Would you use the teleporting machine?
 

We have just invented a brand new mode of transportation: the Teleporter Mark I. It is similar to the teleporter from the Star Trek series. It works by taking an extremely detailed 3D photograph of you (right down to individual atoms) and making a record of it. It then disintegrates you into your constituent atoms and beams those atoms along with the information in the 3D photograph to another teleportation station many miles away. At the receiving end, the received atoms are reconstructed using the blueprint and a molecularly identical you walks out of the booth.

You have seen this machine in action, but have not yet used it yourself. You have seen friends use it, and when you talk to them afterwards they certainly seem to be the people you grew up with.

Then along comes an engineer who realises that the design of the Teleporter Mark I can be improved upon, and designs the Teleporter Mark II. Now the only thing sent from one teleporter to the next is the blueprint. Your atoms are just left behind and stored in a Raw Materials block. When the blueprint arrives it builds the new body out of atoms stored in its material block. Out walks a molecularly identical person, who is made of entirely new atoms, but is identical nonetheless.

You have also seen friends use this machine, and the results are the same. They still appear to be your old mates, and don't appeared to have changed.

So would you be prepared to use such a machine? Or do you believe that this is nothing more than a suicide booth?

Note:
The poll makes the assumption that said machines exist and work as specified.

Why not? I'd be identical after as I was before, and I'm extremely lazy, so I'd use it all the time.

So long as it worked like the transporters in TNG and not like the flaky ones in TOS ;)

No, I would not use it. I have thought about it before. Let's say they take the blue print and send it to the other machine and make 2 of you. Which one is the real you. They both seem like you. They are both identical to you before you went through, right down to the atom, but you can't possibly be in 2 bodies at once, so one must not be holding your consciousness, and if one isn't then both can not be, and if both can not be then there is no reason to think that any time you use it the person that pops out is you.

If they are exactly the same then why is your consciousness lost? I don't know. All atoms are the same anyway so it really wouldn't matter if it was your atoms or new atoms, so I think you'd be lost if you used the mark 1 also. My theory is that once consciousness is lost, when it goes back online it is a different consciousness, so everytime a person goes to sleep and wakes up they are a different consciousness with the illusion that they have been alive a whole life. I don't really know how to back this up.

of course...I'd step right in.
no problem - I'm more than who I think I am anyway.

What does the teleporter do to Quantum entanglement?

Ie, if I teleport an atom that is currently entangled with another atom, are the atoms entangled when they come out the other end?

What if I entangle the atom with an atom I do not teleport: does entanglement still hold?

If either teleporter preserves entanglement, I'd almost definately use it.

(as an aside, if entanglement is supported by these machines, then making 2 copies of a person via this machine becomes impossible, in addition to a bunch of other neat effects)

It not, I'd want to poke at it more.

Yakk: Like I said, the machine empirically works. So if quantum entanglement is required for cognition, then the machine will replicate it.

If quantum entanglement is not required for cognition, then I assume the machine will have no need to replicate it, as it will make no empirical difference. (We want to make our data transmissions as efficient as possible: no need for redundant information).

E.g. if the Penrose and Hameroff theory of mind is correct, then the machine would have to replicate these quantum states.

If quantum mechanics has no functional role to play in the operation of the brain, the machine will ignore them.

Now how do you feel anout using thse machines?

In that case then how is using this machine any different to taking a nap on a long flight?

awww shit..I jumped when I read the first paragraph, thinking it was real...lol

back to the question, hell yes I would do it. kinda entertaining to think about it...

Hell YES!

Well that's what I'm saying. Kind of like "no I wouldn't use it because I wouldn't wake up, but then maybe I'm not really waking up from the nap I take either, but I can't be sure so I'll just play it safe by not using it and keep taking naps because I've already taken thousands."

I would use either machine, because if it was effectively a suicide booth, it wouldn't really matter, because I certainly wouldn't notice and you nobody else would either.

Mind you, having all those atoms stripped off has got to hurt.

btw You haven't included an option for MkII only. Is this deliberate?

Ditto - Couldn't have said it better! :D

Now - how did you come about this question? You doing market research or something?

