Would you ever use a teleporter?
 

The marvels of science have resulted in a brand new invention: the human teleporter. It works like this - there are 2 chambers, A and B, connected together by fibre-optic cable. You step into chamber A, an atom-by-atom scan is performed on your entire body (HUP no longer exists), you are then vaporised, and the information about your body is transferred to chamber B. It is then used to reconstruct 'you', exactly as 'you' were before.

Would you ever use it, or do you think it would involve 'you' dying in some way?

Re: Would you ever use a teleporter?
 

after you, nod.

Re: Would you ever use a teleporter?
 

If 'you' died going through this machine, noone would ever know because whatever comes out of chamber B will think it is 'you' and not be worried, whereas the true 'you' died in the vapourisation part.
If i went through, to all intents and purposes i'd be alive, but it wouldnt be 'me' (which could be demonstrated by the skipping of the vapourisation stage in the process, since no actual transportation is being conducted i assume this would be possible).

So no, i wouldn't use that particular one.


(HUP = Heizenburg's Uncertainty Principle?) /startrek

Re: Would you ever use a teleporter?
 

Yes, definitely. I'd probably want to read some sort of psychometric results of before/after test subjects first though.

But in philosophical terms, I see no problem with this. I am the characteristics I display, not the atoms that make up my body. So long those characteristics were replicated perfectly, it makes no differences - even if my body was replaced with completely different elements (say silicon instead of carbon or some sort of energy field that looked/felt like me). As I understand all (or most, I can't remember any physics lessons) of the atoms in my body are replaced over time anyway.

The technically being "dead" thing seems to be irrelevent - I don't see how it's different from being asleep or under anaesthetic.

Re: Would you ever use a teleporter?
 

I wonder how they transport the personality, thoughts and memories of the person?

Re: Would you ever use a teleporter?
 

By transporting their brain?

Re: Would you ever use a teleporter?
 

no, i wouldnt

sure id still be around, exactly as before, but it wouldnt be "me". Shame really, as teleporters would be dashed useful.

and believe it or not, ive thought about this a lot before :D

Re: Would you ever use a teleporter?
 

What is "you"? Do you believe in some sort of spirit / soul which is non-material?

Re: Would you ever use a teleporter?
 

not neccesarily, but even if it were just my brain that carries around my "soul", then it would be vaporised, and an exact copy put in its place.

If the teleporter worked as nod has described, then everyone who went through it would cease to exist, to be replaced with exact copies. It would have no effect on society, no discernable effect at all really, but the "you" that was there before would be gone, and a completely new, but completely identical "you" would be there instead.

Re: Would you ever use a teleporter?
 

that can only be a valid question if you believe in a 'soul'.

Otherwise, for us forward thinking people of science, your personality and memories are all stored within the neural nets and chemical makeup of the brain. If you replicate an entire brain atom by atom you end up with a carbon-copy of the same memories & personality at the time of scanning.

A real-life teleporter is nothing more than a multifunctional suicide and cloning machine in one.

• You step into chamber A
• Your entire moleculer makeup is scanned instantly.
• All the data that was scanned is transmitted to chamber B (and nod expects something with more data than the collective internet to be transmitted via fiber optics.. ho ho!)
• Chamber B re-assembles your entire body atom by atom, for you no time passed at all, relative to the world though seconds, possibly minutes or hours have passed since you were initially scanned, you have infact lessened in age by a technicality).
• If this is to be teleportation instead of straight cloning, we must destroy the original copy of yourself, since there is in essence another you still in chamber A.
• How person in chamber A is destroyed does not necessarily have to be atom by atom as the movies would have you believe, unless it's somehow a necessity for the scanning process. Not to mention it would be an incredibly painful way to effectivly die. Maybe a more humane approach is taken, either way you still die.

Re: Would you ever use a teleporter?
 

Without wishing to get stupid about this, if someone said that all the atoms in your body are different from all the atoms that made up your body when you were 10 (or whatever) - would that matter to you? What if you were cloned (or whatever) slowly, over-time*? Would that make any difference?

On another (more realistic, contemporary) issue, do you oppose organ transplants? Or is this something that affects the brain?

* = Obviously I've no idea how that would work in the context of the transporter, but let's imagine it some how transported your a bit at a time, but then held it in some sort of Red Dwarf style statsis field so your body didn't just flop all of the place and you bled to death.

