|
On August 06 2010 18:32 braammbolius wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 18:02 hefty wrote:
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!"
|
United States41979 Posts
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.
|
United States41979 Posts
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.
|
United States41979 Posts
On August 06 2010 18:38 Anther wrote:
A copy of you isn't going to have your conscience.
I feel you need to look up the meaning of the word copy before you can meaningfully contribute in a discussion about it.
|
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.
|
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 19:44 deisel wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
Sure I would do this. It would be an awesome experience.
|
On August 06 2010 19:47 MuffinDude wrote:Show nested quote +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 21:04 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 19:47 MuffinDude wrote: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 21:21 jello_biafra wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 21:04 cz wrote:On August 06 2010 19:47 MuffinDude wrote: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. Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