Well, I figured that if anyone would be okay with using the mark II machine, then they would also use the mark I machine, but not necessarily vice-versa.

I skimmed over it and thought the MkII made a copy of you, but kept the original as well. My error.

Note to self: Do not post before breakfast

I'd imagine that being physically deconstructed atom by atom would feel really weird... maybe tingly.

Also- with the speed at which the brain functions, the machine would have to capture and deconstruct, and then reconstruct FASTER than we can think. If not, it could never preserve us in mid-thought. Something would be lost.

Mayeb you could be briefly knocked out before you step into the chamber?

Fools. You're being sent to your deaths.

the Mk II is effectively cloning you and killing the original... that's suicide in my book, or possibly murder, but probably ethically dodgy.

the Mk I is doing something similar only piece by piece

I think I'd use either if I had a damn good reason, but not for fun (unless I was really really bored)

PS: remember to check for flies inside the chamber

Light speed transportation would be reason enough for me!

:D

As long as Tech Sergeant Chen is at the controls, I'd do it...

Yeah, if I saw a friend do it and they were no doubt the same person then I would do it. Can't really think of a reason not to at that point. I would probably wait for awhile and see if that friend remained the same. Maybe they would seem normal at first but then thing got weird?

This is like asking would I drive a horseless carriage rather than one that is horse drawn... Technology is a tool, if it's useful and safe, I'm in.

:D:D:D i hope i'm not the only one that got the reference, it's a really good story.

so no-one is worried about the Mk II and effectively killing the original copy of yourself?

Let's say there's a MK III where it creates an identical copy of you at the destination and then incinerates the original (still living?) copy so as not to have duplicates running around.

would that be ok? I'm just interested, mercifully it's not even remotely feasible

I'm not sure why but this was the funniest thing I've read all day.

I too have thought about this particular subject, I wouldn't do it. Regardless of the different versions of the teleporter. Losing consciousness during sleep is one thing, atomizing your self is something completely different. And frankly it's just not natural.

But think of the possibilities/perversions. What if somebody could intercept the transmission and make a copy of it? Then reformulate another version of you. What would happen if you could do this to world leaders? Or for interrogation purposes? Imagine training one super soldier and then making a million copies of that one guy.

What if you couldn't make copies of people because of the quantum factor, that would mean someone would be able to digitally kidnap you, reroute the feed to someplace else. And poof, you don't end up where you were supposed to be going. Or even if they couldn't make a copy of you, they would be able to make a non conscious mock-up of your though processes and memories, at the time of digitization.

Could you imagine the possibilites for direct marketing....

You bring up some good points to do with the possibilities of abuse and the various ethical probelms with the machine. I was not really considering this angle when I made the poll. I was thinking more along the lines of peoples attitudes towards self, mind and consciousness.

As with any new technology, we would reap massive benefits, but at the price of taking the risk of the possibility of abuse. But taking into account such details are a tiny bit premature, given that such a machine is entirely impossible at the present time and probably forever.

Regardless, we can add an extra caveat to the question, that there is sufficient safeguards in place to avoid the possibility of highjacking your signal (one million bit encryption?). Also we can assume that we do not know enough about the operation of the brain to actually iterpret the scan, only to blindly copy the pattern, so no modification or mind reading.

:lol:

http://www.schlockmercenary.com/
in this (intelligent) webcomic, they deal with alot of that which is discussed above.

For instance:
http://www.schlockmercenary.com/d/20020831.html
http://www.schlockmercenary.com/comi...ck20020831.png

and http://www.schlockmercenary.com/d/20020901.html
http://www.schlockmercenary.com/comi...k20020901a.png

and others. The comic is a good read if you like thinking about this sort of stuff.

Prognosis Negative. I had the same feeling the first time I saw a question like this asked. I suppose that if we really knew everything about human anatomy and physiology up and down all the scale of time and length, then in this hypothetical case, maybe. However, since I don't believe such total knowledge is really possible, what I would rather you do is de-atomize wherever I'm going and bring it to me. Let the other people take the risk, and give me an ice cream cone while I'm waiting.