Re: Would you ever use a teleporter?
 

Of course I would (if it was safe) and am surprised that others wouldn't. I really can't see the 'dying' argument.

Re: Would you ever use a teleporter?
 

Sure. If I came out feeling like me, I don't see the problem. If I was constructed exactly the same, then I imagine this would be the case. It would be as if I was never vapourised.

Re: Would you ever use a teleporter?
 

As if, isn't that the key term?

You are really vapourised, altough, to the outside world, there is no difference.

To the outside world you are still the same, but it isn't you, it is you mark 1.1.

If this was implemented in full scale, then these questions wold seize to be asked, because everyone would constantly be rebuilt.

On a sidenote; Wouldn't it be practical to use these sammer teleporters as medical scanners, removing tumours and flaws, each time you are transported?

Re: Would you ever use a teleporter?
 

The world would get overpopulated within few years everyone was healed that easily. See, it's good to heal people, but balance would 'ruin' us after a while I think..
[/hypothetical]

Re: Would you ever use a teleporter?
 

I'd imagine that if we had technology advanced enough to over-ride basic physical laws then we wouldn't be worrying about resources/space anymore.

Under the technology we had several thousand years ago the Earth could only "sustain" a few hundred thousand people maybe. Now it can (arguably) sustain billions. If our descendents don't all die horribly and keep progressing it's possible that the Earth / Solar System could sustain trillions more.

Re: Would you ever use a teleporter?
 

well no, because im sure whatever electrical currents that make up my consciousness have been constant, changing, but constant.

with the teleporter thing, as nod describes it, then EVERYTHING about you gets destroyed, its basically suicide. The only other side effect being that someone identical to you comes out the other end.

Now, ive got nothing against this other me, im sure he would be a fantastic bloke; however, i am more concerned about the current me, the one that would be destroyed.

I don't oppose organ transplants at all, its the brain that is the special case. As it (we assume) contains consciousness, which is the only part of the body that matters in any more than a purely practical sense (brain in a jar and all that).

people dont often get brain transplants for this reason. Regenerating certain cells in the brain to combat alzheimers is different, its healing rather than transplanting.

Im not certain why some people dont 'get' that you would be dead after the transporter. But whatever :p

Re: Would you ever use a teleporter?
 

I'd go for it :)

Re: Would you ever use a teleporter?
 

Well, I accept this point. But it depends what you meant by "dying". If it was going to be painful (as djbass says) then obviously I wouldn't want it - but that's slightly different. But dying itself does not bother me (in general), it's the not being alive bit that worries me.

So if I had to have some sort of complex operation and they had to stop my heart / brain activity for 1 second (for some suitably contrived reason) then I wouldn't mind (so long as this particular procedure had a good success rate, etc) - so long as I could open my eyes afterwards and feel pretty much the same as before.

Re: Would you ever use a teleporter?
 

well, that would be different to nods teleporter though, because you come BACK to life.

with the other one, its a completely different collection of cells that come back to life, the original ones are gone.

Re: Would you ever use a teleporter?
 

Exactly. I can cope with dying as long as I return to life and feel the same afterwards. But permanently dying...that'd be a bit of a downer.

Re: Would you ever use a teleporter?
 

That's fine, as long as my stream of consciousness is effectively not disrupted. New cells...great :). It's all in your mind. Or my mind. I'm confused :(

Re: Would you ever use a teleporter?
 

I've no specific attachment to my specific cells though, more the pattern they're formed into (i.e. me, my personality, memories, etc.) My cells are ever changing, as I've said.

Re: Would you ever use a teleporter?
 

Yep.

Re: Would you ever use a teleporter?
 

Last night I killed you then put an exact replica of you in your place.

Re: Would you ever use a teleporter?
 

Would you remember going in? and remember the pain of being killed?

Re: Would you ever use a teleporter?
 

No. Sounds abit dodgey to me. I mean if you got stuck in transit between the two chambers, you would be technically dead. On the up side of things at least you would n`t have to pay taxes.

Re: Would you ever use a teleporter?
 

Oh, and another point; if your`re a security guard on "Star treck" (old original series), then NEVER get into the transporter. They always end up as cannon fodder on the planet surface, and never return to the Enterprise.

