm not sure that would really bother me though I do prefer just the one. So long as the concept I recognise as "me" is still around that's really all I care about in that regard. I might change my mind after giving it more thought but so long as the other me's were free to do what they wanted and weren't slaves or something I can't see it changing my mind.
I guess what I'm trying to say is I don't feel I have to be absolutely unique to be happy and myself (and I don't believe in anything like a soul to worry about).
You are missing the point of the other 5 in my scenario. It is not about problems with uniqueness. It is that all of them will have the same concept of "me". All of them would think they are the original "me". But the original me would be dead, brutally and painfully. To make it clearer. You go into the machine, your 5 (or even just one) copies are created in the destination, and then you are brutally murdered. If you are in the destination, who was brutally murdered as they both existed in paralel for a time.
On April 15 2012 03:38 Maitolasi wrote: I don't think some people understand what this means. Are you seriously saying that you would kill yourself just so an exact copy of yourself (that's not you) could be made in another place?
If its an exact copy, memories and all, then it IS me.
No it wouldn't be YOU. You would be dead. What now exists is a perfect copy of you but it isn't you.
I raised this question with my ex-girlfriend ages ago and we briefly debated about it. Except we were talking about immortality via cloning like in the movie The 6th Day. The problem is even raised in the movie when the scientists wife tells her husband that she isn't her. (After she died and was cloned/copied)
I just don't get how anyone could agree to that. Your perception ceases to exist. You are gone; dead. Your copy has it's own perception.
On April 15 2012 03:14 CubEdIn wrote: I don't understand one thing, why are people assuming that they will "step out" of the other machine, or "keep being alive", it's not how this works (to my understanding).
The machine analyzes every atom/molecule/etc, and sends the INFORMATION to another place, which then reconstructs your being based on the information it received. It does not send the actual molecules and then puts them back together, right?
In which case, it would be like destroying a hard drive, reading the information straight from the disks, and sending that information to be written on another hard drive. Sure, it's the same information, but the original hard drive is gone. So yes, the other person would be like you, in every matter, but it will be a new-born version of you, with all the life experience you had and whatnot. The YOU that entered the machine is gone.
If, on the other hand, you assume that it transports the actual molecules to the other place, then it didn't kill you, just... took you apart for a little while. The end result is the same, in both cases, but in the first case, something is lost in the process, and that something is the "you" you used to be.
I think it is the same problem in both cases. Even if they send the particles with you, all the particles of the same type are interchangable. If they were not, every time you eat and your body repairs something you would cease to exist and new you would start to exist. It is possible to look at it like that, but I think the normal concept of "me" would not fit into that approach.
On April 15 2012 03:38 Maitolasi wrote: I don't think some people understand what this means. Are you seriously saying that you would kill yourself just so an exact copy of yourself (that's not you) could be made in another place?
If its an exact copy, memories and all, then it IS me.
To everyone else it is exactly you. But YOU would be dead.
No, only my original physical form is dead. My consciousness lives on. Even if the teleportation takes time, so there is a break in that consciousness, it doesn't make a difference. When you go to sleep, there is a break in your consciousness, but you don't think you suddenly have a new consciousness every time you wake up.
On April 15 2012 01:56 GreEny K wrote: I wouldn't share the thoughts of the other me, our minds would not be connected. I would have to say no... From my point of view, getting into that machine is the end for me.
But the copy is a perfect copy. An instant before you teleport, your memories and thoughts would be copied over. So while it isn't the same consciousness, it IS an exact copy of it, so it may as well be the same one.
I would do it for sure.
And you would cease to exist with someone else exactly like you living instead of you. Basically your proposition is that if two bodies are the same they are the same person, that is patently absurd, as such technology would allow to create multiple exactly the same bodies.
That wasn't specified by the OP. The OP doesn't say that the tech can create multiple bodies. Think of it like the process of copying destroys the original, and only one copy can be made at a time.
If your memories are identical, and the body is identical, what else is there? What distinguishes the copy from the original? Nothing.
It is possible that copying might require the destruction of the original. But nothing in the laws of physics prevents creation of multiple copies. Especially not in any of the mentioned sci-fi universes.
So you are actually trying to contend that if there are 5 bodies with the same memories and bodies there is nothing to distinguish them ? Because you are actually saying that. What about physical continuity, that is what distinguishes them. That distinguishes the original and the copy in the standard teleport scenario, that is what distinguishes original and the copy in the scenario with the original surviving, that is what distinguishes original and copies in the scenario with multiple copies. Nice simple (not that simple as you can start making even crazier scenarios) distinction that unlike the alternatives does not violate logical principles.
No, I'm contending that that wasn't specified by the OP. Since the whole thing is hypothetical anyways, we can't really diverge from what is defined by the question, or we could say absolutely anything at all could happen. Unless we stick with what is defined in the OP, we could make up any rules we wanted for this kind of teleportation.
Little off-topic: Firefox's spellcheck doesn't recognize teleportation or even teleport
On April 15 2012 03:38 Maitolasi wrote: I don't think some people understand what this means. Are you seriously saying that you would kill yourself just so an exact copy of yourself (that's not you) could be made in another place?
If its an exact copy, memories and all, then it IS me.
No it wouldn't be YOU. You would be dead. What now exists is a perfect copy of you but it isn't you.
I raised this question with my ex-girlfriend ages ago and we briefly debated about it. Except we were talking about immortality via cloning like in the movie The 6th Day. The problem is even raised in the movie when the scientists wife tells her husband that she isn't her. (After she died and was cloned/copied)
I just don't get how anyone could agree to that. Your perception ceases to exist. You are gone; dead. Your copy has it's own perception.
There's nothing meaningfully different between a killed and copied self and the typical concept of the self. The perception of your past self is just as dead, and the tie between physical makeup is just as strong. Particles aren't actually identifiable little corpuscles, it means nothing to say "I'm made up of matter that's the exact same, but it isn't the same matter." There's nothing that defines "you" other than your physical makeup, and an ideal physical copy preserves this physical makeup just as well as it's preserved in regular daily life. It would really be something special if you could point to what actually changes in the die + copy case that stays the same in a typical day.
On April 15 2012 02:58 Iskusstvo wrote: Okay, I heard an interesting development on this: Lets say you wake up in one of these machines, you have memories of yourself going to the facility where it is housed, and seeing two identical booth-style machines side by side, one on the left, and another on the right. However, you cannot remember anything beyond that.
You get out of the booth, which turns out to be the left one, and out of the opposite booth to the right comes an apparently identical copy of you. You get chatting, and you both have the same memories and personality down to every single detail, even not remembering if you went into the left or right booth.
Now, the question is, is there any way of determining which one of you is the 'real' (i.e. the one which is not a copy) you? (Assuming for simplicity's sake that there was no external evidence which might prove which booth 'the original' went into) If not, should you kill the other anyway, just because there shouldn't be another one of you?
Unlike the original problem this is easy. If there was no logging by the operators there is no way to determine which one is you. That follows from the definition of how the machine works I would say. And killing the other "you" would be a murder, so no you should not do it.
Its funny I always have trouble playing single player games by myself (I need someone watching or Ill watch someone else, someone to talk to basically) so having another me solves that problem. lol If this happens though, do we think the same since we are the same in every way O.O?
You would thin the same in the beginning, but since the point 0, you would start having different experiences due to being in different places and thus would gradually start thinking differently. That reinforces the idea that gradual continuity is what defines "me". And teleporters in question violate that. On the other hand teleporter that works on the principle of creating a wormhole that can transport you as a whole (unlike Stargate where you are still deconstructed), would be perfectly fine in this regard and would have no issues with multiple copies as there is no possibility of such.
On April 15 2012 01:56 GreEny K wrote: I wouldn't share the thoughts of the other me, our minds would not be connected. I would have to say no... From my point of view, getting into that machine is the end for me.
But the copy is a perfect copy. An instant before you teleport, your memories and thoughts would be copied over. So while it isn't the same consciousness, it IS an exact copy of it, so it may as well be the same one.
I would do it for sure.
And you would cease to exist with someone else exactly like you living instead of you. Basically your proposition is that if two bodies are the same they are the same person, that is patently absurd, as such technology would allow to create multiple exactly the same bodies.
That wasn't specified by the OP. The OP doesn't say that the tech can create multiple bodies. Think of it like the process of copying destroys the original, and only one copy can be made at a time.
If your memories are identical, and the body is identical, what else is there? What distinguishes the copy from the original? Nothing.
I agree, if you think about it, its even a less of a change then getting some kind of organ transplant. I see it as transferring memory from one harddrive to the other with it being the same exact harddrive.
Actually it is very different from transferring memory between harddrives. I think that for example some process of transfering consciousness to a computer might be possible without killing you, because it does not necessarily break the continuity of your existence if it is done gradually. This teleport on the other hand will kill you and create a copy, no continuity.
On April 15 2012 03:38 Maitolasi wrote: I don't think some people understand what this means. Are you seriously saying that you would kill yourself just so an exact copy of yourself (that's not you) could be made in another place?
If its an exact copy, memories and all, then it IS me.
To everyone else it is exactly you. But YOU would be dead.
No, only my original physical form is dead. My consciousness lives on. Even if the teleportation takes time, so there is a break in that consciousness, it doesn't make a difference. When you go to sleep, there is a break in your consciousness, but you don't think you suddenly have a new consciousness every time you wake up.
On April 15 2012 01:56 GreEny K wrote: I wouldn't share the thoughts of the other me, our minds would not be connected. I would have to say no... From my point of view, getting into that machine is the end for me.
But the copy is a perfect copy. An instant before you teleport, your memories and thoughts would be copied over. So while it isn't the same consciousness, it IS an exact copy of it, so it may as well be the same one.
I would do it for sure.
And you would cease to exist with someone else exactly like you living instead of you. Basically your proposition is that if two bodies are the same they are the same person, that is patently absurd, as such technology would allow to create multiple exactly the same bodies.
That wasn't specified by the OP. The OP doesn't say that the tech can create multiple bodies. Think of it like the process of copying destroys the original, and only one copy can be made at a time.
If your memories are identical, and the body is identical, what else is there? What distinguishes the copy from the original? Nothing.
It is possible that copying might require the destruction of the original. But nothing in the laws of physics prevents creation of multiple copies. Especially not in any of the mentioned sci-fi universes.
So you are actually trying to contend that if there are 5 bodies with the same memories and bodies there is nothing to distinguish them ? Because you are actually saying that. What about physical continuity, that is what distinguishes them. That distinguishes the original and the copy in the standard teleport scenario, that is what distinguishes original and the copy in the scenario with the original surviving, that is what distinguishes original and copies in the scenario with multiple copies. Nice simple (not that simple as you can start making even crazier scenarios) distinction that unlike the alternatives does not violate logical principles.
No, I'm contending that that wasn't specified by the OP. Since the whole thing is hypothetical anyways, we can't really diverge from what is defined by the question, or we could say absolutely anything at all could happen. Unless we stick with what is defined in the OP, we could make up any rules we wanted for this kind of teleportation.
Little off-topic: Firefox's spellcheck doesn't recognize teleportation or even teleport
Well I'm still concious on some level because I'm dreaming while I'm asleep. Also the atoms in my body are the same when I wake up as they were when I went to sleep (more or less). I still can't understand how people think that if an exact copy of them were to appear in front of them that they would suddenly be incontrol of the other body.
On April 15 2012 03:53 sickoota wrote: The everyday continuity of consciousness is an illusion. You are not the same person every time you wake up. You are not the same person every time you blink. Teleportation in this manner is really no different from what happens any time you go to sleep or even just walk around. You are not one continuous person in the manner most conceive of themselves, just a succession of different states of consciousness in time. People saying a copy of you wouldn't really be "you" are operating off some unsubstantiated, illusory definition of self.
No they are operating based on the normal definition of self. Continuity of yourself is not illusion, between two points in time there is only very limited change to "you". So it easily satisfies requirements for continuity. Continuity does not mean you never change, Continuity means exactly : succession of different (but similar enough) states of consciousness in time. So you basically said that continuity is illusion, because continuity is a fact. Nice contradiction
Everyone who is arguing that the copy wouldn't be "you" can only be construed as arguing from an abrahamic/Cartesian conception of "soul" or something similar. Thats the only way I can think of to make their arguments coherent - some non-material source of "self" that the machine would be unable to replicate. What if someone was dosed with surgical grade anesthetic, transported, and then awoken - how would that differ in any meaningful way from the hypothetical transportation machine? Remember that our bodies are constantly remaking its cells, replacing your "self" every few years - but even if it didn't I fail to see how these particular atoms somehow contain the basis for your continuous selfhood whereas some identical atoms of the same elements configured identically would lose this same selfhood...
I do get what people are trying to say, and I do understand that the copy made will have EVERYTHING that the original has, and to itself, and to everyone around it, it will BE the original.
But from the original's point of view, it is something new, and the original is gone. You are only dead from the perspective of the former self. I will make a parallel to the movie "Impostor" ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0160399/ ), where the main character is being chased by the government who believes that he is a cybernetic-like clone who was given the same memories as the original (basically, an almost identical being but with a bomb instead of a heart), and all throughout the movie, the viewer and the character itself struggles to find out if that is, indeed true.
So, if I had the memories, thoughts, etc. of the former me, I would inevitably think and act the same. But the former me would, in fact, be dead. Would it matter? To the actual me, no. To the former me, maybe. If you look at it this way, it's all about "what really happens after you die". But it would not really translate into simply "teleporting" since it is clearly indicated that the original would stop existing, would be destroyed. So something IS lost in the process. No matter how you twist it. We are merely discussing about how that loss can/will be perceived, imho.
Also, if you have not watched that movie, it's quite well made. Give it a shot.
On April 15 2012 03:53 sickoota wrote: The everyday continuity of consciousness is an illusion. You are not the same person every time you wake up. You are not the same person every time you blink. Teleportation in this manner is really no different from what happens any time you go to sleep or even just walk around. You are not one continuous person in the manner most conceive of themselves, just a succession of different states of consciousness in time. People saying a copy of you wouldn't really be "you" are operating off some unsubstantiated, illusory definition of self.
No they are operating based on the normal definition of self. Continuity of yourself is not illusion, between two points in time there is only very limited change to "you". So it easily satisfies requirements for continuity. Continuity does not mean you never change, Continuity means exactly : succession of different (but similar enough) states of consciousness in time. So you basically said that continuity is illusion, because continuity is a fact. Nice contradiction
What exactly are you trying to argue? If you accept my definition of continuity then obviously the machine would satisfy those requirements (succession of similar states of consciousness). My opponents seem to be asserting that there is some other sort of continuity which this machine would violate. Are you agreeing with me or arguing with me? Or just quibbling
On April 15 2012 03:38 Maitolasi wrote: I don't think some people understand what this means. Are you seriously saying that you would kill yourself just so an exact copy of yourself (that's not you) could be made in another place?
If its an exact copy, memories and all, then it IS me.
To everyone else it is exactly you. But YOU would be dead.
No, only my original physical form is dead. My consciousness lives on. Even if the teleportation takes time, so there is a break in that consciousness, it doesn't make a difference. When you go to sleep, there is a break in your consciousness, but you don't think you suddenly have a new consciousness every time you wake up.
On April 15 2012 01:56 GreEny K wrote: I wouldn't share the thoughts of the other me, our minds would not be connected. I would have to say no... From my point of view, getting into that machine is the end for me.
But the copy is a perfect copy. An instant before you teleport, your memories and thoughts would be copied over. So while it isn't the same consciousness, it IS an exact copy of it, so it may as well be the same one.
I would do it for sure.
And you would cease to exist with someone else exactly like you living instead of you. Basically your proposition is that if two bodies are the same they are the same person, that is patently absurd, as such technology would allow to create multiple exactly the same bodies.
That wasn't specified by the OP. The OP doesn't say that the tech can create multiple bodies. Think of it like the process of copying destroys the original, and only one copy can be made at a time.
If your memories are identical, and the body is identical, what else is there? What distinguishes the copy from the original? Nothing.
It is possible that copying might require the destruction of the original. But nothing in the laws of physics prevents creation of multiple copies. Especially not in any of the mentioned sci-fi universes.
So you are actually trying to contend that if there are 5 bodies with the same memories and bodies there is nothing to distinguish them ? Because you are actually saying that. What about physical continuity, that is what distinguishes them. That distinguishes the original and the copy in the standard teleport scenario, that is what distinguishes original and the copy in the scenario with the original surviving, that is what distinguishes original and copies in the scenario with multiple copies. Nice simple (not that simple as you can start making even crazier scenarios) distinction that unlike the alternatives does not violate logical principles.
No, I'm contending that that wasn't specified by the OP. Since the whole thing is hypothetical anyways, we can't really diverge from what is defined by the question, or we could say absolutely anything at all could happen. Unless we stick with what is defined in the OP, we could make up any rules we wanted for this kind of teleportation.
Little off-topic: Firefox's spellcheck doesn't recognize teleportation or even teleport
One question, do you believe in some immaterial soul ? Because if you do not, consciousness is linked to the body. So the teleporter does not transfer your consciousness, it creates a copy of it. Nothing of the original exists anymore.
OP's teleporter allows multiple copies, he specifically mentions sci-fi teleporters, basically all of them allow that. Not that it is necessary to make the argument that you are in fact dead.
On April 15 2012 03:38 Maitolasi wrote: I don't think some people understand what this means. Are you seriously saying that you would kill yourself just so an exact copy of yourself (that's not you) could be made in another place?
If its an exact copy, memories and all, then it IS me.
No it wouldn't be YOU. You would be dead. What now exists is a perfect copy of you but it isn't you.
I raised this question with my ex-girlfriend ages ago and we briefly debated about it. Except we were talking about immortality via cloning like in the movie The 6th Day. The problem is even raised in the movie when the scientists wife tells her husband that she isn't her. (After she died and was cloned/copied)
I just don't get how anyone could agree to that. Your perception ceases to exist. You are gone; dead. Your copy has it's own perception.
There's nothing meaningfully different between a killed and copied self and the typical concept of the self. The perception of your past self is just as dead, and the tie between physical makeup is just as strong. Particles aren't actually identifiable little corpuscles, it means nothing to say "I'm made up of matter that's the exact same, but it isn't the same matter." There's nothing that defines "you" other than your physical makeup, and an ideal physical copy preserves this physical makeup just as well as it's preserved in regular daily life. It would really be something special if you could point to what actually changes in the die + copy case that stays the same in a typical day.
On April 15 2012 03:38 Maitolasi wrote: I don't think some people understand what this means. Are you seriously saying that you would kill yourself just so an exact copy of yourself (that's not you) could be made in another place?
If its an exact copy, memories and all, then it IS me.
To everyone else it is exactly you. But YOU would be dead.
No, only my original physical form is dead. My consciousness lives on. Even if the teleportation takes time, so there is a break in that consciousness, it doesn't make a difference. When you go to sleep, there is a break in your consciousness, but you don't think you suddenly have a new consciousness every time you wake up.
On April 15 2012 03:52 mcc wrote:
On April 15 2012 03:12 Millitron wrote:
On April 15 2012 02:33 mcc wrote:
On April 15 2012 02:26 Millitron wrote:
On April 15 2012 01:56 GreEny K wrote: I wouldn't share the thoughts of the other me, our minds would not be connected. I would have to say no... From my point of view, getting into that machine is the end for me.
But the copy is a perfect copy. An instant before you teleport, your memories and thoughts would be copied over. So while it isn't the same consciousness, it IS an exact copy of it, so it may as well be the same one.
I would do it for sure.
And you would cease to exist with someone else exactly like you living instead of you. Basically your proposition is that if two bodies are the same they are the same person, that is patently absurd, as such technology would allow to create multiple exactly the same bodies.
That wasn't specified by the OP. The OP doesn't say that the tech can create multiple bodies. Think of it like the process of copying destroys the original, and only one copy can be made at a time.
If your memories are identical, and the body is identical, what else is there? What distinguishes the copy from the original? Nothing.
It is possible that copying might require the destruction of the original. But nothing in the laws of physics prevents creation of multiple copies. Especially not in any of the mentioned sci-fi universes.
So you are actually trying to contend that if there are 5 bodies with the same memories and bodies there is nothing to distinguish them ? Because you are actually saying that. What about physical continuity, that is what distinguishes them. That distinguishes the original and the copy in the standard teleport scenario, that is what distinguishes original and the copy in the scenario with the original surviving, that is what distinguishes original and copies in the scenario with multiple copies. Nice simple (not that simple as you can start making even crazier scenarios) distinction that unlike the alternatives does not violate logical principles.
No, I'm contending that that wasn't specified by the OP. Since the whole thing is hypothetical anyways, we can't really diverge from what is defined by the question, or we could say absolutely anything at all could happen. Unless we stick with what is defined in the OP, we could make up any rules we wanted for this kind of teleportation.
Little off-topic: Firefox's spellcheck doesn't recognize teleportation or even teleport
One question, do you believe in some immaterial soul ? Because if you do not, consciousness is linked to the body. So the teleporter does not transfer your consciousness, it creates a copy of it. Nothing of the original exists anymore.
OP's teleporter allows multiple copies, he specifically mentions sci-fi teleporters, basically all of them allow that. Not that it is necessary to make the argument that you are in fact dead.
Edit: To rejoin in:
But being dead isn't a problem to me if I'm also (so far as I'm aware) instantly recreated without having been dead. I don't fear dying as a concept so dying even on a daily basis if I were able to still just continue wouldn't be an issue. I can't see any way that my mind wouldn't still continue on in the example, and that's the only bit of me that I really need to keep identical, and so long as it would be I don't see the problem.
If infinite parallel universes were to exist, there would also then exist an identical copy of me and I'm quite fine with that too.
On April 15 2012 04:18 sickoota wrote: Everyone who is arguing that the copy wouldn't be "you" can only be construed as arguing from an abrahamic/Cartesian conception of "soul" or something similar. Thats the only way I can think of to make their arguments coherent - some non-material source of "self" that the machine would be unable to replicate. What if someone was dosed with surgical grade anesthetic, transported, and then awoken - how would that differ in any meaningful way from the hypothetical transportation machine? Remember that our bodies are constantly remaking its cells, replacing your "self" every few years - but even if it didn't I fail to see how these particular atoms somehow contain the basis for your continuous selfhood whereas some identical atoms of the same elements configured identically would lose this same selfhood...
I'm arguing that the teleported self wouldn't be you and it's not from any religious standpoint. My argument is that in the process YOU are destroyed and will cease to exist and die. Then an exact clone of yourself will be created at the end portal. The consciousness that will be controlling the body at the end portal will be completely identical to the one that was destroyed during transportation but it will not make it any different from dying in a natural way. Just because someone made a clone of you doesn't mean that you are that clone.
On April 15 2012 03:53 sickoota wrote: The everyday continuity of consciousness is an illusion. You are not the same person every time you wake up. You are not the same person every time you blink. Teleportation in this manner is really no different from what happens any time you go to sleep or even just walk around. You are not one continuous person in the manner most conceive of themselves, just a succession of different states of consciousness in time. People saying a copy of you wouldn't really be "you" are operating off some unsubstantiated, illusory definition of self.
No they are operating based on the normal definition of self. Continuity of yourself is not illusion, between two points in time there is only very limited change to "you". So it easily satisfies requirements for continuity. Continuity does not mean you never change, Continuity means exactly : succession of different (but similar enough) states of consciousness in time. So you basically said that continuity is illusion, because continuity is a fact. Nice contradiction
What exactly are you trying to argue? If you accept my definition of continuity then obviously the machine would satisfy those requirements (succession of similar states of consciousness). My opponents seem to be asserting that there is some other sort of continuity which this machine would violate. Are you agreeing with me or arguing with me? Or just quibbling
I am arguing with you as the machine violates the physical continuity in the most fundamental fashion. It actually completely destroys your body. There is no continuity when you use the machine. Your body completely ceases to exists and copy is created elsewhere. And to react to your other post about soul. Your conclusions are strange. It is actually the other way around the only way to say that the copy is you is if there is a immaterial soul. Because then there can be some continuity between the old body and new body. Immaterial soul would be the only thing that would make the teleport possibly not kill you. If you do not believe in the soul, then teleport of such kind is creating duplicates that are not you as there is no continuity between the old and the new. And how do you even explain multiple copies or the original not dying in your approach. The physical continuity approach easily deals with all those problems. So would the soul approach, but since souls do not exist it has slight problem But your approach does not deal with them in any logical way.
On April 15 2012 03:38 Maitolasi wrote: I don't think some people understand what this means. Are you seriously saying that you would kill yourself just so an exact copy of yourself (that's not you) could be made in another place?
If its an exact copy, memories and all, then it IS me.
To everyone else it is exactly you. But YOU would be dead.
No, only my original physical form is dead. My consciousness lives on. Even if the teleportation takes time, so there is a break in that consciousness, it doesn't make a difference. When you go to sleep, there is a break in your consciousness, but you don't think you suddenly have a new consciousness every time you wake up.
On April 15 2012 03:52 mcc wrote:
On April 15 2012 03:12 Millitron wrote:
On April 15 2012 02:33 mcc wrote:
On April 15 2012 02:26 Millitron wrote:
On April 15 2012 01:56 GreEny K wrote: I wouldn't share the thoughts of the other me, our minds would not be connected. I would have to say no... From my point of view, getting into that machine is the end for me.
But the copy is a perfect copy. An instant before you teleport, your memories and thoughts would be copied over. So while it isn't the same consciousness, it IS an exact copy of it, so it may as well be the same one.
I would do it for sure.
And you would cease to exist with someone else exactly like you living instead of you. Basically your proposition is that if two bodies are the same they are the same person, that is patently absurd, as such technology would allow to create multiple exactly the same bodies.
That wasn't specified by the OP. The OP doesn't say that the tech can create multiple bodies. Think of it like the process of copying destroys the original, and only one copy can be made at a time.
If your memories are identical, and the body is identical, what else is there? What distinguishes the copy from the original? Nothing.
It is possible that copying might require the destruction of the original. But nothing in the laws of physics prevents creation of multiple copies. Especially not in any of the mentioned sci-fi universes.
So you are actually trying to contend that if there are 5 bodies with the same memories and bodies there is nothing to distinguish them ? Because you are actually saying that. What about physical continuity, that is what distinguishes them. That distinguishes the original and the copy in the standard teleport scenario, that is what distinguishes original and the copy in the scenario with the original surviving, that is what distinguishes original and copies in the scenario with multiple copies. Nice simple (not that simple as you can start making even crazier scenarios) distinction that unlike the alternatives does not violate logical principles.
No, I'm contending that that wasn't specified by the OP. Since the whole thing is hypothetical anyways, we can't really diverge from what is defined by the question, or we could say absolutely anything at all could happen. Unless we stick with what is defined in the OP, we could make up any rules we wanted for this kind of teleportation.
Little off-topic: Firefox's spellcheck doesn't recognize teleportation or even teleport
Well I'm still concious on some level because I'm dreaming while I'm asleep. Also the atoms in my body are the same when I wake up as they were when I went to sleep (more or less). I still can't understand how people think that if an exact copy of them were to appear in front of them that they would suddenly be incontrol of the other body.
Ok fine, instead of being asleep, how about when you get general anesthetic for a surgery? You definitely aren't even partially conscious then.
You also don't actually know the atoms are the same particular atoms. As has been said before, any to atoms of the same isotope are indistinguishable. When you go to sleep, you have no way to know for sure whether or not you are still composed of the same atoms, since there is no way to tell two atoms of the same isotope apart.
It isn't an exact copy appearing in front of me. The information contained in my "consciousness" is loaded into an identical body, after the destruction of the original. There is only ever one "me" at any given time.
On April 15 2012 03:38 Maitolasi wrote: I don't think some people understand what this means. Are you seriously saying that you would kill yourself just so an exact copy of yourself (that's not you) could be made in another place?
If its an exact copy, memories and all, then it IS me.
To everyone else it is exactly you. But YOU would be dead.
No, only my original physical form is dead. My consciousness lives on. Even if the teleportation takes time, so there is a break in that consciousness, it doesn't make a difference. When you go to sleep, there is a break in your consciousness, but you don't think you suddenly have a new consciousness every time you wake up.
On April 15 2012 03:52 mcc wrote:
On April 15 2012 03:12 Millitron wrote:
On April 15 2012 02:33 mcc wrote:
On April 15 2012 02:26 Millitron wrote:
On April 15 2012 01:56 GreEny K wrote: I wouldn't share the thoughts of the other me, our minds would not be connected. I would have to say no... From my point of view, getting into that machine is the end for me.
But the copy is a perfect copy. An instant before you teleport, your memories and thoughts would be copied over. So while it isn't the same consciousness, it IS an exact copy of it, so it may as well be the same one.
I would do it for sure.
And you would cease to exist with someone else exactly like you living instead of you. Basically your proposition is that if two bodies are the same they are the same person, that is patently absurd, as such technology would allow to create multiple exactly the same bodies.
That wasn't specified by the OP. The OP doesn't say that the tech can create multiple bodies. Think of it like the process of copying destroys the original, and only one copy can be made at a time.
If your memories are identical, and the body is identical, what else is there? What distinguishes the copy from the original? Nothing.
It is possible that copying might require the destruction of the original. But nothing in the laws of physics prevents creation of multiple copies. Especially not in any of the mentioned sci-fi universes.
So you are actually trying to contend that if there are 5 bodies with the same memories and bodies there is nothing to distinguish them ? Because you are actually saying that. What about physical continuity, that is what distinguishes them. That distinguishes the original and the copy in the standard teleport scenario, that is what distinguishes original and the copy in the scenario with the original surviving, that is what distinguishes original and copies in the scenario with multiple copies. Nice simple (not that simple as you can start making even crazier scenarios) distinction that unlike the alternatives does not violate logical principles.
No, I'm contending that that wasn't specified by the OP. Since the whole thing is hypothetical anyways, we can't really diverge from what is defined by the question, or we could say absolutely anything at all could happen. Unless we stick with what is defined in the OP, we could make up any rules we wanted for this kind of teleportation.
Little off-topic: Firefox's spellcheck doesn't recognize teleportation or even teleport
One question, do you believe in some immaterial soul ? Because if you do not, consciousness is linked to the body. So the teleporter does not transfer your consciousness, it creates a copy of it. Nothing of the original exists anymore.
OP's teleporter allows multiple copies, he specifically mentions sci-fi teleporters, basically all of them allow that. Not that it is necessary to make the argument that you are in fact dead.
No, I don't believe in an immaterial soul, and thats actually a big reason why I'm ok with it. If consciousness is linked to the body, it can be measured and recreated. Assuming it can be recreated with 100% accuracy, its the same consciousness at either end of the teleporter. Just like how two atoms of the same element are indistinguishable, so too are these consciousnesses. So if you only have one of the copies, (original or otherwise), you must assume it is the same consciousness.
If sci-fi teleporters could make copies, why don't they raise armies like that? Why does the Federation have more than one red-shirt? Why not just have thousands of copies of that one red-shirt? Since they don't do this, the only explanation is that they can't, because its too good of an idea to pass up for no reason.
On April 15 2012 04:18 sickoota wrote: Everyone who is arguing that the copy wouldn't be "you" can only be construed as arguing from an abrahamic/Cartesian conception of "soul" or something similar. Thats the only way I can think of to make their arguments coherent - some non-material source of "self" that the machine would be unable to replicate. What if someone was dosed with surgical grade anesthetic, transported, and then awoken - how would that differ in any meaningful way from the hypothetical transportation machine? Remember that our bodies are constantly remaking its cells, replacing your "self" every few years - but even if it didn't I fail to see how these particular atoms somehow contain the basis for your continuous selfhood whereas some identical atoms of the same elements configured identically would lose this same selfhood...
I'm arguing that the teleported self wouldn't be you and it's not from any religious standpoint. My argument is that in the process YOU are destroyed and will cease to exist and die. Then an exact clone of yourself will be created at the end portal. The consciousness that will be controlling the body at the end portal will be completely identical to the one that was destroyed during transportation but it will not make it any different from dying in a natural way. Just because someone made a clone of you doesn't mean that you are that clone.
Sorry to be brief but that's not really an argument (at least not a very rigorous one). You state your conclusion (this teleportation machine would kill you) without an argument as to why. You could've been destroyed and rebuilt in your sleep and you would never know. You could be destroyed and rebuilt every second and you would never know. What exactly is "killed" when you go through this machine?
On April 15 2012 03:38 Maitolasi wrote: I don't think some people understand what this means. Are you seriously saying that you would kill yourself just so an exact copy of yourself (that's not you) could be made in another place?
If its an exact copy, memories and all, then it IS me.
To everyone else it is exactly you. But YOU would be dead.
No, only my original physical form is dead. My consciousness lives on. Even if the teleportation takes time, so there is a break in that consciousness, it doesn't make a difference. When you go to sleep, there is a break in your consciousness, but you don't think you suddenly have a new consciousness every time you wake up.
On April 15 2012 03:52 mcc wrote:
On April 15 2012 03:12 Millitron wrote:
On April 15 2012 02:33 mcc wrote:
On April 15 2012 02:26 Millitron wrote:
On April 15 2012 01:56 GreEny K wrote: I wouldn't share the thoughts of the other me, our minds would not be connected. I would have to say no... From my point of view, getting into that machine is the end for me.
