posted
Say I just invented a transporter that works by converts every subatomic particle of your body into raw energy, and sends that energy at the speed of light to a receiving and reintegrating receptacle which are set in various places around the planet and on board space ships throughout the solar system.
However, to reintegrate yourself you need a computerized scan done of your entire body. Such a scan records your brain in such detail that all memories and everything that makes you-you, are captured.
So you walk into a booth and a scan is done, recording you for future reference.
You are then disintegrated at a subatomic level.
This is excruciatingly painful.
However, when you are reintegrated, you are reintegrated to the body and memories you had before the disintegration.
posted
Assuming that it's been adequately tested, and that people don't come out of it zombies or with extra legs, I don't see why not.
I don't believe in a soul or any kind of supernatural stuff, so as long as my body and memories are intact, even if made up of different pieces of stuff, it's still me.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
If it makes a computerized scan of my entire body that records my brain in such detail that it captures makes everything me-me, and can then integrate raw energy into myself.... would it then be possible to create multiple versions of myself?
Or, better yet, if I were to die unexpectedly, could that saved scan be used to create a "new me" that only had the experiences leading up to the last "transport", so to speak? Which could then avoid the unfortunately circumstances of my death?
Even more, could it differentiate the mind from the body, integrating a 70-year-old mind into the saved version of my 30-year-old body, essentially making me immortal?
If the answer to these questions is yes... then absolutely.
Of course, I'd wait for the "dot release" to be sure all the bugs are worked out first...
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Feh... moved beyond that. It's like asking if I'd like to eat ice cream given the risk of it being bad for me... now I'm on to the discussion of what type of ice cream is available, and if hot fudge is an option.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The way you describe it Darth, makes it sound like the person who enters the transporter dies, and what arrives at the other end is merely a copy with duplicate memories. What if the person who entered the transporter were not killed? His copy could still arrive at the other end. But would not be the original. Now there would be two of you, each believing himself to be you.
Trite as a story idea. It's been done.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Assuming that it's been adequately tested, and that people don't come out of it zombies or with extra legs, I don't see why not.
I don't believe in a soul or any kind of supernatural stuff, so as long as my body and memories are intact, even if made up of different pieces of stuff, it's still me.
I've had this discussion a number of times. Even if we rule out the existence of a soul, it still sounds a lot like being killed and replaced by an exact copy. Consider this, what if the scanning and reconstruction could be achieved without the "destruction" of the original you? Think of it more as a 'copy & paste' rather than a 'cut & paste'. There would therefore be an exact duplicate of you at the second location. Is that duplicate actually you? If it is, then who are you (the you who was scanned)? If it's not, then it still wouldn't be if the original you had been destroyed.
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: The way you describe it Darth, makes it sound like the person who enters the transporter dies, and what arrives at the other end is merely a copy with duplicate memories. What if the person who entered the transporter were not killed?
Then the dinosaur-alien puppet will pop out from the wall and start screaming, "Balance the equation!"
It's one of my favorite Outer Limits episodes.
Personally, I'd avoid it. I can't imagine needing to be anywhere near-instantaneously so badly that it's worth letting someone have an entire scan of everything that makes me me on record somewhere. Can you imagine what one government subpeona could do with a system like that? *shudder*
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wasn't this the entire premise for the movie The Prestige? With a little Tesla thrown in for fun...
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: Personally, I'd avoid it. I can't imagine needing to be anywhere near-instantaneously so badly that it's worth letting someone have an entire scan of everything that makes me me on record somewhere. Can you imagine what one government subpeona could do with a system like that? *shudder*
It does raise the question of how much would be extractable from the data. In theory, one would be able to completely extract the memory of anyone who had such a scan done on them.
If nothing else, this would create massive security concerns for anyone with sensitive knowledge. I imagine that this would be a dealbreaker for anyone with, say, a security clearance or trade secrects.