Re: Would you ever use a teleporter?
 

I geuss it also depends on what level of death you believe in. To me, once you hit molecular death, any reconstruction, no matter how identical is an independant organism.

I also thought of a few decent philosophical points regarding such a process. Lets say that against all odds, a female fell pregnant with atomically identical twins. That is to say that the mothers body was able to replicate two sets of DNA, with absolutely no flaws during the replication process, absolutely everything was the same about them. Now if you were to somehow vaporise one of the two twins, could you honestly say 'hey, it's ok they were both exactly the same person, this remaining one is still alive!'.

What if you had a basic sandwich, consisting of nothing more than a round piece of ham between two perfectly identical pieces of bread. Now, you disassemble this ham sandwich back into its three elements (the two slices of atomically identical bread and ham, for those that don't follow too well). Then you take another two slices of bread, both also identical in every way to the other two slices, and put between them an also identical piece of ham. This essentially new sandwich is now in every way identical to the first, but is it still the same sandwich? *




* Look, I know some people are going to take offense to me comparing them to a ham sandwich (though I'm sure some are deserving of the title :)). It's not meant to be an example firmly rooted in reality, just a simple excercise to demonstrate the same concept in its purest form. That essentially you are stripping an object down into it's raw materials, then re-assembling it again using an identical but different set of raw materials.

Re: Would you ever use a teleporter?
 

It just sounds to me like a cloning device with the added bonus of getting vaporised after you've been cloned.

So no, I'd rather not be killed, regardless of how many exact copies of me you've made beforehand.

Re: Would you ever use a teleporter?
 

2 hours on the bus stuck in traffic with bad boys sat at the back demonstating their rhyme 'skillz' every week day for the rest of my life or risk death by teleportation?

Where do i get in!! :D

Re: Would you ever use a teleporter?
 

If they are identical as you say, then they are the same, since it is impossible to differentiate between them.

Vapourising a twin would still have the effect of killing a twin, unless you re-assembled it in a new location (which is the entire point). Having two of the same thing existing at the same time is in fact cloning. However, the idea behind this teleportation malarky is that only one ever exists at once (looking at the big picture here).

Re: Would you ever use a teleporter?
 

I see what you are getting at, but I don't think that's the same.

Nod's machine is suicide. Killing an atomic clone would be murder (or abortion, depending on how/when it was done). I would not support killing an atomic clone who was created by accident either. I support the right of an individual to "die" in whatever context they choose. I don't support murder.

Re: Would you ever use a teleporter?
 

oh noes, im not bothered though.

the me that you KILLED is hugely bothered though, youre a murderer and should go to prison.

Re: Would you ever use a teleporter?
 

Why do you care about an analogous process then?

Re: Would you ever use a teleporter?
 

I dont think I would use an teleporter if the software was delivered by Microsoft :)

Re: Would you ever use a teleporter?
 

Maybe it works like when you cut and paste a file on the same drive, it physically stays in the same place on the disk, so is the same file, but the index changes makes it appear to be in a different place. Maybe something similar with other dimensions would apply here, e.g. we actually exist in a different dimension only to be 'rendered' in this one we percieve around us and teleportation only alters the 'rendering'?

Although the method outlined by Nod sounds more like cutting and pasting a file to a new drive, murdering the original file and creating an exact copy in it's place elsewhere!

Re: Would you ever use a teleporter?
 

Because of the nature of science, I can't say that this isn't the case, but I can hint it quite strongly.

Re: Would you ever use a teleporter?
 

I disagree - I would say that 'you are your chracteristics and consciousness, coupled with an irreducible and unduplicatable point of view (I want to use the term 'dasein' here)

Consider the following:

A scientist claims to have invented the teleportation device mentioned above, and he asks for vounteers to test it. The idea of teleportation excites you, and you agree to try it. The scientist leads you into a room containing the 2 chambers, 10 feet apart.. You step into chamber A, close your eyes, and await vaporisation. A moment passes, you hear a loud noise, open your eyes and discover that you have not been destroyed. Confused, you exit the chamber. The scientist tells you that something has gone disasterously wrong - the teleportion procedure worked, but the laser which was meant to destroy your old body malfunctioned. At that moment, your doppleganger steps out of chamber B - an exact dulplicate of you. You ask the scientist what he is going to do. He looks at you sadly, states that it would be completely unacceptable to have two 'yous' walking around, pulls out a gun, and explains that one of you is going to have to die. He points the gun at you, then seems to change his mind and points it at the doppleganger instead. He then changes his mind again, aims the gun at your head, and fires.

