|
On August 06 2010 02:11 Mayerling wrote:
Okay here is an interesting thought. So let's say this technology was around today. Not common, but it did exist. The fact that it "kills" the "original" is hidden to the public.
One day you discover that you are not your "original." You find out you are the copy that came out the other end. How would you feel about that?
I doubt I would really care in that instance. I certainly wouldn't because though I am a copy, my existence is now unique and valid and it's not as if I'm suffering some sort of negative side effects from being a copy. Some people might be disturbed by that fact, though... especially the type of people that would be bothered by the fact that they found out that they were conceived in a test tube. That scenario reminds me a bit of the movie, "The Island" where people make clones to use for body parts. Even there, though, the conflict that the characters faced wasn't really about the validity of their existence, but rather the purpose of it...
|
On August 06 2010 01:58 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 01:35 SuperJongMan wrote: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. ITS EXACTLY YOU!!! So I don't get it... OFC i wanna teleport. You guys dum er sumthn? Like if I was in mid thought... I want cake... but I vaporized at I want... And I come out as a clone... I'd finish with cake right? I love cake! Except it's not. YOU die. A clone of you is made. Just because it's a clone of you with all your same DNA, etc. does not make it YOU. It's a copy. Why should I die so a copy can live my life. Sure, that copy might not have realized it died, etc. But it's still no longer me. I go to heaven, hell, or am merely dead, depending on how you view the afterlife.
Lets just assume that there is no soul or other spiritual influence attached to being alive. If that is the case what would be the difference between actually teleporting (instantly moving yourself from one spot to another) and making a replica of yourself in the exact same spot and killing the original body?
|
On August 06 2010 02:11 Mayerling wrote:
Okay here is an interesting thought. So let's say this technology was around today. Not common, but it did exist. The fact that it "kills" the "original" is hidden to the public.
One day you discover that you are not your "original." You find out you are the copy that came out the other end. How would you feel about that?
That sounds like a movie plot.
|
For those that want a better understanding of the gravity behind the issue I can explain as my prior undergraduate work involved dealing with problems like these:
Teletransportation is often discussed in the context of what constitutes identity. The question is:
What makes you, John Smith, who you are?
Those who are biologically inclined have suggested that you are merely nothing more than your physical body and DNA, implying that if you somehow passed away, but an exact replica of you was made, it would be the same person (given that the same memories, etc. are still in the replica).
But there is something fundamentally strange about this belief: most people intuitively think that this can't be it; you can't just be your physical body - there must be something more. They cite replication and teletransportation as examples to back their claims. If you made a replica of someone, that replica can't be them, in a sense. The people belonging to this camp would have us believe that your identity, and who you are, depends the experiences that you, specifically you, experienced throughout your life. There is this extra qualitative component that is an aspect of your identity.
So they would conclude that teletransportation is NOT safe. Although an exact replica of you is created, you are not that person because that 'replicated' being did not on an important level, experience the same things you did. He/she might have shared memories of what has happened in your life, but it wouldn't be the same.
|
On August 06 2010 02:24 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 01:58 FabledIntegral wrote:On August 06 2010 01:35 SuperJongMan wrote: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. ITS EXACTLY YOU!!! So I don't get it... OFC i wanna teleport. You guys dum er sumthn? Like if I was in mid thought... I want cake... but I vaporized at I want... And I come out as a clone... I'd finish with cake right? I love cake! Except it's not. YOU die. A clone of you is made. Just because it's a clone of you with all your same DNA, etc. does not make it YOU. It's a copy. Why should I die so a copy can live my life. Sure, that copy might not have realized it died, etc. But it's still no longer me. I go to heaven, hell, or am merely dead, depending on how you view the afterlife. Lets just assume that there is no soul or other spiritual influence attached to being alive. If that is the case what would be the difference between actually teleporting (instantly moving yourself from one spot to another) and making a replica of yourself in the exact same spot and killing the original body?