The only sort of "teleportation" I would use would involve wormholes or otherwise traversing non-spatial dimensions as a shortcut across the universe.

Okay if we assume that, then still no.

Now if you think about it if something like this were to be invented it wouldn't be invented in a vacuum, there would be all sorts of spin-off technology and the understanding that we would have to have of the human body and mind would be exponentially greater than what we know now.

So all of these questions that I have about what makes us unique, conscious individuals would probably be answered by academics already. I would be very hesitant at first. But once it became common place to use them and I'd seen people use them with no adverse affects for a while I would probably pony up and use them, but there would have to be one hell of an understanding of how it works. I wouldn't feel comfortable leaving it up to the computer. I don't trust my computer not to eat my Word documents, let alone my body and mind.

There was an episode on The Outer Limits about this actually. It would essentially clone you on the other side of the "teleporter." But you had to 'balance the equation' which was deleting the original. It was no problem at all because someone always appeared on the other side.. so you weren't really killing anyone. It was always quick as if turning off a computer.

THEN there was a time when they didn't get confirmation of someone on the other side and so they didn't 'balance the equation' The guy then fell in love with the woman and a few months later they found out that she HAD "teleported" to the other side and would be transporting back in a week. The guy needed to balance the equation... but could he? He loved her, but you couldn't have a duplicate running around.. and she DID transport to the other side. When she returned, she wasn't the same person nor did she love the man... as she never really met him. In the end he ended up killing her (even though he didn't want to) for need have having to balance the equation (if he didn't do so, then the human race would lose the technology that another race in space was giving to them.


As for my answer? I Dunno. I assume it would get pretty common by the time they got to a second version, and if it recreated you.. then technically you could perform medical miracles on your trip. Imagine taking a vaction to disneyworld and when you get there you have 20/20 vision again. :D As long as i knew they'd balance the equation, then I probably would do it. I just know that two of me in this world wouldn't be a good thing. ;) Instant transporting, possible medical cures, and it wouldn't be suicide. Why? Sure you'd be fully aware that your body was copied and pasted.... but you'd remember going into thte tranporting vessel and then in the "blink of an eye" you'd step out of one. If you notice no difference.. it shouldn't feel like suicide. But just like any version of transportation there wil be car crashes. The crashes of this variety would be balancing the equation before confirmation of the second half being made... the possible shell shock of seeing yourself...

Here's a question: What if you came back a year later and you were there.. face to face with yourself and your "other" you tries to kill you in order to stay alive as there can be only one.... Could you kill yourself? Further more would this be suicide? Homocide? eh? ;););)

I would do it. I'm lazy, and a chance to get round without much work is a great idea to me. And as for it being a suicide booth, well, I really don't like this dirt ball much anyway, and a chance to get off it and see what comes next would be nice.

Well... Given that I am self-aware, I would not enter the second machine.

For simplicity, let's call the current me "1", and the transported me "2".

The reason that I wouldn't use it, is that I would basically be killing 1 (current me), in the hope that I would become 2 (other me) on the other side. I can't know - although 2 might be a perfect copy of 1, my self-awareness might not be transported, leaving 1 dead. (If you want to be religious about it, you could call this self-awareness my soul.) This would make 2 someone else; i.e. not 1.

The first machine would be physically transporting my body to the other side, and that somehow feels different. I might be convinced to use this one.

Now, this whole thread boils down to one simple question: are we more than just physical. I.e. is there something more than those atoms and energy levels that would need to be transported, or is that it? And of course, this then leads to the whole religious question of whether there is a soul or not.

If theres the possiblity of a painless death, than ya.

dude it kills you and makes a copy, who in their right mind answered yes?

Those who feel that the present state of their body (and their consciousness) is made up *only* of matter. That would make a blueprint + copy the same as the original.

I have a related question (not too original, tho): Suppose we take the mark 2 device (blueprint + copy + destruction of old body). Suppose for a moment that the original is NOT destroyed. Would any of you brave souls still go through the teleporter?

This shouldn't really matter, except that we would just have made a clone of you. A different person, identical at first, but very different after a while.

Alternatively, if you want to "balance things", how about if the original isn't destroyed immediately, but is taken out and killed in some horrible way. Should this make a difference? Probably not, but my guess is that it would for many.

