roadkill

I have no problems with the mark I but i do kinda wonder if the Mark II isn't touching on cloneing and sucide... however i would use eaither of them any day

Blackthorn

I think I'll take the Amtrak Al-Kah-duh express thanks. Having my atoms ripped apart and subjected to some coders algorithm for reconstructing me, no matter how efficient, is not something I'm all that keen on.

What happens if this thing blue screens in mid process? I like my atoms where they are currently....all connected, all firing on all cylinders, and all projecting this intolerably optimistic persona that is me.

__________________
What are you willing to give up in order to get what you want?

sapiens

I wouldn't mind either teleporter.

I'm reminded of the following quote by G.C. Williams (sorry for the length):

There isn't anything to us other than what is material. I thought that people stopped arguing for mind-body dualism long ago. We aren't even really material - I am not the same physical entity that I was a year ago. (Though a informational pattern has been preserved).

CSflim

Well exorcising dualism is a major problem for many of the biggest religions.
After all, how can you have an after-life without a "you" seperate from your now decaying brain?

__________________

Phage

People who believe that the physical body that exists within the confinements of this universe is all there is to a person would probably have no trouble with using any of the teleportation methods.

It is only when you bring the possibility of a soul separate from the body that the idea becomes uncomfortable. I think that this squeamishness is caused by an unclear idea of the connection between the physical body and the soul. I assume that nobody believes that if you were moved fast enough you could leave your soul behind; since the soul does not exist in the corporeal world it makes no sense to think that the location of the body should prevent the soul access to affect the behavior of the body.

So we have a soul that can direct the actions or behavior of a physical body, wherever it may be in the universe. That indicates that there is something unique about the makeup of a given body to link it to a particular soul. If that body is duplicated, and the original not destroyed do you think it possible that the soul linked to that body makeup would still color their actions as it did before? Obviously they would have different experiences, and over time would become to behave differently. Does this mean that they have different souls now? People change over time; everyone changes significantly as they go through their lives and yet we are willing to say that they have not changed souls. Can a soul have more than one aspect, expressed through multiple bodies?

What if there can only be one body per soul? If a duplicate of the body is made does this body have a new soul (playing God) or does it not? If it does not have a soul, then how would you tell? It would believe that it had a soul, and it would behave as if it did (ideas of morality and faith). If this body prayed would it mean anything? If not, why would a body with a soul praying be different?

...I thought I had an opinion, but I just have more questions.

sapiens

You can't. Problem solved!

bacon_masta

i would only use the mark I...seemed (from reading the post) the mark II would clone you

Nafter

I would use them both, ill risk it, what the hell )

__________________
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain."

Master_Shake

A perfect copy is no longer a copy, it is the thing itself. Still, I would be reluctant to use it not knowing the true limits of human consciousness.

__________________
-------------
You know something, I don't think the sun even... exists... in this place. 'Cause I've been up for hours, and hours, and hours, and the night never ends here.

hiredgun

I don't know if I would risk using the Mark II. We can't _really_ prove what consciousness is, and I would be too afraid that "my" consciousness would die and another one would be created elsewhere.

I'm surprised that the materialists seem more comfortable with the teleporter than the dualists. As a materialist, aren't you admitting that whatever matter forms your consciousness is essentially being destroyed, only to be reconstituted elsewhere as a new (but identical) entity? If you don't believe in a separate soul, then you KNOW that "you" and YOUR consciousness are dying and a new you is being remade.

CSflim

Well, I can only answer for myself, but I don't believe that "me" is an actual "thing"; an actual lump of flesh. What really matters is the abstract pattern underlying the physical substrate (in this case, my brain). Any instantiation of that pattern is "me".

In essence, "me" is constantly being destroyed and re-created; as the pattern is constantly developing as time goes by. State A goes to State B goes to State C, etc. The self that I percieve is a result of the relationships between these patterns.

So the fact that my old body is destroyed is irrelevant, what matters is that the pattern evolves in the way that it should, in order for me to continue my experience of "me".






This thought experiment left open a rather interesting idea, which many people picked up on. The fact that the Mark II machine could be set so as not to destroy the original. Instead you would end up with a "photocopier" rather than a teleporter. So if I stepped into the duplicator, two of me would walk out. But which one would be me...you know; the original me..me as in actually...me?

They both would be of course. But they would instantly start being different 'me's, due to the fact that they would recieve different sensory inputs*, and hence the patterns which I mentioned would evolve in a different manner. They would end up being two entirely independant people, just with a shared history.

Some may claim that I have wound up with a contradiction; but I put it to you that I have done no such thing. The only reason that there even appers to be a contradiction is due to the fact that we do not normally think in these kind of terms (we have no cause to). For us the idea of one body; one soul; one at a time works well in everyday life. (Like the idea that the passage of time is independant of any particlar observer works well in everyday life: but the twin paradox is merely counter-intuative, not contradictory). There is nothing contradictory about a self "splitting in two".

As an analogy:
Imagine a game of chess. Player A plays against Player B and C collabortaing together. The game gets about half-way through but B and C end up having a disagreement about what the best next move is.
So, Player C gets out a new chess set, and sets it up to be the same as the current game. Player A then plays one game against B and one game against C. We end up with two different games, both of which have a shared history. One game appears to "split in two"
But which is the original chess game? A fairly meaningless question if you ask me. Sure you could argue that it was the game that was played out physically on the orignal board from start to finish. But this seems incredibly arbitrary, as surely the actual chessmen are entirely irrelevant to what actually matters in a game. Some chess players are even known to play against each other without such visual aids (that is all they really are); they just describe their moves to each other. We could redescribe the above situation removing the physical chesspieces altogher. Now we have two different games, both with a shared history, neither of which is "the original".

The same goes for the self and the duplicating machine.

EDIT: Similarly, it is possible to "teleport" a game of chess. A and B play a game over a period of many days. A visits B's house and they start a game, but don't finish it. A few days later B is going to visit A so they can finish the game. Does he really need to bring the chess board and pieces intact all the way over to A's house? Of course not; he merely jotts down the positions of the pieces, and when he arives, they set up A's chessboard to the correct state and play on.

Is it really neccessary to say that B destroyed the orignal game, only to create an entirely new identical game later? Surely they are just continuing the the original game on a different board?

<HR>
*"they would instantly start being different 'me's, due to the fact that they would recieve different sensory inputs"; It is interesting to consider what would happen if you ensured that both selves recieved identical sensory input. See Where Am I? by Daniel C. Dennet for an interesting short story.

__________________

Eric640

No I wouldn't use it... if it kills you then what is the point... even if it makes a new person that looks like you... it's not you...

does your conciousness move to it as well or is it like a whole new person with your thoughts and memories...

I don't like the idea.

braindamage351

I wouldn't use either casually, but if it was absolutely necessary I might use Mark I.

If you used Mark I you'd probably pop out the same, but you can never be too sure about something like that.

Mark II is a suicide booth. Making a perfect clone on the other side doesn't change a thing.

lost22coast

i would use the original and tested machine only if it was to deliver me to a place that was worth visiting. or if i lived in a horrible place, i would go to a place that wasn't so horrible. at 1st i thought i wouldn't use machine at all because i would be changed along the process of transfer. a little lag during transfer might changes so atom 1 percent degree. but then i thought that you probably do that w/ every beer or every joint. i'd treat it as i do flying today. i wouldn't do it unless it felt it was essential to my life.

ForgottenKnight

I'll use them. I like the Mark 1 idea the best. But then, when I say, "Scotty! Beam me up!" from being in danger, I wouldn't care if the Mark 2 is used due to the Mark 1 being offline.

__________________
"People say I'm strange, does that make me a stranger?"

WarriorBuddha

People seem to have an issue with the Mark II because they say it leaves behind a copy of you, but that's not the way it's stated. The body is deconstructed and stored in a "Raw Materials" block. It's not creating two of you, it's disassembling you just like the first one. The only difference it that the Mark II uses different atoms for reconstruction. With this idea and my inherent lazyness in mind, I'd use either machine.

__________________
Thockmorton knew if he were ever to break wind in the echo chamber, he would never hear the end of it.

rukkyg

If "I" ride the Mark II, some other person appears on the other side, not me. "I" die right there. A new person is created who happens to remember everything I remember and is physically the same as "I" was the instant before I died.

It's the same thing as being cloned after death. I die. I no longer exist. A new person is created identical to me, but I am dead.

Meier_Link

I saw a cartoon with a similar premise a while back. It was late when I saw it, but it was really a trip. There was a professor explaining how his teleportation machine worked to a little girl. He explained that it made an exact copy and then destroyed the original. He demonstrated it several times. She refused to use it and posed the question, "What if you use it and wait for 5 minutes to destroy the original?" The professor agreed that this would be fine also and proceeded to make another copy. 5 minutes rolls around and the 2 professors argue over who now has to die. Eventually the original is killed, but the professor no longer fells that his machine is a success.

I've actually spent the last 15 minutes googling trying to figure it out. If anyone is still reading this thread and knows what I am talking about, I would love to know what the name of that cartoon is.

__________________
life is a sexually transmitted disease

MageB420666

I would use either one if it would save me the hassle of driving everywhere, even I do come out as a different person that person would think they where me and wouldn't notice the difference, and I'd be dead and therefore be beyond caring.

__________________
Apathy: The best outlook this side of I don't give a damn.

whocarz

No way in hell would I use either of these machines. I would be violently opposed to such technology. Just because you see your friends go through and come out seeming normal doesn't mean they are the exact same people. What if they are actually pod people? I have visions of a bunch of people who have used it pressuring me to do so as well, chanting "Join us, join us!" Also, the potential for abuse is so vast it boggles the mind. The day this teleporter hits the market is the day I start the revolution!

__________________
If there exists anything mightier than destiny, then it is the courage to face destiny unflinchingly. -Geibel

Despise not death, but welcome it, for nature wills it like all else. -Marcus Aurelius

Come on, you sons of bitches! Do you want to live forever? -GySgt. Daniel J. "Dan" Daly

Autochron

Neither for me. I'd use the Mark III, though.

I find it interesting to note the number of people who'd use 1 and not 2. IIRC, over every month 80-90% of the atoms in our bodies are replaced anyway. (Not sure of the figures here, but that's about the size of it.)

Is it just me, or could a modified Mark III (the cloning machine) be used to shed some light on the phenomenological problem of consciousness?

Say I walk into the Mark III, a "clone" is created, and I emerge. I then go up to my clone, and ask it the following question: "Are you conscious?"

Now, there are three possibilities here:

1. It is genuinely conscious, and says "I am conscious."
2. It is not conscious, but does not "realize" that it is conscious, and so says "I am conscious" based on some sort of programmed response.
3. It is not conscious, realizes that it is not conscious, and says "I am not conscious."

Now, could one not assume that if I am able to detect my own consciousness, and my clone were _not_ conscious, could it not suddenly be able to detect the lack of consciousness in itself?

What do you people think?

__________________
I've been given the mushroom treatment -- kept in the dark and fed sh*t.

CSflim

In my opinion "the clone" would most definately be conscious, further-more, differentiating between "the clone" and "the original" would be completely meaningless. Any assignment of the terms would be completely arbitrary.

__________________

CSflim

I have not seen the cartoon that you speak of, but I do understand the point you are trying to make. However, it is completely understandable why "the original" would not wish to die. He has had new thoughts, new experiences, new memories, and hence he is now a different person to who has stepped out of the other side of the teleporter. So from a self-interested perspective, he would have no reason to allow himself to come to harm.

To understand my view on this better, the chess game analogy which I used above is a useful light to see it in. Two "copies" of a single chess game are really the same chess game as long as they are subjected to the same influences (players making moves). It is only when the influences diverge that the "two" chess games actually become seperate disctinct entities.

__________________

Autochron

Whoops. (slaps forehead) Forgot to mention how the Mark III was modified. Call it the Mark IV, if you will. It isn't really applicable to the poll at the beginning of this post anymore, but for my discussion it will serve, I think.

The raw materials are brought in, the "snapshot" is made, the materials are assembled, but the original is not destroyed. Rather, the clone is set to walk free, while the original is sent on its merry way as well. In this case, there is a meaningful distinction.

But I think this somewhat irrelevant, since the question could still be posed by one of the copies to the other, as long as there was a trusting observer present.

__________________
I've been given the mushroom treatment -- kept in the dark and fed sh*t.

cooperricko

Are any of the Mark 1,2,3 or 4 models capable of time line travel? If we could solve that little dilemma ( ie making the reassembly at a later time ) then we could really open the can for the worms to get out.

CSflim

Of course; they all are. There is nothing forcing you to have the reconstruction done immediately. It could be done a century later.

__________________

tspikes51

The soul is still the same???? Sure, I'd do it. The soul of a person is what matters. The atomic makeup of my body is constantly changing anyway.

__________________
"I'm telling you, we need to get rid of a few people or a million."
-Maddox

zen_tom

Interesting question, but a huge no-no on all fronts!

Say the machine is set-up in two adjacent cubicles - each cubicle has a chair, a machine and a book. I get in one cubicle, the machine (a Mark II) does it's thing but fails to destroy the original me. So now there's two of me, one in each cubicle. We both sit down and read our books. Does the original me have any idea of what the new me is reading? Have we got some kind of psychic link? I think not. As soon as the new me is created, he's an entirely different entity - we might share memories, but we don't share a conciousness. Destroying the original me would be just that, the end - I'd have no perception of anything after that time. I'd be dead.

The Mk I suffers from exactly the same problem - in order to be sent, I need to be destroyed - again, death. The new me is exactly that, a new me - with new experiences and a separate conciousness. As far as I know, I stepped into the machine and died.

CSflim

Who are you?

__________________

zen_tom

I don't know, who are you?

zen_tom

Ok, if you are referring to who I am in my post - I am me, the original me that stepped into the box. Despite claims to the contrary, a copy and the original are NOT the same thing. They may be equivalent from the outside, but the I that inhabits this mind would cease to be were my mind destroyed and re-created elsewhere.

If you took two slugs (slugs have very simple nervous-systems) and put them in the machine, one of the slugs would end and another one would be created. They might be thinking the same thing, but they're still two different slugs.

stonegrody

I don't think I'd do it. I think there are certain unknown elements that could not be properly reproduced. Even if you felt the same, I doubt you would be exactly the same. Plus, I wouldn't want someone keeping records of my genetic makeup since something like this would eventually be some kind of commercial device.

__________________

zen_tom

The thing is - there would be no more *you* anymore, but a copy, walking around thinking it was you. You would cease to exist.

Master_Shake

http://www.space.com/businesstechnol...rt_041103.html

and

http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/teleport.pdf

It would be cool to work on these kinds of things instead of input data into a computer all day for the man. Ahh, if only I were smart and motivated.

__________________
-------------
You know something, I don't think the sun even... exists... in this place. 'Cause I've been up for hours, and hours, and hours, and the night never ends here.

ravenradiodj

I don't see how this threat belongs in Tilted Philosophy, sorry. Isn't there a Tilted Science, or something?

JJRousseau

Meier, I saw that film too. I don't remember it being animated but it was quite a while ago. It had me thinking for weeks. I think the possible existence of a soul outside of the make-up of my individual atoms is the big sticking point for me.

Dragon, I think you've got the idea for a new big budget Sci-fi starring Tom Cruise. Mega-Corp invents and deploys teleporters for intercontinental travel. You walk in to a chamber in New York, get scanned and next thing you know you emerge from a chamber in Paris. In reality, when you step in the chamber you are scanned and a clone is created in Paris, while you are taken away for medical experimentation and organ harvest...

antisuck

There's a great short story (that I won't name or describe, because I'm going to spoil the ending) that deals in part with one interesting side-effect of cloning people along with their consciousness: in a world where identity and identification are important, and extra copies of people can't be allowed to just walk around, the clone and original would be highly motivated to kill each other so that one could carry on living as something other than the ultimate illegal alien.

Sorry if that's too far afield from the original question, but it came immediately to mind when I saw people posting about copies remaining behind.

As to the question: no and no. I don't travel much anyway.

TheHuntingone

I would not use either... It might look like you but its not...

Your "spirit" wont be there. It would be a clone looking and acting like you but not THE you.

Zeraph

We are literally not made of the same stuff we were 20 years ago. So this isn't changing you at all if it's exact. It is you, it would not be a copy. Cloning isnt the right word since it makes an exact copy, exact meaning another you.

So in short, yes, I would use either.

FngKestrel

The movie Multiplicity addresses this when Michael Keaton's character creates '2' and '3'. Same initial person, but both become vastly different from the original.