death teleportation - Page 15

On August 07 2010 23:11 KwarK wrote:

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 08 2010 18:22 Daimon wrote:



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.

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.

On August 08 2010 19:59 hefty wrote:


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 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.

On August 08 2010 09:56 Half wrote:


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 22:12 JohannesH wrote:

Would you be content to die in that situation?

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.

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

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.

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.

On August 09 2010 06:09 UniversalSnip wrote:
So the general consensus in this thread is that there is not even the slightest hint of consensus.

On August 09 2010 06:25 KhaosKreator wrote:

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 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?