But the copy is a perfect copy. An instant before you teleport, your memories and thoughts would be copied over. So while it isn't the same consciousness, it IS an exact copy of it, so it may as well be the same one.
I would do it for sure.
And you would cease to exist with someone else exactly like you living instead of you. Basically your proposition is that if two bodies are the same they are the same person, that is patently absurd, as such technology would allow to create multiple exactly the same bodies.
That wasn't specified by the OP. The OP doesn't say that the tech can create multiple bodies. Think of it like the process of copying destroys the original, and only one copy can be made at a time.
If your memories are identical, and the body is identical, what else is there? What distinguishes the copy from the original? Nothing.
It is possible that copying might require the destruction of the original. But nothing in the laws of physics prevents creation of multiple copies. Especially not in any of the mentioned sci-fi universes.
So you are actually trying to contend that if there are 5 bodies with the same memories and bodies there is nothing to distinguish them ? Because you are actually saying that. What about physical continuity, that is what distinguishes them. That distinguishes the original and the copy in the standard teleport scenario, that is what distinguishes original and the copy in the scenario with the original surviving, that is what distinguishes original and copies in the scenario with multiple copies. Nice simple (not that simple as you can start making even crazier scenarios) distinction that unlike the alternatives does not violate logical principles.
No, I'm contending that that wasn't specified by the OP. Since the whole thing is hypothetical anyways, we can't really diverge from what is defined by the question, or we could say absolutely anything at all could happen. Unless we stick with what is defined in the OP, we could make up any rules we wanted for this kind of teleportation.
Little off-topic: Firefox's spellcheck doesn't recognize teleportation or even teleport
One question, do you believe in some immaterial soul ? Because if you do not, consciousness is linked to the body. So the teleporter does not transfer your consciousness, it creates a copy of it. Nothing of the original exists anymore.
OP's teleporter allows multiple copies, he specifically mentions sci-fi teleporters, basically all of them allow that. Not that it is necessary to make the argument that you are in fact dead.
Edit: To rejoin in:
But being dead isn't a problem to me if I'm also (so far as I'm aware) instantly recreated without having been dead. I don't fear dying as a concept so dying even on a daily basis if I were able to still just continue wouldn't be an issue. I can't see any way that my mind wouldn't still continue on in the example, and that's the only bit of me that I really need to keep identical, and so long as it would be I don't see the problem.
If infinite parallel universes were to exist, there would also then exist an identical copy of me and I'm quite fine with that too.
By dead in this discussion is not meant biologically dead. But as in cease to exist altogether. So you can only die once and it is final. Point is again that you ceased to exist. The copy is more like your identical twin, you might be even the same at some point in time (twins at that moment the cell split, you and your copy at the time when the machine starts to create him), but saying you are the copy is like saying you are your identical twin.
On April 15 2012 04:18 sickoota wrote: Everyone who is arguing that the copy wouldn't be "you" can only be construed as arguing from an abrahamic/Cartesian conception of "soul" or something similar. Thats the only way I can think of to make their arguments coherent - some non-material source of "self" that the machine would be unable to replicate. What if someone was dosed with surgical grade anesthetic, transported, and then awoken - how would that differ in any meaningful way from the hypothetical transportation machine? Remember that our bodies are constantly remaking its cells, replacing your "self" every few years - but even if it didn't I fail to see how these particular atoms somehow contain the basis for your continuous selfhood whereas some identical atoms of the same elements configured identically would lose this same selfhood...
I'm arguing that the teleported self wouldn't be you and it's not from any religious standpoint. My argument is that in the process YOU are destroyed and will cease to exist and die. Then an exact clone of yourself will be created at the end portal. The consciousness that will be controlling the body at the end portal will be completely identical to the one that was destroyed during transportation but it will not make it any different from dying in a natural way. Just because someone made a clone of you doesn't mean that you are that clone.
Sorry to be brief but that's not really an argument (at least not a very rigorous one). You state your conclusion (this teleportation machine would kill you) without an argument as to why. You could've been destroyed and rebuilt in your sleep and you would never know. You could be destroyed and rebuilt every second and you would never know. What exactly is "killed" when you go through this machine?
Read the OP again. "This is a common thing in science fiction where you are 'teleported' by a machine that kills you, then reconstructs an exact copy of your body and mind at another point"
Also if I was killed in my sleep I would never know because I would be dead
On April 15 2012 03:53 sickoota wrote: The everyday continuity of consciousness is an illusion. You are not the same person every time you wake up. You are not the same person every time you blink. Teleportation in this manner is really no different from what happens any time you go to sleep or even just walk around. You are not one continuous person in the manner most conceive of themselves, just a succession of different states of consciousness in time. People saying a copy of you wouldn't really be "you" are operating off some unsubstantiated, illusory definition of self.
No they are operating based on the normal definition of self. Continuity of yourself is not illusion, between two points in time there is only very limited change to "you". So it easily satisfies requirements for continuity. Continuity does not mean you never change, Continuity means exactly : succession of different (but similar enough) states of consciousness in time. So you basically said that continuity is illusion, because continuity is a fact. Nice contradiction
What exactly are you trying to argue? If you accept my definition of continuity then obviously the machine would satisfy those requirements (succession of similar states of consciousness). My opponents seem to be asserting that there is some other sort of continuity which this machine would violate. Are you agreeing with me or arguing with me? Or just quibbling
I am arguing with you as the machine violates the physical continuity in the most fundamental fashion. It actually completely destroys your body. There is no continuity when you use the machine. Your body completely ceases to exists and copy is created elsewhere. And to react to your other post about soul. Your conclusions are strange. It is actually the other way around the only way to say that the copy is you is if there is a immaterial soul. Because then there can be some continuity between the old body and new body. Immaterial soul would be the only thing that would make the teleport possibly not kill you. If you do not believe in the soul, then teleport of such kind is creating duplicates that are not you as there is no continuity between the old and the new. And how do you even explain multiple copies or the original not dying in your approach. The physical continuity approach easily deals with all those problems. So would the soul approach, but since souls do not exist it has slight problem But your approach does not deal with them in any logical way.
What exactly is in-continuous between these two bodies? I guess we're arguing in a very strange space to begin with, I don't think that saying that this machine would "violate physical continuity" is really an argument about whether the two people would be the same more than for the impossibility of such a machine in the first place. Without a soul there is no way to differentiate between the two bodies in any respect other than their location. If there were two identical copies of my body then there would be two identical copies of me.My consciousness would be continuous up to a point when it would "fork" and two identical copies would be made, both equally me - again only a problem if you believe in an uncopyable "soul".
On April 15 2012 04:18 sickoota wrote: Everyone who is arguing that the copy wouldn't be "you" can only be construed as arguing from an abrahamic/Cartesian conception of "soul" or something similar. Thats the only way I can think of to make their arguments coherent - some non-material source of "self" that the machine would be unable to replicate. What if someone was dosed with surgical grade anesthetic, transported, and then awoken - how would that differ in any meaningful way from the hypothetical transportation machine? Remember that our bodies are constantly remaking its cells, replacing your "self" every few years - but even if it didn't I fail to see how these particular atoms somehow contain the basis for your continuous selfhood whereas some identical atoms of the same elements configured identically would lose this same selfhood...
I'm arguing that the teleported self wouldn't be you and it's not from any religious standpoint. My argument is that in the process YOU are destroyed and will cease to exist and die. Then an exact clone of yourself will be created at the end portal. The consciousness that will be controlling the body at the end portal will be completely identical to the one that was destroyed during transportation but it will not make it any different from dying in a natural way. Just because someone made a clone of you doesn't mean that you are that clone.
Sorry to be brief but that's not really an argument (at least not a very rigorous one). You state your conclusion (this teleportation machine would kill you) without an argument as to why. You could've been destroyed and rebuilt in your sleep and you would never know. You could be destroyed and rebuilt every second and you would never know. What exactly is "killed" when you go through this machine?
Read the OP again. "This is a common thing in science fiction where you are 'teleported' by a machine that kills you, then reconstructs an exact copy of your body and mind at another point"
Also if I was killed in my sleep I would never know because I would be dead
He means that after the reconstruction, there is no way to tell it happened. It could happen to you every single night, and you could not possibly notice.
On April 15 2012 03:38 Maitolasi wrote: I don't think some people understand what this means. Are you seriously saying that you would kill yourself just so an exact copy of yourself (that's not you) could be made in another place?
If its an exact copy, memories and all, then it IS me.
To everyone else it is exactly you. But YOU would be dead.
No, only my original physical form is dead. My consciousness lives on. Even if the teleportation takes time, so there is a break in that consciousness, it doesn't make a difference. When you go to sleep, there is a break in your consciousness, but you don't think you suddenly have a new consciousness every time you wake up.
On April 15 2012 03:52 mcc wrote:
On April 15 2012 03:12 Millitron wrote:
On April 15 2012 02:33 mcc wrote:
On April 15 2012 02:26 Millitron wrote:
On April 15 2012 01:56 GreEny K wrote: I wouldn't share the thoughts of the other me, our minds would not be connected. I would have to say no... From my point of view, getting into that machine is the end for me.
But the copy is a perfect copy. An instant before you teleport, your memories and thoughts would be copied over. So while it isn't the same consciousness, it IS an exact copy of it, so it may as well be the same one.
I would do it for sure.
And you would cease to exist with someone else exactly like you living instead of you. Basically your proposition is that if two bodies are the same they are the same person, that is patently absurd, as such technology would allow to create multiple exactly the same bodies.
That wasn't specified by the OP. The OP doesn't say that the tech can create multiple bodies. Think of it like the process of copying destroys the original, and only one copy can be made at a time.
If your memories are identical, and the body is identical, what else is there? What distinguishes the copy from the original? Nothing.
It is possible that copying might require the destruction of the original. But nothing in the laws of physics prevents creation of multiple copies. Especially not in any of the mentioned sci-fi universes.
So you are actually trying to contend that if there are 5 bodies with the same memories and bodies there is nothing to distinguish them ? Because you are actually saying that. What about physical continuity, that is what distinguishes them. That distinguishes the original and the copy in the standard teleport scenario, that is what distinguishes original and the copy in the scenario with the original surviving, that is what distinguishes original and copies in the scenario with multiple copies. Nice simple (not that simple as you can start making even crazier scenarios) distinction that unlike the alternatives does not violate logical principles.
No, I'm contending that that wasn't specified by the OP. Since the whole thing is hypothetical anyways, we can't really diverge from what is defined by the question, or we could say absolutely anything at all could happen. Unless we stick with what is defined in the OP, we could make up any rules we wanted for this kind of teleportation.
Little off-topic: Firefox's spellcheck doesn't recognize teleportation or even teleport
One question, do you believe in some immaterial soul ? Because if you do not, consciousness is linked to the body. So the teleporter does not transfer your consciousness, it creates a copy of it. Nothing of the original exists anymore.
OP's teleporter allows multiple copies, he specifically mentions sci-fi teleporters, basically all of them allow that. Not that it is necessary to make the argument that you are in fact dead.
Edit: To rejoin in:
But being dead isn't a problem to me if I'm also (so far as I'm aware) instantly recreated without having been dead. I don't fear dying as a concept so dying even on a daily basis if I were able to still just continue wouldn't be an issue. I can't see any way that my mind wouldn't still continue on in the example, and that's the only bit of me that I really need to keep identical, and so long as it would be I don't see the problem.
If infinite parallel universes were to exist, there would also then exist an identical copy of me and I'm quite fine with that too.
By dead in this discussion is not meant biologically dead. But as in cease to exist altogether. So you can only die once and it is final. Point is again that you ceased to exist. The copy is more like your identical twin, you might be even the same at some point in time (twins at that moment the cell split, you and your copy at the time when the machine starts to create him), but saying you are the copy is like saying you are your identical twin.
That's not entirely a fair comparisson as my identical twin would have to have thought all the same things I had and experienced all the same things and felt the same things. It would e a copy of me and not what I currently am, sure. I have no problem with what I currently am ceasing to exist if an exact copy exists somewhere else. I would see it like falling asleep and waking up.
I do see your point in that my current mind would cease to exist and the person I am now would be dead forever. But in this particular instance I see that kind of death as unimportant.
On April 15 2012 03:53 sickoota wrote: The everyday continuity of consciousness is an illusion. You are not the same person every time you wake up. You are not the same person every time you blink. Teleportation in this manner is really no different from what happens any time you go to sleep or even just walk around. You are not one continuous person in the manner most conceive of themselves, just a succession of different states of consciousness in time. People saying a copy of you wouldn't really be "you" are operating off some unsubstantiated, illusory definition of self.
No they are operating based on the normal definition of self. Continuity of yourself is not illusion, between two points in time there is only very limited change to "you". So it easily satisfies requirements for continuity. Continuity does not mean you never change, Continuity means exactly : succession of different (but similar enough) states of consciousness in time. So you basically said that continuity is illusion, because continuity is a fact. Nice contradiction
What exactly are you trying to argue? If you accept my definition of continuity then obviously the machine would satisfy those requirements (succession of similar states of consciousness). My opponents seem to be asserting that there is some other sort of continuity which this machine would violate. Are you agreeing with me or arguing with me? Or just quibbling
I am arguing with you as the machine violates the physical continuity in the most fundamental fashion. It actually completely destroys your body. There is no continuity when you use the machine. Your body completely ceases to exists and copy is created elsewhere. And to react to your other post about soul. Your conclusions are strange. It is actually the other way around the only way to say that the copy is you is if there is a immaterial soul. Because then there can be some continuity between the old body and new body. Immaterial soul would be the only thing that would make the teleport possibly not kill you. If you do not believe in the soul, then teleport of such kind is creating duplicates that are not you as there is no continuity between the old and the new. And how do you even explain multiple copies or the original not dying in your approach. The physical continuity approach easily deals with all those problems. So would the soul approach, but since souls do not exist it has slight problem But your approach does not deal with them in any logical way.
What exactly is in-continuous between these two bodies? I guess we're arguing in a very strange space to begin with, I don't think that saying that this machine would "violate physical continuity" is really an argument about whether the two people would be the same more than for the impossibility of such a machine in the first place. Without a soul there is no way to differentiate between the two bodies in any respect other than their location. If there were two identical copies of my body then there would be two identical copies of me.My consciousness would be continuous up to a point when it would "fork" and two identical copies would be made, both equally me - again only a problem if you believe in an uncopyable "soul".
Just answer this question. You go to sleep. When you wake up there is a one of you on the floor and one of you in the bed you went to sleep in. Which body are you controlling right now?
On April 15 2012 03:38 Maitolasi wrote: I don't think some people understand what this means. Are you seriously saying that you would kill yourself just so an exact copy of yourself (that's not you) could be made in another place?
If its an exact copy, memories and all, then it IS me.
To everyone else it is exactly you. But YOU would be dead.
No, only my original physical form is dead. My consciousness lives on. Even if the teleportation takes time, so there is a break in that consciousness, it doesn't make a difference. When you go to sleep, there is a break in your consciousness, but you don't think you suddenly have a new consciousness every time you wake up.
On April 15 2012 03:52 mcc wrote:
On April 15 2012 03:12 Millitron wrote:
On April 15 2012 02:33 mcc wrote:
On April 15 2012 02:26 Millitron wrote:
On April 15 2012 01:56 GreEny K wrote: I wouldn't share the thoughts of the other me, our minds would not be connected. I would have to say no... From my point of view, getting into that machine is the end for me.
But the copy is a perfect copy. An instant before you teleport, your memories and thoughts would be copied over. So while it isn't the same consciousness, it IS an exact copy of it, so it may as well be the same one.
I would do it for sure.
And you would cease to exist with someone else exactly like you living instead of you. Basically your proposition is that if two bodies are the same they are the same person, that is patently absurd, as such technology would allow to create multiple exactly the same bodies.
That wasn't specified by the OP. The OP doesn't say that the tech can create multiple bodies. Think of it like the process of copying destroys the original, and only one copy can be made at a time.
If your memories are identical, and the body is identical, what else is there? What distinguishes the copy from the original? Nothing.
It is possible that copying might require the destruction of the original. But nothing in the laws of physics prevents creation of multiple copies. Especially not in any of the mentioned sci-fi universes.
So you are actually trying to contend that if there are 5 bodies with the same memories and bodies there is nothing to distinguish them ? Because you are actually saying that. What about physical continuity, that is what distinguishes them. That distinguishes the original and the copy in the standard teleport scenario, that is what distinguishes original and the copy in the scenario with the original surviving, that is what distinguishes original and copies in the scenario with multiple copies. Nice simple (not that simple as you can start making even crazier scenarios) distinction that unlike the alternatives does not violate logical principles.
No, I'm contending that that wasn't specified by the OP. Since the whole thing is hypothetical anyways, we can't really diverge from what is defined by the question, or we could say absolutely anything at all could happen. Unless we stick with what is defined in the OP, we could make up any rules we wanted for this kind of teleportation.
Little off-topic: Firefox's spellcheck doesn't recognize teleportation or even teleport
Well I'm still concious on some level because I'm dreaming while I'm asleep. Also the atoms in my body are the same when I wake up as they were when I went to sleep (more or less). I still can't understand how people think that if an exact copy of them were to appear in front of them that they would suddenly be incontrol of the other body.
Ok fine, instead of being asleep, how about when you get general anesthetic for a surgery? You definitely aren't even partially conscious then.
You also don't actually know the atoms are the same particular atoms. As has been said before, any to atoms of the same isotope are indistinguishable. When you go to sleep, you have no way to know for sure whether or not you are still composed of the same atoms, since there is no way to tell two atoms of the same isotope apart.
It isn't an exact copy appearing in front of me. The information contained in my "consciousness" is loaded into an identical body, after the destruction of the original. There is only ever one "me" at any given time.
On April 15 2012 03:38 Maitolasi wrote: I don't think some people understand what this means. Are you seriously saying that you would kill yourself just so an exact copy of yourself (that's not you) could be made in another place?
If its an exact copy, memories and all, then it IS me.
To everyone else it is exactly you. But YOU would be dead.
No, only my original physical form is dead. My consciousness lives on. Even if the teleportation takes time, so there is a break in that consciousness, it doesn't make a difference. When you go to sleep, there is a break in your consciousness, but you don't think you suddenly have a new consciousness every time you wake up.
On April 15 2012 03:52 mcc wrote:
On April 15 2012 03:12 Millitron wrote:
On April 15 2012 02:33 mcc wrote:
On April 15 2012 02:26 Millitron wrote:
On April 15 2012 01:56 GreEny K wrote: I wouldn't share the thoughts of the other me, our minds would not be connected. I would have to say no... From my point of view, getting into that machine is the end for me.
But the copy is a perfect copy. An instant before you teleport, your memories and thoughts would be copied over. So while it isn't the same consciousness, it IS an exact copy of it, so it may as well be the same one.
I would do it for sure.
And you would cease to exist with someone else exactly like you living instead of you. Basically your proposition is that if two bodies are the same they are the same person, that is patently absurd, as such technology would allow to create multiple exactly the same bodies.
That wasn't specified by the OP. The OP doesn't say that the tech can create multiple bodies. Think of it like the process of copying destroys the original, and only one copy can be made at a time.
If your memories are identical, and the body is identical, what else is there? What distinguishes the copy from the original? Nothing.
It is possible that copying might require the destruction of the original. But nothing in the laws of physics prevents creation of multiple copies. Especially not in any of the mentioned sci-fi universes.
So you are actually trying to contend that if there are 5 bodies with the same memories and bodies there is nothing to distinguish them ? Because you are actually saying that. What about physical continuity, that is what distinguishes them. That distinguishes the original and the copy in the standard teleport scenario, that is what distinguishes original and the copy in the scenario with the original surviving, that is what distinguishes original and copies in the scenario with multiple copies. Nice simple (not that simple as you can start making even crazier scenarios) distinction that unlike the alternatives does not violate logical principles.
No, I'm contending that that wasn't specified by the OP. Since the whole thing is hypothetical anyways, we can't really diverge from what is defined by the question, or we could say absolutely anything at all could happen. Unless we stick with what is defined in the OP, we could make up any rules we wanted for this kind of teleportation.
Little off-topic: Firefox's spellcheck doesn't recognize teleportation or even teleport
One question, do you believe in some immaterial soul ? Because if you do not, consciousness is linked to the body. So the teleporter does not transfer your consciousness, it creates a copy of it. Nothing of the original exists anymore.
OP's teleporter allows multiple copies, he specifically mentions sci-fi teleporters, basically all of them allow that. Not that it is necessary to make the argument that you are in fact dead.
No, I don't believe in an immaterial soul, and thats actually a big reason why I'm ok with it. If consciousness is linked to the body, it can be measured and recreated. Assuming it can be recreated with 100% accuracy, its the same consciousness at either end of the teleporter. Just like how two atoms of the same element are indistinguishable, so too are these consciousnesses. So if you only have one of the copies, (original or otherwise), you must assume it is the same consciousness.
If sci-fi teleporters could make copies, why don't they raise armies like that? Why does the Federation have more than one red-shirt? Why not just have thousands of copies of that one red-shirt? Since they don't do this, the only explanation is that they can't, because its too good of an idea to pass up for no reason.
If you do not believe in immaterial soul then creating a copy of the person in this way is as exact mollecular copy of the spoon. But the teleporter does not really have to allow multiple copies, even possibility of their existance is enough to make my argument. If there can exist multiple exact on mollecular level copies of yourself and since you do not believe in soul there definitely can be multiple of them all indistinguishable, which one of them is you ? Your approach has no way of answering it. I can easily answer that. The copy that shares with me the physical continuity. And strangely enough this is exactly what people associate with the concept of "me". Noone when asked will answer that he is all the copies, because self-identity is exactly that, self, it is not defined by the exact similarity to something. It is defined by physical continuity of the self. Without soul, that continuity is broken when the original is destroyed. The only way for you to be at the end of that teleport is if your immaterial soul separated from your body and floated there. Without it there is nothing that survives. And if nothing survives, you are dead.
They do not do that, because authors did not thought it through But if you watch the episodes with failed transports it is easily seen that there is nothing but procedural roadblocks not physical ones.
On April 15 2012 04:18 sickoota wrote: Everyone who is arguing that the copy wouldn't be "you" can only be construed as arguing from an abrahamic/Cartesian conception of "soul" or something similar. Thats the only way I can think of to make their arguments coherent - some non-material source of "self" that the machine would be unable to replicate. What if someone was dosed with surgical grade anesthetic, transported, and then awoken - how would that differ in any meaningful way from the hypothetical transportation machine? Remember that our bodies are constantly remaking its cells, replacing your "self" every few years - but even if it didn't I fail to see how these particular atoms somehow contain the basis for your continuous selfhood whereas some identical atoms of the same elements configured identically would lose this same selfhood...
Well what if you weren't awoken at all. Basically, you're saying you have no objection to being killed right now (if it was painless let's say) because you have no identity anyway? What is the difference between "you" and anyone else then? How is this "clone" anymore "you" than a twin brother or sister?
On April 15 2012 03:53 sickoota wrote: The everyday continuity of consciousness is an illusion. You are not the same person every time you wake up. You are not the same person every time you blink. Teleportation in this manner is really no different from what happens any time you go to sleep or even just walk around. You are not one continuous person in the manner most conceive of themselves, just a succession of different states of consciousness in time. People saying a copy of you wouldn't really be "you" are operating off some unsubstantiated, illusory definition of self.
No they are operating based on the normal definition of self. Continuity of yourself is not illusion, between two points in time there is only very limited change to "you". So it easily satisfies requirements for continuity. Continuity does not mean you never change, Continuity means exactly : succession of different (but similar enough) states of consciousness in time. So you basically said that continuity is illusion, because continuity is a fact. Nice contradiction
What exactly are you trying to argue? If you accept my definition of continuity then obviously the machine would satisfy those requirements (succession of similar states of consciousness). My opponents seem to be asserting that there is some other sort of continuity which this machine would violate. Are you agreeing with me or arguing with me? Or just quibbling
I am arguing with you as the machine violates the physical continuity in the most fundamental fashion. It actually completely destroys your body. There is no continuity when you use the machine. Your body completely ceases to exists and copy is created elsewhere. And to react to your other post about soul. Your conclusions are strange. It is actually the other way around the only way to say that the copy is you is if there is a immaterial soul. Because then there can be some continuity between the old body and new body. Immaterial soul would be the only thing that would make the teleport possibly not kill you. If you do not believe in the soul, then teleport of such kind is creating duplicates that are not you as there is no continuity between the old and the new. And how do you even explain multiple copies or the original not dying in your approach. The physical continuity approach easily deals with all those problems. So would the soul approach, but since souls do not exist it has slight problem But your approach does not deal with them in any logical way.
What exactly is in-continuous between these two bodies? I guess we're arguing in a very strange space to begin with, I don't think that saying that this machine would "violate physical continuity" is really an argument about whether the two people would be the same more than for the impossibility of such a machine in the first place. Without a soul there is no way to differentiate between the two bodies in any respect other than their location. If there were two identical copies of my body then there would be two identical copies of me.My consciousness would be continuous up to a point when it would "fork" and two identical copies would be made, both equally me - again only a problem if you believe in an uncopyable "soul".
Just answer this question. You go to sleep. When you wake up there is a one of you on the floor and one of you in the bed you went to sleep in. Which body are you controlling right now?
Your question is kind of hard to understand - I apologize if english is your second language. If I'm understanding what you're trying to say correctly, I would say I am equally "both", or rather there are two "Mes" in the room.
On April 15 2012 03:38 Maitolasi wrote: I don't think some people understand what this means. Are you seriously saying that you would kill yourself just so an exact copy of yourself (that's not you) could be made in another place?
If its an exact copy, memories and all, then it IS me.
To everyone else it is exactly you. But YOU would be dead.
No, only my original physical form is dead. My consciousness lives on. Even if the teleportation takes time, so there is a break in that consciousness, it doesn't make a difference. When you go to sleep, there is a break in your consciousness, but you don't think you suddenly have a new consciousness every time you wake up.
On April 15 2012 03:52 mcc wrote:
On April 15 2012 03:12 Millitron wrote:
On April 15 2012 02:33 mcc wrote:
On April 15 2012 02:26 Millitron wrote:
On April 15 2012 01:56 GreEny K wrote: I wouldn't share the thoughts of the other me, our minds would not be connected. I would have to say no... From my point of view, getting into that machine is the end for me.
But the copy is a perfect copy. An instant before you teleport, your memories and thoughts would be copied over. So while it isn't the same consciousness, it IS an exact copy of it, so it may as well be the same one.
I would do it for sure.
And you would cease to exist with someone else exactly like you living instead of you. Basically your proposition is that if two bodies are the same they are the same person, that is patently absurd, as such technology would allow to create multiple exactly the same bodies.
That wasn't specified by the OP. The OP doesn't say that the tech can create multiple bodies. Think of it like the process of copying destroys the original, and only one copy can be made at a time.
If your memories are identical, and the body is identical, what else is there? What distinguishes the copy from the original? Nothing.
It is possible that copying might require the destruction of the original. But nothing in the laws of physics prevents creation of multiple copies. Especially not in any of the mentioned sci-fi universes.
So you are actually trying to contend that if there are 5 bodies with the same memories and bodies there is nothing to distinguish them ? Because you are actually saying that. What about physical continuity, that is what distinguishes them. That distinguishes the original and the copy in the standard teleport scenario, that is what distinguishes original and the copy in the scenario with the original surviving, that is what distinguishes original and copies in the scenario with multiple copies. Nice simple (not that simple as you can start making even crazier scenarios) distinction that unlike the alternatives does not violate logical principles.
No, I'm contending that that wasn't specified by the OP. Since the whole thing is hypothetical anyways, we can't really diverge from what is defined by the question, or we could say absolutely anything at all could happen. Unless we stick with what is defined in the OP, we could make up any rules we wanted for this kind of teleportation.
Little off-topic: Firefox's spellcheck doesn't recognize teleportation or even teleport
Well I'm still concious on some level because I'm dreaming while I'm asleep. Also the atoms in my body are the same when I wake up as they were when I went to sleep (more or less). I still can't understand how people think that if an exact copy of them were to appear in front of them that they would suddenly be incontrol of the other body.
Ok fine, instead of being asleep, how about when you get general anesthetic for a surgery? You definitely aren't even partially conscious then.
You also don't actually know the atoms are the same particular atoms. As has been said before, any to atoms of the same isotope are indistinguishable. When you go to sleep, you have no way to know for sure whether or not you are still composed of the same atoms, since there is no way to tell two atoms of the same isotope apart.
It isn't an exact copy appearing in front of me. The information contained in my "consciousness" is loaded into an identical body, after the destruction of the original. There is only ever one "me" at any given time.
On April 15 2012 04:23 mcc wrote:
On April 15 2012 04:04 Millitron wrote:
On April 15 2012 03:46 Maitolasi wrote:
On April 15 2012 03:43 Millitron wrote:
On April 15 2012 03:38 Maitolasi wrote: I don't think some people understand what this means. Are you seriously saying that you would kill yourself just so an exact copy of yourself (that's not you) could be made in another place?
If its an exact copy, memories and all, then it IS me.
To everyone else it is exactly you. But YOU would be dead.
No, only my original physical form is dead. My consciousness lives on. Even if the teleportation takes time, so there is a break in that consciousness, it doesn't make a difference. When you go to sleep, there is a break in your consciousness, but you don't think you suddenly have a new consciousness every time you wake up.
On April 15 2012 03:52 mcc wrote:
On April 15 2012 03:12 Millitron wrote:
On April 15 2012 02:33 mcc wrote:
On April 15 2012 02:26 Millitron wrote:
On April 15 2012 01:56 GreEny K wrote: I wouldn't share the thoughts of the other me, our minds would not be connected. I would have to say no... From my point of view, getting into that machine is the end for me.
But the copy is a perfect copy. An instant before you teleport, your memories and thoughts would be copied over. So while it isn't the same consciousness, it IS an exact copy of it, so it may as well be the same one.
I would do it for sure.
And you would cease to exist with someone else exactly like you living instead of you. Basically your proposition is that if two bodies are the same they are the same person, that is patently absurd, as such technology would allow to create multiple exactly the same bodies.
That wasn't specified by the OP. The OP doesn't say that the tech can create multiple bodies. Think of it like the process of copying destroys the original, and only one copy can be made at a time.
If your memories are identical, and the body is identical, what else is there? What distinguishes the copy from the original? Nothing.
It is possible that copying might require the destruction of the original. But nothing in the laws of physics prevents creation of multiple copies. Especially not in any of the mentioned sci-fi universes.
So you are actually trying to contend that if there are 5 bodies with the same memories and bodies there is nothing to distinguish them ? Because you are actually saying that. What about physical continuity, that is what distinguishes them. That distinguishes the original and the copy in the standard teleport scenario, that is what distinguishes original and the copy in the scenario with the original surviving, that is what distinguishes original and copies in the scenario with multiple copies. Nice simple (not that simple as you can start making even crazier scenarios) distinction that unlike the alternatives does not violate logical principles.
No, I'm contending that that wasn't specified by the OP. Since the whole thing is hypothetical anyways, we can't really diverge from what is defined by the question, or we could say absolutely anything at all could happen. Unless we stick with what is defined in the OP, we could make up any rules we wanted for this kind of teleportation.
Little off-topic: Firefox's spellcheck doesn't recognize teleportation or even teleport
One question, do you believe in some immaterial soul ? Because if you do not, consciousness is linked to the body. So the teleporter does not transfer your consciousness, it creates a copy of it. Nothing of the original exists anymore.
OP's teleporter allows multiple copies, he specifically mentions sci-fi teleporters, basically all of them allow that. Not that it is necessary to make the argument that you are in fact dead.
No, I don't believe in an immaterial soul, and thats actually a big reason why I'm ok with it. If consciousness is linked to the body, it can be measured and recreated. Assuming it can be recreated with 100% accuracy, its the same consciousness at either end of the teleporter. Just like how two atoms of the same element are indistinguishable, so too are these consciousnesses. So if you only have one of the copies, (original or otherwise), you must assume it is the same consciousness.
If sci-fi teleporters could make copies, why don't they raise armies like that? Why does the Federation have more than one red-shirt? Why not just have thousands of copies of that one red-shirt? Since they don't do this, the only explanation is that they can't, because its too good of an idea to pass up for no reason.
If you do not believe in immaterial soul then creating a copy of the person in this way is as exact mollecular copy of the spoon. But the teleporter does not really have to allow multiple copies, even possibility of their existance is enough to make my argument. If there can exist multiple exact on mollecular level copies of yourself and since you do not believe in soul there definitely can be multiple of them all indistinguishable, which one of them is you ? Your approach has no way of answering it. I can easily answer that. The copy that shares with me the physical continuity. And strangely enough this is exactly what people associate with the concept of "me". Noone when asked will answer that he is all the copies, because self-identity is exactly that, self, it is not defined by the exact similarity to something. It is defined by physical continuity of the self. Without soul, that continuity is broken when the original is destroyed. The only way for you to be at the end of that teleport is if your immaterial soul separated from your body and floated there. Without it there is nothing that survives. And if nothing survives, you are dead.