I'd say that your consciousness, or "soul" (for lack of a better word) will not be transported, which means that you will not experience a sudden jump to the other side, but will remain here instead. The other you on the other side will have a "soul" of his own. A perfect copy at first, but, like the body itself, quite different after a while (different experiences).

Not sure if I'm allowed to comment directly on the poll results in case it influences voting, but anyone else think there must be a lot of strange/stupid peole on this thread. I'm kidding myself that I'm in the strange category.

I wouldn't use the 2nd version - it is creating a clone, not transporting one.

There is an episode of the new Outer Limits which deals with this issue. After the code is sent to a new destination, the original person is supposed to be destroyed. There is a slip up and a woman is not killed - the transport monitor then has to deal with what to do.

I would use them without even questioning how they work. I don't know how a microwave works, but I use it all the time. If it was proven safe and "works as specified", I'd be all over it.

OK, as illogical as it may seem to some, I just don't like the idea of not being the exact same person as I was. I don't know, I'm just not comfortable with the second machine.

The Mark I, hell yes.

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

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? :D 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.

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).

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?

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.

You can't. Problem solved!:p

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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. :cool:

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!

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Who are you?

I don't know, who are you?

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

If you take a person and one by one replaced all the atoms in his or her body with an identical atom, would he or she be a different person? You seem to be claiming yes, but (as was mentioned earlier in the thread) this happens to everybody all the time. The figure I've heard is 7 years for a complete replacement of all the atoms in your body. So, are you not yourself after 7 years?

This would be a dream come true for me.

GMontag, you are certainly a 'different' you after 7 years, your brain will have changed shape considerably, as will the consciousness that emerges from it. An exact replica of a thing and the real thing are NOT the same. Rebuilding me using a different process would not be able to transport my thoughts and feelings, the me that resides inside my brain would not be able to continue to reside there if my brain was ripped apart. If you kill someone in a way that doesn't affect their brain, they are still dead, and usually will remain so for some time. Could re-stimulating the dead brain in some way cause it to come back to life? And if so, would it be the same individual that came back?

If the opposite were true, and the machine created a copy of you. Would you be aware of two sets of images from your now 4 eyes, i.e. would you be aware of everything your twin was aware of?

It's a very difficult question to put your finger on, and now, having asked these questions, I am not so sure myself. However, I still wouldn't trust my consciousness, which has got to be the most precious thing on this planet (no, not MY consciousness – ha!) to this machine.

I did like the post someone made about waking up a different person every day, I'm not sure what I think about it, but I do kind of like it.

That "Outer Limits Episode" mentioned earlier is based on "Think Like a Dinosaur" by James Patrick Kelly. I recommend reading it, as OL had a tendency to pull the teeth from any hard sci-fi. I think they're the same ones that castrated "The Cold Equations".

I find all the "but it's not really me! what about my soul?" stuff to be funny. Mainly because none of it occurred to me as a possible valid objection.

This raises some good questions, but how can you assume that everyone who uses it appears to be the same? That could very well contradict the science behind it.

What have a self-turnover of an entire day? Why not a minute? Why not a second? Why not an instant? (a plank time unit ro whatever).

The idea of a persistent self is a pure illusion. A "self" is a narrative constructed by the brain to make sense of the string of perceptions it recieves.

It may be an illusion, and unfortunately it is one I've grown rather attached to. Coming to terms with this fact is notoriously difficult, and one that many people devote their entire lives to. I assume that you are stating the idea as a rationally held belief rather than as something that you both fully and deeply accept as an individual, but if this is not the case, then I am both envious and deeply interested in how you managed it. I've had *moments* when I've felt like I've almost grasped this truth, but could never hold onto the realisation for long.

A clone is not the original.

No.

Then again, science tells us that the human body will replace every single cell in the body seven times during our lives.

Interesting.

I understand what you are getting at, and I accept that I live my day to day life in thrall of this illusion. I don't see this as a negative thing. The "benign user illusion" (Dan Dennett's term) is a very powerful device which we have evolved, and life would be VERY confusing without it, (probably to the point of being unlivable).