That your personal existence died. Your life is over. It's no different for you personally than if someone came out and shot you in the head. Everyone ELSE'S life might not be affected, but you are dead. Only difference between this machine and dying from a gun is that if you use the machine you're choosing to die, while the gun is murder.
|
On August 06 2010 02:24 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 01:58 FabledIntegral wrote:On August 06 2010 01:35 SuperJongMan wrote: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. ITS EXACTLY YOU!!! So I don't get it... OFC i wanna teleport. You guys dum er sumthn? Like if I was in mid thought... I want cake... but I vaporized at I want... And I come out as a clone... I'd finish with cake right? I love cake! Except it's not. YOU die. A clone of you is made. Just because it's a clone of you with all your same DNA, etc. does not make it YOU. It's a copy. Why should I die so a copy can live my life. Sure, that copy might not have realized it died, etc. But it's still no longer me. I go to heaven, hell, or am merely dead, depending on how you view the afterlife. Lets just assume that there is no soul or other spiritual influence attached to being alive. If that is the case what would be the difference between actually teleporting (instantly moving yourself from one spot to another) and making a replica of yourself in the exact same spot and killing the original body?
Any difference would be impossible to perceive for anyone except the person entering the machine (but not necessarily the person coming out the other end). I suppose the question here would be, "What other manner of teleportation are we talking about and how would it work?" For instance, if I walked through a rift in space-time and ended up in another part of the universe, that's not really teleportation.
|
On August 06 2010 02:24 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 02:11 Mayerling wrote:
Okay here is an interesting thought. So let's say this technology was around today. Not common, but it did exist. The fact that it "kills" the "original" is hidden to the public.
One day you discover that you are not your "original." You find out you are the copy that came out the other end. How would you feel about that? That sounds like a movie plot.
Like a movie where Arnold Schwarzeneger would play ... hmmm...
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On August 06 2010 02:24 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 02:11 Mayerling wrote:
Okay here is an interesting thought. So let's say this technology was around today. Not common, but it did exist. The fact that it "kills" the "original" is hidden to the public.
One day you discover that you are not your "original." You find out you are the copy that came out the other end. How would you feel about that? That sounds like a movie plot.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0482571/
![[image loading]](http://www.emovietalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/the_prestige.jpg)
Exactly the same as we are talking about.
|
On August 06 2010 02:26 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 02:24 nihlon wrote:On August 06 2010 01:58 FabledIntegral wrote:On August 06 2010 01:35 SuperJongMan wrote: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. ITS EXACTLY YOU!!! So I don't get it... OFC i wanna teleport. You guys dum er sumthn? Like if I was in mid thought... I want cake... but I vaporized at I want... And I come out as a clone... I'd finish with cake right? I love cake! Except it's not. YOU die. A clone of you is made. Just because it's a clone of you with all your same DNA, etc. does not make it YOU. It's a copy. Why should I die so a copy can live my life. Sure, that copy might not have realized it died, etc. But it's still no longer me. I go to heaven, hell, or am merely dead, depending on how you view the afterlife. Lets just assume that there is no soul or other spiritual influence attached to being alive. If that is the case what would be the difference between actually teleporting (instantly moving yourself from one spot to another) and making a replica of yourself in the exact same spot and killing the original body? That your personal existence died. Your life is over. It's no different for you personally than if someone came out and shot you in the head. Everyone ELSE'S life might not be affected, but you are dead. Only difference between this machine and dying from a gun is that if you use the machine you're choosing to die, while the gun is murder.