They do not do that, because authors did not thought it through But if you watch the episodes with failed transports it is easily seen that there is nothing but procedural roadblocks not physical ones.
The thing is, with your method, it depends on which copy is answering the question. They will all say that they are the one with physical continuity. Which do you believe?
Look, at the far end of the teleporter, that version of you is not aware of any death, and neither is anyone else. The only person aware of any death is the original version of you, and since everything that made him up has been recreated at the far end of the teleporter, it is inconsequential.
I find it hard to believe any procedural or bureaucratic problems could prevent them from taking advantage of free and limitless soldiers.
Edit: sorry for the blank post before, I missed the text-box and hit post.
On April 15 2012 03:53 sickoota wrote: The everyday continuity of consciousness is an illusion. You are not the same person every time you wake up. You are not the same person every time you blink. Teleportation in this manner is really no different from what happens any time you go to sleep or even just walk around. You are not one continuous person in the manner most conceive of themselves, just a succession of different states of consciousness in time. People saying a copy of you wouldn't really be "you" are operating off some unsubstantiated, illusory definition of self.
No they are operating based on the normal definition of self. Continuity of yourself is not illusion, between two points in time there is only very limited change to "you". So it easily satisfies requirements for continuity. Continuity does not mean you never change, Continuity means exactly : succession of different (but similar enough) states of consciousness in time. So you basically said that continuity is illusion, because continuity is a fact. Nice contradiction
What exactly are you trying to argue? If you accept my definition of continuity then obviously the machine would satisfy those requirements (succession of similar states of consciousness). My opponents seem to be asserting that there is some other sort of continuity which this machine would violate. Are you agreeing with me or arguing with me? Or just quibbling
I am arguing with you as the machine violates the physical continuity in the most fundamental fashion. It actually completely destroys your body. There is no continuity when you use the machine. Your body completely ceases to exists and copy is created elsewhere. And to react to your other post about soul. Your conclusions are strange. It is actually the other way around the only way to say that the copy is you is if there is a immaterial soul. Because then there can be some continuity between the old body and new body. Immaterial soul would be the only thing that would make the teleport possibly not kill you. If you do not believe in the soul, then teleport of such kind is creating duplicates that are not you as there is no continuity between the old and the new. And how do you even explain multiple copies or the original not dying in your approach. The physical continuity approach easily deals with all those problems. So would the soul approach, but since souls do not exist it has slight problem But your approach does not deal with them in any logical way.
What exactly is in-continuous between these two bodies? I guess we're arguing in a very strange space to begin with, I don't think that saying that this machine would "violate physical continuity" is really an argument about whether the two people would be the same more than for the impossibility of such a machine in the first place. Without a soul there is no way to differentiate between the two bodies in any respect other than their location. If there were two identical copies of my body then there would be two identical copies of me.My consciousness would be continuous up to a point when it would "fork" and two identical copies would be made, both equally me - again only a problem if you believe in an uncopyable "soul".
Just answer this question. You go to sleep. When you wake up there is a one of you on the floor and one of you in the bed you went to sleep in. Which body are you controlling right now?
Your question is kind of hard to understand - I apologize if english is your second language. If I'm understanding what you're trying to say correctly, I would say I am equally "both", or rather there are two "Mes" in the room.
Obviously it's not my first language but I think I made myself clear. If someone makes an exact copy of yourself do you suddenly control that body too? Because if you don't that's not YOU.
On April 15 2012 04:18 sickoota wrote: Everyone who is arguing that the copy wouldn't be "you" can only be construed as arguing from an abrahamic/Cartesian conception of "soul" or something similar. Thats the only way I can think of to make their arguments coherent - some non-material source of "self" that the machine would be unable to replicate. What if someone was dosed with surgical grade anesthetic, transported, and then awoken - how would that differ in any meaningful way from the hypothetical transportation machine? Remember that our bodies are constantly remaking its cells, replacing your "self" every few years - but even if it didn't I fail to see how these particular atoms somehow contain the basis for your continuous selfhood whereas some identical atoms of the same elements configured identically would lose this same selfhood...
Well what if you weren't awoken at all. Basically, you're saying you have no objection to being killed right now (if it was painless let's say) because you have no identity anyway? What is the difference between "you" and anyone else then? How is this "clone" anymore "you" than a twin brother or sister?
Consciousness exists only in the present - we are only ever conscious of a certain moment in time. That we connect this moment backwards through memory and habit thereby creating an "identity" is what constitutes us. The difference between me and anyone else is the both the difference of the moment of which we are conscious and our memories - I'm not sure what you were getting at with that one. This clone is me by virtue of sharing my memories, therefore having the same exact identity as me, therefore.being me.
On April 15 2012 03:53 sickoota wrote: The everyday continuity of consciousness is an illusion. You are not the same person every time you wake up. You are not the same person every time you blink. Teleportation in this manner is really no different from what happens any time you go to sleep or even just walk around. You are not one continuous person in the manner most conceive of themselves, just a succession of different states of consciousness in time. People saying a copy of you wouldn't really be "you" are operating off some unsubstantiated, illusory definition of self.
No they are operating based on the normal definition of self. Continuity of yourself is not illusion, between two points in time there is only very limited change to "you". So it easily satisfies requirements for continuity. Continuity does not mean you never change, Continuity means exactly : succession of different (but similar enough) states of consciousness in time. So you basically said that continuity is illusion, because continuity is a fact. Nice contradiction
What exactly are you trying to argue? If you accept my definition of continuity then obviously the machine would satisfy those requirements (succession of similar states of consciousness). My opponents seem to be asserting that there is some other sort of continuity which this machine would violate. Are you agreeing with me or arguing with me? Or just quibbling
I am arguing with you as the machine violates the physical continuity in the most fundamental fashion. It actually completely destroys your body. There is no continuity when you use the machine. Your body completely ceases to exists and copy is created elsewhere. And to react to your other post about soul. Your conclusions are strange. It is actually the other way around the only way to say that the copy is you is if there is a immaterial soul. Because then there can be some continuity between the old body and new body. Immaterial soul would be the only thing that would make the teleport possibly not kill you. If you do not believe in the soul, then teleport of such kind is creating duplicates that are not you as there is no continuity between the old and the new. And how do you even explain multiple copies or the original not dying in your approach. The physical continuity approach easily deals with all those problems. So would the soul approach, but since souls do not exist it has slight problem But your approach does not deal with them in any logical way.
What exactly is in-continuous between these two bodies? I guess we're arguing in a very strange space to begin with, I don't think that saying that this machine would "violate physical continuity" is really an argument about whether the two people would be the same more than for the impossibility of such a machine in the first place. Without a soul there is no way to differentiate between the two bodies in any respect other than their location. If there were two identical copies of my body then there would be two identical copies of me.My consciousness would be continuous up to a point when it would "fork" and two identical copies would be made, both equally me - again only a problem if you believe in an uncopyable "soul".
Just answer this question. You go to sleep. When you wake up there is a one of you on the floor and one of you in the bed you went to sleep in. Which body are you controlling right now?
Your question is kind of hard to understand - I apologize if english is your second language. If I'm understanding what you're trying to say correctly, I would say I am equally "both", or rather there are two "Mes" in the room.
Obviously it's not my first language but I think I made myself clear. If someone makes an exact copy of yourself do you suddenly control that body too? Because if you don't that's not YOU.
I would say that there would be two "mes" from every perspective outside of my mine, but one "me" from my own perspective (the other person wouldn't be me, but only I would know that). I would be warranted in referring to the other me as an "other", whereas we would both be indistinguishable to anyone else and they would not be warranted in making any sort of distinction. I get the point you're making with respect to the OP, which I agree with.
On April 15 2012 03:53 sickoota wrote: The everyday continuity of consciousness is an illusion. You are not the same person every time you wake up. You are not the same person every time you blink. Teleportation in this manner is really no different from what happens any time you go to sleep or even just walk around. You are not one continuous person in the manner most conceive of themselves, just a succession of different states of consciousness in time. People saying a copy of you wouldn't really be "you" are operating off some unsubstantiated, illusory definition of self.
No they are operating based on the normal definition of self. Continuity of yourself is not illusion, between two points in time there is only very limited change to "you". So it easily satisfies requirements for continuity. Continuity does not mean you never change, Continuity means exactly : succession of different (but similar enough) states of consciousness in time. So you basically said that continuity is illusion, because continuity is a fact. Nice contradiction
What exactly are you trying to argue? If you accept my definition of continuity then obviously the machine would satisfy those requirements (succession of similar states of consciousness). My opponents seem to be asserting that there is some other sort of continuity which this machine would violate. Are you agreeing with me or arguing with me? Or just quibbling
I am arguing with you as the machine violates the physical continuity in the most fundamental fashion. It actually completely destroys your body. There is no continuity when you use the machine. Your body completely ceases to exists and copy is created elsewhere. And to react to your other post about soul. Your conclusions are strange. It is actually the other way around the only way to say that the copy is you is if there is a immaterial soul. Because then there can be some continuity between the old body and new body. Immaterial soul would be the only thing that would make the teleport possibly not kill you. If you do not believe in the soul, then teleport of such kind is creating duplicates that are not you as there is no continuity between the old and the new. And how do you even explain multiple copies or the original not dying in your approach. The physical continuity approach easily deals with all those problems. So would the soul approach, but since souls do not exist it has slight problem But your approach does not deal with them in any logical way.
What exactly is in-continuous between these two bodies? I guess we're arguing in a very strange space to begin with, I don't think that saying that this machine would "violate physical continuity" is really an argument about whether the two people would be the same more than for the impossibility of such a machine in the first place. Without a soul there is no way to differentiate between the two bodies in any respect other than their location. If there were two identical copies of my body then there would be two identical copies of me.My consciousness would be continuous up to a point when it would "fork" and two identical copies would be made, both equally me - again only a problem if you believe in an uncopyable "soul".
Just answer this question. You go to sleep. When you wake up there is a one of you on the floor and one of you in the bed you went to sleep in. Which body are you controlling right now?
Your question is kind of hard to understand - I apologize if english is your second language. If I'm understanding what you're trying to say correctly, I would say I am equally "both", or rather there are two "Mes" in the room.
Hardly, regardless of your opinion on identity there are now 2 persons in a room where there was one and neither can experience the other's consciouness.
On April 15 2012 03:53 sickoota wrote: The everyday continuity of consciousness is an illusion. You are not the same person every time you wake up. You are not the same person every time you blink. Teleportation in this manner is really no different from what happens any time you go to sleep or even just walk around. You are not one continuous person in the manner most conceive of themselves, just a succession of different states of consciousness in time. People saying a copy of you wouldn't really be "you" are operating off some unsubstantiated, illusory definition of self.
No they are operating based on the normal definition of self. Continuity of yourself is not illusion, between two points in time there is only very limited change to "you". So it easily satisfies requirements for continuity. Continuity does not mean you never change, Continuity means exactly : succession of different (but similar enough) states of consciousness in time. So you basically said that continuity is illusion, because continuity is a fact. Nice contradiction
What exactly are you trying to argue? If you accept my definition of continuity then obviously the machine would satisfy those requirements (succession of similar states of consciousness). My opponents seem to be asserting that there is some other sort of continuity which this machine would violate. Are you agreeing with me or arguing with me? Or just quibbling
I am arguing with you as the machine violates the physical continuity in the most fundamental fashion. It actually completely destroys your body. There is no continuity when you use the machine. Your body completely ceases to exists and copy is created elsewhere. And to react to your other post about soul. Your conclusions are strange. It is actually the other way around the only way to say that the copy is you is if there is a immaterial soul. Because then there can be some continuity between the old body and new body. Immaterial soul would be the only thing that would make the teleport possibly not kill you. If you do not believe in the soul, then teleport of such kind is creating duplicates that are not you as there is no continuity between the old and the new. And how do you even explain multiple copies or the original not dying in your approach. The physical continuity approach easily deals with all those problems. So would the soul approach, but since souls do not exist it has slight problem But your approach does not deal with them in any logical way.
What exactly is in-continuous between these two bodies? I guess we're arguing in a very strange space to begin with, I don't think that saying that this machine would "violate physical continuity" is really an argument about whether the two people would be the same more than for the impossibility of such a machine in the first place. Without a soul there is no way to differentiate between the two bodies in any respect other than their location. If there were two identical copies of my body then there would be two identical copies of me.My consciousness would be continuous up to a point when it would "fork" and two identical copies would be made, both equally me - again only a problem if you believe in an uncopyable "soul".
So in a scenario where the original does not die both would be equally you ? Really, you would be able to experience both their lives from now on. I don't think so, you would be experiencing only one. So easy to decide wich one is the actual you. And yes, the continuity of location is important, at any point in time you must be you. In teleporter scenario there are multiple times where there is no you. Sleep does not come even close, you are still you when you sleep, just unconscious. Yes you cannot know if you are not killed and recreated in your sleep. But if you are then your original self is dead and only another copy of you argues with me.
From my own perspective, the clone of me would not be me. Life from my own point of view would end the moment I died, and then my clone would live on in my place. As far as everyone else would be concerned, yes that is 'me' but the real me died and no longer is conscious. It's like reincarnation. Whether or not reincarnation is true, you have no memories of past life, and any past life you may have had isn't really 'you'.
In the case that it just created a copy of you and didn't destroy the original you, the two you's would instantly become two different people because they will immediately start experiencing different things. You wouldn't have dual consciousness, nor would you be able to control both bodies. It'd be like your twin brother being born when you are 21 instead of at conception.
On April 15 2012 03:53 sickoota wrote: The everyday continuity of consciousness is an illusion. You are not the same person every time you wake up. You are not the same person every time you blink. Teleportation in this manner is really no different from what happens any time you go to sleep or even just walk around. You are not one continuous person in the manner most conceive of themselves, just a succession of different states of consciousness in time. People saying a copy of you wouldn't really be "you" are operating off some unsubstantiated, illusory definition of self.
No they are operating based on the normal definition of self. Continuity of yourself is not illusion, between two points in time there is only very limited change to "you". So it easily satisfies requirements for continuity. Continuity does not mean you never change, Continuity means exactly : succession of different (but similar enough) states of consciousness in time. So you basically said that continuity is illusion, because continuity is a fact. Nice contradiction
What exactly are you trying to argue? If you accept my definition of continuity then obviously the machine would satisfy those requirements (succession of similar states of consciousness). My opponents seem to be asserting that there is some other sort of continuity which this machine would violate. Are you agreeing with me or arguing with me? Or just quibbling
I am arguing with you as the machine violates the physical continuity in the most fundamental fashion. It actually completely destroys your body. There is no continuity when you use the machine. Your body completely ceases to exists and copy is created elsewhere. And to react to your other post about soul. Your conclusions are strange. It is actually the other way around the only way to say that the copy is you is if there is a immaterial soul. Because then there can be some continuity between the old body and new body. Immaterial soul would be the only thing that would make the teleport possibly not kill you. If you do not believe in the soul, then teleport of such kind is creating duplicates that are not you as there is no continuity between the old and the new. And how do you even explain multiple copies or the original not dying in your approach. The physical continuity approach easily deals with all those problems. So would the soul approach, but since souls do not exist it has slight problem But your approach does not deal with them in any logical way.
What exactly is in-continuous between these two bodies? I guess we're arguing in a very strange space to begin with, I don't think that saying that this machine would "violate physical continuity" is really an argument about whether the two people would be the same more than for the impossibility of such a machine in the first place. Without a soul there is no way to differentiate between the two bodies in any respect other than their location. If there were two identical copies of my body then there would be two identical copies of me.My consciousness would be continuous up to a point when it would "fork" and two identical copies would be made, both equally me - again only a problem if you believe in an uncopyable "soul".
Just answer this question. You go to sleep. When you wake up there is a one of you on the floor and one of you in the bed you went to sleep in. Which body are you controlling right now?
Your question is kind of hard to understand - I apologize if english is your second language. If I'm understanding what you're trying to say correctly, I would say I am equally "both", or rather there are two "Mes" in the room.
Obviously it's not my first language but I think I made myself clear. If someone makes an exact copy of yourself do you suddenly control that body too? Because if you don't that's not YOU.
Why not? You seem to be presupposing that there being two yous is impossible but still giving no argument as to why it is impossible. I have no idea where you're getting this "if you don't control both bodies you're only one of them" from.They would both equally be me. Both copies of me would have exactly equal reason for believing themselves to be me. How would one argue to the other "no, I am the real Maitolasi, you are the copy"? On what basis? Both have the same memories, the same self-identity, the same basis upon which to establish continuity. Every time you wake up you are at best guessing that everything that happened they day before actually happened, all you have to work off are your imperfect memories, and those are all that can establish identity or "me-ness". EDIT: im not replying to this thread anymore, have to go
No, I would never use it. If all we are is a biological machine then our consciousness as we know it would not be transported to the other body. It would be an entirely new self, made up of completely different particles. I (my mind) would cease to exist and an exact replica would replace me.
I think we'll have to know the answer from neurobiologists first whether a certain arrangement of neurons means memory or a certain arrangement means X, Y, or etc. Right now to be honest it doesn't seem necessary as I can go about the world just fine with public transit or planes. :S
On April 15 2012 03:53 sickoota wrote: The everyday continuity of consciousness is an illusion. You are not the same person every time you wake up. You are not the same person every time you blink. Teleportation in this manner is really no different from what happens any time you go to sleep or even just walk around. You are not one continuous person in the manner most conceive of themselves, just a succession of different states of consciousness in time. People saying a copy of you wouldn't really be "you" are operating off some unsubstantiated, illusory definition of self.
No they are operating based on the normal definition of self. Continuity of yourself is not illusion, between two points in time there is only very limited change to "you". So it easily satisfies requirements for continuity. Continuity does not mean you never change, Continuity means exactly : succession of different (but similar enough) states of consciousness in time. So you basically said that continuity is illusion, because continuity is a fact. Nice contradiction
What exactly are you trying to argue? If you accept my definition of continuity then obviously the machine would satisfy those requirements (succession of similar states of consciousness). My opponents seem to be asserting that there is some other sort of continuity which this machine would violate. Are you agreeing with me or arguing with me? Or just quibbling
I am arguing with you as the machine violates the physical continuity in the most fundamental fashion. It actually completely destroys your body. There is no continuity when you use the machine. Your body completely ceases to exists and copy is created elsewhere. And to react to your other post about soul. Your conclusions are strange. It is actually the other way around the only way to say that the copy is you is if there is a immaterial soul. Because then there can be some continuity between the old body and new body. Immaterial soul would be the only thing that would make the teleport possibly not kill you. If you do not believe in the soul, then teleport of such kind is creating duplicates that are not you as there is no continuity between the old and the new. And how do you even explain multiple copies or the original not dying in your approach. The physical continuity approach easily deals with all those problems. So would the soul approach, but since souls do not exist it has slight problem But your approach does not deal with them in any logical way.
What exactly is in-continuous between these two bodies? I guess we're arguing in a very strange space to begin with, I don't think that saying that this machine would "violate physical continuity" is really an argument about whether the two people would be the same more than for the impossibility of such a machine in the first place. Without a soul there is no way to differentiate between the two bodies in any respect other than their location. If there were two identical copies of my body then there would be two identical copies of me.My consciousness would be continuous up to a point when it would "fork" and two identical copies would be made, both equally me - again only a problem if you believe in an uncopyable "soul".
Just answer this question. You go to sleep. When you wake up there is a one of you on the floor and one of you in the bed you went to sleep in. Which body are you controlling right now?
Your question is kind of hard to understand - I apologize if english is your second language. If I'm understanding what you're trying to say correctly, I would say I am equally "both", or rather there are two "Mes" in the room.
Obviously it's not my first language but I think I made myself clear. If someone makes an exact copy of yourself do you suddenly control that body too? Because if you don't that's not YOU.
Why not? You seem to be presupposing that there being two yous is impossible but still giving no argument as to why it is impossible. I have no idea where you're getting this "if you don't control both bodies you're only one of them" from.They would both equally be me. Both copies of me would have exactly equal reason for believing themselves to be me. How would one argue to the other "no, I am the real Maitolasi, you are the copy"? On what basis? Both have the same memories, the same self-identity, the same basis upon which to establish continuity. Every time you wake up you are at best guessing that everything that happened they day before actually happened, all you have to work off are your imperfect memories, and those are all that can establish identity or "me-ness". EDIT: im not replying to this thread anymore, have to go
So are two identical twins the same person then? They were, in fact, one zygote at one point in time, except it happened to split in half.
If you were to clone yourself, and move from that point onward, the two of you would experience different things and become different people. you may have the past and same name, but you are not defined solely on your past but the present as well. You're right there is no way to tell which was the original (unless there was some sort of tag on the clone), but then again there is no way to tell which of the two identical twins was conceived first.
On April 15 2012 03:53 sickoota wrote: The everyday continuity of consciousness is an illusion. You are not the same person every time you wake up. You are not the same person every time you blink. Teleportation in this manner is really no different from what happens any time you go to sleep or even just walk around. You are not one continuous person in the manner most conceive of themselves, just a succession of different states of consciousness in time. People saying a copy of you wouldn't really be "you" are operating off some unsubstantiated, illusory definition of self.
No they are operating based on the normal definition of self. Continuity of yourself is not illusion, between two points in time there is only very limited change to "you". So it easily satisfies requirements for continuity. Continuity does not mean you never change, Continuity means exactly : succession of different (but similar enough) states of consciousness in time. So you basically said that continuity is illusion, because continuity is a fact. Nice contradiction
What exactly are you trying to argue? If you accept my definition of continuity then obviously the machine would satisfy those requirements (succession of similar states of consciousness). My opponents seem to be asserting that there is some other sort of continuity which this machine would violate. Are you agreeing with me or arguing with me? Or just quibbling
I am arguing with you as the machine violates the physical continuity in the most fundamental fashion. It actually completely destroys your body. There is no continuity when you use the machine. Your body completely ceases to exists and copy is created elsewhere. And to react to your other post about soul. Your conclusions are strange. It is actually the other way around the only way to say that the copy is you is if there is a immaterial soul. Because then there can be some continuity between the old body and new body. Immaterial soul would be the only thing that would make the teleport possibly not kill you. If you do not believe in the soul, then teleport of such kind is creating duplicates that are not you as there is no continuity between the old and the new. And how do you even explain multiple copies or the original not dying in your approach. The physical continuity approach easily deals with all those problems. So would the soul approach, but since souls do not exist it has slight problem But your approach does not deal with them in any logical way.
What exactly is in-continuous between these two bodies? I guess we're arguing in a very strange space to begin with, I don't think that saying that this machine would "violate physical continuity" is really an argument about whether the two people would be the same more than for the impossibility of such a machine in the first place. Without a soul there is no way to differentiate between the two bodies in any respect other than their location. If there were two identical copies of my body then there would be two identical copies of me.My consciousness would be continuous up to a point when it would "fork" and two identical copies would be made, both equally me - again only a problem if you believe in an uncopyable "soul".
Just answer this question. You go to sleep. When you wake up there is a one of you on the floor and one of you in the bed you went to sleep in. Which body are you controlling right now?
Your question is kind of hard to understand - I apologize if english is your second language. If I'm understanding what you're trying to say correctly, I would say I am equally "both", or rather there are two "Mes" in the room.
Obviously it's not my first language but I think I made myself clear. If someone makes an exact copy of yourself do you suddenly control that body too? Because if you don't that's not YOU.
Why not? You seem to be presupposing that there being two yous is impossible but still giving no argument as to why it is impossible. I have no idea where you're getting this "if you don't control both bodies you're only one of them" from.They would both equally be me. Both copies of me would have exactly equal reason for believing themselves to be me. How would one argue to the other "no, I am the real Maitolasi, you are the copy"? On what basis? Both have the same memories, the same self-identity, the same basis upon which to establish continuity. Every time you wake up you are at best guessing that everything that happened they day before actually happened, all you have to work off are your imperfect memories, and those are all that can establish identity or "me-ness". EDIT: im not replying to this thread anymore, have to go
So are two identical twins the same person then? They were, in fact, one zygote at one point in time, except it happened to split in half.
If you were to clone yourself, and move from that point onward, the two of you would experience different things and become different people. you may have the past and same name, but you are not defined solely on your past but the present as well. You're right there is no way to tell which was the original (unless there was some sort of tag on the clone), but then again there is no way to tell which of the two identical twins was conceived first.
Actually there would be a way to tell which one is the original. The clone wouldn't have the memory about how he got to the exact place where he "spawned" while the original one would have.
On April 15 2012 04:17 mcc wrote: [quote] No they are operating based on the normal definition of self. Continuity of yourself is not illusion, between two points in time there is only very limited change to "you". So it easily satisfies requirements for continuity. Continuity does not mean you never change, Continuity means exactly : succession of different (but similar enough) states of consciousness in time. So you basically said that continuity is illusion, because continuity is a fact. Nice contradiction
What exactly are you trying to argue? If you accept my definition of continuity then obviously the machine would satisfy those requirements (succession of similar states of consciousness). My opponents seem to be asserting that there is some other sort of continuity which this machine would violate. Are you agreeing with me or arguing with me? Or just quibbling
I am arguing with you as the machine violates the physical continuity in the most fundamental fashion. It actually completely destroys your body. There is no continuity when you use the machine. Your body completely ceases to exists and copy is created elsewhere. And to react to your other post about soul. Your conclusions are strange. It is actually the other way around the only way to say that the copy is you is if there is a immaterial soul. Because then there can be some continuity between the old body and new body. Immaterial soul would be the only thing that would make the teleport possibly not kill you. If you do not believe in the soul, then teleport of such kind is creating duplicates that are not you as there is no continuity between the old and the new. And how do you even explain multiple copies or the original not dying in your approach. The physical continuity approach easily deals with all those problems. So would the soul approach, but since souls do not exist it has slight problem But your approach does not deal with them in any logical way.
What exactly is in-continuous between these two bodies? I guess we're arguing in a very strange space to begin with, I don't think that saying that this machine would "violate physical continuity" is really an argument about whether the two people would be the same more than for the impossibility of such a machine in the first place. Without a soul there is no way to differentiate between the two bodies in any respect other than their location. If there were two identical copies of my body then there would be two identical copies of me.My consciousness would be continuous up to a point when it would "fork" and two identical copies would be made, both equally me - again only a problem if you believe in an uncopyable "soul".
Just answer this question. You go to sleep. When you wake up there is a one of you on the floor and one of you in the bed you went to sleep in. Which body are you controlling right now?
Your question is kind of hard to understand - I apologize if english is your second language. If I'm understanding what you're trying to say correctly, I would say I am equally "both", or rather there are two "Mes" in the room.
Obviously it's not my first language but I think I made myself clear. If someone makes an exact copy of yourself do you suddenly control that body too? Because if you don't that's not YOU.
Why not? You seem to be presupposing that there being two yous is impossible but still giving no argument as to why it is impossible. I have no idea where you're getting this "if you don't control both bodies you're only one of them" from.They would both equally be me. Both copies of me would have exactly equal reason for believing themselves to be me. How would one argue to the other "no, I am the real Maitolasi, you are the copy"? On what basis? Both have the same memories, the same self-identity, the same basis upon which to establish continuity. Every time you wake up you are at best guessing that everything that happened they day before actually happened, all you have to work off are your imperfect memories, and those are all that can establish identity or "me-ness". EDIT: im not replying to this thread anymore, have to go
So are two identical twins the same person then? They were, in fact, one zygote at one point in time, except it happened to split in half.
If you were to clone yourself, and move from that point onward, the two of you would experience different things and become different people. you may have the past and same name, but you are not defined solely on your past but the present as well. You're right there is no way to tell which was the original (unless there was some sort of tag on the clone), but then again there is no way to tell which of the two identical twins was conceived first.
Actually there would be a way to tell which one is the original. The clone wouldn't have the memory about how he got to the exact place where he "spawned" while the original one would have.
The Clone obviously can't spawn on top of the original so it would have to spawn next to it. + Show Spoiler +
On April 15 2012 04:21 sickoota wrote: [quote] What exactly are you trying to argue? If you accept my definition of continuity then obviously the machine would satisfy those requirements (succession of similar states of consciousness). My opponents seem to be asserting that there is some other sort of continuity which this machine would violate. Are you agreeing with me or arguing with me? Or just quibbling
I am arguing with you as the machine violates the physical continuity in the most fundamental fashion. It actually completely destroys your body. There is no continuity when you use the machine. Your body completely ceases to exists and copy is created elsewhere. And to react to your other post about soul. Your conclusions are strange. It is actually the other way around the only way to say that the copy is you is if there is a immaterial soul. Because then there can be some continuity between the old body and new body. Immaterial soul would be the only thing that would make the teleport possibly not kill you. If you do not believe in the soul, then teleport of such kind is creating duplicates that are not you as there is no continuity between the old and the new. And how do you even explain multiple copies or the original not dying in your approach. The physical continuity approach easily deals with all those problems. So would the soul approach, but since souls do not exist it has slight problem But your approach does not deal with them in any logical way.
What exactly is in-continuous between these two bodies? I guess we're arguing in a very strange space to begin with, I don't think that saying that this machine would "violate physical continuity" is really an argument about whether the two people would be the same more than for the impossibility of such a machine in the first place. Without a soul there is no way to differentiate between the two bodies in any respect other than their location. If there were two identical copies of my body then there would be two identical copies of me.My consciousness would be continuous up to a point when it would "fork" and two identical copies would be made, both equally me - again only a problem if you believe in an uncopyable "soul".
Just answer this question. You go to sleep. When you wake up there is a one of you on the floor and one of you in the bed you went to sleep in. Which body are you controlling right now?
Your question is kind of hard to understand - I apologize if english is your second language. If I'm understanding what you're trying to say correctly, I would say I am equally "both", or rather there are two "Mes" in the room.
Obviously it's not my first language but I think I made myself clear. If someone makes an exact copy of yourself do you suddenly control that body too? Because if you don't that's not YOU.
Why not? You seem to be presupposing that there being two yous is impossible but still giving no argument as to why it is impossible. I have no idea where you're getting this "if you don't control both bodies you're only one of them" from.They would both equally be me. Both copies of me would have exactly equal reason for believing themselves to be me. How would one argue to the other "no, I am the real Maitolasi, you are the copy"? On what basis? Both have the same memories, the same self-identity, the same basis upon which to establish continuity. Every time you wake up you are at best guessing that everything that happened they day before actually happened, all you have to work off are your imperfect memories, and those are all that can establish identity or "me-ness". EDIT: im not replying to this thread anymore, have to go
So are two identical twins the same person then? They were, in fact, one zygote at one point in time, except it happened to split in half.
If you were to clone yourself, and move from that point onward, the two of you would experience different things and become different people. you may have the past and same name, but you are not defined solely on your past but the present as well. You're right there is no way to tell which was the original (unless there was some sort of tag on the clone), but then again there is no way to tell which of the two identical twins was conceived first.
Actually there would be a way to tell which one is the original. The clone wouldn't have the memory about how he got to the exact place where he "spawned" while the original one would have.
The Clone obviously can't spawn on top of the original so it would have to spawn next to it. + Show Spoiler +
well I fucked up that edit
One more scenario. I shoot you in the face and kill you. Someone creates a copy of you 100 years after you were killed. Are you conscious and in control of the newly created body?
Jon Hick had some paper about death and immortality where he argued that we don't have these things called souls, but rather our bodies and personalities were duplicated by God upon death where they would spend eternity in heaven or at least a brief stint in hell. So in other words, you could "sin" all your life and never face the spiritual consequences because you will be dead, but some poor schmuck who THINKS he's you will go to hell on your behalf.
On April 14 2012 18:07 AegiS_ wrote: people who say "absolutely not".. do you REALLY think you are special/ you have a soul? if so you're probably pretty ignorant and ignore modern science. we're just a bunch of atoms, that includes our brain which truely makes you, you.
quantum teleportation (the process in which the atoms/molecules in your body would get teleported) would teleport all of your atoms exactly to the other place. quantum entanglement is beyond "trustworthy" as it would transmit your atom's information to the destinations location with 100% precision. all of your brain signals, memories, etc exactly the same assuming the machine works properly. if it works? hell yeah i would do it. It would be like blinking, but when you open your eyes you are on the other side of the world.
and yes quantum teleportation/entanglement is a real thing and has been done with a Proton I believe.
So you ask, would you still be.. you? Absolutely and I wish the intelligent bunch of atoms that is myself came into existence.. 2000 years in the future so I could experience this.
I think what gets confusing is like.. whatever there is after you die, let's just say it's blackness/nothing for all eternity for example. If you were to use the teleport, would you just experience blackness/nothing for all eternity and just an exact copy of you went on to live? If so, then I wouldn't do it because that would just suck, it has nothing to do with souls or anything of the sort. If none of that happened and you just blinked and would start experiencing your next body's life then yes, I'd be fine with doing it.
This whole death thing is a curious and common misconception, which leads to a lot of fear imo. You don't experience some void- you do not experience anything. There is no perception of endless time passing or blackness. These are directly attached to human experience. You do not experience anything!
Of course, if the idea in my post above holds any water, maybe in a universe of infinite time everybody will live again anyway. If time repeats.... then I don't even know what to think any more.
There are many interesting thoughts. What if you actually will be reborn and have been reborn many times, but you lose your memory every time? Is it really you then?
