EPTWould I consider it? Hell no.
death teleportation - Page 10
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
EAGER-beaver
Canada2799 Posts
Would I consider it? Hell no. | ||
|
Deleted User 62283
385 Posts
| ||
|
hefty
Denmark555 Posts
On August 06 2010 01:27 travis wrote: 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. | ||
Myles
United States5162 Posts
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. | ||
|
nam nam
Sweden4672 Posts
On August 06 2010 10:22 tru_power22 wrote: This is a really wired question, I think i would only use it if my consciousness were transfered. You seem to think your consciousness is separate from you physical body. Please explain. | ||
|
RifleCow
Canada637 Posts
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? | ||
|
SilentCrono
United States1420 Posts
| ||
|
Myles
United States5162 Posts
On August 06 2010 11:09 RifleCow wrote: 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. | ||
|
SilverSkyLark
Philippines8437 Posts
| ||
|
Keilah
731 Posts
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. | ||
|
SaDGoWu
United States133 Posts
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. | ||
|
UniversalSnip
9871 Posts
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. | ||
|
Keilah
731 Posts
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. | ||
|
Drium
United States888 Posts
| ||
|
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
| ||
|
ooni
Australia1498 Posts
Sorry for any BBT haters, jsut don't watch | ||
|
Drium
United States888 Posts
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. | ||
|
sqwert
United States781 Posts
| ||
|
hefty
Denmark555 Posts
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. | ||
|
braammbolius
179 Posts
On August 06 2010 18:02 hefty wrote: [/i]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. | ||
| ||