I'm not sure I follow your point. What exactly do you mean by "personal existence"? It just seems you have some sort of sentimental attachment to the past when the two cases end up with the same result.
|
|
|
On August 06 2010 02:26 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 02:24 nihlon wrote:On August 06 2010 01:58 FabledIntegral wrote:On August 06 2010 01:35 SuperJongMan wrote: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. ITS EXACTLY YOU!!! So I don't get it... OFC i wanna teleport. You guys dum er sumthn? Like if I was in mid thought... I want cake... but I vaporized at I want... And I come out as a clone... I'd finish with cake right? I love cake! Except it's not. YOU die. A clone of you is made. Just because it's a clone of you with all your same DNA, etc. does not make it YOU. It's a copy. Why should I die so a copy can live my life. Sure, that copy might not have realized it died, etc. But it's still no longer me. I go to heaven, hell, or am merely dead, depending on how you view the afterlife. Lets just assume that there is no soul or other spiritual influence attached to being alive. If that is the case what would be the difference between actually teleporting (instantly moving yourself from one spot to another) and making a replica of yourself in the exact same spot and killing the original body? That your personal existence died. Your life is over. It's no different for you personally than if someone came out and shot you in the head. Everyone ELSE'S life might not be affected, but you are dead. Only difference between this machine and dying from a gun is that if you use the machine you're choosing to die, while the gun is murder.
This is exactly how I look at it. So given this thought the ONLY way I would use such a machine is if I were to die anyway. This would be a way of getting the image (used in the sense of how I affect the people I interact with) of me to a safe place so that I may still hold a place in this world. (or that world)
|
On August 06 2010 02:33 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 02:26 FabledIntegral wrote:On August 06 2010 02:24 nihlon wrote:On August 06 2010 01:58 FabledIntegral wrote:On August 06 2010 01:35 SuperJongMan wrote: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. ITS EXACTLY YOU!!! So I don't get it... OFC i wanna teleport. You guys dum er sumthn? Like if I was in mid thought... I want cake... but I vaporized at I want... And I come out as a clone... I'd finish with cake right? I love cake! Except it's not. YOU die. A clone of you is made. Just because it's a clone of you with all your same DNA, etc. does not make it YOU. It's a copy. Why should I die so a copy can live my life. Sure, that copy might not have realized it died, etc. But it's still no longer me. I go to heaven, hell, or am merely dead, depending on how you view the afterlife. Lets just assume that there is no soul or other spiritual influence attached to being alive. If that is the case what would be the difference between actually teleporting (instantly moving yourself from one spot to another) and making a replica of yourself in the exact same spot and killing the original body? That your personal existence died. Your life is over. It's no different for you personally than if someone came out and shot you in the head. Everyone ELSE'S life might not be affected, but you are dead. Only difference between this machine and dying from a gun is that if you use the machine you're choosing to die, while the gun is murder. I'm not sure I follow your point. What exactly do you mean by "personal existence"? It just seems you have some sort of sentimental attachment to the past when the two cases end up with the same result.
He's talking about consciousness. If there was a machine that could make a copy of you with the exact same thoughts, etc., there is no guarantee that your consciousness would be transferred to that copy. Consider: a machine that make an exact replica of you without killing you. You would still be only conscious of your original body, and the copy would seem like a separate entity.
There is no evidence to say that this would change if you died and the copy lived. Therefore, it seems logical that the machine described in the OP will kill you permanently (erase your consciousness) and the copy would be a separate entity.
|
no i wouldn't use it, just cuz the clone lives.
|
On August 06 2010 01:35 SuperJongMan wrote: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. ITS EXACTLY YOU!!! So I don't get it... OFC i wanna teleport. You guys dum er sumthn?
It's not you though, is it? Watch Moon, for example. There can only be one who is born naturally, and that matters a lot to your psyche if something like this did happen. It seems like so many of you aren't considering what it would feel like to be essentially an ersatz human/creation — the knowledge that I am now about because the real, original me died via teleportation would be way too much to handle.