Then we get into the issue of not merely copying, but scanning, modifying, and rebuilding. If such a technology existed, how long would it be until clinics existed to repair genetic diseases. While this obviously has a lot of positive applications, there is a lot of potential for abuse. Especially if we start to get into the idea of forced changes (whether through the legal system, by parents, etc). At the extreme, it could render biometric identification obsolete, since a smart enough system could recreate you with a completely different set of fingerprints, retinal patterns, etc.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: Then the dinosaur-alien puppet will pop out from the wall and start screaming, "Balance the equation!"
It's one of my favorite Outer Limits episodes.
Outer Limits?
It's a James Patrick Kelly short story called "Think like a Dinosaur".
I think something like 80% of all Outer Limits episodes were based on short stories.
This woman speaks the truth. I wish there was another such series, but done better, with less ham acting.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by neo-dragon: Think of it more as a 'copy & paste' rather than a 'cut & paste'. There would therefore be an exact duplicate of you at the second location. Is that duplicate actually you? If it is, then who are you (the you who was scanned)? If it's not, then it still wouldn't be if the original you had been destroyed.
I accept that from a purely philosophical standpoint, but from a "me" standpoint, neither copy would know, nor care, that he is or is not the original.
As each of my cells dies and is replaced over the course of my natural life, if there were a way to save those all up, build a new "me" out of them, and then copy my consciousness to that me, would he be more me than me, since he's made of all original cells?
My point is that I don't care. When I go to sleep, I lose consciousness, and maybe I'm replaced each night by a clone who still thinks I'm me. So what? From my perspective I'm me, and that's all that matters.
Apart from tricky legal and sociological problems which would arise from two of me wanting the same wife, friends, car, TV, etc. it's too academic for me to worry about.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
A lot of people hugely object to "transporter technology", because they regard the new person as not themselves.
I find it akin to turning a computer off and turning it back on again. That is to say, I don't think I would mind.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't believe any of the theories in this thread so far. My belief is that (leaving out the idea of a soul) the original body would have to be destroyed in order to be copied. Its not really actually copied or destroyed, just deconstructed and sent into a new location and reconstructed. If my memory is correct, they already have made a molecular transport system and that is what happens.
As for the soul, I am of two minds. The first is that we die and then that is the end. On the other hand, people have died and come back to life, so that can happen in this situation. I can imaging (but not in the anti-religious Roddenberry Universe) a story of someone who does this just to study "near death" experiences.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should add that most of these people don't believe in a soul or an essence distinct from the firing of neurons in the brain. It is the cessation of that which worries them (I guess that could be called a soul).
Has anyone been revived from being brain dead?
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: If my memory is correct, they already have made a molecular transport system and that is what happens.
You are confused. The closest we have come to this is essentially molecular signaling that travels at a speed effectively faster than light. Molecular transport is not currently possible, and there is quite a bit of evidence that it never will be.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Worthington Foods used to make a product called "Wham." It was texturized soy protein flavored to taste like ham. We used to joke that it was made from contented whogs. (Not to be confused with Whargs.)
Turkey processed to taste like ham, bacon, or various kinds of sausage are available at Kroger's these days.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Is the suspense killing you too?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Outerlimits is the kind of show you should EVER AND ONLY watch when under 15 years old, its the scariest high octane fuel show in existence whose entire purpose is more nightmare fuel and twist endings.
Except that 1 episode which started like it but the more i thought about it the stupider it became, who the frak puts a warhead capable of literally busting the planets crust in a simulation where you are trying to mentally break and minds of your officers whom at least one actually knows enough about it to when broken hack past its safety protocols and activate it?
Stupid episode, they should have redone it.
IP: Logged |
quote:Say I just invented a transporter that works by converts every subatomic particle of your body into raw energy, and sends that energy at the speed of light to a receiving and reintegrating receptacle which are set in various places around the planet and on board space ships throughout the solar system.
However, to reintegrate yourself you need a computerized scan done of your entire body. Such a scan records your brain in such detail that all memories and everything that makes you-you, are captured.