"You" die, yet your conciousness and characteristics live on. But you are actually dead.

Re: Would you ever use a teleporter?
 

I don't really see how different that is from your laser death method, but I suppose that was your point. However in such a situation I am not my clone since our consciousness / etc are subtly different (we have had a few seconds life-experience difference - he's seen me be shot, we've seen the scientist from different angles, etc).

I don't really understand the "unduplicatable point of view" bit, it sounds like a fudge. It's like Trek inventing various chemicals which couldn't be replicated (despite the fact they could be transported) for some unknown reason. Either my "point of view" is stored in my brain or it's not.

Re: Would you ever use a teleporter?
 

you know, i bet that if teleportation became available, and was a cheap and easy form of transport, everyone would use it

Re: Would you ever use a teleporter?
 

because

Re: Would you ever use a teleporter?
 

As Dante says, I have no special attachment to the cells that currently compose my body since these are replaced over time anyway - my body is an entirely different one from the one that existed a year ago.

However, I don't think I'd use the teleportation device, as I'm not convinced that 'I' would be in control of the identical mind and body that emerged from the second chamber. Yes, the 'new me' would be convinced that he was me, would have the same memories as I do now, and would react to stimuli in exactly the same way I would if prompted by the same stimuli, but that doesn't mean that 'I' would still be alive. I'd be just as dead as if you hadn't bothered replacing me with the copy. If I was going to die, the fact that I'd be replaced by an identical copy who could continue my life in exactly the same way I would have done would frankly be little consolation.

Surely to claim that 'I' would survive this process is also to claim that if the vapourisation stage of the process was removed and two identical versions of myself existed simultaneously, I would effectively be two people and would have control of both bodies? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Re: Would you ever use a teleporter?
 

And what would happen if a fly....?! ;)

Re: Would you ever use a teleporter?
 

Nondescript Human wins :(

Re: Would you ever use a teleporter?
 

he said what ive been trying to say the whole thread.

but apparently in a far easier to understand way :)

Re: Would you ever use a teleporter?
 

No he doesn't.

So what you're saying is "I'm against it for no apparant reason"? The distinction between "you" and "not you" is one that is fairly axiomic, at best, for this argument; you claim to not be attached in any way to the precise substance that makes up your form, and, aside from wandering off unto a discussion of the soul, it's an entirely arbitrary decision which one you count as "you".

What if you underwent this procedure, and your body was reformed in exactly the same place from the matter that was reclaimed from the former shell?

You're either misinterpreting or using a very odd definition of the concept of "you". "You" wouldn't effectively be two people. There would, however, be two people who could perfectly legitimately claim to be the author of this quoted post.

Ignoring Nietchean self-determination, there being two of you wandering around is pretty much the same situation as having an identical twin; you were formed from the same DNA in the same circumstances, and grew until an arbitrary point at which you diverged due to differences in environment (either inside the womb, or outside it subsequent to birth).

Re: Would you ever use a teleporter?
 

im pretty sure i am fairly attached to the substance that makes up my form. Or at least my brain, assuming that contains my consciousnes. If it isnt the brain, then id like to hear your idea for what it may be. So lets just assume it is.

it gets vaporised!

.

that means it gets pretty much destroyed

.

that means im dead

.

there happens to be a complete copy of me (at the time of vaporisation) running about, but thats little consolation, because

.

im dead

That would be better, but its not what nod said.

Re: Would you ever use a teleporter?
 

:confused: :confused: :confused:

Re: Would you ever use a teleporter?
 

Sup, "line of thought I said I thought was completely arbitrary, restated with no actual argument to support it, thus reinforcing my description of it".

It's something you could do with the machine, so I don't see how it's irrelevent.

I have no idea how you consider it to be "better", though, unless you're more attached to your materials than previously claimed.

It's a fairly simple comparison duder, I can bring you up to speed though if mention you need help with any specific segment :cool: