EPTFor all we know today we were born with the experiences and memories of the consciousness previously in our body and tomorow we will cease to exsist and a new consciousness will take over.
death teleportation - Page 31
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
NotAPro
Canada146 Posts
For all we know today we were born with the experiences and memories of the consciousness previously in our body and tomorow we will cease to exsist and a new consciousness will take over. | ||
|
dsousa
United States1363 Posts
On April 17 2012 07:05 Rassy wrote: You dont simply die,else the question would be to easy. This is a way of teleportation. If the copy is 100% (wich it is in this case) you wont notice a difference. You stay you, You are now made of different atoms and particles, but the configuration is the same. Its not that much different from reality. All the elemental particles and atoms in our body are changed and replaced by other particles and atoms throughout our live, i think at least once for every particle (someone with more knowledge on this feel free to correct me). Now this just happens all at once. So, if they replicate you, but leave the original in tact are there two you's? If an exact replica of yourself walks up to you right now, is that going to make you value your life any less? If you re-arrange the order of events you can see how silly this is. Make replica, replica meets original and suddenly original is okay with being destroyed? No. | ||
|
TheRealPaciFist
United States1049 Posts
On August 05 2010 18:49 BrogMaN wrote: No, absolutely would not even consider it. I've thought about this concept a lot after reading Michael Crichton's(RIP) Timeline. The whole idea terrifies me. Sure it may be an exact copy of me down to the molecule, but it won't be ME. I'll be dead. Gone. Maybe if I was a religious type i would be willing but since i'm pretty atheist and don't really think anything happens after i die there's no way i would willingly kill my current body just to travel somewhere. Unless THIS body would die if I didn't teleport, like if the Earth was about to explode. Then yeah, sure, I would want to keep my ideas alive and have the chance for my genes to be carried on, but that would be the only acceptable reason to teleport for me. Funny how this question doesn't fall neatly into religious versus non-religious lines. I've met religious people who said yes, because of their religious views, and no, because of their religious views, and atheists who say yes, based on their atheists views, and atheists who say no, based on their atheist views. On April 17 2012 06:56 dsousa wrote: It always amazes me that anyone would go for this. The discussion stops at "you die"...... even if there is another collection of atoms out there that are an exact replica of yours, it doesn't affect you in any way.... maybe your family, friends and job could go on like nothing happened, but YOU would be dead. You would never see whats on the other end of the transporter, why would it make it any better that someone just like you would? Think of it like this.... say a replica of yourself walked into the room your in right now. Would you feel okay about killing yourself all of a sudden because he would live on? Well, if the universe doesn't notice a change, why does it matter what you feel? Though, that's another interesting rephrasing of the question... if I saw a replicant of myself walk into the room, I wouldn't want either of us to die. But if a replicant walked up to me and said "Hey, if you die, I get to travel to a location both of us have always wanted to go to"... or "Hey, if you die, I get to have a million dollars"... I'd still say no, I want to live! Which would mean I should say no to the teleportation thing. I'M CONFUUUUUUUUUUUUUSED | ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
Well i agree that copying you is an interesting situation to think about and raises interesting questions, and your question is a good one. i did mention this situation briefly in my post right before the post you quoted. If you re-arrange the order of events it does indeed look silly. Would i value life less? No, though i would see it different. Would i be willing to kill myself if i see an exact copy of me walking around? No off course not,though i probably would want the copy of me to die. Death is not realy a choise in this hypothetical situation though, it is just a byproduct of you beeing copyd and teleported. Asuming that it is a 100% copy, there wont be a difference and i dont see why annyone should have a problem with it. Maybe you can see it not as beeing dead, but as going into limbo. And then you just build up again after teleporting. 100% copys of me can never exist at the same time as me btw, To be exact copys they would also have to be in the exact same space and under influence of the exact same forces of nature As soon as 2 copys exist, they start to differ from eachoter due to different outside forces. This problem is avoided though in this experiment by simply eliminating one of them the moment the other is created. . | ||
|
TheRealPaciFist
United States1049 Posts
On April 17 2012 07:47 Rassy wrote: No off course not,though i probably would want the copy of me to die. Why? What'd the copy ever do to youuuuuu? Poor copy. Death is not realy a choise in this hypothetical situation though, it is just a byproduct of you beeing copyd and teleported. Asuming that it is a 100% copy, there wont be a difference and i dont see why annyone should have a problem with it. Maybe you can see it not as beeing dead, but as going into limbo. And then you just build up again after teleporting. 100% copys of me can never exist at the same time as me btw, To be exact copys they would also have to be in the exact same space and under influence of the exact same forces of nature As soon as 2 copys exist, they start to differ from eachoter due to different outside forces. This problem is avoided though in this experiment by simply eliminating one of them the moment the other is created. . I'm... going to have to think about this more later. (TeamLiquid has such fantastic discussions =D ) | ||
