Would you ever use a teleporter?

[Deepflow]

its arbitrary yes, but its the thread (i dont know why im being so damn on topic). If we were talking about a completely different teleporter that actually teleports you rather than kills you and makes a copy, then im all for it

unless youre saying that its arbitrary to say that being vaporised kills you, in which case meh.

If what you are getting at is that you would still be alive after being vaporised, remade, then ill have to disagree with you on fundamental grounds; so this is a bit pointless.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

unless youre saying that its arbitrary to say that being vaporised kills you, in which case meh.

Yes.

[Deepflow]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Yes.

meh

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

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".

Words like 'me' and 'I' are often used as indexicals rather than as strictly referring expressions. In the phrase "I feel pain", the word 'I' normally serves to attract the attention of listeners to my body, rather than to denote some kind of 'soul' residing in my body which is experiencing pain. This is a quirk of the English language - I could achieve the same effect simply by shouting "ouch!", and we can imagine other languages that do not have a word corresponding to the way "I" and "me" are used here (perhaps instead of saying "I have a sore knee", they point to their knee and say "look this way - pain!"). But if I said "I feel pain" and observers looked at my doppleganger, they would have failed to understand what I meant. Similarly if my doppleganger said that he were in pain, people should not look towards my body. This is in no way arbitrary.

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.

This is incorrect for the reasons given above. "I am in pain" does not mean my doppleganger is in pain, and "I wrote this post" doesnt mean that my doppleganger wrote this post. The only way to arrive at this conclusion would be to treat words like "I" and "me" as directly referring to a soul or consciousness which is being instantiated in 2 different people.

[Phil^]

hmm. possibly.
it would be more conveniant then trains, buses and planes, and if its cheaper, or even free then yes i probably would - assuming ofc that the system is safe and reliable

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Words like 'me' and 'I' are often used as indexicals rather than as strictly referring expressions. In the phrase "I feel pain", the word 'I' normally serves to attract the attention of listeners to my body, rather than to denote some kind of 'soul' residing in my body which is experiencing pain. This is a quirk of the English language - I could achieve the same effect simply by shouting "ouch!", and we can imagine other languages that do not have a word corresponding to the way "I" and "me" are used here (perhaps instead of saying "I have a sore knee", they point to their knee and say "look this way - pain!"). But if I said "I feel pain" and observers looked at my doppleganger, they would have failed to understand what I meant. Similarly if my doppleganger said that he were in pain, people should not look towards my body. This is in no way arbitrary.

This is incorrect for the reasons given above. "I am in pain" does not mean my doppleganger is in pain, and "I wrote this post" doesnt mean that my doppleganger wrote this post. The only way to arrive at this conclusion would be to treat words like "I" and "me" as directly referring to a soul or consciousness which is being instantiated in 2 different people.

You would be right if the doppelganger existed now. But it doesn't - "me now" would be thought of as "me in the past" by both entities. What I'm referring to as an arbitrary decision is calling one of them correct in this claim and one of them incorrect - which, if the materials of our bodies are unimportant, as was claimed, is indeed arbitrary. Hell, even if the materials DO matter, each comparative particle is identical, and thus the two cannot be told apart by any means after the event.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

You would be right if the doppelganger existed now. But it doesn't - "me now" would be thought of as "me in the past" by both entities.

Theres no reason why this should be the case. There are instances where my memory is mistaken - I can remember performing an action which I did not actually perform (perhaps I dreamed it). But I could not say I done those actions simply because they are in my memory - remembering performing action X is not a sufficient criterion for the correct use of the words "I done X". Similarly if my doppleganger just came into existence at time t, an outside observer would be able to tell him that he had not performed any of the actions he remembered performing before t, and that it was actually 'his' doppleganger (ie me) who had actually performed them. Obviously if we lost track of which one of us was the original he could no longer be told this so we might agree to say that both of us performed the actions. But this would only be a convienant change in our linguistic notation and wouldnt alter the fact that only one of us existed before time t, and it was that one who actually performed these actions (as the words are used now)

What I'm referring to as an arbitrary decision is calling one of them correct in this claim and one of them incorrect - which, if the materials of our bodies are unimportant, as was claimed, is indeed arbitrary. .