So you walk into a booth and a scan is done, recording you for future reference.
You are then disintegrated at a subatomic level.
Consider an alternative machine that does everything exactly the same, creating a duplicate of me somewhere else, but does not disintegrate the original "me". That would mean there are now two identical physical bodies that appear to me. We could even use this machine multiple times to create many copies. Are they all me? Should they split my wealth? Would they all be married to whoever I am married to?
In my book, it's fairly clear that the original "me" is still the one and only "me". I'd get all of my wealth and would still be the only one married to my hypothetical wife. The others are simply clones, who might look and act like me, but aren't me.
Adding a suicide at the end of this progression does not change things. Killing me does not result in my identity transfering to the next closest body.
...
Now imagine a third machine that does the exact same thing as machine #2, except after cloning you it deforms your original physical body and messes with your brain so you no longer look or act like you originally did. This means that there is a clone of you that looks and acts like you originally did, and there is also your original body which no longer looks or acts like you originally did. Which one is you?
The answer once again is that your original self is still you, and should get to go home to your house and your family. The clone is still just a clone. What makes you-you is not looking like, or acting like, or appearing like your physical self.
...
The reason this problem exists is because of the mistaken assumption in your original question that it is possible to physically scan "everything that makes you-you." The thing that makes you-you can't be scanned at all because it isn't physical and can't be broken down into parts that can be reassembled. It's usually called the soul, but you could call it something else if that doesn't sound scientific enough. Once you posit that a soul exists, it makes this sort of problem go away.
posted
No, it's the "I assert something, and IF you agree with my assertion then you should agree with what follows from it" approach to logic.
For instance, if you don't agree that there's a problem with two identical "you's" existing simultaneously (if you're willing to split your retirement fund with any identical clones made of you), then you probably won't agree with anything I've concluded based on it.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, ownership of retirement funds doesn't make any sense as a way of discussing this. That question only exists in a legal framework, and we can either assume the same legal framework we have today (which would presumably award it to only one, but the legal framework today isn't aware of perfect copying), or would be one modified with awareness of perfect copying, in which case there's no telling how it would turn out.
Second, you didn't lay out your statements like a difference in assumptions. You said the assumption was mistaken, not just different.
Third, there's an easy way around this: I now postulate a process that duplicates as before, and also duplicates the soul.
Of course, you're going to assert the soul is always individual. But that's just assumption-farming; you know what conclusion you want to come to, and you're picking assumptions that fit with your chosen worldview. That's very human, but it isn't a matter of logic or reasoning, just wishful thinking.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What about the Me from 10 years ago. There's probably not a single molecule in me that is the same as the Me from 10 years ago... What if we gathered up all those molecules from where ever they might be and assembled them into her/me, then poured my 10 yr ago memories into her brain.
Is she me?
Assuming souls don't exist, when do we stop being who we are and start being the next who we are? Once a year? At night when we sleep? Or do we die and are reborn moment by moment?
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We consider identity to be a continuation in a variety of things even given complete replacement of constituent particles and no soul postulated . For instance, waves. We talk about "the same" wave, even though frequently no water in the wave was part of the the wave's earlier existence, and I presume no one is postulating a 'wave soul'.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of course, you're going to assert the soul is always individual. But that's just assumption-farming; you know what conclusion you want to come to, and you're picking assumptions that fit with your chosen worldview. That's very human, but it isn't a matter of logic or reasoning, just wishful thinking.
Why you think I believe the assumptions I believe is not really relevant to you or the question of whether those assumptions are right. What matters is: Do you agree with them or not?
I didn't lay out an argument that's intended to force you against your will to accept that souls exist. I laid out an example that I think illustrates the reasoning behind why I think souls dissolve this problem. You can either decide to accept it as something that seems to fit with your observations/assumptions, or not. There's plenty of easy ways out of my conclusion if you really want to find one - but do you really think those ways are right?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I used to think there had to be a spirit or a soul because I couldn't imagine how my consciousness could arise from physical processes in my brain. I figured my identity - the me that I experience thinking and feeling - must be something that transcends mere neuronal activity.