Imagine the lack of true reality; imagine the feeling that comes with knowing you are created as a replacement for someone real, purely by scientific methods, not the will (or love) of two people. That is not something you just shrug off.
|
killed by Flash, teleport mind and body into slump.
or the practice house.
|
On August 06 2010 02:33 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 02:26 FabledIntegral wrote:On August 06 2010 02:24 nihlon wrote:On August 06 2010 01:58 FabledIntegral wrote:On August 06 2010 01:35 SuperJongMan wrote: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. ITS EXACTLY YOU!!! So I don't get it... OFC i wanna teleport. You guys dum er sumthn? Like if I was in mid thought... I want cake... but I vaporized at I want... And I come out as a clone... I'd finish with cake right? I love cake! Except it's not. YOU die. A clone of you is made. Just because it's a clone of you with all your same DNA, etc. does not make it YOU. It's a copy. Why should I die so a copy can live my life. Sure, that copy might not have realized it died, etc. But it's still no longer me. I go to heaven, hell, or am merely dead, depending on how you view the afterlife. Lets just assume that there is no soul or other spiritual influence attached to being alive. If that is the case what would be the difference between actually teleporting (instantly moving yourself from one spot to another) and making a replica of yourself in the exact same spot and killing the original body? That your personal existence died. Your life is over. It's no different for you personally than if someone came out and shot you in the head. Everyone ELSE'S life might not be affected, but you are dead. Only difference between this machine and dying from a gun is that if you use the machine you're choosing to die, while the gun is murder. I'm not sure I follow your point. What exactly do you mean by "personal existence"? It just seems you have some sort of sentimental attachment to the past when the two cases end up with the same result.
What are you talking about? If you have a problem with how I said "personal existence," then fine, but the next few sentences show exactly why it ISN'T the same result. You are DEAD. No different if you were shot in the head and died. Why would you willingly go to you death? How does the fact a copy of you will be formed change the fact your life is over completely.
I don't even like the idea of my gf getting boned by a clone of me.
|
Nope. I'm in the camp that considers this suicide.
I have created an exact copy, but it's not me. It's a copy, I'm dead. The copy carries all my same thoughts, and can effectively carry on life as if there was no change, but the original consciousness is gone and ends at the moment of being killed.
|
It's fine. Hell, it would probably be fine if someone created an exact copy and killed the original "me" 5 seconds later. Which one is the real me is entirely a matter of perception (or for some people irrational belief).
Identity, living and death are just abstractions of more complex phenomena. They work well in everyday life but there's no reason to conclude that they are in some sense fundamental.
For example normally you think the table in front of you as a distinct object. Someone might try to confuse you by asking if the objects on the table or the bolts or the paint is part of the table or not. With some thought you might answer these. But what if you go down to the molecular level? There are countless molecules exchanged between the surface and the surrounding air every time? Are these part of the table? Or is it only the ones that stay within a certain boundary?
It's clear that at certain point you need to create new concepts and ask different questions. Asking what the table is makes sense on a macroscopic level but not so much on the level of molecules or below.
I truly believe the same is true for identity or what "me" means. It makes sense in a situation where we either change somewhat slowly or very fast (i.e. die)
So the problem with asking what sort of transformations preserve our identity and which ones don't is wrong exactly because in the most borderline cases the concept of identity is ambiguous or even meaningless. We have no trouble accepting this for tables but we have an emotional attachment to our identity.
|
I would use it to teleport to the fridge and back if it got me my beer/sandwich faster.
Not only would I use it but I would use it for everything that could possibly be beneficial.
|
It seems like some people who say they would use it don't understand that they will be volunteering to die... Consciousness is just a function of brain activity and ceases when you're disintegrated.
I would never use a teleporter, even if the designers claim that you will actually be "teleported" over instead of dying and a clone being created at the destination. The scary thing is that there is absolutely no way to know for sure whether you die or not. The clone will be an exact copy of you, so as far as the clone is concerned, he was successfully "teleported" to the destination. Like in The Prestige, the guy has no idea whether the guy standing on the machine is transported and a copy is left behind or a copy is transported and the one standing on the machine is left behind. That's what makes it so scary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