Or better: You are cloned, the clone keeps your memories, you don't (like your complete brain is erased). Which person are you? None?
On April 15 2012 03:53 sickoota wrote: The everyday continuity of consciousness is an illusion. You are not the same person every time you wake up. You are not the same person every time you blink. Teleportation in this manner is really no different from what happens any time you go to sleep or even just walk around. You are not one continuous person in the manner most conceive of themselves, just a succession of different states of consciousness in time. People saying a copy of you wouldn't really be "you" are operating off some unsubstantiated, illusory definition of self.
No they are operating based on the normal definition of self. Continuity of yourself is not illusion, between two points in time there is only very limited change to "you". So it easily satisfies requirements for continuity. Continuity does not mean you never change, Continuity means exactly : succession of different (but similar enough) states of consciousness in time. So you basically said that continuity is illusion, because continuity is a fact. Nice contradiction
What exactly are you trying to argue? If you accept my definition of continuity then obviously the machine would satisfy those requirements (succession of similar states of consciousness). My opponents seem to be asserting that there is some other sort of continuity which this machine would violate. Are you agreeing with me or arguing with me? Or just quibbling
I am arguing with you as the machine violates the physical continuity in the most fundamental fashion. It actually completely destroys your body. There is no continuity when you use the machine. Your body completely ceases to exists and copy is created elsewhere. And to react to your other post about soul. Your conclusions are strange. It is actually the other way around the only way to say that the copy is you is if there is a immaterial soul. Because then there can be some continuity between the old body and new body. Immaterial soul would be the only thing that would make the teleport possibly not kill you. If you do not believe in the soul, then teleport of such kind is creating duplicates that are not you as there is no continuity between the old and the new. And how do you even explain multiple copies or the original not dying in your approach. The physical continuity approach easily deals with all those problems. So would the soul approach, but since souls do not exist it has slight problem But your approach does not deal with them in any logical way.
What exactly is in-continuous between these two bodies? I guess we're arguing in a very strange space to begin with, I don't think that saying that this machine would "violate physical continuity" is really an argument about whether the two people would be the same more than for the impossibility of such a machine in the first place. Without a soul there is no way to differentiate between the two bodies in any respect other than their location. If there were two identical copies of my body then there would be two identical copies of me.My consciousness would be continuous up to a point when it would "fork" and two identical copies would be made, both equally me - again only a problem if you believe in an uncopyable "soul".
Just answer this question. You go to sleep. When you wake up there is a one of you on the floor and one of you in the bed you went to sleep in. Which body are you controlling right now?
Your question is kind of hard to understand - I apologize if english is your second language. If I'm understanding what you're trying to say correctly, I would say I am equally "both", or rather there are two "Mes" in the room.
Obviously it's not my first language but I think I made myself clear. If someone makes an exact copy of yourself do you suddenly control that body too? Because if you don't that's not YOU.
Why not? You seem to be presupposing that there being two yous is impossible but still giving no argument as to why it is impossible. I have no idea where you're getting this "if you don't control both bodies you're only one of them" from.They would both equally be me. Both copies of me would have exactly equal reason for believing themselves to be me. How would one argue to the other "no, I am the real Maitolasi, you are the copy"? On what basis? Both have the same memories, the same self-identity, the same basis upon which to establish continuity. Every time you wake up you are at best guessing that everything that happened they day before actually happened, all you have to work off are your imperfect memories, and those are all that can establish identity or "me-ness". EDIT: im not replying to this thread anymore, have to go
And one of them has objective basis for arguing that he is the original , the other does not. Because one of them always existed the other did not. Your only objection can be if you are not looking the moon is not there. But of course then you are just going in the direction of pointless solipsism.
I think the disconnect is between who views. Those who view themselves as well, themselves I suppose and conisder it preferable for themselves to not die and so consider the other person someone else entirely on one side. On the other, those of us who aren't so "self" focussed (can't think of a better term but I'm not meaning to imply anything positive or negative by that) and can't see a difference from stopping existing and an exact duplicate exisiting thinking and feeling and being us. I see it as a consciousness ransfer really, sure this one stops and that one starts but the being I recognsise as "I" would still exist and she would still be me.
I don't see dying this end as a problem at all, so long as the other version is identical in it's every thought.
Validating that would be harder though I think, but conceptually "me" dying doesn't bother me, "me" not existing does and I'm not convinced that "me" wouldn't just continue somewhere else. I have no reason to believe who I am is anything more than the sum of what is in my mind.
I like this problem, because there's no way to know for sure if the person who teleported actually died. Even if you tried it yourself, you still wouldn't know if it actually worked, because one way, you'd just be dead, and another way, you'd walk out of the teleporter with all the memories you had walking in, and never know for sure if you're just a clone. I think this phenomenon is captured really well by Theseus' paradox, which basically raises the question of what makes an object persistent. Basically Theseus has an old ship that is being rebuilt by taking out each individual plank, one at a time, and replacing it with a new one until all of the old planks have been discarded. After rennovations, the ship is identical in form, but all of it's components are lost.
If you think about it, this is exactly what humans do. You are constantly recycling out matter, until maybe 20 years down the road (I'm not a biologist, it's just a guess), you're made of none of the same stuff you were made of previously, including a completely rebuilt brain, and you're still the same person.
Object persistence aside, I'd be pretty reluctant to jump in a death teleporter, just because I can't imagine my consciousness actually transferring over. Maybe it's just a limitation of this feeble mind, but I don't think humans will ever truly understand consciousness. It's such a basic part of human life, that's it's impossible to describe without being circular, like trying to explain the concept of red to someone who's only seen in black and white his entire life.
On April 14 2012 18:07 AegiS_ wrote: people who say "absolutely not".. do you REALLY think you are special/ you have a soul? if so you're probably pretty ignorant and ignore modern science. we're just a bunch of atoms, that includes our brain which truely makes you, you.
quantum teleportation (the process in which the atoms/molecules in your body would get teleported) would teleport all of your atoms exactly to the other place. quantum entanglement is beyond "trustworthy" as it would transmit your atom's information to the destinations location with 100% precision. all of your brain signals, memories, etc exactly the same assuming the machine works properly. if it works? hell yeah i would do it. It would be like blinking, but when you open your eyes you are on the other side of the world.
and yes quantum teleportation/entanglement is a real thing and has been done with a Proton I believe.
So you ask, would you still be.. you? Absolutely and I wish the intelligent bunch of atoms that is myself came into existence.. 2000 years in the future so I could experience this.
I think what gets confusing is like.. whatever there is after you die, let's just say it's blackness/nothing for all eternity for example. If you were to use the teleport, would you just experience blackness/nothing for all eternity and just an exact copy of you went on to live? If so, then I wouldn't do it because that would just suck, it has nothing to do with souls or anything of the sort. If none of that happened and you just blinked and would start experiencing your next body's life then yes, I'd be fine with doing it.
This whole death thing is a curious and common misconception, which leads to a lot of fear imo. You don't experience some void- you do not experience anything. There is no perception of endless time passing or blackness. These are directly attached to human experience. You do not experience anything!
Of course, if the idea in my post above holds any water, maybe in a universe of infinite time everybody will live again anyway. If time repeats.... then I don't even know what to think any more.
There are many interesting thoughts. What if you actually will be reborn and have been reborn many times, but you lose your memory every time? Is it really you then?
Or better: You are cloned, the clone keeps your memories, you don't (like your complete brain is erased). Which person are you? None?
For the purpose of self-identification. You are you, even without the memory if you meant something like amnesia. Though if you mean some extreme amnesia it can be argued you died and neither the original ,since he lost his identity completely, neither the copy, since he never was you in the first place, are you. And again it is nicely explained by the principle of gradual continuity. Clone is not you since there is no continuity of the body at all. And the original is not you as there is continuity of the mind, but not gradual enough.
On April 14 2012 18:07 AegiS_ wrote: people who say "absolutely not".. do you REALLY think you are special/ you have a soul? if so you're probably pretty ignorant and ignore modern science. we're just a bunch of atoms, that includes our brain which truely makes you, you.
quantum teleportation (the process in which the atoms/molecules in your body would get teleported) would teleport all of your atoms exactly to the other place. quantum entanglement is beyond "trustworthy" as it would transmit your atom's information to the destinations location with 100% precision. all of your brain signals, memories, etc exactly the same assuming the machine works properly. if it works? hell yeah i would do it. It would be like blinking, but when you open your eyes you are on the other side of the world.
and yes quantum teleportation/entanglement is a real thing and has been done with a Proton I believe. AFAIK it also destroys the original Atom, so this process is not "cloning". It's teleportation.
So you ask, would you still be.. you? Absolutely and I wish the intelligent bunch of atoms that is myself came into existence.. 2000 years in the future so I could experience this.
On August 05 2010 18:36 UniversalSnip wrote: This is a common thing in science fiction where you are 'teleported' by a machine that kills you, then reconstructs an exact copy of your body and mind at another point. The question is
You're an idiot. The OP specifically stated that the machine kills you, then reconstructs you elsewhere. You are not truly teleported in his scenario, so what you're saying has nothing to do with the situation presented. The fact that you're trying to talk down to everyone only makes your idiocy worse.
My point was such because the only way a machine could do that (within the laws of physics, within the next.. 1,000,000,000 years) is the way I described. The OP wasn't too specific, and I wasn't aware we were talking about magic and not science fiction (science fiction is based on science, herp derp)
On August 05 2010 18:49 deisel wrote: common philosophical question...and if you believe that only the mind makes up who you really are then you would do it. but if you believe that both your body and mind makes you who you really are, then you wouldn't do it.
Then again, your personality and memories and so on is stored as matter and would of course be teleported too. The new person would think that he is the same as before since he keeps all memories.
For me it's not an issue of identity or continuity of consciouness but an ethical one. Creating a copy of someone doesn't invalidate their rights and doesn't change the ethical perspective. Same with cloning, if you clone somebody I would still view it as murder if you killed the clone or original.
Furthermore, twins are essentially clones that "branched" before birth, whereas a teleportation or copying would consitute a branching off at some later time. The twins, clones, teleported people and originals are all individuals regardless of the similarities they have with each other and killing any one of them would be murder (or suicide) from my point of view.
On April 14 2012 18:07 AegiS_ wrote: people who say "absolutely not".. do you REALLY think you are special/ you have a soul? if so you're probably pretty ignorant and ignore modern science. we're just a bunch of atoms, that includes our brain which truely makes you, you.
quantum teleportation (the process in which the atoms/molecules in your body would get teleported) would teleport all of your atoms exactly to the other place. quantum entanglement is beyond "trustworthy" as it would transmit your atom's information to the destinations location with 100% precision. all of your brain signals, memories, etc exactly the same assuming the machine works properly. if it works? hell yeah i would do it. It would be like blinking, but when you open your eyes you are on the other side of the world.
and yes quantum teleportation/entanglement is a real thing and has been done with a Proton I believe. AFAIK it also destroys the original Atom, so this process is not "cloning". It's teleportation.
So you ask, would you still be.. you? Absolutely and I wish the intelligent bunch of atoms that is myself came into existence.. 2000 years in the future so I could experience this.
On August 05 2010 18:36 UniversalSnip wrote: This is a common thing in science fiction where you are 'teleported' by a machine that kills you, then reconstructs an exact copy of your body and mind at another point. The question is
You're an idiot. The OP specifically stated that the machine kills you, then reconstructs you elsewhere. You are not truly teleported in his scenario, so what you're saying has nothing to do with the situation presented. The fact that you're trying to talk down to everyone only makes your idiocy worse.
My point was such because the only way a machine could do that (within the laws of physics, within the next.. 1,000,000,000 years) is the way I described. The OP wasn't too specific, and I wasn't aware we were talking about magic and not science fiction (science fiction is based on science, herp derp)
but thanks for being bitter i appreciate it.
That is not the only way. Not even talking about you calling people who say absolutely not ignorant , because they must believe in soul. I say absolutely not, but because I do not believe in souls. And as far as self-identity goes, yes I am that special, there is noone else with this property of being me. And the copy that would start to exist using your quantum teleportation process would be also without that property. It would have its own. He would think exactly like me of course our thoughts are determined by the organization of our bodies/brains. But being "me" is deeper than having the same thoughts.
On April 15 2012 06:03 L3gendary wrote: For me it's not an issue of identity or continuity of consciouness but an ethical one. Creating a copy of someone doesn't invalidate their rights and doesn't change the ethical perspective. Same with cloning, if you clone somebody I would still view it as murder if you killed the clone or original.
Furthermore, twins are essentially clones that "branched" before birth, whereas a teleportation or copying would consitute a branching off at some later time. The twins, clones, teleported people and originals are all individuals regardless of the similarities they have with each other and killing any one of them would be murder (or suicide) from my point of view.
Well it is not really a murder, but voluntary suicide if the original is killed in the process. So there is no ethical problem in that scenarion and the philosophical one still remains.
On April 15 2012 06:03 L3gendary wrote: For me it's not an issue of identity or continuity of consciouness but an ethical one. Creating a copy of someone doesn't invalidate their rights and doesn't change the ethical perspective. Same with cloning, if you clone somebody I would still view it as murder if you killed the clone or original.
Furthermore, twins are essentially clones that "branched" before birth, whereas a teleportation or copying would consitute a branching off at some later time. The twins, clones, teleported people and originals are all individuals regardless of the similarities they have with each other and killing any one of them would be murder (or suicide) from my point of view.
Well it is not really a murder, but voluntary suicide if the original is killed in the process. So there is no ethical problem in that scenarion and the philosophical one still remains.
I said "or suicide". That is, if the individual undergoing it believed it was suicide. I would still have an ethical issue with a bunch of suicide machines, especially since, if it becomes commonplace, people would be expected to use it. (To get to work faster or whatever.)
On April 15 2012 06:03 L3gendary wrote: For me it's not an issue of identity or continuity of consciouness but an ethical one. Creating a copy of someone doesn't invalidate their rights and doesn't change the ethical perspective. Same with cloning, if you clone somebody I would still view it as murder if you killed the clone or original.
Furthermore, twins are essentially clones that "branched" before birth, whereas a teleportation or copying would consitute a branching off at some later time. The twins, clones, teleported people and originals are all individuals regardless of the similarities they have with each other and killing any one of them would be murder (or suicide) from my point of view.
Well it is not really a murder, but voluntary suicide if the original is killed in the process. So there is no ethical problem in that scenarion and the philosophical one still remains.
I said "or suicide". That is, if the individual undergoing it believed it was suicide. I would still have an ethical issue with a bunch of suicide machines, especially since, if it becomes commonplace, people would be expected to use it. (To get to work faster or whatever.)
I have no issues of the decisions made by people who know the consequences of their actions.
On April 15 2012 06:03 L3gendary wrote: For me it's not an issue of identity or continuity of consciouness but an ethical one. Creating a copy of someone doesn't invalidate their rights and doesn't change the ethical perspective. Same with cloning, if you clone somebody I would still view it as murder if you killed the clone or original.
Furthermore, twins are essentially clones that "branched" before birth, whereas a teleportation or copying would consitute a branching off at some later time. The twins, clones, teleported people and originals are all individuals regardless of the similarities they have with each other and killing any one of them would be murder (or suicide) from my point of view.
Well it is not really a murder, but voluntary suicide if the original is killed in the process. So there is no ethical problem in that scenarion and the philosophical one still remains.
I said "or suicide". That is, if the individual undergoing it believed it was suicide. I would still have an ethical issue with a bunch of suicide machines, especially since, if it becomes commonplace, people would be expected to use it. (To get to work faster or whatever.)
Well suicide is not necessarily ethical problem, but yes that would be a problem if societal pressure to use them was big.
Well this is EXACTLY what Sheldon asked Leonard in an episode of Big Bang Theory. Teleporting cannot be possible in our Universe in my opinion, so the question is immediatly dead on arrival for me. But if it were possible and the methode were to destroy yourself and recreate yourself somewhere else, unless my conscience is untouched and my mind/personality intact (including memory) I don't mind.
The teleportation aspect (the changing of locations) of this machine seems like a very specific and less useful application. It seems like we wanted an idea of how to get to any place in an instant, so we conceived of a much more complex machine which would not be used in an optimal, or sensible way, but in a way that would most specifically be able to accomplish our goal of teleportation as we imagined it.
First, why are we killing ourselves? What purpose does this serve at all? Are we killing ourselves purely for the purpose of keeping up an illusion? How bout we just keep whatever we're copying?
Second, wouldn't a far more useful application be the endless copying of anything we choose? This technology seems to imply we are now capable of recreating any set of atoms we have. Certainly we could find quite a few useful things besides humans that we could be copying.
Third, related to the last point, couldn't the information of these sets of atoms be sent to endless amounts of labs, or homes, and the same be recreated in each? As in, you could have a database of every element and object we have been able to scan, and any individual with a rebuilding device could choose ANYTHING and have it instantly created in front of them.
Fourth, I generally have heard teleportation is supposed to be instantaneous. This would be quite the world changing innovation. We are now able to transfer data instantly through space. The implications of this are immense, and it would require a radically new understanding of the world and a rewriting of our laws of physics.
This idea of teleporting yourself as a means of transportation just seems so dull, specific, and trivial in comparison to the other possibilities that would be opened up with the new technology that would be required to create it. The implications of what this would mean about our world, and what kind of options this would open up for us are so incredible, that is hard to to see much reason for caring about this one odd application.
As for this philosophical argument, there is absolutely nothing linking the copy and original. In no sense whatsoever are you being transported to a new location. You are being killed. It doesn't matter whether you're looking at it from a scientific, or spiritual viewpoint, you are not the copy.
1. The original is destroyed in the measurement which is why you would die http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation 2. You can't create exact copies of anything because of the no-cloning theorem. 3. Teleportation wouldn't be instantaneous it'd have to be at least as slow as light.
I believe that my consciousness would die so I'd say no since I'm rather attatched to it. It would be better to create a perfect human in my place, oh wait they're the same, i guess i'd use the gathered information to recreate myself as many times as possible then.
On April 15 2012 06:50 Befree wrote: As for this philosophical argument, there is absolutely nothing linking the copy and original. In no sense whatsoever are you being transported to a new location. You are being killed. It doesn't matter whether you're looking at it from a scientific, or spiritual viewpoint, you are not the copy.
"In no sense whatsoever are you being transported" according to your view on consciousness. Can you disprove this: The mind is not linked to matter and that you would exist at two places at once. Giving the effect of consciousnesses being able to transport information to some weird extent. Riddiculously far fetched, but we don't know squat about what makes us conscious.
Sub-topic: If this was what happened in all sci-fi teleportation (Star trek, Stargate and so on), would you think that's horrible? does your opinion change if they were aware of it compared to if they were not?
Even if its easy to think that committal of unintentional suicide all the time is terrible, I would not, however, since another consciousness would be created for each destroyed. I can't find a reason to put more value in one "two hour"-life compared to two "one hour"-lives. I would be intrested to know if my answer changed your opinion.
Edit: Religion has a severe effect on this, I suppose many posters call themselves atheist, but the views are deeple affected by various religions. I'd like to mention some Buddhist views. A river has a name like just like you or me, but the contents of the river, the water, is constantly replaced. So it's never the same matter, it just flows at the same place. Is it the same with people, the "you" is constantly changing because of new experiences and impressions.
I just wanna say that even though this is not possible following the current laws of physics, you should not say that these laws will remain valid in the following 1.000.000 years. That's a stretch. In fact, we've only begun to scratch the surface in the last few hundred years. Look at the things they're learning from CERN. I think some of the things we take for granted now (like Pauli's principle in relation to atoms which was mentioned earlier), may be ...expanded in the (near) future based on new things we learn.
I'm not saying that we'll have a teleportation machine in the next 10 years, but I know the world will not be the same 100 years from now. So let's simply skip over the fact that the machine is impossible by today's knowledge of physics, and assume, for the sake of the argument, that it could be built 1000 years from now.
That being said, the more I think about it, the more I'm leaning towards using the machine. If by someway consciousness can be replicated, then you could work with it as data, just like you do with everything else.
I have to echo a comment made earlier in the thread; this isn't just a question with some trifling emotional problems of identity or feeling uncomfortable with the process of being destroyed. If a copy of myself is made, then that copy is a separate entity, and enjoys a separate life. I will die, and assuming there is no God I will be gone forever. I don't particularly care whether I made the copy of myself happy in becoming alive - doing it at the expense of my life is a pretty bad trade.
Your consciousness isn't going to just carry over to the new individual. Sure that person may think the same, but its irrelevant. *You* will never be transferred over.
On April 15 2012 09:05 radscorpion9 wrote: I have to echo a comment made earlier in the thread; this isn't just a question with some trifling emotional problems of identity or feeling uncomfortable with the process of being destroyed. If a copy of myself is made, then that copy is a separate entity, and enjoys a separate life. I will die, and assuming there is no God I will be gone forever. I don't particularly care whether I made the copy of myself happy in becoming alive - doing it at the expense of my life is a pretty bad trade.
Your consciousness isn't going to just carry over to the new individual. Sure that person may think the same, but its irrelevant. *You* will never be transferred over.
Actually, that's the whole point. If you could perfectly replicate an individual, then consciousness would be replicated as well. Unless you believe that consciousness itself is not related to anything physical, and thus is something resembling a "soul".
On April 15 2012 09:05 radscorpion9 wrote: I have to echo a comment made earlier in the thread; this isn't just a question with some trifling emotional problems of identity or feeling uncomfortable with the process of being destroyed. If a copy of myself is made, then that copy is a separate entity, and enjoys a separate life. I will die, and assuming there is no God I will be gone forever. I don't particularly care whether I made the copy of myself happy in becoming alive - doing it at the expense of my life is a pretty bad trade.
Your consciousness isn't going to just carry over to the new individual. Sure that person may think the same, but its irrelevant. *You* will never be transferred over.
Actually, that's the whole point. If you could perfectly replicate an individual, then consciousness would be replicated as well. Unless you believe that consciousness itself is not related to anything physical, and thus is something resembling a "soul".
No, conciousness is copied/replicated but it is not carried over. Therefore the new entity will believe it has just been teleported and it will know what just happened, but YOU would be dead, you will only feel nothing as you will be dead, but the replica just believes it has lived your life...
this is a central concept in michael chrichton's book timeline. they are able to reconstruct people in different points in history in just this way. that book was pretty good, but i thought the movie kinda sucked.
On April 15 2012 09:05 radscorpion9 wrote: I have to echo a comment made earlier in the thread; this isn't just a question with some trifling emotional problems of identity or feeling uncomfortable with the process of being destroyed. If a copy of myself is made, then that copy is a separate entity, and enjoys a separate life. I will die, and assuming there is no God I will be gone forever. I don't particularly care whether I made the copy of myself happy in becoming alive - doing it at the expense of my life is a pretty bad trade.
Your consciousness isn't going to just carry over to the new individual. Sure that person may think the same, but its irrelevant. *You* will never be transferred over.
Actually, that's the whole point. If you could perfectly replicate an individual, then consciousness would be replicated as well. Unless you believe that consciousness itself is not related to anything physical, and thus is something resembling a "soul".
No, conciousness is copied/replicated but it is not carried over. Therefore the new entity will believe it has just been teleported and it will know what just happened, but YOU would be dead, you will only feel nothing as you will be dead, but the replica just believes it has lived your life...
I guess that's just the way you perceive consciousness. The example that was raised in this case was sleep. How do you make the difference between the consciousness carrying over from going to sleep to waking up and the one from dying to being remade in the teleporter? Why is one different from the other? Will it not just be a lack of consciousness and then waking up on the other side?
And if the very foundation is identical, the atoms are identical, and consciousness is made out of matter like everything else, why are your components any different than the new components? What is lost? Assuming that all states are replicated perfectly.
On April 15 2012 04:59 sickoota wrote: Consciousness exists only in the present - we are only ever conscious of a certain moment in time. That we connect this moment backwards through memory and habit thereby creating an "identity" is what constitutes us. The difference between me and anyone else is the both the difference of the moment of which we are conscious and our memories - I'm not sure what you were getting at with that one. This clone is me by virtue of sharing my memories, therefore having the same exact identity as me, therefore.being me.
So you conclude that there isn't an actual 'me' (that it is the 'I' is an illusion). [from previous post]
On April 15 2012 05:51 mcc wrote: For the purpose of self-identification. You are you, even without the memory if you meant something like amnesia. Though if you mean some extreme amnesia it can be argued you died and neither the original ,since he lost his identity completely, neither the copy, since he never was you in the first place, are you. And again it is nicely explained by the principle of gradual continuity. Clone is not you since there is no continuity of the body at all. And the original is not you as there is continuity of the mind, but not gradual enough.
Also, how does teleportation defy the the continuity of self as a progression, as the continuity is in fact less gradual (or there is a change by a lesser degree) so that it is in fact more 'you'.
- There is an 'I'.
On April 15 2012 06:50 Befree wrote: As for this philosophical argument, there is absolutely nothing linking the copy and original. In no sense whatsoever are you being transported to a new location. You are being killed. It doesn't matter whether you're looking at it from a scientific, or spiritual viewpoint, you are not the copy.
Isn't it the fact that I am the only I, and all other beings are not that I. But this is the same for all others, as they experience 'self-identification'. But if there is no self, they are identifying with something illusory thing, so that they shouldn't be any identification at all or one should identify not only what one thinks of 'one's self' or 'I' as 'one's self', when it 'in fact', encapsulates everything else (something along those lines).
And I do believe it is important whether you're looking at it from a scientific or spiritual viewpoint, because you'll, generally see opinions be divergent dependent on what viewpoint you're arguing from. But I do agree it should not necessarily be dependent on what viewpoint you are arguing from, as long as you qualify what it is that makes 'you' you, for you :S.
Sorry for the verbosity, as I can't make it as clear cut as I'd like. The topic, for me touches on the fear of death (and I find it somewhat abstruse, that as an atheist one fears death as there is an apparent 'nothingness' afterwards. I thought atheists don't adhere that type of view). Also, personal identity and what it is comprised of. Maybe a hint of what people like to describe as 'fate'. (When talking about how experiences are what define of 'your self')
If decomposing and reconstructing something equals the exact same thing, then sure why not? The 'you' that is decomposed wont give a shit because 'you' don't exist as a conscious being anymore, and the reconstructed 'you' wont give a damn as 'you' are still conscious. I could see it as a problem if teleportation somehow altered 'you'.
I'm going to teleport to another day by heading to bed now ->
Just as a question--do you feel and remember the experience of dying or simply the moments before the machine turned on? If it was a painful death--would it matter? If it was a painless death--would that be relevant? Is there trauma that can occur to know that you've died? (Much like trauma can occur in PTSD victims of war who only had to see others die, would PTSD happen to you when you yourself die?)
On April 15 2012 09:05 radscorpion9 wrote: I have to echo a comment made earlier in the thread; this isn't just a question with some trifling emotional problems of identity or feeling uncomfortable with the process of being destroyed. If a copy of myself is made, then that copy is a separate entity, and enjoys a separate life. I will die, and assuming there is no God I will be gone forever. I don't particularly care whether I made the copy of myself happy in becoming alive - doing it at the expense of my life is a pretty bad trade.
Your consciousness isn't going to just carry over to the new individual. Sure that person may think the same, but its irrelevant. *You* will never be transferred over.
Actually, that's the whole point. If you could perfectly replicate an individual, then consciousness would be replicated as well. Unless you believe that consciousness itself is not related to anything physical, and thus is something resembling a "soul".
No, conciousness is copied/replicated but it is not carried over. Therefore the new entity will believe it has just been teleported and it will know what just happened, but YOU would be dead, you will only feel nothing as you will be dead, but the replica just believes it has lived your life...
I guess that's just the way you perceive consciousness. The example that was raised in this case was sleep. How do you make the difference between the consciousness carrying over from going to sleep to waking up and the one from dying to being remade in the teleporter? Why is one different from the other? Will it not just be a lack of consciousness and then waking up on the other side?
And if the very foundation is identical, the atoms are identical, and consciousness is made out of matter like everything else, why are your components any different than the new components? What is lost? Assuming that all states are replicated perfectly.
Uhm, no actual matter transportation is involved in sleep. If what you are saying is true, then you also assume that if I made an exact copy, that I would experience BOTH at the same time, which doesnt make any sense, and you cant choose to ignore that, if transporting works as described here, then this would have to be true.
On April 15 2012 09:05 radscorpion9 wrote: I have to echo a comment made earlier in the thread; this isn't just a question with some trifling emotional problems of identity or feeling uncomfortable with the process of being destroyed. If a copy of myself is made, then that copy is a separate entity, and enjoys a separate life. I will die, and assuming there is no God I will be gone forever. I don't particularly care whether I made the copy of myself happy in becoming alive - doing it at the expense of my life is a pretty bad trade.
Your consciousness isn't going to just carry over to the new individual. Sure that person may think the same, but its irrelevant. *You* will never be transferred over.
What makes you you, though? If "you" is the being made up of your memories and genetics, then killing the old body and recreating a new body would not kill "you". "You" would be transferred over (OP stated the machine perfectly recreates your mind and body).
I just want to put a couple hypotheticals out there:
For those of you who would use the machine, suppose instead of you being instantly killed and a copy then being created somewhere else, it worked like this.
- You enter the machine. - A copy is created in Zanzibar or where ever you wanted to go. - The you that entered the machine is instantly locked away from all possible contact and slowly tortured to death. His skin is sliced off slowly with razor wires and acid is poured on the exposed fat until it bubbles away. It takes a long time for the death to occur, could be weeks.
Would you still enter the machine?
For those of you who would not enter the machine because the old you is the only one that matters (daimon thought this up):
- Suppose the machine said "suicide booth". You are terribly suicidal, so you feed in a buck and step in. Then the normal process described in the OP occurs and you show up instantly 10 feet away. Did you get your money's worth?
creating another being that looks and acts like yourself is called memory cloning. teleportation is the act of transporting a given object to another location instantaneously. However, the object will probably be crushed under the pressure because if you teleport somewhere and there is only air between the initial location and the destination (best case scenario) you have to push the air in front of you all the way. if the mechanism of teleportation makes you push all that air in an instant you will die to the pressure. there are all those imaginary talks about holes that give access to another dimension. if those holes exist and assuming 1 that there is another hole at the end that would lead to another location of this dimension and also assuming 2 that the hole sucks you in entirely and does not chop you up as you enter the hole then it would still not work because the speed at which you'll be traveling should be at least a chunk of the speed of light and once you exit through the second hole you will either crash into a tree, the ground, a rock, the ocean and worst of all projected into the sky where you will burn bone dry thanks to the friction and your bones will float in Earth's orbit or space.
On April 15 2012 13:23 UniversalSnip wrote: I just want to put a couple hypotheticals out there:
For those of you who would use the machine, suppose instead of you being instantly killed and a copy then being created somewhere else, it worked like this.
- You enter the machine. - A copy is created in Zanzibar or where ever you wanted to go. - The you that entered the machine is instantly locked away from all possible contact and slowly tortured to death. His skin is sliced off slowly with razor wires and acid is poured on the exposed fat until it bubbles away. It takes a long time for the death to occur, could be weeks.
Would you still enter the machine?
For those of you who would not enter the machine because the old you is the only one that matters (daimon thought this up):
- Suppose the machine said "suicide booth". You are terribly suicidal, so you feed in a buck and step in. Then the normal process described in the OP occurs and you show up instantly 10 feet away. Did you get your money's worth?
I would use the machine if it were like in the. OP, but in no way does using your machines make any sense. The reason to go to the machine is that I would die some time anywya, why not do it in a way that also creates life? Not only that but the life I created would be an awsome human.In no way is dying to torture a cool death. The suicide booth makes no sense either. Suiciding yourself is free and easy. Why would I pay a buck to be a jackass and create another version me that also wants to suicide, exept this dude has one less buck.
On April 15 2012 13:53 songohan wrote: creating another being that looks and acts like yourself is called memory cloning. teleportation is the act of transporting a given object to another location instantaneously. However, the object will probably be crushed under the pressure because if you teleport somewhere and there is only air between the initial location and the destination (best case scenario) you have to push the air in front of you all the way. if the mechanism of teleportation makes you push all that air in an instant you will die to the pressure. there are all those imaginary talks about holes that give access to another dimension. if those holes exist and assuming 1 that there is another hole at the end that would lead to another location of this dimension and also assuming 2 that the hole sucks you in entirely and does not chop you up as you enter the hole then it would still not work because the speed at which you'll be traveling should be at least a chunk of the speed of light and once you exit through the second hole you will either crash into a tree, the ground, a rock, the ocean and worst of all projected into the sky where you will burn bone dry thanks to the friction and your bones will float in Earth's orbit or space.
Just make the device also teleport the air away where you are teleporting, so you would teleport to a vacuum exactly the size of you with breathable air around you.
Given that the clone would not be "me" in the sense that my current controlling mind would not go on living, I would not do it. Also due to the clone receiving an exact copy of my personality, it wouldn't be happy with it either.
Example: I die, clone is created. Family doesn't quite like the idea of a cloned me, some clones would reassure them with "Its still me!" but I wouldn't, ergo my clone wouldn't. When I die, I don't want my name to go on doing shit without me knowing, lol. I know its a recreation of me and would only do stuff I'd do, but it still isn't me.