But one of them would be correct, at least in the way words like 'me' and 'I' are currently used. It is an objective fact that one came into being at time t and did not perform any actions before that time. In most cases this distinction would have no significance, so we would probably modify our language use in a way that allowed us to both lay claim to performing the actions. But there is no reason why we would _have_ to do this - it would just be conveniant and there would be no inconsistencies if we instead said "only one of you performed the action - but I dont know which one".

[dda]

Beam me up Scotty!

[SepH]

I wouldn't use a machine that kills me .

No one has been concerned about what would happen if a common housefly also ended up with you in chamber A, only to result in some sort of human/fly hybrid coming out of chamber B.

Anyway, who's to say that you have to be destroyed and re-created? (ok, the question did - because of the fibre optic cable) - but why can't we expect to see a teleportation device that actually teleports you?

If you have a cup of water, and it is connected to an empty cup with a pipe - we're not creating water at the second cup and destroying the water in the first.

A better teleportation system would be one in which you existed in transit - then we wouldn't have the philosophical debate about the two yous.

[Proxi]

I'd never use any form of teleporter, but thats because i've completed Doom 3*









*The Nightmares still won't stop

[dda]

Originally Posted by Spiderman

A better teleportation system would be one in which you existed in transit - then we wouldn't have the philosophical debate about the two yous.

In less than a day we have moved from a teleporter to a need for an improved version of the teleporter.

I would not use a teleporter or a new and imporved teleporter. It has been apparent for years that I am not going any place.

[djbass]

Originally Posted by Spiderman

No one has been concerned about what would happen if a common housefly also ended up with you in chamber A, only to result in some sort of human/fly hybrid coming out of chamber B.

Only because it shouldn't happen. A teleporter can only work if it arranges each atom in exactly the same coordinate relative to each space inside the chamber. So if a fly is sitting on your shoulder at time of teleportation, chamber B should re-assemble the fly at exactly the same location on your shoulder. If it failed to do this, then fly or no fly your still going to end up a mess as improper re-assembly of each atom is likely to result in either mutation or perhaps a pile of goo that the poor janitor then has to mop out of the chamber. Still, I imagine with technology advanced enough to scan an entire persons makeup would also be capable of DNA sniffing.

Anyway, who's to say that you have to be destroyed and re-created? (ok, the question did - because of the fibre optic cable) - but why can't we expect to see a teleportation device that actually teleports you?

If you have a cup of water, and it is connected to an empty cup with a pipe - we're not creating water at the second cup and destroying the water in the first.

A better teleportation system would be one in which you existed in transit - then we wouldn't have the philosophical debate about the two yous.

Well, such a system would be impracticle for certain situations, since it is reliant on a mechnical process to transport the person. What you suggest I imagine is something akin to the transportation tubes used in Futurama. You would have a hard time developing a system that could transport a person from the surface of a planet up to a ship for example, not only would it be a long tube, but that's one hell of a long distance to travel, not to mention the extremes a person must travel through to reach the final destination.

[demiGOD]

If they can construct and wrap around the equator, two huge loops of fiber-optic cable, loop A will be the primary, and loop B will be the emergency (just in case you lose power on the main loop), and each loop inter-connected with Input and output units for power isolation for maintenance of isolated locations of the cable. Each input and output unit can be inter-looped in between loops A and B, then branch out to "receivers" and "transmitters" all over major cities in the world, where digital signals and info can be converted back into "human" again and vice versa ----- that would be cool.

[Tactitus]

I would not be inclined to use such a teleporter. There doesn't seem to be any definitive way to know if the copy of me would be, in fact, an exact copy (with respect to my consciousness--I'm less concerned with the physical aspects; in fact, they could fix a few parts while they're at it).

All anyone would know for sure is that the clone would have my memories (or at least the bulk of them, since that part is easy enough to verify). But would he really think like I do? And more importantly, how would anyone--including the clone--ever know (especially as the original has been destroyed). [You may remember the original Trek episode where a transporter error creates two versions of Kirk--the good-but-ineffective Kirk and the evil-out-of-control Kirk. I'm not worried about that particular error, but one could imagine an infinite number of possible Kirks, each with identical memories but each with a slightly different consciousness. Some of the differences in consciousness might be insignificant, but maybe some of them would not.]