|
seppolevne
Canada1681 Posts
On April 17 2012 07:05 Rassy wrote: You dont simply die,else the question would be to easy. This is a way of teleportation. If the copy is 100% (wich it is in this case) you wont notice a difference. You stay you, You are now made of different atoms and particles, but the configuration is the same. Its not that much different from reality. All the elemental particles and atoms in our body are changed and replaced by other particles and atoms throughout our live, i think at least once for every particle (someone with more knowledge on this feel free to correct me). Now this just happens all at once. Actually you do simply die, and the question really is that easy. People who believe in a 'soul' would think that your 'consciousness' would transfer over to the next body, surviving biological destruction. This is not the case. I think you would agree that we are nothing more than the sum of our parts, the arrangement of the atoms that make us up. So if they are destroyed, so are we. We continue to live because there is continuity of body. If that stops than so do we. | ||
|
TheRealPaciFist
United States1049 Posts
NOT same situation! In teleportation: either choice, there will only be one life that continues In new scenario: one choice, one life goes on, the other choices, two lives go on. Therefore, I say Yes to teleportation but No to the second scenario | ||
|
Chooser
Australia25 Posts
On April 17 2012 09:04 seppolevne wrote: Actually you do simply die, and the question really is that easy. People who believe in a 'soul' would think that your 'consciousness' would transfer over to the next body, surviving biological destruction. This is not the case. I think you would agree that we are nothing more than the sum of our parts, the arrangement of the atoms that make us up. So if they are destroyed, so are we. We continue to live because there is continuity of body. If that stops than so do we. I do not think the question is that easy. Whether you believe in a soul or not doesn't determine absolutely which side of this argument a person sits on (for or against teleportation) [as a previous poster said about atheist, non atheist, religious..] Plenty of people in this thread don't believe in a soul and would still disagree to use a device as such. The very claim that you make about something being the sum of our parts can be used to reaffirm why it is fine to use the machine. To say that we are the sum of our parts is somewhat arbitrary (as some previous poster mentioned so is the notion of continuity, or progress arbitrary), because I'd question you on what it is that is the sum of those parts, and whether your parts don't already undergo a form of change themselves. So, that if you replicate something you are 'continuing' the body even more so than if you were not to replicate it, as you are putting into being something that is an exact copy. I find most people, on first reading and will invariably intuit as to what their answer is, their 'gut feel' if you will, even if they reason it out. Because, I think there is still more to think about despite whatever reasonings you've already surmised to conclude what your answer is. Like mcc says it has helped him think about what it is to be, as for him it requires a form of continuity, and it has helped him consider what is required of that continuity. The more you consider it, you can really use arguments from both sides of this discussion to further buttress the validity of your argument. As I may be doing myself. That's why this is an interesting, and useful (to some this is very much useless) thought experiment, because it can make you think and consider different options and obstacles, make you aware of what you need/want to understand in order to hold to your point of view. | ||
|
Chooser
Australia25 Posts
I feel like this can transgress into concepts of 'fate' or a deterministic view of what it is to be you. One posits that since, you have ceased being you no longer have the ability of having your 'own' experiences, those you would have had (or should have had) had you not been transported/'died'. But how then can it not be considered that being x distance away from here in an instant would/should be part of your existence, so it would be a part of your 'experience' that comprises being you. There was something else I wanted to say but I forget. Oh yeah so I wanted to conclude again, as I have, that I feel I need to believe in a 'soul' or something 'static' in some way. Or that the 'I' as most people understand it doesn't exist at all. So that I can teleport because I believe my 'soul' will continue on in the other being. or So that I can't teleport because I don't believe my 'soul' will continue on in the other being. or So that I can teleport because the 'I' never existed, and what happens through teleportation is no different from what is already happening. or So that I can't teleport because the 'I' only exists within 'my existence', and teleporting would cease the existence of the 'I' What are some more ors? ( I may not have put the last one very well) On April 17 2012 04:21 Lixler wrote: Isn't it interesting that the self is defined in something the self has never and can never perceive, and that a self lacking the requirements for being the self would still feel just as much the self as if he really was the self? Continuity is a nonsense and vague concept that doesn't really solve anything. You just have to arbitrarily define rates of bodily change that are okay, but that isn't how the grammar of the word "self" is actually used. | ||
|
MajorityofOne
Canada2506 Posts
Whats strange to me is there seem to people in this thread who think theyve got the conclusive answer. Nobody does. If you think you do you've misunderstood the problem | ||
|
docvoc
United States5491 Posts
 . | ||
|
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
The only person who cares about this question is the self. Everyone else will be (presumably) treating you exactly the same since it is an exact copy of you--there's no need for them to treat you better. Your wife will still fuck him. Your boss will still pay him. Even your son will play catch with him. The question matters mostly to you. Are you okay with someone taking over the rest of your life. | ||
|
Chooser
Australia25 Posts
On April 17 2012 11:44 lorkac wrote: The question matters mostly to you. Are you okay with someone taking over the rest of your life. I guess it's not a problem if I'm taking over the rest of my life. Right? | ||
|
Pokemonxoxo
United States217 Posts
| ||
|
dsousa
United States1363 Posts
Poll: Would you use the teleporter? No (8) Yes (3) 11 total votes Your vote: Would you use the teleporter? | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On April 16 2012 12:41 UniversalSnip wrote: OP here. It doesn't have to. Duh. It just does for the sake of this discussion, which is about the meaning of identity and how poorly we understand it. If you let both copies out alive it would instantly be about what cool stuff you'd do with your doppelganger and whether you'd kill each other, which is pretty stupid since it doesn't touch any underlying issues. Yeah, probably, I was being kinda obtuse in expressing my distaste for this sort of philosphical discourse :/. Not a fan. To add something to it though, maybe this? Not towards you, just this threads readers in general :p, this branch of philosophy and metaphysics dealing with Four Diemensionalism seems to directly relate to this dicussion, the deliemna of Temporal Parts (how objects travel through time). See also Perdurantism versus Endurantism versus Presentism.Dunno, maybe some people might find that stuff interesting. Ultimately, it comes down to where you stand between these philosophies, and how you view sentient beings "travel" through time. People who rigidly say "no" for philosphical (rather than personal spirutual reasons) are usually very admantant Perdurantists...They believe that the self is determined by the very well defined four dimensional chain of events that led us where we are. You sever that chain, you die. Presentist, People who hold the belief that each moment of being is actually a seperate phenmenon, and the perception of a continuous self is largely a illusion of the mind would obviously say yes. And endurantists could really go either way. Is the eternal concept of self defined by its "youness" ( the qualities that make you you, and will only be lost when all information of you is lost to entropy ) or is it defined by the physical you at a given x, y and z coordinate? Of course, even within that framework, you get a lot of lee-way. A perdurantist could accept it if he thought information transfer was a valid form of 4-d connection between two seperate stages (in the same way a person is the same person from birth and at death despite materially being made up of 99% different atoms). Even if you've never ever heard these words before, or this entire line of thought, you probably fit nicely among one of the three. Because while they sound pretentious and fancy, they basically describe three very basic ways humans think humans travel through the experience of time. But in the end, who among is is fucking smart enough to know conclusively an answer to that haha? Why I think this sort of discussion is fruitless as an actual argument. Just fun to think about I guess. The probs is that this thread is only this long (and annoying) is because most people don't bother readin the arguments and just go about the discussion in a bit of circle-jerky manner. Myself, I'm a bit of a tradional Perdurantist. I do think that "death teleportation" would end my subjective perception of continuity. But with a bit of a unique twist. Subjective perceptions of consciousness are overated imo haha xD. I'd walk into that machine expecting death, yet prepared to face oblivion :D | ||
|
Aelfric
Turkey1496 Posts
And because of this people would say it's safe to travel with this system and no one will really figure out the reality because there will be no one can actually prove it the otherwise or experience the feeling of difference. And it gets so mainstream that everybody kills themselves everyday. That would be so fucking fucked up. Lol... | ||
|
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
On April 17 2012 11:50 Chooser wrote: I guess it's not a problem if I'm taking over the rest of my life. Right? That's really the crux of the debate now isn't it? Is your clone as good as you are? Enough that you're willing to see yourself as meaningless? That your death meant nothing? That you being dead and replaced won't bother anyone--yourself included. Let me put it this way. If someone cloned my dead dog so I could play with it again--cloning sounds awesome. Why? Because I'm not the one who has to be dead. Dead wife? Cloned--back to lovin'. Dead sibling? Nope--back to life. That I'm very much down for. Me being replaced by someone who experiences everything for me as I disappear? No. Not cool. What if I don't get killed. What if they just clone me and the guy goes about doing my business, doing my wife, working my job. I'd be alone, homeless and pennyless. That would suck. Or I get a different job, get a different woman, get a different home. Would I be happy then? If I would be happy doing that--why didn't I leave my wife and job before hand? If I'm not happy doing that--then why would I be okay with my clone working my job and fucking my woman? The clone is a separate being. He has your memories much like a scrapbook has your memories. He has your experience much like a camera has your experiences. But everything new he's living--that something he is getting, not you. And he'll be getting it separate from you whether you're dead or not. | ||