"This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine." Fairly relevant quote. Copies of things you own exist, but only one of them is yours.
No, because I would be dead. It doesn't matter if a clone of me is still around and the essence of me is still there for everyone else. But it's not me and I am dead therefore it's not worth doing this sort of teleportation.
On April 15 2012 21:05 WarChimp wrote: No, because I would be dead. It doesn't matter if a clone of me is still around and the essence of me is still there for everyone else. But it's not me and I am dead therefore it's not worth doing this sort of teleportation.
So you are saying that a part of you is defined outside the model. Something that you have is not made out of molecules and atoms, and cannot be replicated. There is a difference between a clone and this process, in that the consciousness itself is also transported. So it would be like going to sleep and waking up. Momentary lapse of consciousness and that's that.
On April 15 2012 21:05 WarChimp wrote: No, because I would be dead. It doesn't matter if a clone of me is still around and the essence of me is still there for everyone else. But it's not me and I am dead therefore it's not worth doing this sort of teleportation.
So you are saying that a part of you is defined outside the model. Something that you have is not made out of molecules and atoms, and cannot be replicated. There is a difference between a clone and this process, in that the consciousness itself is also transported. So it would be like going to sleep and waking up. Momentary lapse of consciousness and that's that.
Most people (or more ^^), will not know how their consciousness "works" and how fragile it is. The continuity is only a feeling, that is recreated every day in our bodies. Thats why i dont like this kind of threads where people arugue believes against other peoples believes, or even worse, against science .
I don't really see the problem here. I'm basically still alive, and I'm still living my life. I'll have been thinking the exact same thing before I teleported, it would be a complete duplicate. Sure, the former me died, but I won't really care...I'll be dead, therefore not thinking about it.
The idea is that you aren't actually teleported... a perfect clone of you is born, and you die. It makes sense because what if the teleporter fails and you aren't actually destroyed... your perfect clone is created at the target location, yet you're still at the source location. Now who's the real one?
^^ Exactly. I just feel like a new copy of you that thinks its you is born, but your ability to live would be gone, and an exact replica would be born.
The brain is still active during sleep. It is not active during death. The break in physical continuity of the body breaks continuity of my life, so no I wouldn't do it.
Ofcourse not. This conciousness will die and the other one will just be an exact copy. In otherwords, would you like to commit suicide and leave a very convincing tombstone walking around? Nah, I'll pass.
Just to add a little fun to the mix, from Swinburne: Suppose there is a mad scientist that is going to transfer your consciousness into two separate bodies. These two bodies will be exact replicas of you - they will have all of your experiences, memories, consciousness, etc. However, one body will experience extreme pain and suffering. The other will experience pleasure.
Should you be worried? If you think that in the death teleportation, the replica is really YOU, then you should be really, really worried. But if you don't, then you shouldn't be worried at all. Because neither of the new bodies will really be "you".
This response is specifically directed at people who argue that a physical "discontinuation" of the body means that it's no longer really "you". Well, then, if your psychological consciousness is transferred into a new body that will experience torture, are you not worried?
If I used the teleporter, the me typing this would be dead, right? If you're duplicated on the other end, sure, it's "me" but it's not the same conciousness that's typing this to you guys. That conciousness would be dead, I would think.
Can someone explain the difference between the machine in the op and another machine that disassembles you, transports all the atoms that made you up, and then re-assembling you using the exact atoms you were made up with in another location? In my mind the second machine would actually move the me that's typing this around, when compared to the first machine.
On April 16 2012 03:59 Finality wrote: This thread confuses me so much.
If I used the teleporter, the me typing this would be dead, right? If you're duplicated on the other end, sure, it's "me" but it's not the same conciousness that's typing this to you guys. That conciousness would be dead, I would think.
Can someone explain the difference between the machine in the op and another machine that disassembles you, transports all the atoms that made you up, and then re-assembling you using the exact atoms you were made up with in another location? In my mind the second machine would actually move the me that's typing this around, when compared to the first machine.
Both machines kill you. Even if the copy is made up of the exact same atoms in the exact same position, it's still just a copy. I mean, if you have the technology to break down a person into atoms and rebuild it perfectly, you would have the technology to do the same kind of copy but with other atoms, which would make a perfect copy since a hydrogen atom in my body is identical to any hydrogen atom in the air. IMO, this is the reason why I believe in the soul even though I'm an atheist. Because really, I just can't believe that my consciousness rests in my atoms... the atoms building up my body is just dead matter, you could build a completely identical copy with atoms from other sources... but that obviously wouldn't have my consciousness. It's also the reason I have a mild phobia of sleeping, I find lapse of consciousness very uncomfortable.
On April 16 2012 03:59 Finality wrote: This thread confuses me so much.
If I used the teleporter, the me typing this would be dead, right? If you're duplicated on the other end, sure, it's "me" but it's not the same conciousness that's typing this to you guys. That conciousness would be dead, I would think.
Can someone explain the difference between the machine in the op and another machine that disassembles you, transports all the atoms that made you up, and then re-assembling you using the exact atoms you were made up with in another location? In my mind the second machine would actually move the me that's typing this around, when compared to the first machine.
Both machines kill you. Even if the copy is made up of the exact same atoms in the exact same position, it's still just a copy. I mean, if you have the technology to break down a person into atoms and rebuild it perfectly, you would have the technology to do the same kind of copy but with other atoms, which would make a perfect copy since a hydrogen atom in my body is identical to any hydrogen atom in the air. IMO, this is the reason why I believe in the soul even though I'm an atheist. Because really, I just can't believe that my consciousness rests in my atoms... the atoms building up my body is just dead matter, you could build a completely identical copy with atoms from other sources... but that obviously wouldn't have my consciousness. It's also the reason I have a mild phobia of sleeping, I find lapse of consciousness very uncomfortable.
Well, your consciousness isn't just in the atoms, its in their arrangements. A hard drive is not made of data, but that data is encoded in the magnetic disk. Consciousness is just data, albeit extremely complex data.
On April 14 2012 16:28 Brutaxilos wrote: This form of teleportation is utterly retarded. YOU'RE DEAD PEOPLE. You know, if the machine is going to rebuild your body atom by atom in another location, is the whole, killing the original really that important. Might as well just make a clone to do what's needed to be done. Better yet, might as well just do what you want to do electronically and send it. It's not like the information carrying your body plan travels any faster than an email. If your doing this for a fast way to get to something pleasurable, like going on vacation, don't. Your dead. Someone else is enjoying your life.
But why are you necessarily dead? You're still alive, in a sense. Objectively nobody would know the difference. Subjectively, well I'm not sure. But how can you be so sure that you are in effect dead if there is another you in existence?
Just because something is exactly the same as another, doesn't mean it is the same object. Take a look at mass production, although every iPhone in the world is not EXACTLY the same, they're close enough for this thought experiment. If I have an iPhone and you have an iPhone, both brand new and unopened, are they the same iPhone? No. Similarly, if a machine creates another being in the same exact construction as me, it is not me. We are still different objects.
Honestly, for those people who think that its religious to think that your conscience is connected with your body, try and think about this. If a machine created another you and didn't kill you, would you be controlling two bodies at one time? In my opinion, it's more religious to believe that the specific pattern of atoms constructed in the proper way would automatically grant the conscience control.
I use conscience as a way to describe it easier. I don't actually believe there is a conscience. Like Stephen Hawkings said, we are all computers. Our movements are based on stimuli triggering synapses in our brain which in turn grant us our actions. "Consciousness" is only a by-product.
You should add a new twist in the OP, with the same teleportation system that you described (one's body get destroyed but a clone with his exact memories is created at the location he wanted to arrive at) except that people do not know that their original body has been destroyed and that they are now a clone, thinking instead that they have actually been teleported. Would the people that were reluctant with the original system be willing to embrace the new one in which absolutely nobody (including them) knew the original bodies were destroyed and they were now clones after being "teleported"?
Think about it like an exact clone of you (so exact the atomic structure is the same) standing right next to you. You both have the same brain and the same memory, but from the moment your clone is awake, it will have different thoughts than you because he is in another space than you and perceives the world differently. Therefore you are not him and he is not you. The teleportationproces will make it so you die, but someone else will live. But the clone will think it worked.
I wrote a small blog here on TL about this subject. But afterwards I realized that the things I said in the blog don't make any sense. But then again, what is conciousness. It's kind of a paradox. That makes me think that there is no thing like conciousness. It's just your brain being aware of itself. The person YOU don't really exists. It's the brain that wakes up everyday and thinks it is you, and just goes trough that logical process that you must be you and it existed for the age you are.
[EDIT] It was mentioned before in this thread, but that was 2 years ago. Swampman is something that touches this problem.
On April 16 2012 05:27 POiNTx wrote: No because my conciousness will not be the same.
Think about it like an exact clone of you (so exact the atomic structure is the same) standing right next to you. You both have the same brain and the same memory, but from the moment your clone is awake, it will have different thoughts than you because he is in another space than you and perceives the world differently. Therefore you are not him and he is not you. The teleportationproces will make it so you die, but someone else will live. But the clone will think it worked.
I wrote a small blog here on TL about this subject. But afterwards I realized that the things I said in the blog don't make any sense. But then again, what is conciousness. It's kind of a paradox. That makes me think that there is no thing like conciousness. It's just your brain being aware of itself. The person YOU don't really exists. It's the brain that wakes up everyday and thinks it is you, and just goes trough that logical process that you must be you and it existed for the age you are.
[EDIT] It was mentioned before in this thread, but that was 2 years ago. Swampman is something that touches this problem.
That would be no different than actually teleporting - the entire point of teleporting is occupying a different space than the one you're currently occupying. The teleportation process as described would have you die at one location and your clone awaking at another with the exact same atomic composition as you at the nanosecond before you died and the belief that he is you, that all the molecules were actually teleported rather than cloned.
Imagine it like this, instead of the machine killing you, it simply creates a perfect copy of you down to every minute detail except in another space. Do you simultaneously share two consciousnesses? Do you feel as though you are in both places at the same time? Are you somehow connected by some extreme example of quantum entanglement? I would say this ambiguity is enough reason for me to avoid "death" teleportation, as it seems unlikely you dieing during teleportation actually matters in the process (ie: I would not be the clone if I lived, so I would not be the clone if I died).
It's an interesting question though, since regardless of ones sense of self being destroyed, everything that is relevant to yourself would still be passed on to the copy. It does make me wonder if the copy wouldn't somehow share your consciousness.
It would be incredibly fascinating if the inventor of the teleportation device never told anybody that it in fact it killed you, and created a precise copy with the same memories etc elsewhere (assuming it worked that way).. Nobody would ever know, and the machine would be in such every day use that no single person would actually live for more than a couple of days, at most. he could then reveal it on his deathbed, leaving the whole of humankind to consider the fact that they are fabricated copies of copies, of copies ad nauseum. Each instance of the consciousness with they believe to be themselves has actually died thousands of times, and nobody was ever any the wiser. The outcry and the shock would be incredible.
On a tangent, it's fascinating to wonder whether this is what happens anyway! As each of our thought processes dies and a new one comes into existence, are we really the same person in the way you would assume? Or are we simply a new version with the equal conviction that we are the original, remembering everything the same, just continuing the stream of consciousnesses.
I would never use it, you would die. Sure it creates a replica that thinks its you, but it's NOT. You would just simply die and there would be a completely different individual who thinks its you that comes out on the other side. Here are two examples of why this is.
1. Imagine if it killed you, but an error occurred and the replica was some random guy you've never met. We can all agree that you would be dead. Now imagine if it does replicate you but due to a small error the replication has some minor differences in his physical appearance, but still continues your memory chain. Are you still alive now? Now let's say it looks exactly like you but has the memories of someone else, are you still alive? An answer is, if your memory chain is continued then you're still alive, but let's say the replicant continues your memory chain, but you replace all the replicant's memories of before you were 18 with a complete fabrications. Are you still alive? Instead of trying to argue why you are still alive, it is much simpler and makes much more sense to just say you die once your body is destroyed, and even if the replicant is flawless, it cannot bring you back to life.
2. Imagine if the teleportation device failed. It made a replicant of you at your preferred destination, but failed to vaporize your body. A lab tech comes into the room and says "sorry, there's been a problem with the teleporter, please step into this incinerator so the problem can be resolved." In this instance it's clear you would die if you went into the incinerator, even if your replicant exists. So why would you feel better if the timing if your bodily death was simply moved to when the replicant was created.
This teleporter is a clever trick, but that's all it is. A clever trick. It doesn't actually teleport anyone, it just kills them and in that same instant creates a copy elsewhere. I would certainly never use.
Depends on the % chance of something not going perfectly. If it was 'failsafe' like the op says, then yes I'd use it. It'd be awesome to explore other planets and stuff.
But in reality something like this would be used to clone the best soldier indefinitely and take over everything, just by making the teleporter not kill the original..
On April 16 2012 05:27 POiNTx wrote: No because my conciousness will not be the same.
Think about it like an exact clone of you (so exact the atomic structure is the same) standing right next to you. You both have the same brain and the same memory, but from the moment your clone is awake, it will have different thoughts than you because he is in another space than you and perceives the world differently. Therefore you are not him and he is not you. The teleportationproces will make it so you die, but someone else will live. But the clone will think it worked.
I wrote a small blog here on TL about this subject. But afterwards I realized that the things I said in the blog don't make any sense. But then again, what is conciousness. It's kind of a paradox. That makes me think that there is no thing like conciousness. It's just your brain being aware of itself. The person YOU don't really exists. It's the brain that wakes up everyday and thinks it is you, and just goes trough that logical process that you must be you and it existed for the age you are.
[EDIT] It was mentioned before in this thread, but that was 2 years ago. Swampman is something that touches this problem.
That would be no different than actually teleporting - the entire point of teleporting is occupying a different space than the one you're currently occupying. The teleportation process as described would have you die at one location and your clone awaking at another with the exact same atomic composition as you at the nanosecond before you died and the belief that he is you, that all the molecules were actually teleported rather than cloned.
You raise a good point. I was trying to make the situation more natural for our brain to understand.
The more I think about this the more my brain starts to hurt.
When someone is destroyed and cloned, I don't see the clone as the same person. Because now, we have 2 bodies. One dead body and one cloned body. The fact that it is identical, doesn't mean it is him. This is straightforward logical thinking.
But here is a different situation. What happens if I take the atoms of the original body, break them apart and rebuild them exactly like you were, only in a different location. Would THAT person be you. I don't know really, but if you think that is you, that would mean it matters what atoms we use.
It's like saying, what happens when you cut a man up in 2 halves, stitch them back together with with futuristic surgery so it looks like nothing happened. No one would think it is a different man.
I can't get my head around such a situation.
[EDIT] I am sorry if this had been raised already, didn't read the entire thread. Just writing my thoughts about this because I love thinking about these kind of situations.
Did anyone here watch the tv-show Dollhouse? They pretty much had this as premise for their show: you can save and load one person's brain into that of another, who can then continue living like you. They sell this technology and promise immortality, but nobody seems to notice that you are just creating a copy of yourself.
I actually really disliked The Prestige, because it was pretty unique in that the premise made me really uncomfortable and I felt a bit sick for a few hours after watching.
I don't think I could go through with this. I believe that when I'm dead, "I" (the essence that is me) will disappear. My copy would be me but it wouldn't be me.
I agree with PenguinWithNuke. Although I'm 95% sure I'm nothing but the sum of my parts, there's still that 5% part that hopes that there's more to me than that. I WANT to believe that there is. Like a magic something that makes me me.
But from a purely logical reasoning, I would definitely use the machine.
I was thinking about this a few weeks ago... and I came to no good conclusion. This scenario really works my mind. The clone copy would act exactly like me. Making it essentially me. But... the conscious that resides in my current body could not exist in another body, even if the conscious in that body behaved the same way as I did. Its pretty clear to me if you change the scenario just a little bit: so that when your clone is made in that other location, you live in both locations briefly before your original is killed. When you're both alive, its obvious that your clone is not you, and when you are killed moments later its not like the conscious from your original body travels to your clone body. You are dead, but your clone survives.... thinking he is you. And acting just like you... ugh, weird question. No. I would not go along with this.
You know, this threads gone on forever and I never understood why the machine has to kill you. I mean, seriously. I mean we already have the tech to make infinite perfect copies of the human body and to transfer the data on his mind via ftl wires and we still have this odd notion that we have to rig this ingenous device to kill one of you.
On April 16 2012 12:29 Half wrote: You know, this threads gone on forever and I never understood why the machine has to kill you. I mean, seriously. I mean we already have the tech to make infinite perfect copies of the human body and to transfer the data on his mind via ftl wires and we still have this odd notion that we have to rig this ingenous device to kill one of you.
OP here. It doesn't have to. Duh. It just does for the sake of this discussion, which is about the meaning of identity and how poorly we understand it. If you let both copies out alive it would instantly be about what cool stuff you'd do with your doppelganger and whether you'd kill each other, which is pretty stupid since it doesn't touch any underlying issues.
On April 16 2012 09:25 Chooser wrote: I think there is no yourself.
I have to say that this thread is really mind boggling
that reminds me of some discussion where you had two or more brains linked together like multiple renderfarms would be for a computer software - now the big question is whether the brains linked together would cause conflicts ... or create an entirely new entity that has the computation and capacibility of multiple brains in the same way as brain cells are interconnected to create a larger system; every memory and information would be directly accessible the same way as you can access it now since afterall, it would be a network. If you think about the larger picture, shouldn't there be 'millions of yourselves' in your brains already? There might be living proof already whether this is true or not with the conjoined twins (http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/viewnews.php?id=195217).
Personally I agree with the quoted person, I also don't believe there is one 'yourself' and I still think that it is a term made up by the society to explain the unconnected entities
The worst part about the death teleportation is, even if we were able to pull it off, it would still be impossible to find any answers. Even if we ask them "are you still yourself?" they will obviously reply in a clean-sweep fashion.
Maybe brain transfer would bring more answers (by that I mean somehow transferring the brains as whole to a different body)
I like to think that the teleporter must destroy you to create your replica elsewhere, probably by dissasembling your brain. Regardless, I think I would use it, because even though I would be dead, my influence and impression would live on in the new location.
You don't get immortality or evade death, you straight up die and another person who is exactly like you is created. you are now dead and not part of the copy. no thanks, there's actualy no reason to use it.
On April 16 2012 14:01 AcrosstheSky wrote: You don't get immortality or evade death, you straight up die and another person who is exactly like you is created. you are now dead and not part of the copy. no thanks, there's actualy no reason to use it.
yeah but you would still have the exact same thought processes / memory so you would feel no difference at all. It is you.
What makes us, us? Our brain which holds our conciousness. this "machine" would reconstruct/teleport your Brain (and all of it's neural signals, everything) to the destination. Thus it is still YOU because your conciousness was 100% unafffected.
Gah. Just read/listen"A universe from nothing" by Lawrence Krauss and you will all realize how truely insignificant you all are. The amount of people in this thread that think they are special or have some sort of hidden soul blows my mind (unless you are religious.. in which case.. no comment.)
Think of it like paper. Used up and written on , it is smashed into pieces and then used to rebuild another piece of paper (in this case identical). With teleportation assuming its failsafe every bit of matter will be transferred into the new human.
My question is: As the human is an exact replica of yourself, Would this new human have the same memories as the old? Would this new human behave exactly as you would under any circumstances? (car accidents, parties blablabla)
Assuming its yes for both: What does that say about free will? Are we all just humans whose actions are predetermined by our conditions ( personality, thought process, predispositions)?
Say if I have a tendency to say "Bazinga!" after I teleport, with every teleportation I would repeat the same phrase, would that imply that humanity has no freewill and we are merely living a predetermined behavioural pattern generated from our physical and psychological condition?
On August 05 2010 18:36 UniversalSnip wrote: This is a common thing in science fiction where you are 'teleported' by a machine that kills you, then reconstructs an exact copy of your body and mind at another point.
So basically it is cloning you, keeping the clone, and then killing the original. lol no thanks. its really no different than dying if you think about it.
yeah but you would still have the exact same thought processes / memory so you would feel no difference at all. It is you.
What makes us, us? Our brain which holds our conciousness. this "machine" would reconstruct/teleport your Brain (and all of it's neural signals, everything) to the destination. Thus it is still YOU because your conciousness was 100% unafffected.
If i create a copy of you and your brain, you wouldn't inhabit two bodies; neither would you if you died and a replica was created . Read the op again, your consciousness is now gone, not "unaffected", you're dead.
yeah but you would still have the exact same thought processes / memory so you would feel no difference at all. It is you.
What makes us, us? Our brain which holds our conciousness. this "machine" would reconstruct/teleport your Brain (and all of it's neural signals, everything) to the destination. Thus it is still YOU because your conciousness was 100% unafffected.
If i create a copy of you and your brain, you wouldn't inhabit two bodies; neither would you if you died and a replica was created . Read the op again, your consciousness is now gone, not "unaffected", you're dead.
That may be true, but then you may be missing the point the poster you quoted was trying to make, i.e. that there is nothing more to being you than something that comprises 'you'. So that 'his' continuing would in effect be him.
It does, sort of come down to how people want to define 'identity', as mentioned earlier (perhaps as being a soul that inhabits the 'mind or body').
I would conclude that there is in fact no consciousness in the vague sense most people presume there is (I say vague because it's a view seemingly held very concretely [even by myself, perhaps], and so it's 'vague' to me)
Like I've said I then conclude that I don't actually exist. Which is strange to say, to me anyway.
Oh and on a tangent, maybe one way of solving the issue is of questioning the morality of killing another being, even if it is in fact 'yourself',but that would be skirting what I think is the actual issue.
On April 16 2012 14:01 AcrosstheSky wrote: You don't get immortality or evade death, you straight up die and another person who is exactly like you is created. you are now dead and not part of the copy. no thanks, there's actualy no reason to use it.
yeah but you would still have the exact same thought processes / memory so you would feel no difference at all. It is you.
What makes us, us? Our brain which holds our conciousness. this "machine" would reconstruct/teleport your Brain (and all of it's neural signals, everything) to the destination. Thus it is still YOU because your conciousness was 100% unafffected.
Gah. Just read/listen"A universe from nothing" by Lawrence Krauss and you will all realize how truely insignificant you all are. The amount of people in this thread that think they are special or have some sort of hidden soul blows my mind (unless you are religious.. in which case.. no comment.)
You have a lot to learn about life. Perhaps in time.
yeah but you would still have the exact same thought processes / memory so you would feel no difference at all. It is you.
What makes us, us? Our brain which holds our conciousness. this "machine" would reconstruct/teleport your Brain (and all of it's neural signals, everything) to the destination. Thus it is still YOU because your conciousness was 100% unafffected.
If i create a copy of you and your brain, you wouldn't inhabit two bodies; neither would you if you died and a replica was created . Read the op again, your consciousness is now gone, not "unaffected", you're dead.
That may be true, but then you may be missing the point the poster you quoted was trying to make, i.e. that there is nothing more to being you than something that comprises 'you'. So that 'his' continuing would in effect be him.
It does, sort of come down to how people want to define 'identity', as mentioned earlier (perhaps as being a soul that inhabits the 'mind or body').
I would conclude that there is in fact no consciousness in the vague sense most people presume there is (I say vague because it's a view seemingly held very concretely [even by myself, perhaps], and so it's 'vague' to me)
Like I've said I then conclude that I don't actually exist. Which is strange to say, to me anyway.
Oh and on a tangent, maybe one way of solving the issue is of questioning the morality of killing another being, even if it is in fact 'yourself',but that would be skirting what I think is the actual issue.
I don't really think there is an issue. You die. There is discontinuity of the body. You said it yourself, there is nothing more to being you than something that comprises you. So if you are destroyed, then you are destroyed. If a copy exactly like you is made, something is made exactly like you. They are not the same thing, from a subjective standpoint. If you are down with dying then by all means, but that is the choice you are making. To die or not. Would you die just to let a copy of yourself be created?
yeah but you would still have the exact same thought processes / memory so you would feel no difference at all. It is you.
What makes us, us? Our brain which holds our conciousness. this "machine" would reconstruct/teleport your Brain (and all of it's neural signals, everything) to the destination. Thus it is still YOU because your conciousness was 100% unafffected.
If i create a copy of you and your brain, you wouldn't inhabit two bodies; neither would you if you died and a replica was created . Read the op again, your consciousness is now gone, not "unaffected", you're dead.
That may be true, but then you may be missing the point the poster you quoted was trying to make, i.e. that there is nothing more to being you than something that comprises 'you'. So that 'his' continuing would in effect be him.
It does, sort of come down to how people want to define 'identity', as mentioned earlier (perhaps as being a soul that inhabits the 'mind or body').
I would conclude that there is in fact no consciousness in the vague sense most people presume there is (I say vague because it's a view seemingly held very concretely [even by myself, perhaps], and so it's 'vague' to me)
Like I've said I then conclude that I don't actually exist. Which is strange to say, to me anyway.
Oh and on a tangent, maybe one way of solving the issue is of questioning the morality of killing another being, even if it is in fact 'yourself',but that would be skirting what I think is the actual issue.
I don't really think there is an issue. You die. There is discontinuity of the body. You said it yourself, there is nothing more to being you than something that comprises you. So if you are destroyed, then you are destroyed. If a copy exactly like you is made, something is made exactly like you. They are not the same thing, from a subjective standpoint. If you are down with dying then by all means, but that is the choice you are making. To die or not. Would you die just to let a copy of yourself be created?
As I mentioned in the previous post, I think it can come down to how we define the different terms we use in these discussions; for instance what might constitute a destruction, or what exactly is a discontinuity of the body (or rather you or me) is.
I mentioned earlier on, if it is the case that continuity is what constitutes us being us, then that continuity contains changes we realize in ourselves as we live. This being the case, we are changing from moment to moment, we transition through states and 'change.' The teleportation device would recreate you exactly as you were previously, so that there would be no transition between (maybe mental?) (other than physical displacement) states. Also consider that, the teleportation is part of you being yourself, and is part of 'your' continuity, as you retain memory of what occurred immediately before being transported.
I'm not arguing for any side in particular, just open to discussion. From my point of view I am attempting to reconcile the notion that I am a being in transition, so that a static me does not exist, so that I shouldn't have any qualms about actually being transported with the thought that I in fact somehow (actually?) would not exist, as I've died.
Or we could just be spinning words round and round.
edit: Oh and also on what you said about what I said about "There is nothing more to being you than what comprises you" we may be interpreting this in different ways. Since there is something else that is exactly identical to the way you were previously (or now) and there is 'nothing more to being "you" than what comprises you, that other thing that is identical in composition would be you.
What if we're thinking of this backwards. Would you be okay with the clone being killed off? They clone you for war or something--would you be okay with sending your clone off to die in your stead? Now would you reverse those roles? If nothing mattered--just that one of you survived--then it wouldn't matter if the death was supposedly instant (teleportation) or if the death took years (war, torture, PTSD, etc...)
yeah but you would still have the exact same thought processes / memory so you would feel no difference at all. It is you.
What makes us, us? Our brain which holds our conciousness. this "machine" would reconstruct/teleport your Brain (and all of it's neural signals, everything) to the destination. Thus it is still YOU because your conciousness was 100% unafffected.
If i create a copy of you and your brain, you wouldn't inhabit two bodies; neither would you if you died and a replica was created . Read the op again, your consciousness is now gone, not "unaffected", you're dead.
That may be true, but then you may be missing the point the poster you quoted was trying to make, i.e. that there is nothing more to being you than something that comprises 'you'. So that 'his' continuing would in effect be him.
It does, sort of come down to how people want to define 'identity', as mentioned earlier (perhaps as being a soul that inhabits the 'mind or body').
I would conclude that there is in fact no consciousness in the vague sense most people presume there is (I say vague because it's a view seemingly held very concretely [even by myself, perhaps], and so it's 'vague' to me)
Like I've said I then conclude that I don't actually exist. Which is strange to say, to me anyway.
Oh and on a tangent, maybe one way of solving the issue is of questioning the morality of killing another being, even if it is in fact 'yourself',but that would be skirting what I think is the actual issue.
I don't really think there is an issue. You die. There is discontinuity of the body. You said it yourself, there is nothing more to being you than something that comprises you. So if you are destroyed, then you are destroyed. If a copy exactly like you is made, something is made exactly like you. They are not the same thing, from a subjective standpoint. If you are down with dying then by all means, but that is the choice you are making. To die or not. Would you die just to let a copy of yourself be created?
As I mentioned in the previous post, I think it can come down to how we define the different terms we use in these discussions; for instance what might constitute a destruction, or what exactly is a discontinuity of the body (or rather you or me) is.
I mentioned earlier on, if it is the case that continuity is what constitutes us being us, then that continuity contains changes we realize in ourselves as we live. This being the case, we are changing from moment to moment, we transition through states and 'change.' The teleportation device would recreate you exactly as you were previously, so that there would be no transition between (maybe mental?) (other than physical displacement) states. Also consider that, the teleportation is part of you being yourself, and is part of 'your' continuity, as you retain memory of what occurred immediately before being transported.
I'm not arguing for any side in particular, just open to discussion. From my point of view I am attempting to reconcile the notion that I am a being in transition, so that a static me does not exist, so that I shouldn't have any qualms about actually being transported with the thought that I in fact somehow (actually?) would not exist, as I've died.
Or we could just be spinning words round and round.
edit: Oh and also on what you said about what I said about "There is nothing more to being you than what comprises you" we may be interpreting this in different ways. Since there is something else that is exactly identical to the way you were previously (or now) and there is 'nothing more to being "you" than what comprises you, that other thing that is identical in composition would be you.
No part of human life involves the complete breakdown of your physical form, and I don't think a subjective consciousness would survive it. I think that that happening is enough to consider the new object a completely new entity, however perfectly similar.
For your edit: That would be the case for everything but the subjective experience, which happens to be all I care about in this situation. I don't think breakdown and transport would be sufficient for continuity. "Your" life as an objective thing would continue, but 'you' now would not be the one experiencing it. A brand new 'you' with the exact same everything would be created, and respond exactly as you would, but it would be a brand new subjective agent.
On April 15 2012 05:51 mcc wrote: For the purpose of self-identification. You are you, even without the memory if you meant something like amnesia. Though if you mean some extreme amnesia it can be argued you died and neither the original ,since he lost his identity completely, neither the copy, since he never was you in the first place, are you. And again it is nicely explained by the principle of gradual continuity. Clone is not you since there is no continuity of the body at all. And the original is not you as there is continuity of the mind, but not gradual enough.
Also, how does teleportation defy the the continuity of self as a progression, as the continuity is in fact less gradual (or there is a change by a lesser degree) so that it is in fact more 'you'.
- There is an 'I'.
It defies it because there is no space continuity, the new body has nothing to do with the old one. Continuity is not defined by similarity in structure, that is probably what is the point of misunderstanding. Two exactly same bodies 1 ly/1km/1m apart have no continuity between them. Continuity is defined by gradual change of the original to the new state. In teleportation scenario original is not changed to the copy, original is destroyed. Thus no continuity.
On April 15 2012 11:02 Thezftw wrote: If decomposing and reconstructing something equals the exact same thing, then sure why not? The 'you' that is decomposed wont give a shit because 'you' don't exist as a conscious being anymore, and the reconstructed 'you' wont give a damn as 'you' are still conscious. I could see it as a problem if teleportation somehow altered 'you'.
I'm going to teleport to another day by heading to bed now ->
The same argument can be used for killing someone without making a copy : "The 'you' that was killed wont give a shit because 'you' don't exist as a conscious being anymore". The point is if you would care before going into the machine, as it is if you would care if someone killed you. After the fact of course you so not care as you are dead in both cases.
On April 15 2012 09:05 radscorpion9 wrote: I have to echo a comment made earlier in the thread; this isn't just a question with some trifling emotional problems of identity or feeling uncomfortable with the process of being destroyed. If a copy of myself is made, then that copy is a separate entity, and enjoys a separate life. I will die, and assuming there is no God I will be gone forever. I don't particularly care whether I made the copy of myself happy in becoming alive - doing it at the expense of my life is a pretty bad trade.
Your consciousness isn't going to just carry over to the new individual. Sure that person may think the same, but its irrelevant. *You* will never be transferred over.
What makes you you, though? If "you" is the being made up of your memories and genetics, then killing the old body and recreating a new body would not kill "you". "You" would be transferred over (OP stated the machine perfectly recreates your mind and body).
And that is the point, "you" we are talking about is not defined only by structure. It is also defined by history of your body. It is similar to how people often think that our universe is defined by physical laws. But that is not enough, it is defined by laws and history.
To add more, some people in this thread say that the only way is through use of quantum teleportation. That is far from truth as there is no reason to assume that quantum level is in any way necessary to recreate the exact same person. Since quantum effects play no significant role in specifics of our personality, much cruder device would be enough to create a being that would functionally be the same as the original. This does not change in any way, that it would not be you. On this example it is even more clear, that being would still remember everything you did and he would think he is you, and yet even at the moment of creation he would even be physically different than you. On the other hand machine that slightly alters all quantum states in your body and thus produces the same result as the crude cloning machine is actually keeping "you" intact, even though structurally both entities are the same. Structural similarities are only small part of what defines "you", historical continuity is necessary.
