|
On April 15 2012 05:19 Maitolasi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 05:16 Maitolasi wrote:On April 15 2012 05:11 Najda wrote:On April 15 2012 05:06 sickoota wrote:On April 15 2012 04:58 Maitolasi wrote:On April 15 2012 04:54 sickoota wrote:On April 15 2012 04:49 Maitolasi wrote:On April 15 2012 04:43 sickoota wrote:On April 15 2012 04:33 mcc wrote: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 18:14 ImbaTosS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2012 18:08 Angra wrote: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 05:06 sickoota wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 04:58 Maitolasi wrote:On April 15 2012 04:54 sickoota wrote:On April 15 2012 04:49 Maitolasi wrote:On April 15 2012 04:43 sickoota wrote:On April 15 2012 04:33 mcc wrote:On April 15 2012 04:21 sickoota wrote:On April 15 2012 04:17 mcc wrote: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.
Yes that would allow for more than one "me" too.
|
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.
|
stupid machine, will never use.
|
On April 15 2012 05:36 00Visor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2012 18:14 ImbaTosS wrote:On April 14 2012 18:08 Angra wrote: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 18:20 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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.
|
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.
|
what if it was a portal thingy instead of a death/clone transport? who would do it? pretty sure everyone would.
so whoever creates the death/clone transport can kindly just lie to me, were good to go.
|
|
|
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 15 2012 05:54 AegiS_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2012 18:20 killa_robot wrote: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 06:09 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +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 06:19 L3gendary wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 06:09 mcc wrote: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 06:19 L3gendary wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 06:09 mcc wrote: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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