|
Chooser
Australia25 Posts
On April 17 2012 12:09 Half wrote: Yeah, probably, I was being kinda obtuse in expressing my distaste for this sort of philosphical discourse :/. Not a fan. To add something to it though, maybe this? Not towards you, just this threads readers in general :p, this branch of philosophy and metaphysics dealing with Four Diemensionalism seems to directly relate to this dicussion, the deliemna of Temporal Parts (how objects travel through time). See also Perdurantism versus Endurantism versus Presentism.Dunno, maybe some people might find that stuff interesting. Ultimately, it comes down to where you stand between these philosophies, and how you view sentient beings "travel" through time. People who rigidly say "no" for philosphical (rather than personal spirutual reasons) are usually very admantant Perdurantists...They believe that the self is determined by the very well defined four dimensional chain of events that led us where we are. You sever that chain, you die. Presentist, People who hold the belief that each moment of being is actually a seperate phenmenon, and the perception of a continuous self is largely a illusion of the mind would obviously say yes. And endurantists could really go either way. Is the eternal concept of self defined by its "youness" ( the qualities that make you you, and will only be lost when all information of you is lost to entropy ) or is it defined by the physical you at a given x, y and z coordinate? Of course, even within that framework, you get a lot of lee-way. A perdurantist could accept it if he thought information transfer was a valid form of 4-d connection between two seperate stages (in the same way a person is the same person from birth and at death despite materially being made up of 99% different atoms). Even if you've never ever heard these words before, or this entire line of thought, you probably fit nicely among one of the three. Because while they sound pretentious and fancy, they basically describe three very basic ways humans think humans travel through the experience of time. But in the end, who among is is fucking smart enough to know conclusively an answer to that haha? Why I think this sort of discussion is fruitless as an actual argument. Just fun to think about I guess. The probs is that this thread is only this long (and annoying) is because most people don't bother readin the arguments and just go about the discussion in a bit of circle-jerky manner. Myself, I'm a bit of a tradional Perdurantist. I do think that "death teleportation" would end my subjective perception of continuity. But with a bit of a unique twist. Subjective perceptions of consciousness are overated imo haha xD. I'd walk into that machine expecting death, yet prepared to face oblivion :D very much appreciate post | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On April 17 2012 12:09 Half wrote: Yeah, probably, I was being kinda obtuse in expressing my distaste for this sort of philosphical discourse :/. Not a fan. To add something to it though, maybe this? Not towards you, just this threads readers in general :p, this branch of philosophy and metaphysics dealing with Four Diemensionalism seems to directly relate to this dicussion, the deliemna of Temporal Parts (how objects travel through time). See also Perdurantism versus Endurantism versus Presentism.Dunno, maybe some people might find that stuff interesting. Ultimately, it comes down to where you stand between these philosophies, and how you view sentient beings "travel" through time. People who rigidly say "no" for philosphical (rather than personal spirutual reasons) are usually very admantant Perdurantists...They believe that the self is determined by the very well defined four dimensional chain of events that led us where we are. You sever that chain, you die. Presentist, People who hold the belief that each moment of being is actually a seperate phenmenon, and the perception of a continuous self is largely a illusion of the mind would obviously say yes. And endurantists could really go either way. Is the eternal concept of self defined by its "youness" ( the qualities that make you you, and will only be lost when all information of you is lost to entropy ) or is it defined by the physical you at a given x, y and z coordinate? Of course, even within that framework, you get a lot of lee-way. A perdurantist could accept it if he thought information transfer was a valid form of 4-d connection between two seperate stages (in the same way a person is the same person from birth and at death despite materially being made up of 99% different atoms). Even if you've never ever heard these words before, or this entire line of thought, you probably fit nicely among one of the three. Because while they sound pretentious and fancy, they basically describe three very basic ways humans think humans travel through the experience of time. But in the end, who among is is fucking smart enough to know conclusively an answer to that haha? Why I think this sort of discussion is fruitless as an actual argument. Just fun to think about I guess. The probs is that this thread is only this long (and annoying) is because most people don't bother readin the arguments and just go about the discussion in a bit of circle-jerky manner. Myself, I'm a bit of a tradional Perdurantist. I do think that "death teleportation" would end my subjective perception of continuity. But with a bit of a unique twist. Subjective perceptions of consciousness are overated imo haha xD. I'd walk into that machine expecting death, yet prepared to face oblivion :D Strange, I might consider myself presentist and yet would still not walk into the machine. As I do not see how present being only "actually" existing point in time, especially if we considered time continuous and not discrete, has much to do with the scenario. | ||
| ||