On April 15 2012 21:05 WarChimp wrote: No, because I would be dead. It doesn't matter if a clone of me is still around and the essence of me is still there for everyone else. But it's not me and I am dead therefore it's not worth doing this sort of teleportation.
So you are saying that a part of you is defined outside the model. Something that you have is not made out of molecules and atoms, and cannot be replicated. There is a difference between a clone and this process, in that the consciousness itself is also transported. So it would be like going to sleep and waking up. Momentary lapse of consciousness and that's that.
Yes something that defines me is not made of molecules and atoms. That does not mean it is supernatural. Existing in time is not made of atoms. Actually it is you who is proposing supernatural : "the consciousness itself is also transported". Consciousness cannot be transported unless you are proposing existence of souls. Consciousness is an artifact of the body. And two structurally identical bodies do not produce the same consciousness. They produce functionally identical consciousness. But not the same, as consciousness is an artifact of the specific body. It cannot be transported. The same way as color on one red cube is not transported when we create another red cube. The "redness" is artifact of the object and cannot be transported. In the same way you cannot transport consciousness as consciousness is a process that is happening in THAT body. Creating functionally identical process elsewhere does not suddenly mean both processes are now one process.
Easily the fact that original can survive shows what nonsense is the notion that consciousness or "me" is just defined by the structure. Self-identification is continuous process and even though I use consciousness, I doubt consciousness is necessary for self-identification. You cannot disrupt the process, create a new one that behaves the same way and claim it is the same process. The fact that the process was disrupted matters as it is that continuity of the process that defines "me".
On April 16 2012 01:05 shinosai wrote: Just to add a little fun to the mix, from Swinburne: Suppose there is a mad scientist that is going to transfer your consciousness into two separate bodies. These two bodies will be exact replicas of you - they will have all of your experiences, memories, consciousness, etc. However, one body will experience extreme pain and suffering. The other will experience pleasure.
Should you be worried? If you think that in the death teleportation, the replica is really YOU, then you should be really, really worried. But if you don't, then you shouldn't be worried at all. Because neither of the new bodies will really be "you".
This response is specifically directed at people who argue that a physical "discontinuation" of the body means that it's no longer really "you". Well, then, if your psychological consciousness is transferred into a new body that will experience torture, are you not worried?
What do you mean "consciousness is transferred into a new body". As in OP, or some other way ? As there are ways where transferring consciousness into new body is possible without physical "discontinuation".
On April 16 2012 03:59 Finality wrote: This thread confuses me so much.
If I used the teleporter, the me typing this would be dead, right? If you're duplicated on the other end, sure, it's "me" but it's not the same conciousness that's typing this to you guys. That conciousness would be dead, I would think.
Can someone explain the difference between the machine in the op and another machine that disassembles you, transports all the atoms that made you up, and then re-assembling you using the exact atoms you were made up with in another location? In my mind the second machine would actually move the me that's typing this around, when compared to the first machine.
Both machines kill you. Even if the copy is made up of the exact same atoms in the exact same position, it's still just a copy. I mean, if you have the technology to break down a person into atoms and rebuild it perfectly, you would have the technology to do the same kind of copy but with other atoms, which would make a perfect copy since a hydrogen atom in my body is identical to any hydrogen atom in the air. IMO, this is the reason why I believe in the soul even though I'm an atheist. Because really, I just can't believe that my consciousness rests in my atoms... the atoms building up my body is just dead matter, you could build a completely identical copy with atoms from other sources... but that obviously wouldn't have my consciousness. It's also the reason I have a mild phobia of sleeping, I find lapse of consciousness very uncomfortable.
There is no need for a soul really. Consciousness is still based on atoms, but it is a process, not an atomic structure. When your body is copied on atomic level, new process arises, functionally the same, but it is not the same process. It is the fact that consciousness is not a static structure, but ongoing process that requires continuity for it to be preserved.
yeah but you would still have the exact same thought processes / memory so you would feel no difference at all. It is you.
What makes us, us? Our brain which holds our conciousness. this "machine" would reconstruct/teleport your Brain (and all of it's neural signals, everything) to the destination. Thus it is still YOU because your conciousness was 100% unafffected.
If i create a copy of you and your brain, you wouldn't inhabit two bodies; neither would you if you died and a replica was created . Read the op again, your consciousness is now gone, not "unaffected", you're dead.
It is possible to disagree with this. Personally, I think that I would inhabit two bodies (albeit only quite temporarily since the experiences of the two bodies would soon diverge). A body is clearly not synonymous with a person (since our bodies are replaced piece-by-piece over time but we remain the same person), but if one discounts the existence of souls, then I think the best explanation is that a body is an instantiation of a person. If that is the case, I don't see any theoretical reason why there couldn't be two instances of one person (though there are plenty of practical reasons why this would be a tenuous situation, at best).
If one created a copy of a person and put it in the exact same environment as the original, I think you would still only have one person, since there would only be one unique pattern of thoughts and memories. One person, two bodies sounds pretty crazy, but then again, copying someone perfeclty sounds pretty crazy, and recreating an exact environment even craizer.
when you guys log into your starcraft 2 accounts, does it matter whether the account you logged into was your original or a copy? to me, it doesnt actually matter as nothing is affected by it being either. when you create your account for starcraft 2 and play games, only the information is transported and stored. your computer then reconstructs a new profile by getting your account information, so in a sense, i see this problem as exactly the same thing. If you are killed, moved and reconstructed, that is still you just different atoms would be used.
ill ask something, if you were to break down 2 peoples bodies into atoms and mixed them together, would you be able to tell which atoms belonged to which person? because what this question seems like to me is that you seem to believe that the atoms that make up your body belong to you and cannot be replaced, and that this assortment of atoms is what defines you. (which is completely wrong to begin with since most/if not all cells in your body break down and get replaced by new ones)
i would prefer to think of myself as similar to a computer program. it does not matter what machine the program runs on, it is the program and the way it runs that defines what it is.
I bet it would feel the same as when you go to sleep then wake up. Or any situation in which you lose conciousness (hitting your head, getting wasted, etc) and regain it later. I wouldn't have a problem with it.
yeah but you would still have the exact same thought processes / memory so you would feel no difference at all. It is you.
What makes us, us? Our brain which holds our conciousness. this "machine" would reconstruct/teleport your Brain (and all of it's neural signals, everything) to the destination. Thus it is still YOU because your conciousness was 100% unafffected.
If i create a copy of you and your brain, you wouldn't inhabit two bodies; neither would you if you died and a replica was created . Read the op again, your consciousness is now gone, not "unaffected", you're dead.
It is possible to disagree with this. Personally, I think that I would inhabit two bodies (albeit only quite temporarily since the experiences of the two bodies would soon diverge). A body is clearly not synonymous with a person (since our bodies are replaced piece-by-piece over time but we remain the same person), but if one discounts the existence of souls, then I think the best explanation is that a body is an instantiation of a person. If that is the case, I don't see any theoretical reason why there couldn't be two instances of one person (though there are plenty of practical reasons why this would be a tenuous situation, at best).
If one created a copy of a person and put it in the exact same environment as the original, I think you would still only have one person, since there would only be one unique pattern of thoughts and memories. One person, two bodies sounds pretty crazy, but then again, copying someone perfeclty sounds pretty crazy, and recreating an exact environment even craizer.
That is far from the best explanation and it goes directly against current science. It is impossible for you to be two bodies exactly because there are no souls and thus there is nothing that those two bodies share that would allow "you" as in your consciousness, psyche to share them. There is no physical mechanism for those two bodies to participate on your consciousness, so they cannot be both you.
Before this issue can be considered, we have to wonder - if such a technology became real, how would we know that the consciousness did or didn't transfer over? The clone, having every memory and being every bit the same as the original, would think that it had just teleported instead of being created.
The consciousness itself needs to be "found" in some way before we can really consider this issue.
On April 17 2012 02:57 CptCutter wrote: when you guys log into your starcraft 2 accounts, does it matter whether the account you logged into was your original or a copy? to me, it doesnt actually matter as nothing is affected by it being either. when you create your account for starcraft 2 and play games, only the information is transported and stored. your computer then reconstructs a new profile by getting your account information, so in a sense, i see this problem as exactly the same thing. If you are killed, moved and reconstructed, that is still you just different atoms would be used.
ill ask something, if you were to break down 2 peoples bodies into atoms and mixed them together, would you be able to tell which atoms belonged to which person? because what this question seems like to me is that you seem to believe that the atoms that make up your body belong to you and cannot be replaced, and that this assortment of atoms is what defines you. (which is completely wrong to begin with since most/if not all cells in your body break down and get replaced by new ones)
i would prefer to think of myself as similar to a computer program. it does not matter what machine the program runs on, it is the program and the way it runs that defines what it is.
The problem with people arguing as you do is that you see human bodies as something static. They are not they are biochemical processes. You cannot break down process and reconstruct it. You can create new process that is functionally identical. Problem is the original process is no longer. That is why any deconstruction whatsoever is irreversible, as at the point when the process stops, your existence ended for good. You are the process, you are not the static structure.
Anyway, this is still a good discussion as it allowed me to understand the problem deeper, beyond the apparent nonsense of multiple people being one person. In the beginning that was the only apparent thing. But thinking about it I now also see the why behind the requirement for continuity. The continuity requirement follows from the fact that we are not in fact static structures. We are biochemical processes, and as such are intimately linked to the physical substrate in which those happen. Consciousness and all mental states are artifacts of those processes (or subprocesses themselves). Process cannot be deconstructed and reconstructed as it is defined by its continuous existence in time.
Reading this thread has made me realize that the only way I would use a teleportation device would be if it were a continuosly open portal and I could stick my hand through it and move it on the other side while still standing at the entering point. That way I could be sure that the biochemical processes in me that make me who I am would not die during transportation like in the OP.
On April 17 2012 02:57 CptCutter wrote: when you guys log into your starcraft 2 accounts, does it matter whether the account you logged into was your original or a copy? to me, it doesnt actually matter as nothing is affected by it being either. when you create your account for starcraft 2 and play games, only the information is transported and stored. your computer then reconstructs a new profile by getting your account information, so in a sense, i see this problem as exactly the same thing. If you are killed, moved and reconstructed, that is still you just different atoms would be used.
ill ask something, if you were to break down 2 peoples bodies into atoms and mixed them together, would you be able to tell which atoms belonged to which person? because what this question seems like to me is that you seem to believe that the atoms that make up your body belong to you and cannot be replaced, and that this assortment of atoms is what defines you. (which is completely wrong to begin with since most/if not all cells in your body break down and get replaced by new ones)
i would prefer to think of myself as similar to a computer program. it does not matter what machine the program runs on, it is the program and the way it runs that defines what it is.
The problem with people arguing as you do is that you see human bodies as something static. They are not they are biochemical processes. You cannot break down process and reconstruct it. You can create new process that is functionally identical. Problem is the original process is no longer. That is why any deconstruction whatsoever is irreversible, as at the point when the process stops, your existence ended for good. You are the process, you are not the static structure.
Anyway, this is still a good discussion as it allowed me to understand the problem deeper, beyond the apparent nonsense of multiple people being one person. In the beginning that was the only apparent thing. But thinking about it I now also see the why behind the requirement for continuity. The continuity requirement follows from the fact that we are not in fact static structures. We are biochemical processes, and as such are intimately linked to the physical substrate in which those happen. Consciousness and all mental states are artifacts of those processes (or subprocesses themselves). Process cannot be deconstructed and reconstructed as it is defined by its continuous existence in time.
By what metric are you saying the original process is no longer? As far as the OP states, the "copy" is identical to the "original", including the notion that it IS the original. So, why isn't it?
Tell me how this teleportation is different from any other circumstance in which you lose conciousness (sleep being the most obvious one).
On April 17 2012 02:57 CptCutter wrote: when you guys log into your starcraft 2 accounts, does it matter whether the account you logged into was your original or a copy? to me, it doesnt actually matter as nothing is affected by it being either. when you create your account for starcraft 2 and play games, only the information is transported and stored. your computer then reconstructs a new profile by getting your account information, so in a sense, i see this problem as exactly the same thing. If you are killed, moved and reconstructed, that is still you just different atoms would be used.
ill ask something, if you were to break down 2 peoples bodies into atoms and mixed them together, would you be able to tell which atoms belonged to which person? because what this question seems like to me is that you seem to believe that the atoms that make up your body belong to you and cannot be replaced, and that this assortment of atoms is what defines you. (which is completely wrong to begin with since most/if not all cells in your body break down and get replaced by new ones)
i would prefer to think of myself as similar to a computer program. it does not matter what machine the program runs on, it is the program and the way it runs that defines what it is.
The problem with people arguing as you do is that you see human bodies as something static. They are not they are biochemical processes. You cannot break down process and reconstruct it. You can create new process that is functionally identical. Problem is the original process is no longer. That is why any deconstruction whatsoever is irreversible, as at the point when the process stops, your existence ended for good. You are the process, you are not the static structure.
Anyway, this is still a good discussion as it allowed me to understand the problem deeper, beyond the apparent nonsense of multiple people being one person. In the beginning that was the only apparent thing. But thinking about it I now also see the why behind the requirement for continuity. The continuity requirement follows from the fact that we are not in fact static structures. We are biochemical processes, and as such are intimately linked to the physical substrate in which those happen. Consciousness and all mental states are artifacts of those processes (or subprocesses themselves). Process cannot be deconstructed and reconstructed as it is defined by its continuous existence in time.
Isn't it interesting that the self is defined in something the self has never and can never perceive, and that a self lacking the requirements for being the self would still feel just as much the self as if he really was the self? Continuity is a nonsense and vague concept that doesn't really solve anything. You just have to arbitrarily define rates of bodily change that are okay, but that isn't how the grammar of the word "self" is actually used.
On April 17 2012 00:16 lorkac wrote: What if we're thinking of this backwards. Would you be okay with the clone being killed off? They clone you for war or something--would you be okay with sending your clone off to die in your stead? Now would you reverse those roles? If nothing mattered--just that one of you survived--then it wouldn't matter if the death was supposedly instant (teleportation) or if the death took years (war, torture, PTSD, etc...)
I really like your idea of trying to think about the situation in a different way (though I disagree that instant death and torturous deaths would be the same scenario).
As soon as two beings exist, I'd say it's best for neither to die (don't kill my clone!). However, if one being can only exist as a byproduct of the destruction of another being, and then it turns out that both beings are equivalent in worth, than it doesn't matter either way (and if we say the reconstructed being is preferable to our current being, because the new teleported location is preferable, then the logical thing to do would be to teleport).
However... I see why the breaking-of-continuity thing is messing with some people (and not with others).
My answer is that I would not choose to teleport, unless I really needed or wanted to teleport for some reason. And then after the first teleport I'd probably be okay with doing it more often. Which I realize isn't entirely rational... but hey.
On April 17 2012 03:40 Demonhunter04 wrote: Before this issue can be considered, we have to wonder - if such a technology became real, how would we know that the consciousness did or didn't transfer over? The clone, having every memory and being every bit the same as the original, would think that it had just teleported instead of being created.
The consciousness itself needs to be "found" in some way before we can really consider this issue.
Well if this technology is real there is no reason to destroy the original and so we could put the two copies side by side and analyze their experience. The problem with this scenario is that if you assume you aren't destroyed but merely cloned perfectly do you wake up in both bodies?
It would appear that death teleportation does in fact kill you (unless you do wake up in both bodies). There may be no physical consequences of the teleportation (a "you" still exists, so do your genes, and I would say, so does the contextual history of being you), but the process itself would be the same as if you died any other way and that might mean premature oblivion or perhaps even suicide if you believe in a god or soul.
The reality is that if this technology was real the implications on our understanding and mastery of the universe would be far more than just whether or not we could identify a "conciousness". It's far better to approach the teleporter as a magical device to limit the consequences implied by developing this kind of technology.
On April 17 2012 02:57 CptCutter wrote: when you guys log into your starcraft 2 accounts, does it matter whether the account you logged into was your original or a copy? to me, it doesnt actually matter as nothing is affected by it being either. when you create your account for starcraft 2 and play games, only the information is transported and stored. your computer then reconstructs a new profile by getting your account information, so in a sense, i see this problem as exactly the same thing. If you are killed, moved and reconstructed, that is still you just different atoms would be used.
ill ask something, if you were to break down 2 peoples bodies into atoms and mixed them together, would you be able to tell which atoms belonged to which person? because what this question seems like to me is that you seem to believe that the atoms that make up your body belong to you and cannot be replaced, and that this assortment of atoms is what defines you. (which is completely wrong to begin with since most/if not all cells in your body break down and get replaced by new ones)
i would prefer to think of myself as similar to a computer program. it does not matter what machine the program runs on, it is the program and the way it runs that defines what it is.
The problem with people arguing as you do is that you see human bodies as something static. They are not they are biochemical processes. You cannot break down process and reconstruct it. You can create new process that is functionally identical. Problem is the original process is no longer. That is why any deconstruction whatsoever is irreversible, as at the point when the process stops, your existence ended for good. You are the process, you are not the static structure.
Anyway, this is still a good discussion as it allowed me to understand the problem deeper, beyond the apparent nonsense of multiple people being one person. In the beginning that was the only apparent thing. But thinking about it I now also see the why behind the requirement for continuity. The continuity requirement follows from the fact that we are not in fact static structures. We are biochemical processes, and as such are intimately linked to the physical substrate in which those happen. Consciousness and all mental states are artifacts of those processes (or subprocesses themselves). Process cannot be deconstructed and reconstructed as it is defined by its continuous existence in time.
By what metric are you saying the original process is no longer? As far as the OP states, the "copy" is identical to the "original", including the notion that it IS the original. So, why isn't it?
Tell me how this teleportation is different from any other circumstance in which you lose conciousness (sleep being the most obvious one).
Sleeping isn't the same as completely ending all activity for a short amount of time. I understand why people still argue about this.. because it's pretty hard to explain on both ends, but here goes.
Nobody is saying that if you are teleported (meaning you are deconstructed and then constructed again perfectly) that it's not exactly the same human acting in exactly the same ways. The problem is that the original (who no longer exists) will have absolutely no experiences post-teleportation. That instance of yourself is gone; dead. Yet people read this argument and commonly say, "Ya, if I come out exactly the same then why not?" Well the answer is cause you're gonna die. A copy of you will live on. "But if the copy is exactly the same as the original, why are you saying it's different?"
It's not, but the original is dead now. It's people's egos that just assume the universe is gonna grab their own specific first-person-view (or "soul" if that helps) and teleport it along with the deconstructed atoms. Negative. It's just going to start up a fresh new install of Windows, but also re-install all your programs and music again. But it's still technically different computer, even if it's identical.
How is being disassembled (and "killed") and put back together exactly the same somewhere else any different than experiencing a length of time without being disassembled? I'm me because of my memory of my experiences. As each indivisible unit of time passes, I "die" and a new me with the memory of the "dead" me goes on. What's important is that the integrity of my memory remains intact and that I continue to exist in the same form for everyone around me.
Whether I live normally for a moment in one place or use this "killing and teleporting" machine, the me from a moment ago will be gone and the me of the next moment will have his moment. I'd use it.
On April 17 2012 04:46 Meatt wrote: It's not, but the original is dead now. It's people's egos that just assume the universe is gonna grab their own specific first-person-view (or "soul" if that helps) and teleport it along with the deconstructed atoms. Negative. It's just going to start up a fresh new install of Windows, but also re-install all your programs and music again. But it's still technically different computer, even if it's identical.
The idea that your perspective is anything more than a biological analog of a history of your chronologically ordered sensory inputs seems off. There isn't a "soul" to feel an intangible loss when our body stops functioning. The organism that's destroyed will simply cease to be and it'd have no qualms with that, because it doesn't exist anymore. The organism that is created would be you. It would have your memory and your form. It would carry on your existence as an entity to the rest of the universe. You would carry on living no differently than if you had stood still for a fraction of a second, since that version of you would just be you with your memory and form.
When someone dies they don't weep. It's the people around them that experience loss.
Yeah this whole idea is freaky. But you'll never know if it kills you. Because like the OP said. The person on the other end believes it is you and shares all your memories. So it would claim that it is the same person and nothing happened. Even if in all reality you do not share conciousness with who came out on the other end.
On April 17 2012 03:51 mcc wrote: The problem with people arguing as you do is that you see human bodies as something static. They are not they are biochemical processes. You cannot break down process and reconstruct it. You can create new process that is functionally identical. Problem is the original process is no longer. That is why any deconstruction whatsoever is irreversible, as at the point when the process stops, your existence ended for good. You are the process, you are not the static structure.
I agree with this and this is what I think. In order for example to become a completely uploaded brain machine, you should substitute all your neurons with artificial neurons one by one while you would still remain conscious and be unaware of the process happening. Moreover, the only way to teleport someone somewhere without losing the stream of consciousness (and thus not dying) would be obtaining a process with which you could actually share one stream of consciousness (one person) in 2 bodies at the same time (probably dealing with some kind of "delay" issue, since consciousness has a fixed refresh time, approximately 12.5 ms) and deleting parts of the original body in a gradual process. To the people who say:"Ok, but the world could be destroying itself 10021029129 times/second", that's actually the point, if this condition doesn't break the stream of consciousness (and it doesn't since consciousness is on a different refresh time), you actually won't die. The only real problem I have yet to solve is about dreamless sleep; if this condition actually stops the stream of consciousness completely, then what I have said above wouldn't be true, and actually we would be dying every day; what I think instead is that even when we have dreamless sleep, some kind of consciousness related process is anyway going on (and the fact you can wake up immediately with a painful stimulus triggering the activating reticular formation in your brainstem is a suggestive proof this could be true).
On April 17 2012 02:57 CptCutter wrote: when you guys log into your starcraft 2 accounts, does it matter whether the account you logged into was your original or a copy? to me, it doesnt actually matter as nothing is affected by it being either. when you create your account for starcraft 2 and play games, only the information is transported and stored. your computer then reconstructs a new profile by getting your account information, so in a sense, i see this problem as exactly the same thing. If you are killed, moved and reconstructed, that is still you just different atoms would be used.
ill ask something, if you were to break down 2 peoples bodies into atoms and mixed them together, would you be able to tell which atoms belonged to which person? because what this question seems like to me is that you seem to believe that the atoms that make up your body belong to you and cannot be replaced, and that this assortment of atoms is what defines you. (which is completely wrong to begin with since most/if not all cells in your body break down and get replaced by new ones)
i would prefer to think of myself as similar to a computer program. it does not matter what machine the program runs on, it is the program and the way it runs that defines what it is.
The problem with people arguing as you do is that you see human bodies as something static. They are not they are biochemical processes. You cannot break down process and reconstruct it. You can create new process that is functionally identical. Problem is the original process is no longer. That is why any deconstruction whatsoever is irreversible, as at the point when the process stops, your existence ended for good. You are the process, you are not the static structure.
Anyway, this is still a good discussion as it allowed me to understand the problem deeper, beyond the apparent nonsense of multiple people being one person. In the beginning that was the only apparent thing. But thinking about it I now also see the why behind the requirement for continuity. The continuity requirement follows from the fact that we are not in fact static structures. We are biochemical processes, and as such are intimately linked to the physical substrate in which those happen. Consciousness and all mental states are artifacts of those processes (or subprocesses themselves). Process cannot be deconstructed and reconstructed as it is defined by its continuous existence in time.
By what metric are you saying the original process is no longer? As far as the OP states, the "copy" is identical to the "original", including the notion that it IS the original. So, why isn't it?
Tell me how this teleportation is different from any other circumstance in which you lose conciousness (sleep being the most obvious one).
Identical structure is not the same as "sameness". And the original process is no longer because it ceased to be completely for a time. Process is bound by existing continuously in time by its nature/definition. When I sleep my biochemical processes continue, I still function continuously. Consciousness does not need to be active at all times and I think it is not even needed for self-identity necessarily.
On April 17 2012 03:51 mcc wrote: The problem with people arguing as you do is that you see human bodies as something static. They are not they are biochemical processes. You cannot break down process and reconstruct it. You can create new process that is functionally identical. Problem is the original process is no longer. That is why any deconstruction whatsoever is irreversible, as at the point when the process stops, your existence ended for good. You are the process, you are not the static structure.
I agree with this and this is what I think. In order for example to become a completely uploaded brain machine, you should substitute all your neurons with artificial neurons one by one while you would still remain conscious and be unaware of the process happening. Moreover, the only way to teleport someone somewhere without losing the stream of consciousness (and thus not dying) would be obtaining a process with which you could actually share one stream of consciousness (one person) in 2 bodies at the same time (probably dealing with some kind of "delay" issue, since consciousness has a fixed refresh time, approximately 12.5 ms) and deleting parts of the original body in a gradual process. To the people who say:"Ok, but the world could be destroying itself 10021029129 times/second", that's actually the point, if this condition doesn't break the stream of consciousness (and it doesn't since consciousness is on a different refresh time), you actually won't die. The only real problem I have yet to solve is about dreamless sleep; if this condition actually stops the stream of consciousness completely, then what I have said above wouldn't be true, and actually we would be dying every day; what I think instead is that even when we have dreamless sleep, some kind of consciousness related process is anyway going on (and the fact you can wake up immediately with a painful stimulus triggering the activating reticular formation in your brainstem is a suggestive proof this could be true).
I disagree with the necessity for continuous consciousness, it is not like bees are not themselves, even though they lack consciousness. Consciousness is just one of the artifacts of the process that we are. Consciousness is probably needed to have discussions about the whole thing
On April 17 2012 05:08 mcc wrote: I disagree with the necessity for continuous consciousness, it is not like bees are not themselves, even though they lack consciousness. Consciousness is just one of the artifacts of the process that we are. Consciousness is probably needed to have discussions about the whole thing
I never claimed the necessity of a continous consciousness I spoke about a "consciousness-related process", which is actually unconscious and required to mantain your very self. Thus, I have to say we find ourselves in agreement.
On April 17 2012 03:51 mcc wrote: The problem with people arguing as you do is that you see human bodies as something static. They are not they are biochemical processes. You cannot break down process and reconstruct it. You can create new process that is functionally identical. Problem is the original process is no longer. That is why any deconstruction whatsoever is irreversible, as at the point when the process stops, your existence ended for good. You are the process, you are not the static structure.
I agree with this and this is what I think. In order for example to become a completely uploaded brain machine, you should substitute all your neurons with artificial neurons one by one while you would still remain conscious and be unaware of the process happening. Moreover, the only way to teleport someone somewhere without losing the stream of consciousness (and thus not dying) would be obtaining a process with which you could actually share one stream of consciousness (one person) in 2 bodies at the same time (probably dealing with some kind of "delay" issue, since consciousness has a fixed refresh time, approximately 12.5 ms) and deleting parts of the original body in a gradual process. To the people who say:"Ok, but the world could be destroying itself 10021029129 times/second", that's actually the point, if this condition doesn't break the stream of consciousness (and it doesn't since consciousness is on a different refresh time), you actually won't die. The only real problem I have yet to solve is about dreamless sleep; if this condition actually stops the stream of consciousness completely, then what I have said above wouldn't be true, and actually we would be dying every day; what I think instead is that even when we have dreamless sleep, some kind of consciousness related process is anyway going on (and the fact you can wake up immediately with a painful stimulus triggering the activating reticular formation in your brainstem is a suggestive proof this could be true).
Both bodies and processes are 100% physical. You can take a snapshot of either and physically reconstruct them exactly as they were.
The problem here is one of interpretation. A process running on your computer is not what you see on your monitor. That is an interpretation of what's happening physically inside your computer's memory. You could, within an instant, physically cut the logic paths and charge states from a circuit currently composing a process and replace it with an identical one without disrupting anything.
What you believe you're feeling as a human being, somehow more than just your physical body, is just an interpretation. We've evolved to interpret input and memory this way because it was supposedly helpful to survival. Anything that physically exists in our universe is explicitly capable of being reproduced.
On April 17 2012 02:57 CptCutter wrote: when you guys log into your starcraft 2 accounts, does it matter whether the account you logged into was your original or a copy? to me, it doesnt actually matter as nothing is affected by it being either. when you create your account for starcraft 2 and play games, only the information is transported and stored. your computer then reconstructs a new profile by getting your account information, so in a sense, i see this problem as exactly the same thing. If you are killed, moved and reconstructed, that is still you just different atoms would be used.
ill ask something, if you were to break down 2 peoples bodies into atoms and mixed them together, would you be able to tell which atoms belonged to which person? because what this question seems like to me is that you seem to believe that the atoms that make up your body belong to you and cannot be replaced, and that this assortment of atoms is what defines you. (which is completely wrong to begin with since most/if not all cells in your body break down and get replaced by new ones)
i would prefer to think of myself as similar to a computer program. it does not matter what machine the program runs on, it is the program and the way it runs that defines what it is.
The problem with people arguing as you do is that you see human bodies as something static. They are not they are biochemical processes. You cannot break down process and reconstruct it. You can create new process that is functionally identical. Problem is the original process is no longer. That is why any deconstruction whatsoever is irreversible, as at the point when the process stops, your existence ended for good. You are the process, you are not the static structure.
Anyway, this is still a good discussion as it allowed me to understand the problem deeper, beyond the apparent nonsense of multiple people being one person. In the beginning that was the only apparent thing. But thinking about it I now also see the why behind the requirement for continuity. The continuity requirement follows from the fact that we are not in fact static structures. We are biochemical processes, and as such are intimately linked to the physical substrate in which those happen. Consciousness and all mental states are artifacts of those processes (or subprocesses themselves). Process cannot be deconstructed and reconstructed as it is defined by its continuous existence in time.
Isn't it interesting that the self is defined in something the self has never and can never perceive, and that a self lacking the requirements for being the self would still feel just as much the self as if he really was the self? Continuity is a nonsense and vague concept that doesn't really solve anything. You just have to arbitrarily define rates of bodily change that are okay, but that isn't how the grammar of the word "self" is actually used.
That is not what I am saying. The copy is self lacking requirement's to be the same self as the original. It is though its own independent self. No problem there. And actually it perfectly fits the usage/meaning of the word self. And the vagueness problems are unavoidable whenever you talk about mapping abstract words onto real-life phenomena. Your approach is not better, actually much worse. And the rate of allowed changes is actually not arbitrary in most situations, it follows from biology of human species. The only situations where problems arise is where human word goes into areas disconnected from biology. Like the example with complete extreme amnesia. Human word is unclear what self means in that situation. Biology is rather clear. And even with all the problems even the human word is mostly understood to mean exactly what biological approach says. That continuity of the process is what defines self in the end and person with amnesia is still the original self.
On April 17 2012 00:16 lorkac wrote: What if we're thinking of this backwards. Would you be okay with the clone being killed off? They clone you for war or something--would you be okay with sending your clone off to die in your stead? Now would you reverse those roles? If nothing mattered--just that one of you survived--then it wouldn't matter if the death was supposedly instant (teleportation) or if the death took years (war, torture, PTSD, etc...)
I really like your idea of trying to think about the situation in a different way (though I disagree that instant death and torturous deaths would be the same scenario).
As soon as two beings exist, I'd say it's best for neither to die (don't kill my clone!). However, if one being can only exist as a byproduct of the destruction of another being, and then it turns out that both beings are equivalent in worth, than it doesn't matter either way (and if we say the reconstructed being is preferable to our current being, because the new teleported location is preferable, then the logical thing to do would be to teleport).
However... I see why the breaking-of-continuity thing is messing with some people (and not with others).
My answer is that I would not choose to teleport, unless I really needed or wanted to teleport for some reason. And then after the first teleport I'd probably be okay with doing it more often. Which I realize isn't entirely rational... but hey.
I too believe that there is a big difference between a painless teleport death and a painful teleport death. But I you honestly believe that the clone living on in place of you is as goods you existing--then it wouldn't matter whether your death was painful or not. We could make the hypothetical "the clone doesn't remember the pain" argument--and I still wouldn't be able to handle the idea of willfully going into a painful/painless death for the sake of some clone. Because, in the end, that's what this debate is about right? Is the clone good enough to replace me? Is the clone good enough to take over my life.
For example, say you dont die. Your clone takes over your job, your kids, your wife, your life. Would it be okay since he has you memories anyway? Would it be okay if someone shot you after the cloning process as opposed to it being a by-product?
People keep comparing it to sleep because they want to believe that it is a seem less transition from old you to new you. Because they're still having a hard time accepting the concept that when you die--you die. The new you is a different you. He will have your experiences--but you wont have his.
On April 17 2012 02:57 CptCutter wrote: when you guys log into your starcraft 2 accounts, does it matter whether the account you logged into was your original or a copy? to me, it doesnt actually matter as nothing is affected by it being either. when you create your account for starcraft 2 and play games, only the information is transported and stored. your computer then reconstructs a new profile by getting your account information, so in a sense, i see this problem as exactly the same thing. If you are killed, moved and reconstructed, that is still you just different atoms would be used.
ill ask something, if you were to break down 2 peoples bodies into atoms and mixed them together, would you be able to tell which atoms belonged to which person? because what this question seems like to me is that you seem to believe that the atoms that make up your body belong to you and cannot be replaced, and that this assortment of atoms is what defines you. (which is completely wrong to begin with since most/if not all cells in your body break down and get replaced by new ones)
i would prefer to think of myself as similar to a computer program. it does not matter what machine the program runs on, it is the program and the way it runs that defines what it is.
