EPTDying is a minor issue if i can create a person who is as awsome as i am.
death teleportation - Page 25
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Sea_Food
Finland1612 Posts
Dying is a minor issue if i can create a person who is as awsome as i am. | ||
|
Befree
695 Posts
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. | ||
|
L3gendary
Canada1470 Posts
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. | ||
|
Sheogorath
Sweden16 Posts
 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? My answer:+ Show Spoiler + 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. | ||
|
CubEdIn
Romania5359 Posts
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. | ||
|
radscorpion9
Canada2252 Posts
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. | ||
|
Fealthas
607 Posts
| ||
|
CubEdIn
Romania5359 Posts
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". | ||
|
rea1ity
United Kingdom385 Posts
On April 15 2012 09:15 CubEdIn wrote: 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... | ||
|
Mr.F.
United States62 Posts
| ||
|
CubEdIn
Romania5359 Posts
On April 15 2012 09:19 rea1ity wrote: 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. | ||
|
Chooser
Australia25 Posts
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') | ||
|
Thezftw
Finland116 Posts
I'm going to teleport to another day by heading to bed now -> | ||
|
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
| ||
|
Friedrich Nietzsche
Germany171 Posts
Physicist should just focus on more essential things. | ||
|
Catch]22
Sweden2683 Posts
On April 15 2012 10:18 CubEdIn wrote: 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. | ||
|
KevinIX
United States2472 Posts
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). | ||
|
UniversalSnip
9871 Posts
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? | ||
|
midftw
Canada170 Posts
| ||
|
Sea_Food
Finland1612 Posts
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. | ||
| ||