I came to see that as a cheap dodge. I don't understand how consciousness works, so I assume it works by some mysterious force that is not physical? Why don't I just assume it's physical and that it works anyway. Either way I am no closer to "understanding" anything about it. I don't know quite why I wanted to prefer vague mysticism over simple ignorance. At least there's a chance that honest admission of ignorance can lead to better understanding in the future, whereas a pat "that's the soul" admits no possibility of mechanical examination.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you now saying that having a soul is a conclusion? You were talking about is as if it were a premise. If you think it is a conclusion, please provide your reasoning to reach it, and from what premises.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Admitting and accepting ignorance might be termed a dodge due to additional meanings of the term, but it doesn't overlap in meaning with the application of "dodge" to assumption-farming. In the latter case, the "dodge" is the turtles all the way down. In the former case, there aren't.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: You don't see that answer as a dodge too?
No. I think it's an application of Occam's razor. The key, of course, is that I'm not claiming to understand, but rather to only consider explanations that can be supported by observation.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
fugu: relying on continuity seems a dodge to avoid an unpleasant conclusion, just as postulating a soul is.
If someone dies and is brought back to life, continuity is broken, yet we still consider them to be them.
If we cut them to pieces and managed to stitch them back together and return them to life... they're still them...
If we atomized them and reassembled them, we'd still consider them to be them. (or do you draw the line before this?)
What really counts is where we can't see. It's inside their head. And if they have all the same memories, then they don't know either.
Same as with my original point. If we die and are reborn as our brain changes state, then we wouldn't know the difference and no one around us would know the difference either.
(And we haven't addressed the divide-the-brain-by hemispheres-and-put-them-into-separate-bodies question yet.)
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chasm City is a fascinating novel about the nature of identity.
Absent some kind of indivisible soul, there just isn't a reliable form of identity. When scanning and duplicating, or synthesizing personalities becomes possible, things will be very different.
Luckily, Windows licensing is already taking on the question of how much of an entity can change before it's considered a new entity that requires a new license. Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you now saying that having a soul is a conclusion? You were talking about is as if it were a premise. If you think it is a conclusion, please provide your reasoning to reach it, and from what premises.
I'd rather have my original post stand on its own, but if you want an outline of the points:
Premise 1: A physically identical copy of you can be made which acts exactly like you Premise 2: Such a copy is not you. Conclusion A: Therefore being physically identical to you and acting exactly like you doesn't make something you. Premise 3: Something must exist which distinguishes me from the copies that appear to be me yet aren't. Conclusion B: There must exist some difference that other than physical structure and behavior between you and your copy. Premise 4: If souls exist, they'd be nonphysical and not behaviors. Conclusion C: Therefore, the existence of a soul would dissolve the potential problem generated by conclusions A and B.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If we had a machine that made an exact physical copy of you and then swapped your locations, I'd still think the copy is not really you, even though it is in the location you were at before.
Or if we had a machine that makes a copy of you, but BOTH of you end up in a different location than you started in, then I'd still say the original is you.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I meant "exists in a different location from the original." Move the two around and that is still true. You don't need anything other than the existence of two distinct objects to solve the problem of what makes one not the other one.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I started a story where people were able to create genetic copies of every individual that ever existed, and then fill those individuals with the personality and memories of those people. Yes, impossible, but its a story.
Then those people were brought before a judge, and if they had killed others in their life (and they had discovered historical omniscience--so they knew everything of the past) they then took you life again. If you killed several people, your life was taken several times.
This society postulated that they created an immortal world--a Heaven, and were dispensing divine punishment.
Only the story was told from the point of view of a soldier who had killed several others in a war. Now he was set to die because of those deaths. Some enter these deaths content to know that they will be created again, after words. But our hero believes that each creation is a different person, and that the earthly heaven was the biggest mass murderer imaginable.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