The problem with people arguing as you do is that you see human bodies as something static. They are not they are biochemical processes. You cannot break down process and reconstruct it. You can create new process that is functionally identical. Problem is the original process is no longer. That is why any deconstruction whatsoever is irreversible, as at the point when the process stops, your existence ended for good. You are the process, you are not the static structure.
Anyway, this is still a good discussion as it allowed me to understand the problem deeper, beyond the apparent nonsense of multiple people being one person. In the beginning that was the only apparent thing. But thinking about it I now also see the why behind the requirement for continuity. The continuity requirement follows from the fact that we are not in fact static structures. We are biochemical processes, and as such are intimately linked to the physical substrate in which those happen. Consciousness and all mental states are artifacts of those processes (or subprocesses themselves). Process cannot be deconstructed and reconstructed as it is defined by its continuous existence in time.
By what metric are you saying the original process is no longer? As far as the OP states, the "copy" is identical to the "original", including the notion that it IS the original. So, why isn't it?
Tell me how this teleportation is different from any other circumstance in which you lose conciousness (sleep being the most obvious one).
Identical structure is not the same as "sameness". And the original process is no longer because it ceased to be completely for a time. Process is bound by existing continuously in time by its nature/definition. When I sleep my biochemical processes continue, I still function continuously. Consciousness does not need to be active at all times and I think it is not even needed for self-identity necessarily.
You say you function continuously while you sleep, but how are you sure of that? You don't know anything except that which your senses tell you, and asleep you aren't being told anything. How can you be sure the world wasn't created this morning, right as you woke up?
Here's a scenario for you. You're in deep sleep. Some scientists lift you up without waking you up, put you into the teleportation machine, which deconstructs you and reconstructs you 10 meters from your current position. The scientists take your "clone", still asleep, and put him into your bed. Your clone wakes up, without a clue as to what happened during the night. He thinks he's you. He is identical to you. He is you. How can you be sure this didn't happen last night?
On April 17 2012 05:22 lorkac wrote: People keep comparing it to sleep because they want to believe that it is a seem less transition from old you to new you. Because they're still having a hard time accepting the concept that when you die--you die. The new you is a different you. He will have your experiences--but you wont have his.
I have the experiences of me from 20 seconds ago, but he doesn't have my experiences from those 20 seconds. Am I still the same me? The me of the future will always have experiences the me of the past didn't have, that seems like faulty logic.
On April 17 2012 02:57 CptCutter wrote: when you guys log into your starcraft 2 accounts, does it matter whether the account you logged into was your original or a copy? to me, it doesnt actually matter as nothing is affected by it being either. when you create your account for starcraft 2 and play games, only the information is transported and stored. your computer then reconstructs a new profile by getting your account information, so in a sense, i see this problem as exactly the same thing. If you are killed, moved and reconstructed, that is still you just different atoms would be used.
ill ask something, if you were to break down 2 peoples bodies into atoms and mixed them together, would you be able to tell which atoms belonged to which person? because what this question seems like to me is that you seem to believe that the atoms that make up your body belong to you and cannot be replaced, and that this assortment of atoms is what defines you. (which is completely wrong to begin with since most/if not all cells in your body break down and get replaced by new ones)
i would prefer to think of myself as similar to a computer program. it does not matter what machine the program runs on, it is the program and the way it runs that defines what it is.
The problem with people arguing as you do is that you see human bodies as something static. They are not they are biochemical processes. You cannot break down process and reconstruct it. You can create new process that is functionally identical. Problem is the original process is no longer. That is why any deconstruction whatsoever is irreversible, as at the point when the process stops, your existence ended for good. You are the process, you are not the static structure.
Anyway, this is still a good discussion as it allowed me to understand the problem deeper, beyond the apparent nonsense of multiple people being one person. In the beginning that was the only apparent thing. But thinking about it I now also see the why behind the requirement for continuity. The continuity requirement follows from the fact that we are not in fact static structures. We are biochemical processes, and as such are intimately linked to the physical substrate in which those happen. Consciousness and all mental states are artifacts of those processes (or subprocesses themselves). Process cannot be deconstructed and reconstructed as it is defined by its continuous existence in time.
By what metric are you saying the original process is no longer? As far as the OP states, the "copy" is identical to the "original", including the notion that it IS the original. So, why isn't it?
Tell me how this teleportation is different from any other circumstance in which you lose conciousness (sleep being the most obvious one).
Identical structure is not the same as "sameness". And the original process is no longer because it ceased to be completely for a time. Process is bound by existing continuously in time by its nature/definition. When I sleep my biochemical processes continue, I still function continuously. Consciousness does not need to be active at all times and I think it is not even needed for self-identity necessarily.
You say you function continuously while you sleep, but how are you sure of that? You don't know anything except that which your senses tell you, and asleep you aren't being told anything. How can you be sure the world wasn't created this morning, right as you woke up?
Here's a scenario for you. You're in deep sleep. Some scientists lift you up without waking you up, put you into the teleportation machine, which deconstructs you and reconstructs you 10 meters from your current position. The scientists take your "clone", still asleep, and put him into your bed. Your clone wakes up, without a clue as to what happened during the night. He thinks he's you. He is identical to you. He is you. How can you be sure this didn't happen last night?
I'm still aware when I'm asleep for the same reason I don't piss myself when I sleep, for the same reason that I can wake up at the times I need to wake at, for the same reason I will wake up if you cut off my arm, got set on fire, etc...
People really need to stop bringing up the whole sleep thing because it's really making this discussion sound unintelligent.
On April 17 2012 04:46 urashimakt wrote: How is being disassembled (and "killed") and put back together exactly the same somewhere else any different than experiencing a length of time without being disassembled? I'm me because of my memory of my experiences. As each indivisible unit of time passes, I "die" and a new me with the memory of the "dead" me goes on. What's important is that the integrity of my memory remains intact and that I continue to exist in the same form for everyone around me.
Whether I live normally for a moment in one place or use this "killing and teleporting" machine, the me from a moment ago will be gone and the me of the next moment will have his moment. I'd use it.
On April 17 2012 04:46 Meatt wrote: It's not, but the original is dead now. It's people's egos that just assume the universe is gonna grab their own specific first-person-view (or "soul" if that helps) and teleport it along with the deconstructed atoms. Negative. It's just going to start up a fresh new install of Windows, but also re-install all your programs and music again. But it's still technically different computer, even if it's identical.
The idea that your perspective is anything more than a biological analog of a history of your chronologically ordered sensory inputs seems off. There isn't a "soul" to feel an intangible loss when our body stops functioning. The organism that's destroyed will simply cease to be and it'd have no qualms with that, because it doesn't exist anymore. The organism that is created would be you. It would have your memory and your form. It would carry on your existence as an entity to the rest of the universe. You would carry on living no differently than if you had stood still for a fraction of a second, since that version of you would just be you with your memory and form.
When someone dies they don't weep. It's the people around them that experience loss.
And that is what you miss, you are not just your memories. You are your body, and actually people arguing that this teleport kills you are the materialistic ones. As they actually argue that the matter that you consists of and the specific process that runs on this substrate is you and that is it and there is nothing else. Whereas you posit that you are not your body but you are the information about your body. Which is completely at odds with standard meaning of the word self and is much more idealistic approach.
On April 17 2012 04:46 urashimakt wrote: How is being disassembled (and "killed") and put back together exactly the same somewhere else any different than experiencing a length of time without being disassembled? I'm me because of my memory of my experiences. As each indivisible unit of time passes, I "die" and a new me with the memory of the "dead" me goes on. What's important is that the integrity of my memory remains intact and that I continue to exist in the same form for everyone around me.
Whether I live normally for a moment in one place or use this "killing and teleporting" machine, the me from a moment ago will be gone and the me of the next moment will have his moment. I'd use it.
On April 17 2012 04:46 Meatt wrote: It's not, but the original is dead now. It's people's egos that just assume the universe is gonna grab their own specific first-person-view (or "soul" if that helps) and teleport it along with the deconstructed atoms. Negative. It's just going to start up a fresh new install of Windows, but also re-install all your programs and music again. But it's still technically different computer, even if it's identical.
The idea that your perspective is anything more than a biological analog of a history of your chronologically ordered sensory inputs seems off. There isn't a "soul" to feel an intangible loss when our body stops functioning. The organism that's destroyed will simply cease to be and it'd have no qualms with that, because it doesn't exist anymore. The organism that is created would be you. It would have your memory and your form. It would carry on your existence as an entity to the rest of the universe. You would carry on living no differently than if you had stood still for a fraction of a second, since that version of you would just be you with your memory and form.
When someone dies they don't weep. It's the people around them that experience loss.
And that is what you miss, you are not just your memories. You are your body, and actually people arguing that this teleport kills you are the materialistic ones. As they actually argue that the matter that you consists of and the specific process that runs on this substrate is you and that is it and there is nothing else. Whereas you posit that you are not your body but you are the information about your body. Which is completely at odds with standard meaning of the word self and is much more idealistic approach.
Isn't it given that our body is recreated exactly as it was? That's what I took from the OP. The body physically holds our memories, so since the body is granted I focused on the memory bit.
On April 17 2012 02:57 CptCutter wrote: when you guys log into your starcraft 2 accounts, does it matter whether the account you logged into was your original or a copy? to me, it doesnt actually matter as nothing is affected by it being either. when you create your account for starcraft 2 and play games, only the information is transported and stored. your computer then reconstructs a new profile by getting your account information, so in a sense, i see this problem as exactly the same thing. If you are killed, moved and reconstructed, that is still you just different atoms would be used.
ill ask something, if you were to break down 2 peoples bodies into atoms and mixed them together, would you be able to tell which atoms belonged to which person? because what this question seems like to me is that you seem to believe that the atoms that make up your body belong to you and cannot be replaced, and that this assortment of atoms is what defines you. (which is completely wrong to begin with since most/if not all cells in your body break down and get replaced by new ones)
i would prefer to think of myself as similar to a computer program. it does not matter what machine the program runs on, it is the program and the way it runs that defines what it is.
The problem with people arguing as you do is that you see human bodies as something static. They are not they are biochemical processes. You cannot break down process and reconstruct it. You can create new process that is functionally identical. Problem is the original process is no longer. That is why any deconstruction whatsoever is irreversible, as at the point when the process stops, your existence ended for good. You are the process, you are not the static structure.
Anyway, this is still a good discussion as it allowed me to understand the problem deeper, beyond the apparent nonsense of multiple people being one person. In the beginning that was the only apparent thing. But thinking about it I now also see the why behind the requirement for continuity. The continuity requirement follows from the fact that we are not in fact static structures. We are biochemical processes, and as such are intimately linked to the physical substrate in which those happen. Consciousness and all mental states are artifacts of those processes (or subprocesses themselves). Process cannot be deconstructed and reconstructed as it is defined by its continuous existence in time.
By what metric are you saying the original process is no longer? As far as the OP states, the "copy" is identical to the "original", including the notion that it IS the original. So, why isn't it?
Tell me how this teleportation is different from any other circumstance in which you lose conciousness (sleep being the most obvious one).
Identical structure is not the same as "sameness". And the original process is no longer because it ceased to be completely for a time. Process is bound by existing continuously in time by its nature/definition. When I sleep my biochemical processes continue, I still function continuously. Consciousness does not need to be active at all times and I think it is not even needed for self-identity necessarily.
You say you function continuously while you sleep, but how are you sure of that? You don't know anything except that which your senses tell you, and asleep you aren't being told anything. How can you be sure the world wasn't created this morning, right as you woke up?
Here's a scenario for you. You're in deep sleep. Some scientists lift you up without waking you up, put you into the teleportation machine, which deconstructs you and reconstructs you 10 meters from your current position. The scientists take your "clone", still asleep, and put him into your bed. Your clone wakes up, without a clue as to what happened during the night. He thinks he's you. He is identical to you. He is you. How can you be sure this didn't happen last night?
I am not arguing subjective point of view, but objective one. I cannot be sure that something like that did not happen last night. It has no bearing on my point. If it did, the original dies yesterday and I am new entity not the same as the one that went to sleep last night. And if it happens today, I will die and something else will take my place. I can modify your scenario to show how it has nothing with the points being made. You went to sleep last night as an intelligent horse, during the night scientists changed the whole world and you woke up with changed memories so everything fits. What does it have to do with anything, nothing, the same as your scenario.
Your point is bordering in solipsism. If you are arguing there is no objective reality, we have nothing to talk about.
No, because I'm a Christian, despite any recent doubts, and still believe I'm my soul, and not my brain. Also, I don't believe in the logic of the copy of an old object being the same object. I'M DEAD. I got killed so I can save five fucking hours on a trip to the beach. Actually, I didn't save five hours. I sacrificed my life to save my CLONE five fucking hours. My clone will then sacrifice HIS life so that he can save his clone five fucking hours to drive back home. This will go on for about 80 years, with countless copies killing themselves while I'm forced to look on from the afterlife and observe my clones living the life I should have lived. HELL NO. If I ever got a death teleportation machine, I would tie a heavy rock to it, take a boat out to the middle of the ocean and ditch the piece of shit. No way am I giving my life for some clone's convenience.
On April 17 2012 05:40 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: No, because I'm a Christian, despite any recent doubts, and still believe I'm my soul, and not my brain. Also, I don't believe in the logic of the copy of an old object being the same object. I'M DEAD. I got killed so I can save five fucking hours on a trip to the beach. Actually, I didn't save five hours. I sacrificed my life to save my CLONE five fucking hours. My clone will then sacrifice HIS life so that he can save his clone five fucking hours to drive back home. This will go on for about 80 years, with countless copies killing themselves while I'm forced to look on from the afterlife and observe my clones living the life I should have lived. HELL NO. If I ever got a death teleportation machine, I would tie a heavy rock to it, take a boat out to the middle of the ocean and ditch the piece of shit. No way am I giving my life for some clone's convenience.
I'd love to use this argument against copyright law, haha. "This file isn't your file, it's a clone of your file. Look, I cut and pasted it. Your file was at 0x0000, but I moved it to 0x00CA."
On April 17 2012 04:46 urashimakt wrote: How is being disassembled (and "killed") and put back together exactly the same somewhere else any different than experiencing a length of time without being disassembled? I'm me because of my memory of my experiences. As each indivisible unit of time passes, I "die" and a new me with the memory of the "dead" me goes on. What's important is that the integrity of my memory remains intact and that I continue to exist in the same form for everyone around me.
Whether I live normally for a moment in one place or use this "killing and teleporting" machine, the me from a moment ago will be gone and the me of the next moment will have his moment. I'd use it.
On April 17 2012 04:46 Meatt wrote: It's not, but the original is dead now. It's people's egos that just assume the universe is gonna grab their own specific first-person-view (or "soul" if that helps) and teleport it along with the deconstructed atoms. Negative. It's just going to start up a fresh new install of Windows, but also re-install all your programs and music again. But it's still technically different computer, even if it's identical.
The idea that your perspective is anything more than a biological analog of a history of your chronologically ordered sensory inputs seems off. There isn't a "soul" to feel an intangible loss when our body stops functioning. The organism that's destroyed will simply cease to be and it'd have no qualms with that, because it doesn't exist anymore. The organism that is created would be you. It would have your memory and your form. It would carry on your existence as an entity to the rest of the universe. You would carry on living no differently than if you had stood still for a fraction of a second, since that version of you would just be you with your memory and form.
When someone dies they don't weep. It's the people around them that experience loss.
And that is what you miss, you are not just your memories. You are your body, and actually people arguing that this teleport kills you are the materialistic ones. As they actually argue that the matter that you consists of and the specific process that runs on this substrate is you and that is it and there is nothing else. Whereas you posit that you are not your body but you are the information about your body. Which is completely at odds with standard meaning of the word self and is much more idealistic approach.
Isn't it given that our body is recreated exactly as it was? That's what I took from the OP. The body physically holds our memories, so since the body is granted I focused on the memory bit.
Yes, it is exactly as it was. But what does it has to do with my self-identification. Millions of beings can have bodies exactly like me and my memories. But I am just one of them or none of them. There are no other possibilities (not in this scenario anyway). Since I cannot be all of my copies, I am none of my copies. I am either the original or I am dead.
Disclaimer : When I say the above I am talking from the point of view of the being that went into the machine. And I am assuming objective reality, so please no arguments based on "how do you know".
On April 17 2012 04:46 urashimakt wrote: How is being disassembled (and "killed") and put back together exactly the same somewhere else any different than experiencing a length of time without being disassembled? I'm me because of my memory of my experiences. As each indivisible unit of time passes, I "die" and a new me with the memory of the "dead" me goes on. What's important is that the integrity of my memory remains intact and that I continue to exist in the same form for everyone around me.
Whether I live normally for a moment in one place or use this "killing and teleporting" machine, the me from a moment ago will be gone and the me of the next moment will have his moment. I'd use it.
On April 17 2012 04:46 Meatt wrote: It's not, but the original is dead now. It's people's egos that just assume the universe is gonna grab their own specific first-person-view (or "soul" if that helps) and teleport it along with the deconstructed atoms. Negative. It's just going to start up a fresh new install of Windows, but also re-install all your programs and music again. But it's still technically different computer, even if it's identical.
The idea that your perspective is anything more than a biological analog of a history of your chronologically ordered sensory inputs seems off. There isn't a "soul" to feel an intangible loss when our body stops functioning. The organism that's destroyed will simply cease to be and it'd have no qualms with that, because it doesn't exist anymore. The organism that is created would be you. It would have your memory and your form. It would carry on your existence as an entity to the rest of the universe. You would carry on living no differently than if you had stood still for a fraction of a second, since that version of you would just be you with your memory and form.
When someone dies they don't weep. It's the people around them that experience loss.
And that is what you miss, you are not just your memories. You are your body, and actually people arguing that this teleport kills you are the materialistic ones. As they actually argue that the matter that you consists of and the specific process that runs on this substrate is you and that is it and there is nothing else. Whereas you posit that you are not your body but you are the information about your body. Which is completely at odds with standard meaning of the word self and is much more idealistic approach.
Isn't it given that our body is recreated exactly as it was? That's what I took from the OP. The body physically holds our memories, so since the body is granted I focused on the memory bit.
Yes, it is exactly as it was. But what does it has to do with my self-identification. Millions of beings can have bodies exactly like me and my memories. But I am just one of them or none of them. There are no other possibilities (not in this scenario anyway). Since I cannot be all of my copies, I am none of my copies. I am either the original or I am dead.
Disclaimer : When I say the above I am talking from the point of view of the being that went into the machine. And I am assuming objective reality, so please no arguments based on "how do you know".
Self-identification is a tool we use, it isn't any sort of universal truth. When it helps us simplify things, we refer to it. It almost always does help us simplify things because we don't usually ask questions like "what if I melted myself down and got built up again?"
Edit: If there are a million beings that are all exactly like you, you'd feel like that one that sees the other 999,999. The moment any of you start experiencing anything, it would differentiate you from the others.
On April 17 2012 04:46 urashimakt wrote: How is being disassembled (and "killed") and put back together exactly the same somewhere else any different than experiencing a length of time without being disassembled? I'm me because of my memory of my experiences. As each indivisible unit of time passes, I "die" and a new me with the memory of the "dead" me goes on. What's important is that the integrity of my memory remains intact and that I continue to exist in the same form for everyone around me.
Whether I live normally for a moment in one place or use this "killing and teleporting" machine, the me from a moment ago will be gone and the me of the next moment will have his moment. I'd use it.
On April 17 2012 04:46 Meatt wrote: It's not, but the original is dead now. It's people's egos that just assume the universe is gonna grab their own specific first-person-view (or "soul" if that helps) and teleport it along with the deconstructed atoms. Negative. It's just going to start up a fresh new install of Windows, but also re-install all your programs and music again. But it's still technically different computer, even if it's identical.
The idea that your perspective is anything more than a biological analog of a history of your chronologically ordered sensory inputs seems off. There isn't a "soul" to feel an intangible loss when our body stops functioning. The organism that's destroyed will simply cease to be and it'd have no qualms with that, because it doesn't exist anymore. The organism that is created would be you. It would have your memory and your form. It would carry on your existence as an entity to the rest of the universe. You would carry on living no differently than if you had stood still for a fraction of a second, since that version of you would just be you with your memory and form.
When someone dies they don't weep. It's the people around them that experience loss.
And that is what you miss, you are not just your memories. You are your body, and actually people arguing that this teleport kills you are the materialistic ones. As they actually argue that the matter that you consists of and the specific process that runs on this substrate is you and that is it and there is nothing else. Whereas you posit that you are not your body but you are the information about your body. Which is completely at odds with standard meaning of the word self and is much more idealistic approach.
Isn't it given that our body is recreated exactly as it was? That's what I took from the OP. The body physically holds our memories, so since the body is granted I focused on the memory bit.
Yes, it is exactly as it was. But what does it has to do with my self-identification. Millions of beings can have bodies exactly like me and my memories. But I am just one of them or none of them. There are no other possibilities (not in this scenario anyway). Since I cannot be all of my copies, I am none of my copies. I am either the original or I am dead.
Disclaimer : When I say the above I am talking from the point of view of the being that went into the machine. And I am assuming objective reality, so please no arguments based on "how do you know".
Self-identification is a tool we use, it isn't any sort of universal truth. When it helps us simplify things, we refer to it. It almost always does help us simplify things because we don't usually ask questions like "what if I melted myself down and got built up again?"
Edit: If there are a million beings that are all exactly like you, you'd feel like that one that sees the other 999,999. The moment any of you start experiencing anything, it would differentiate you from the others.
The point is at one point they were not differentiated and if you put them into exactly the same virtual worlds they would remain the same structurally forever. And yet I would never be all of them even if they do not differentiate ever. So being structurally identical to me is not the same as being me.
On April 17 2012 00:16 lorkac wrote: What if we're thinking of this backwards. Would you be okay with the clone being killed off? They clone you for war or something--would you be okay with sending your clone off to die in your stead? Now would you reverse those roles? If nothing mattered--just that one of you survived--then it wouldn't matter if the death was supposedly instant (teleportation) or if the death took years (war, torture, PTSD, etc...)
I really like your idea of trying to think about the situation in a different way (though I disagree that instant death and torturous deaths would be the same scenario).
As soon as two beings exist, I'd say it's best for neither to die (don't kill my clone!). However, if one being can only exist as a byproduct of the destruction of another being, and then it turns out that both beings are equivalent in worth, than it doesn't matter either way (and if we say the reconstructed being is preferable to our current being, because the new teleported location is preferable, then the logical thing to do would be to teleport).
However... I see why the breaking-of-continuity thing is messing with some people (and not with others).
My answer is that I would not choose to teleport, unless I really needed or wanted to teleport for some reason. And then after the first teleport I'd probably be okay with doing it more often. Which I realize isn't entirely rational... but hey.
I too believe that there is a big difference between a painless teleport death and a painful teleport death. But I you honestly believe that the clone living on in place of you is as goods you existing--then it wouldn't matter whether your death was painful or not. We could make the hypothetical "the clone doesn't remember the pain" argument--and I still wouldn't be able to handle the idea of willfully going into a painful/painless death for the sake of some clone. Because, in the end, that's what this debate is about right? Is the clone good enough to replace me? Is the clone good enough to take over my life.
For example, say you dont die. Your clone takes over your job, your kids, your wife, your life. Would it be okay since he has you memories anyway? Would it be okay if someone shot you after the cloning process as opposed to it being a by-product?
People keep comparing it to sleep because they want to believe that it is a seem less transition from old you to new you. Because they're still having a hard time accepting the concept that when you die--you die. The new you is a different you. He will have your experiences--but you wont have his.
He will have your experiences, but you won't have his, but who would care? He will exist as if he has always existed (a continuous strand between the originator and the new version), and you won't have any complaints either, because you'd be dead.
I agree with the fresh-install-of-Windows metaphor. The new-me would still be me, and instinctively I want to continue living, and I can continue living through new-me, so everything should be copacetic. However, I also have an internal fear of death, of ceasing to live, of my continuous stream of thoughts (well, apparently continuous - I've been unconscious before, and it feels like no time passed whatsoever) ending, and going through this teleportation would end that stream of thoughts... I think (even though it gets started up elsewhere). So that's why I would be willing to teleport, but only if it was important: The fact that my thoughts get started up elsewhere means I continue to live, but I'd rather not end this current stream if I could avoid it.
On April 17 2012 04:46 urashimakt wrote: How is being disassembled (and "killed") and put back together exactly the same somewhere else any different than experiencing a length of time without being disassembled? I'm me because of my memory of my experiences. As each indivisible unit of time passes, I "die" and a new me with the memory of the "dead" me goes on. What's important is that the integrity of my memory remains intact and that I continue to exist in the same form for everyone around me.
Whether I live normally for a moment in one place or use this "killing and teleporting" machine, the me from a moment ago will be gone and the me of the next moment will have his moment. I'd use it.
On April 17 2012 04:46 Meatt wrote: It's not, but the original is dead now. It's people's egos that just assume the universe is gonna grab their own specific first-person-view (or "soul" if that helps) and teleport it along with the deconstructed atoms. Negative. It's just going to start up a fresh new install of Windows, but also re-install all your programs and music again. But it's still technically different computer, even if it's identical.
The idea that your perspective is anything more than a biological analog of a history of your chronologically ordered sensory inputs seems off. There isn't a "soul" to feel an intangible loss when our body stops functioning. The organism that's destroyed will simply cease to be and it'd have no qualms with that, because it doesn't exist anymore. The organism that is created would be you. It would have your memory and your form. It would carry on your existence as an entity to the rest of the universe. You would carry on living no differently than if you had stood still for a fraction of a second, since that version of you would just be you with your memory and form.
When someone dies they don't weep. It's the people around them that experience loss.
And that is what you miss, you are not just your memories. You are your body, and actually people arguing that this teleport kills you are the materialistic ones. As they actually argue that the matter that you consists of and the specific process that runs on this substrate is you and that is it and there is nothing else. Whereas you posit that you are not your body but you are the information about your body. Which is completely at odds with standard meaning of the word self and is much more idealistic approach.
Isn't it given that our body is recreated exactly as it was? That's what I took from the OP. The body physically holds our memories, so since the body is granted I focused on the memory bit.
Yes, it is exactly as it was. But what does it has to do with my self-identification. Millions of beings can have bodies exactly like me and my memories. But I am just one of them or none of them. There are no other possibilities (not in this scenario anyway). Since I cannot be all of my copies, I am none of my copies. I am either the original or I am dead.
Disclaimer : When I say the above I am talking from the point of view of the being that went into the machine. And I am assuming objective reality, so please no arguments based on "how do you know".
Self-identification is a tool we use, it isn't any sort of universal truth. When it helps us simplify things, we refer to it. It almost always does help us simplify things because we don't usually ask questions like "what if I melted myself down and got built up again?"
Edit: If there are a million beings that are all exactly like you, you'd feel like that one that sees the other 999,999. The moment any of you start experiencing anything, it would differentiate you from the others.
The point is at one point they were not differentiated and if you put them into exactly the same virtual worlds they would remain the same structurally forever. And yet I would never be all of them even if they do not differentiate ever. So being structurally identical to me is not the same as being me.
I'd agree with that. "Me" is a reference that depends on a lot of parameters. If time already differentiates "me" from "me 10 seconds ago", I feel that there's no difference between a lapse in duration of time to the idea of being destroyed and rebuilt.
On April 17 2012 05:40 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: No, because I'm a Christian, despite any recent doubts, and still believe I'm my soul, and not my brain. Also, I don't believe in the logic of the copy of an old object being the same object. I'M DEAD. I got killed so I can save five fucking hours on a trip to the beach. Actually, I didn't save five hours. I sacrificed my life to save my CLONE five fucking hours. My clone will then sacrifice HIS life so that he can save his clone five fucking hours to drive back home. This will go on for about 80 years, with countless copies killing themselves while I'm forced to look on from the afterlife and observe my clones living the life I should have lived. HELL NO. If I ever got a death teleportation machine, I would tie a heavy rock to it, take a boat out to the middle of the ocean and ditch the piece of shit. No way am I giving my life for some clone's convenience.
I don't think that the string of deaths (while appearing morbid at first) is quite as extreme as that, because none of those clones would have ever existed without the teleportation machine.
If we assume that:
1) Life is valuable 2) Teleportation death is painless 3) My existence is slightly better when I am in the teleported location than I would be otherwise
Then, if addition represents life and subtraction represents death
(Teleported me) - (old me) > (old me)
but only slightly
However, under this logic, then more life is always better, so everybody should be cloning themselves for the sake of more life... so maybe a defining component of life is individuality? And if that's the case, that supports my argument even more: It's not countless corpses of clones that should have lived, because they were never destined to have lives, they were just following one particular life (unless of course the intent was to have multiple clones having different lives, same genetically and up to a certain point in memory, but then branching off into different people... but then we get serious overpopulation issues)
...but I don't feel certain about all of this. I feel like dumping the death teleportation machine into the ocean could actually be the right move... but again, I don't think it's actually that morbid (as long as there's no continuous drowning, a la Prestige)
Why would it matter if the machine makes an identical copy of you, it wont be me that gets teleported, its a copy of myself. So while I die to teleport somewhere, a copy of myself will continue living.. why would I want to do that?
Dont know what to answer. If it is a 100% copy then i guess i would have no problem with it, asuming that thats the way teleporting will work. This question raises other questions for me btw.
What about we let the machine make a copy of us to teleport and NOT destruct us. Its basicly the same question beside for killing you lol, so this should even be more atractive. Still i feel that more people would say no to this question then to the one asked in op.
Dont think we will ever be able to copy for 100% btw, not even 1 million years from now. Some things are impossible to determine according to quantum mechanics, so thoose properties would be impossible to copy, at least till we found better physics.
On August 05 2010 18:49 BrogMaN wrote: No, absolutely would not even consider it. I've thought about this concept a lot after reading Michael Crichton's(RIP) Timeline. The whole idea terrifies me. Sure it may be an exact copy of me down to the molecule, but it won't be ME. I'll be dead. Gone. Maybe if I was a religious type i would be willing but since i'm pretty atheist and don't really think anything happens after i die there's no way i would willingly kill my current body just to travel somewhere. Unless THIS body would die if I didn't teleport, like if the Earth was about to explode. Then yeah, sure, I would want to keep my ideas alive and have the chance for my genes to be carried on, but that would be the only acceptable reason to teleport for me.
it is very painful to me how little sense this makes.
On April 17 2012 05:22 lorkac wrote: People keep comparing it to sleep because they want to believe that it is a seem less transition from old you to new you. Because they're still having a hard time accepting the concept that when you die--you die. The new you is a different you. He will have your experiences--but you wont have his.
I have the experiences of me from 20 seconds ago, but he doesn't have my experiences from those 20 seconds. Am I still the same me? The me of the future will always have experiences the me of the past didn't have, that seems like faulty logic.
To me this doesn't make any sense at all...
You are still you when the time is passing but using the machine destroys your current form and copies the information to reconstruct an identical clone of yourself in another position. This person is no longer you, he's a perfect copy but you are dead.
On August 05 2010 18:49 BrogMaN wrote: No, absolutely would not even consider it. I've thought about this concept a lot after reading Michael Crichton's(RIP) Timeline. The whole idea terrifies me. Sure it may be an exact copy of me down to the molecule, but it won't be ME. I'll be dead. Gone. Maybe if I was a religious type i would be willing but since i'm pretty atheist and don't really think anything happens after i die there's no way i would willingly kill my current body just to travel somewhere. Unless THIS body would die if I didn't teleport, like if the Earth was about to explode. Then yeah, sure, I would want to keep my ideas alive and have the chance for my genes to be carried on, but that would be the only acceptable reason to teleport for me.
it is very painful to me how little sense this makes.
It makes perfect sense to me. The teleporter destroys your body and you die.
Nothing else makes a difference to you since death is permanent. You are not going to wake up from the dead if by some freak accident an identical copy of yourself is formed somewhere a billion years from now.
It always amazes me that anyone would go for this. The discussion stops at "you die"...... even if there is another collection of atoms out there that are an exact replica of yours, it doesn't affect you in any way.... maybe your family, friends and job could go on like nothing happened, but YOU would be dead. You would never see whats on the other end of the transporter, why would it make it any better that someone just like you would?
Think of it like this.... say a replica of yourself walked into the room your in right now. Would you feel okay about killing yourself all of a sudden because he would live on?
You dont simply die,else the question would be to easy. This is a way of teleportation. If the copy is 100% (wich it is in this case) you wont notice a difference.
You stay you, You are now made of different atoms and particles, but the configuration is the same. Its not that much different from reality. All the elemental particles and atoms in our body are changed and replaced by other particles and atoms throughout our live, i think at least once for every particle (someone with more knowledge on this feel free to correct me). Now this just happens all at once.
Sounds like the clone would think it was you, the same consciousness. But IMO that's all it would be, a clone that thinks it is you, not actually you, not actually your consciousness.
For all we know today we were born with the experiences and memories of the consciousness previously in our body and tomorow we will cease to exsist and a new consciousness will take over.