But this doesn't change the fact that as the self is an illusion which superviences on the physical, a transformation which keeps the "physical facts" constant will also keep the user illusion constant, and hence "I" have nothing to worry about when it comes to this machine.

In short I would be mistaken to think, walking out of the teleporter that I would have suceeded in transporting a mystical self over a distance, but I would be equally mistaken had I just drove there instead.

You've got a "me" in there? I suppose that your brain gets visual information from the eyes and projects it onto a metaphorical cinema screen somewhere in your brain, and presents it to this "me". Your ears do something similar with sound. I wonder....what happens when the "me" looks at the cinema screen? I imagine it takes in the visual information, which is then digested and rearranged, and then...uh...presented to your "me's me"? (and in turn to your "me's me's me"?).

Sure, why not? Unless you believe in such things as "soul's" which are a necessary ingredient for life, and "leave" the body at the moment of death. I don't imagine such a thing could ever be done in reality (much too complex), but if it could, then I don't see why this body that is up and walking around and talking and eating (and all the rest), would not be considered to be alive, and if it's not Good Ole Jimmy, then who is he?

You don't have four eyes. You have two. You are only aware of what can be seen with your pair of eyes. As it happens, there is someone walking around who looks exactly like you and happens to share your past. But he of course is the clone, not you. As it happens, naturally enough, he believes that you are the clone, and he is the original. See my chess analogy above to see why the distinction is meaningless and based on a false view of a "self".

No, the homunculus isn't the only alternative (by the way, the notion of 'soul' suffers from the same problem. i.e. does a soul have a soul? etc) However, there is an another option, that the 'self' we're talking about spontaneously emerges from the processing and reprocessing of all of this data.

This option isn't magical, nor is it necessarily as illusionary as perhaps you suggest, but sits somewhere in-between, an internal phenomenon with not only structure (in the way a hurricane has structure, despite it in reality being a collection of particles unrelated except for their positions, velocities and interactions) but also self-knowledge - whatever that is (which I suppose is the root of this discussion)

A hurricane blows itself out after time, and you can stop the swirl in a bathtub's plughole by putting the plug back in. If self awareness is a delicate pattern, if it is a something that emerges and self-perpetuates from the processes and interactions of complex nets of interconnecting pieces of matter, then it is likely that disruption of that pattern is going to change it in such a way that disturbs and or destroys it. Is it even possible for any machine to freeze-frame such a pattern (even of a the spiral in a bathtub), transport it somewhere, and unfreeze it without damaging the motion in some way? (However, since this is a hypothetical machine, I will keep from posing that hypothetical, but I suspect damning, question)

Now this is all fine and well (rationally describing patterns and drawing similarities between mental processes and weather formations) but as soon as I start wondering what this means for ME, the me that is sitting here typing this, experiencing these patterns, no, BEING these patterns, then where does that leave me if this pattern is interrupted? If it is started again, do 'I' return? Or is it something else? Perhaps it is a delusion, the idea that I am anything other than the stuff of the rest of the world, but then isn't the fact that the delusion exists enough to suggest that the delusion is able to self-fulfill? These questions are ones I don't know the answers to, and while I'm not ready yet to understand exactly what this 'self' is, neither am I ready to accept that there is no such thing as my 'self', leaving me in a kind of limbo.

Your chess analogy is a good one, except that the game is something that the chessboard plays with itself, which complicates matters. If I were to be copied now, or say, while I sleep tonight, and I wake tomorrow, who wakes up? Damn, I'm talking in circles now. I hope I've got over what I'm trying to say (or at least express some of my level of confusion) - Despite this, I do think you and I, if not on the same page, somewhere in the same chapter or even the same book, are at least both able to read.

In the meantime, let me leave you with this observation: I'm trying to answer this on a personal level, while you seem content to do so from a rational standpoint. Is it possible to find a personal way to truly answer this question? Or is it an obvious paradox to be written off and dismissed with rationale? If it is, it's one my existence is directly tied up in.
And if that is the case, how can we answer from a rational standpoint, if we know the question itself is false?
However you look at it, there remain unresolved issues.