On April 17 2012 07:05 Rassy wrote: You dont simply die,else the question would be to easy. This is a way of teleportation. If the copy is 100% (wich it is in this case) you wont notice a difference.
You stay you, You are now made of different atoms and particles, but the configuration is the same. Its not that much different from reality. All the elemental particles and atoms in our body are changed and replaced by other particles and atoms throughout our live, i think at least once for every particle (someone with more knowledge on this feel free to correct me). Now this just happens all at once.
So, if they replicate you, but leave the original in tact are there two you's?
If an exact replica of yourself walks up to you right now, is that going to make you value your life any less? If you re-arrange the order of events you can see how silly this is.
Make replica, replica meets original and suddenly original is okay with being destroyed? No.
On August 05 2010 18:49 BrogMaN wrote: No, absolutely would not even consider it. I've thought about this concept a lot after reading Michael Crichton's(RIP) Timeline. The whole idea terrifies me. Sure it may be an exact copy of me down to the molecule, but it won't be ME. I'll be dead. Gone. Maybe if I was a religious type i would be willing but since i'm pretty atheist and don't really think anything happens after i die there's no way i would willingly kill my current body just to travel somewhere. Unless THIS body would die if I didn't teleport, like if the Earth was about to explode. Then yeah, sure, I would want to keep my ideas alive and have the chance for my genes to be carried on, but that would be the only acceptable reason to teleport for me.
Funny how this question doesn't fall neatly into religious versus non-religious lines. I've met religious people who said yes, because of their religious views, and no, because of their religious views, and atheists who say yes, based on their atheists views, and atheists who say no, based on their atheist views.
On April 17 2012 06:56 dsousa wrote: It always amazes me that anyone would go for this. The discussion stops at "you die"...... even if there is another collection of atoms out there that are an exact replica of yours, it doesn't affect you in any way.... maybe your family, friends and job could go on like nothing happened, but YOU would be dead. You would never see whats on the other end of the transporter, why would it make it any better that someone just like you would?
Think of it like this.... say a replica of yourself walked into the room your in right now. Would you feel okay about killing yourself all of a sudden because he would live on?
Well, if the universe doesn't notice a change, why does it matter what you feel?
Though, that's another interesting rephrasing of the question... if I saw a replicant of myself walk into the room, I wouldn't want either of us to die. But if a replicant walked up to me and said "Hey, if you die, I get to travel to a location both of us have always wanted to go to"... or "Hey, if you die, I get to have a million dollars"... I'd still say no, I want to live!
Which would mean I should say no to the teleportation thing.
If an exact replica of yourself walks up to you right now, is that going to make you value your life any less?
Well i agree that copying you is an interesting situation to think about and raises interesting questions, and your question is a good one. i did mention this situation briefly in my post right before the post you quoted.
If you re-arrange the order of events it does indeed look silly. Would i value life less? No, though i would see it different. Would i be willing to kill myself if i see an exact copy of me walking around? No off course not,though i probably would want the copy of me to die. Death is not realy a choise in this hypothetical situation though, it is just a byproduct of you beeing copyd and teleported. Asuming that it is a 100% copy, there wont be a difference and i dont see why annyone should have a problem with it. Maybe you can see it not as beeing dead, but as going into limbo. And then you just build up again after teleporting.
100% copys of me can never exist at the same time as me btw, To be exact copys they would also have to be in the exact same space and under influence of the exact same forces of nature As soon as 2 copys exist, they start to differ from eachoter due to different outside forces. This problem is avoided though in this experiment by simply eliminating one of them the moment the other is created.
On April 17 2012 07:47 Rassy wrote: No off course not,though i probably would want the copy of me to die.
Why? What'd the copy ever do to youuuuuu? Poor copy.
Death is not realy a choise in this hypothetical situation though, it is just a byproduct of you beeing copyd and teleported. Asuming that it is a 100% copy, there wont be a difference and i dont see why annyone should have a problem with it. Maybe you can see it not as beeing dead, but as going into limbo. And then you just build up again after teleporting.
100% copys of me can never exist at the same time as me btw, To be exact copys they would also have to be in the exact same space and under influence of the exact same forces of nature As soon as 2 copys exist, they start to differ from eachoter due to different outside forces. This problem is avoided though in this experiment by simply eliminating one of them the moment the other is created.
.
I'm... going to have to think about this more later.
On April 17 2012 07:05 Rassy wrote: You dont simply die,else the question would be to easy. This is a way of teleportation. If the copy is 100% (wich it is in this case) you wont notice a difference.
You stay you, You are now made of different atoms and particles, but the configuration is the same. Its not that much different from reality. All the elemental particles and atoms in our body are changed and replaced by other particles and atoms throughout our live, i think at least once for every particle (someone with more knowledge on this feel free to correct me). Now this just happens all at once.
Actually you do simply die, and the question really is that easy. People who believe in a 'soul' would think that your 'consciousness' would transfer over to the next body, surviving biological destruction. This is not the case. I think you would agree that we are nothing more than the sum of our parts, the arrangement of the atoms that make us up. So if they are destroyed, so are we. We continue to live because there is continuity of body. If that stops than so do we.
Actually you do simply die, and the question really is that easy. People who believe in a 'soul' would think that your 'consciousness' would transfer over to the next body, surviving biological destruction. This is not the case. I think you would agree that we are nothing more than the sum of our parts, the arrangement of the atoms that make us up. So if they are destroyed, so are we. We continue to live because there is continuity of body. If that stops than so do we.
I do not think the question is that easy. Whether you believe in a soul or not doesn't determine absolutely which side of this argument a person sits on (for or against teleportation) [as a previous poster said about atheist, non atheist, religious..]
Plenty of people in this thread don't believe in a soul and would still disagree to use a device as such.
The very claim that you make about something being the sum of our parts can be used to reaffirm why it is fine to use the machine. To say that we are the sum of our parts is somewhat arbitrary (as some previous poster mentioned so is the notion of continuity, or progress arbitrary), because I'd question you on what it is that is the sum of those parts, and whether your parts don't already undergo a form of change themselves. So, that if you replicate something you are 'continuing' the body even more so than if you were not to replicate it, as you are putting into being something that is an exact copy.
I find most people, on first reading and will invariably intuit as to what their answer is, their 'gut feel' if you will, even if they reason it out. Because, I think there is still more to think about despite whatever reasonings you've already surmised to conclude what your answer is. Like mcc says it has helped him think about what it is to be, as for him it requires a form of continuity, and it has helped him consider what is required of that continuity. The more you consider it, you can really use arguments from both sides of this discussion to further buttress the validity of your argument. As I may be doing myself.
That's why this is an interesting, and useful (to some this is very much useless) thought experiment, because it can make you think and consider different options and obstacles, make you aware of what you need/want to understand in order to hold to your point of view.
For all those that conclude that they wouldn't use the device as it would mean a cessation of their being, I wonder if you don't actually believe in a 'soul' in some way or another. Because by saying that despite replicating yourself, the 'you' that was you is no longer living. So what is that 'you'? Is it something static that could have only inhabited the previous being. Some say it isn't something static. Nothing has to necessarily inhabit it 'spiritually'. So they consider that what makes you is the experiences, the changes, the progressions that make 'you' who you are (or, who it is).
I feel like this can transgress into concepts of 'fate' or a deterministic view of what it is to be you. One posits that since, you have ceased being you no longer have the ability of having your 'own' experiences, those you would have had (or should have had) had you not been transported/'died'. But how then can it not be considered that being x distance away from here in an instant would/should be part of your existence, so it would be a part of your 'experience' that comprises being you.
There was something else I wanted to say but I forget.
Oh yeah so I wanted to conclude again, as I have, that I feel I need to believe in a 'soul' or something 'static' in some way.
Or that the 'I' as most people understand it doesn't exist at all.
So that I can teleport because I believe my 'soul' will continue on in the other being.
or
So that I can't teleport because I don't believe my 'soul' will continue on in the other being.
or
So that I can teleport because the 'I' never existed, and what happens through teleportation is no different from what is already happening.
or
So that I can't teleport because the 'I' only exists within 'my existence', and teleporting would cease the existence of the 'I'
What are some more ors? ( I may not have put the last one very well)
On April 17 2012 04:21 Lixler wrote: Isn't it interesting that the self is defined in something the self has never and can never perceive, and that a self lacking the requirements for being the self would still feel just as much the self as if he really was the self? Continuity is a nonsense and vague concept that doesn't really solve anything. You just have to arbitrarily define rates of bodily change that are okay, but that isn't how the grammar of the word "self" is actually used.
With our current understanding of consciousness it's an impossible question to answer, but nonetheless an interesting one to think about. It'd certainly be nice if we could preserve our own personal being through the creation of perfect copies. But hope is one thing, knowledge another.
Whats strange to me is there seem to people in this thread who think theyve got the conclusive answer. Nobody does. If you think you do you've misunderstood the problem
I'm a little confused with this. When I am teleported, will my exact consciousness be teleported in such ways that my original body becomes nothing but a shell? This shell has no consciousness, because every part that makes up my memory, and everything is transported and replicated into exactly as the way I normally am? If so then wouldn't my original self just become a living body without a brain? Thus, my original body would be like a vessel and I have another body. So I presume this is like jumping out of body and possessing another body. I would probably put my real body in a cryogenic state just in cast if I want to go back to my original body. I see no point in destroying my original body though.
On April 16 2012 12:29 Half wrote: You know, this threads gone on forever and I never understood why the machine has to kill you. I mean, seriously. I mean we already have the tech to make infinite perfect copies of the human body and to transfer the data on his mind via ftl wires and we still have this odd notion that we have to rig this ingenous device to kill one of you.
OP here. It doesn't have to. Duh. It just does for the sake of this discussion, which is about the meaning of identity and how poorly we understand it. If you let both copies out alive it would instantly be about what cool stuff you'd do with your doppelganger and whether you'd kill each other, which is pretty stupid since it doesn't touch any underlying issues.
Yeah, probably, I was being kinda obtuse in expressing my distaste for this sort of philosphical discourse :/. Not a fan.
To add something to it though, maybe this? Not towards you, just this threads readers in general :p, this branch of philosophy and metaphysics dealing with Four Diemensionalism seems to directly relate to this dicussion, the deliemna of Temporal Parts (how objects travel through time). See also Perdurantism versus Endurantism versus Presentism.Dunno, maybe some people might find that stuff interesting.
Ultimately, it comes down to where you stand between these philosophies, and how you view sentient beings "travel" through time.
People who rigidly say "no" for philosphical (rather than personal spirutual reasons) are usually very admantant Perdurantists...They believe that the self is determined by the very well defined four dimensional chain of events that led us where we are. You sever that chain, you die.
Presentist, People who hold the belief that each moment of being is actually a seperate phenmenon, and the perception of a continuous self is largely a illusion of the mind would obviously say yes.
And endurantists could really go either way. Is the eternal concept of self defined by its "youness" ( the qualities that make you you, and will only be lost when all information of you is lost to entropy ) or is it defined by the physical you at a given x, y and z coordinate?
Of course, even within that framework, you get a lot of lee-way. A perdurantist could accept it if he thought information transfer was a valid form of 4-d connection between two seperate stages (in the same way a person is the same person from birth and at death despite materially being made up of 99% different atoms).
Even if you've never ever heard these words before, or this entire line of thought, you probably fit nicely among one of the three. Because while they sound pretentious and fancy, they basically describe three very basic ways humans think humans travel through the experience of time.
But in the end, who among is is fucking smart enough to know conclusively an answer to that haha? Why I think this sort of discussion is fruitless as an actual argument. Just fun to think about I guess. The probs is that this thread is only this long (and annoying) is because most people don't bother readin the arguments and just go about the discussion in a bit of circle-jerky manner.
Myself, I'm a bit of a tradional Perdurantist. I do think that "death teleportation" would end my subjective perception of continuity. But with a bit of a unique twist. Subjective perceptions of consciousness are overated imo haha xD. I'd walk into that machine expecting death, yet prepared to face oblivion :D
What if the clone thinks it's you and you are safely transported and it feels like he has your own mind so nothing changed. But in the end your conciousness has ended but copied exactly so that he can't really realise the conciousness it has is not the same.
And because of this people would say it's safe to travel with this system and no one will really figure out the reality because there will be no one can actually prove it the otherwise or experience the feeling of difference. And it gets so mainstream that everybody kills themselves everyday.
On April 17 2012 11:44 lorkac wrote: The question matters mostly to you. Are you okay with someone taking over the rest of your life.
I guess it's not a problem if I'm taking over the rest of my life. Right?
That's really the crux of the debate now isn't it?
Is your clone as good as you are? Enough that you're willing to see yourself as meaningless? That your death meant nothing? That you being dead and replaced won't bother anyone--yourself included.
Let me put it this way. If someone cloned my dead dog so I could play with it again--cloning sounds awesome. Why? Because I'm not the one who has to be dead. Dead wife? Cloned--back to lovin'. Dead sibling? Nope--back to life.
That I'm very much down for.
Me being replaced by someone who experiences everything for me as I disappear? No. Not cool.
What if I don't get killed. What if they just clone me and the guy goes about doing my business, doing my wife, working my job.
I'd be alone, homeless and pennyless. That would suck. Or I get a different job, get a different woman, get a different home. Would I be happy then? If I would be happy doing that--why didn't I leave my wife and job before hand? If I'm not happy doing that--then why would I be okay with my clone working my job and fucking my woman?
The clone is a separate being. He has your memories much like a scrapbook has your memories. He has your experience much like a camera has your experiences. But everything new he's living--that something he is getting, not you. And he'll be getting it separate from you whether you're dead or not.
On April 16 2012 12:29 Half wrote: You know, this threads gone on forever and I never understood why the machine has to kill you. I mean, seriously. I mean we already have the tech to make infinite perfect copies of the human body and to transfer the data on his mind via ftl wires and we still have this odd notion that we have to rig this ingenous device to kill one of you.
OP here. It doesn't have to. Duh. It just does for the sake of this discussion, which is about the meaning of identity and how poorly we understand it. If you let both copies out alive it would instantly be about what cool stuff you'd do with your doppelganger and whether you'd kill each other, which is pretty stupid since it doesn't touch any underlying issues.
Yeah, probably, I was being kinda obtuse in expressing my distaste for this sort of philosphical discourse :/. Not a fan.
To add something to it though, maybe this? Not towards you, just this threads readers in general :p, this branch of philosophy and metaphysics dealing with Four Diemensionalism seems to directly relate to this dicussion, the deliemna of Temporal Parts (how objects travel through time). See also Perdurantism versus Endurantism versus Presentism.Dunno, maybe some people might find that stuff interesting.
Ultimately, it comes down to where you stand between these philosophies, and how you view sentient beings "travel" through time.
People who rigidly say "no" for philosphical (rather than personal spirutual reasons) are usually very admantant Perdurantists...They believe that the self is determined by the very well defined four dimensional chain of events that led us where we are. You sever that chain, you die.
Presentist, People who hold the belief that each moment of being is actually a seperate phenmenon, and the perception of a continuous self is largely a illusion of the mind would obviously say yes.
And endurantists could really go either way. Is the eternal concept of self defined by its "youness" ( the qualities that make you you, and will only be lost when all information of you is lost to entropy ) or is it defined by the physical you at a given x, y and z coordinate?
Of course, even within that framework, you get a lot of lee-way. A perdurantist could accept it if he thought information transfer was a valid form of 4-d connection between two seperate stages (in the same way a person is the same person from birth and at death despite materially being made up of 99% different atoms).
Even if you've never ever heard these words before, or this entire line of thought, you probably fit nicely among one of the three. Because while they sound pretentious and fancy, they basically describe three very basic ways humans think humans travel through the experience of time.
But in the end, who among is is fucking smart enough to know conclusively an answer to that haha? Why I think this sort of discussion is fruitless as an actual argument. Just fun to think about I guess. The probs is that this thread is only this long (and annoying) is because most people don't bother readin the arguments and just go about the discussion in a bit of circle-jerky manner.
Myself, I'm a bit of a tradional Perdurantist. I do think that "death teleportation" would end my subjective perception of continuity. But with a bit of a unique twist. Subjective perceptions of consciousness are overated imo haha xD. I'd walk into that machine expecting death, yet prepared to face oblivion :D
On April 16 2012 12:29 Half wrote: You know, this threads gone on forever and I never understood why the machine has to kill you. I mean, seriously. I mean we already have the tech to make infinite perfect copies of the human body and to transfer the data on his mind via ftl wires and we still have this odd notion that we have to rig this ingenous device to kill one of you.
OP here. It doesn't have to. Duh. It just does for the sake of this discussion, which is about the meaning of identity and how poorly we understand it. If you let both copies out alive it would instantly be about what cool stuff you'd do with your doppelganger and whether you'd kill each other, which is pretty stupid since it doesn't touch any underlying issues.
Yeah, probably, I was being kinda obtuse in expressing my distaste for this sort of philosphical discourse :/. Not a fan.
To add something to it though, maybe this? Not towards you, just this threads readers in general :p, this branch of philosophy and metaphysics dealing with Four Diemensionalism seems to directly relate to this dicussion, the deliemna of Temporal Parts (how objects travel through time). See also Perdurantism versus Endurantism versus Presentism.Dunno, maybe some people might find that stuff interesting.
Ultimately, it comes down to where you stand between these philosophies, and how you view sentient beings "travel" through time.
People who rigidly say "no" for philosphical (rather than personal spirutual reasons) are usually very admantant Perdurantists...They believe that the self is determined by the very well defined four dimensional chain of events that led us where we are. You sever that chain, you die.
Presentist, People who hold the belief that each moment of being is actually a seperate phenmenon, and the perception of a continuous self is largely a illusion of the mind would obviously say yes.
And endurantists could really go either way. Is the eternal concept of self defined by its "youness" ( the qualities that make you you, and will only be lost when all information of you is lost to entropy ) or is it defined by the physical you at a given x, y and z coordinate?
Of course, even within that framework, you get a lot of lee-way. A perdurantist could accept it if he thought information transfer was a valid form of 4-d connection between two seperate stages (in the same way a person is the same person from birth and at death despite materially being made up of 99% different atoms).
Even if you've never ever heard these words before, or this entire line of thought, you probably fit nicely among one of the three. Because while they sound pretentious and fancy, they basically describe three very basic ways humans think humans travel through the experience of time.
But in the end, who among is is fucking smart enough to know conclusively an answer to that haha? Why I think this sort of discussion is fruitless as an actual argument. Just fun to think about I guess. The probs is that this thread is only this long (and annoying) is because most people don't bother readin the arguments and just go about the discussion in a bit of circle-jerky manner.
Myself, I'm a bit of a tradional Perdurantist. I do think that "death teleportation" would end my subjective perception of continuity. But with a bit of a unique twist. Subjective perceptions of consciousness are overated imo haha xD. I'd walk into that machine expecting death, yet prepared to face oblivion :D
Strange, I might consider myself presentist and yet would still not walk into the machine. As I do not see how present being only "actually" existing point in time, especially if we considered time continuous and not discrete, has much to do with the scenario.
If such device can exist, there is absolutely no need to "kill" the old body.
In some sci-fic. , the molecule assembling data and your memeory data are stored in a storage device seperately altogether (like a hardisk, at somewhere safe, like outside of solar system where there is no asteriod. With backup copies all over the galaxy.)
That way, even if your "cloning" failed and your old body die due to some unfortunate accident, other people can always "clone" you back again so you can never actually "die". The extra copies can just upload and download a patch from time to time so that every copy of you can share the same memory and be "up to date".
I do not see how this is not possible if you can already copy yourself from the atomic level.
It is no different in this case than with the movement of the sun: there our eye is the constant advocate of error, here it is our language. In its origin language belongs to the age of the most rudimentary psychology. We enter a realm of crude fetishism when we summon before consciousness the basic presuppositions of the metaphysics of language — in plain talk, the presuppositions of reason. Everywhere reason sees a doer and doing; it believes in will as the cause; it believes in the ego, in the ego as being, in the ego as substance, and it projects this faith in the ego-substance upon all things — only thereby does it first create the concept of "thing." Everywhere "being" is projected by thought, pushed underneath, as the cause; the concept of being follows, and is a derivative of, the concept of ego. In the beginning there is that great calamity of an error that the will is something which is effective, that will is a capacity. Today we know that it is only a word. - Nietzsche
To explain, we use the word "I" or "I do" as if they mean something, as if they aren't fabrications of language which in no way connect to reality. That we think of ourselves as a continuous "I" is a self-deception. We are immediately conscious and nothing more. That we delude ourselves into thinking that we always "are", that we are the same as we always were, identical even, is because we remember past states of consciousness that we perceive to be continuously connected to our own. Replicate a consciousness, replicate the memories, you have replicated the "self". For those who argue that their precious "continuity" is violated, if you believe this continuity to be constitutive of a unified "self" rather than a succession of separate instances of consciousness you would have to accept a number of ridiculous conclusions. You would have to say we die every time we sleep, every time we are knocked out, and are reborn when we awaken. The best analogy I can think of to this time machine is those who are so deprived of oxygen that their brains literally "die", cease to function, and are then resuscitated. If you think that this machine really kills you and recreates something else entirely, related in substance but not in identity, then you would think that these people who die and are later resuscitated are similarly some sort of freakish zombies copying someone who is actually dead. The only other argument to be considered is that your identity is in some way connected to the particular atoms which constitute your body/brain, which is to be blunt, retarded. All your cells are constantly dying and new ones replacing them - are you too not then dying and being replaced constantly? Phenomenally consciousness is a process - replicate the process, replicate the identity, replicate the self. In what cell, which atom exactly is your consciousness contained? None. Changing of the constitutive atoms, as long as they are identically arranged, means nothing to identity or consciousness.
It is no different in this case than with the movement of the sun: there our eye is the constant advocate of error, here it is our language. In its origin language belongs to the age of the most rudimentary psychology. We enter a realm of crude fetishism when we summon before consciousness the basic presuppositions of the metaphysics of language — in plain talk, the presuppositions of reason. Everywhere reason sees a doer and doing; it believes in will as the cause; it believes in the ego, in the ego as being, in the ego as substance, and it projects this faith in the ego-substance upon all things — only thereby does it first create the concept of "thing." Everywhere "being" is projected by thought, pushed underneath, as the cause; the concept of being follows, and is a derivative of, the concept of ego. In the beginning there is that great calamity of an error that the will is something which is effective, that will is a capacity. Today we know that it is only a word. - Nietzsche
To explain, we use the word "I" or "I do" as if they mean something, as if they aren't fabrications of language which in no way connect to reality. That we think of ourselves as a continuous "I" is a self-deception. We are immediately conscious and nothing more. That we delude ourselves into thinking that we always "are", that we are the same as we always were, identical even, is because we remember past states of consciousness that we perceive to be continuously connected to our own. Replicate a consciousness, replicate the memories, you have replicated the "self". For those who argue that their precious "continuity" is violated, if you believe this continuity to be constitutive of a unified "self" rather than a succession of separate instances of consciousness you would have to accept a number of ridiculous conclusions. You would have to say we die every time we sleep, every time we are knocked out, and are reborn when we awaken. The best analogy I can think of to this time machine is those who are so deprived of oxygen that their brains literally "die", cease to function, and are then resuscitated. If you think that this machine really kills you and recreates something else entirely, related in substance but not in identity, then you would think that these people who die and are later resuscitated are similarly some sort of freakish zombies copying someone who is actually dead. The only other argument to be considered is that your identity is in some way connected to the particular atoms which constitute your body/brain, which is to be blunt, retarded. All your cells are constantly dying and new ones replacing them - are you too not then dying and being replaced constantly? Phenomenally consciousness is a process - replicate the process, replicate the identity, replicate the self. In what cell, which atom exactly is your consciousness contained? None. Changing of the constitutive atoms, as long as they are identically arranged, means nothing to identity or consciousness.
If someone took everything that is me and made another me without my notion, I would continue to live my life normally while me #2 would start existing from the same point. How is that not continuity?
Imagine if the machine instead made a copy of you using your exact molecular structure and injected memory then sent that copy on its way while torturing the previous body, still conscious, for 50 years. Not many people would volunteer for the procedure if they knew, and yet for 50 years, no one would know because the copy would claim that the teleportation worked perfectly. It wouldn't know any better. Replace "tortured for 50 years" with "kill", and then no one would ever know... but it would still happen. I don't claim to know what happens after death (probably nothing), but you'd definitely experience it. Your newly made clone wouldn't. Not yet anyway.
It's true, I might as well claim that we don't know if we died every night and wake up a new person in the morning. We don't know that. But I'm pretty sure I don't get demolecularized in my bed so I'll take my chances.
It is no different in this case than with the movement of the sun: there our eye is the constant advocate of error, here it is our language. In its origin language belongs to the age of the most rudimentary psychology. We enter a realm of crude fetishism when we summon before consciousness the basic presuppositions of the metaphysics of language — in plain talk, the presuppositions of reason. Everywhere reason sees a doer and doing; it believes in will as the cause; it believes in the ego, in the ego as being, in the ego as substance, and it projects this faith in the ego-substance upon all things — only thereby does it first create the concept of "thing." Everywhere "being" is projected by thought, pushed underneath, as the cause; the concept of being follows, and is a derivative of, the concept of ego. In the beginning there is that great calamity of an error that the will is something which is effective, that will is a capacity. Today we know that it is only a word. - Nietzsche
To explain, we use the word "I" or "I do" as if they mean something, as if they aren't fabrications of language which in no way connect to reality. That we think of ourselves as a continuous "I" is a self-deception. We are immediately conscious and nothing more. That we delude ourselves into thinking that we always "are", that we are the same as we always were, identical even, is because we remember past states of consciousness that we perceive to be continuously connected to our own. Replicate a consciousness, replicate the memories, you have replicated the "self". For those who argue that their precious "continuity" is violated, if you believe this continuity to be constitutive of a unified "self" rather than a succession of separate instances of consciousness you would have to accept a number of ridiculous conclusions. You would have to say we die every time we sleep, every time we are knocked out, and are reborn when we awaken. The best analogy I can think of to this time machine is those who are so deprived of oxygen that their brains literally "die", cease to function, and are then resuscitated. If you think that this machine really kills you and recreates something else entirely, related in substance but not in identity, then you would think that these people who die and are later resuscitated are similarly some sort of freakish zombies copying someone who is actually dead. The only other argument to be considered is that your identity is in some way connected to the particular atoms which constitute your body/brain, which is to be blunt, retarded. All your cells are constantly dying and new ones replacing them - are you too not then dying and being replaced constantly? Phenomenally consciousness is a process - replicate the process, replicate the identity, replicate the self. In what cell, which atom exactly is your consciousness contained? None. Changing of the constitutive atoms, as long as they are identically arranged, means nothing to identity or consciousness.
If someone took everything that is me and made another me without my notion, I would continue to live my life normally while me #2 would start existing from the same point. How is that not continuity?
Imagine if the machine instead made a copy of you using your exact molecular structure and injected memory then sent that copy on its way while torturing the previous body, still conscious, for 50 years. Not many people would volunteer for the procedure if they knew, and yet for 50 years, no one would know because the copy would claim that the teleportation worked perfectly. It wouldn't know any better. Replace "tortured for 50 years" with "kill", and then no one would ever know... but it would still happen. I don't claim to know what happens after death (probably nothing), but you'd definitely experience it. Your newly made clone wouldn't. Not yet anyway.
It's true, I might as well claim that we don't know if we died every night and wake up a new person in the morning. We don't know that. But I'm pretty sure I don't get demolecularized in my bed so I'll take my chances.
We actually do still sense the world when we're asleep. It's how we learn to not pee the bed, to wake up to an alarm, etc...
So no--we do know that we wake up after going to bed. And yes, the machine will kill you and you will feel it kill you and you will experience it killing you. The only people who don't care is the clone and the people who interact with the clone who don't care that you're dead.
Dont see why this has to be such a phylosophical discussion or what believing in a soul has to do with it. I just went by what the op wrote. Its a 100% copy, so if you believe in a soul your soul would be copied as well. You would also per definition not notice a difference (else its not a 100% copy) so thats why i concluded that everyone should use the machine. If the op wanted to start a discussion about what makes up our "self" then i think he should have worded it differently. The experiment is an interesting way to start thinking about it but "100% copy" kinda spoils it for me, leading to only 1 answer possible.
On April 18 2012 13:04 Rassy wrote: Dont see why this has to be such a phylosophical discussion or what believing in a soul has to do with it. I just went by what the op wrote. Its a 100% copy, so if you believe in a soul your soul would be copied as well. You would also per definition not notice a difference (else its not a 100% copy) so thats why i concluded that everyone should use the machine. If the op wanted to start a discussion about what makes up our "self" then i think he should have worded it differently. The experiment is an interesting way to start thinking about it but "100% copy" kinda spoils it for me, leading to only 1 answer possible.
The fallacy your making is that your perception of the world is transferred over to the copy and isn't simply copied over. If it's transferred over--then your experience simply shifted from the old body to the new body. The discussion is the argument that the copy is just a copy--it's not you. Not that it isn't as good or even better than you--but it isn't you, it's a separate being that is exactly like you, but is not you. You will die, and will have to deal with the fact that you are dead.
On April 18 2012 14:13 smokeyhoodoo wrote: Can someone please tell me if there is a reason for destroying your original self other than playing pretend that its teleportation?
It's about your worth as a human.
If a clone replaced you--would it matter that you were replaced?
On April 18 2012 14:13 smokeyhoodoo wrote: Can someone please tell me if there is a reason for destroying your original self other than playing pretend that its teleportation?
It's about your worth as a human.
If a clone replaced you--would it matter that you were replaced?
Committing suicide doesn't seem like something someone who considers themselves of worth would do.
I dont know exactly how consciousness works, I dont know if the machine rebuilding me from scratch will mean the new me gets my consciousness along with a copy of my mind and body, or if it'll simply be a copy with the same memories and a new consciousness, and I'll be dead. I'd probably still use it because im lazy
Lets say the machine has a malfunction. It fails to destroy you but the copy on the other end is still created. There's a pistol next to you with a single bullet in the chamber. Do you blow your brains out to complete the 'teleportation'?
On April 18 2012 14:13 smokeyhoodoo wrote: Can someone please tell me if there is a reason for destroying your original self other than playing pretend that its teleportation?
It's about your worth as a human.
If a clone replaced you--would it matter that you were replaced?
Committing suicide doesn't seem like something someone who considers themselves of worth would do.
But is it suicide if the clone gets to live out the rest of your life so that, to everyone else around you, nothing has changed? You're not exactly ridding the world of your existence, your simply ridding yourself of the world's existence.
EDIT
The actual reason the machine kills you is that it's a random reason. You could say that it needs a human body to fuel the process, or that the process can't start without a human host, or you could say that instead of a machine it's a wizard that needs eye of newt and a human sacrifice to make the clone. It's arbitrary.
It is no different in this case than with the movement of the sun: there our eye is the constant advocate of error, here it is our language. In its origin language belongs to the age of the most rudimentary psychology. We enter a realm of crude fetishism when we summon before consciousness the basic presuppositions of the metaphysics of language — in plain talk, the presuppositions of reason. Everywhere reason sees a doer and doing; it believes in will as the cause; it believes in the ego, in the ego as being, in the ego as substance, and it projects this faith in the ego-substance upon all things — only thereby does it first create the concept of "thing." Everywhere "being" is projected by thought, pushed underneath, as the cause; the concept of being follows, and is a derivative of, the concept of ego. In the beginning there is that great calamity of an error that the will is something which is effective, that will is a capacity. Today we know that it is only a word. - Nietzsche
To explain, we use the word "I" or "I do" as if they mean something, as if they aren't fabrications of language which in no way connect to reality. That we think of ourselves as a continuous "I" is a self-deception. We are immediately conscious and nothing more. That we delude ourselves into thinking that we always "are", that we are the same as we always were, identical even, is because we remember past states of consciousness that we perceive to be continuously connected to our own. Replicate a consciousness, replicate the memories, you have replicated the "self". For those who argue that their precious "continuity" is violated, if you believe this continuity to be constitutive of a unified "self" rather than a succession of separate instances of consciousness you would have to accept a number of ridiculous conclusions. You would have to say we die every time we sleep, every time we are knocked out, and are reborn when we awaken. The best analogy I can think of to this time machine is those who are so deprived of oxygen that their brains literally "die", cease to function, and are then resuscitated. If you think that this machine really kills you and recreates something else entirely, related in substance but not in identity, then you would think that these people who die and are later resuscitated are similarly some sort of freakish zombies copying someone who is actually dead. The only other argument to be considered is that your identity is in some way connected to the particular atoms which constitute your body/brain, which is to be blunt, retarded. All your cells are constantly dying and new ones replacing them - are you too not then dying and being replaced constantly? Phenomenally consciousness is a process - replicate the process, replicate the identity, replicate the self. In what cell, which atom exactly is your consciousness contained? None. Changing of the constitutive atoms, as long as they are identically arranged, means nothing to identity or consciousness.
Yes, I subjectively cannot be sure about continuity, outside observers can. Unless you are arguing some strange version of solipsism or denying existence of objective reality. Sleeping is not stopping me as a process, consciousness is just part of "me", it is not everything.
There are terms in the language that exist only in the language and not elsewhere. "I" is not one of them.