[Radical Edward]

strange concept when people say "it wouldn't be me". What is "me" in the first place but a collection of memories encoded in the nerons of the brain which I regard as mine, and "my" brain's ability to recognise self - Blackmore called it the selfplex. for simplicity I shall refrain from lengthly circumlocutions and continue to refer to me, myself and I. So where was I?..... I am not the person I was yesterday purely because of the passage of time and the experiences, for example yesterday I was a mentally weaker person who avoided conflict, and now because of events which have transpired in the past 24 hours, I am far more able and willing to cope with adversity. The "me that was yesterday" is now dead, and I just have that persons memories, and this cycle is repeated continuously until I die. so I look at myself as a stream of thoughts, which would be uninterrupted by such technology. all my memories of my past, which for some reason I hold valuable, would remain intact, and so would the future prospects of these thought processes, which would remain essentially identical. so yes, I would use it if it were to benefit my future prospects.

[s|k]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

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.

I was going to say what if you didn't 'vaporize' the orignal. This isnt transporation technology. A true 'transporter/teleporter' would have to actually transport 'something.' I imagine warping space and time so that you connect two spots in space that are traditionally 'far' away, but through warping space you've made them become close is a way to maybe really transport the way we imagine a 'tele'porter would do it. Then the questions is, if you're warping space, what else are you warping?

[Ärketrollmannen]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

strange concept when people say "it wouldn't be me". What is "me" in the first place but a collection of memories encoded in the nerons of the brain which I regard as mine, and "my" brain's ability to recognise self - Blackmore called it the selfplex. for simplicity I shall refrain from lengthly circumlocutions and continue to refer to me, myself and I. So where was I?..... I am not the person I was yesterday purely because of the passage of time and the experiences, for example yesterday I was a mentally weaker person who avoided conflict, and now because of events which have transpired in the past 24 hours, I am far more able and willing to cope with adversity. The "me that was yesterday" is now dead, and I just have that persons memories, and this cycle is repeated continuously until I die. so I look at myself as a stream of thoughts, which would be uninterrupted by such technology. all my memories of my past, which for some reason I hold valuable, would remain intact, and so would the future prospects of these thought processes, which would remain essentially identical. so yes, I would use it if it were to benefit my future prospects.

No the 'you' of yesterday has been altered, not destroyed. If you did indeed use this machine then you would die. To the outside world, the clone will behave in exactly the same way as you would have (since it is an exact copy of you, before the transport, wich it will have no memories of). To you, you will be dead and you will have been replaced by a clone.

If you were assasinated and a clone was put in your place, would you consider yourself alive then?*


*Unlikely scenario, but just imagine you are George Bush or something

[MrL_JaKiri]

re: "The fly" comments, it would have to make no difference at all, or you'd either die because you got "merged" with the bacteria that live on/inside you, or you'd die because you had no stomach bacteria left.

Originally Posted by Nodrog

There are instances where my memory is mistaken - I can remember performing an action which I did not actually perform (perhaps I dreamed it). But I could not say I done those actions simply because they are in my memory - remembering performing action X is not a sufficient criterion for the correct use of the words "I done X".

Ignoring that there is no correct usage of the words "I done X", you're overplaying the extent to wihch memory matters in the quoted statement. "Memory" is an easily described description for the shared mechanism, not the shared justfiication.

As an example of an alternative mechanism, say when you went into the device you were wearing an "I've been to the Grand Canyon" T-shirt.

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Similarly if my doppleganger just came into existence at time t, an outside observer would be able to tell him that he had not performed any of the actions he remembered performing before t, and that it was actually 'his' doppleganger (ie me) who had actually performed them.

If this is supposed to be an argument, it's circular.

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Obviously if we lost track of which one of us was the original he could no longer be told this so we might agree to say that both of us performed the actions. But this would only be a convienant change in our linguistic notation and wouldnt alter the fact that only one of us existed before time t, and it was that one who actually performed these actions (as the words are used now)

Why should it be a change? You obviously recognise that the basic, default state is one of superposition (as it were). Why add an arbitrary level of complexity over that?

Originally Posted by Nodrog

But one of them would be correct

How exactly would you independently verify this?

I don't see it as a meaningful distinction as, by any definition that matters (how they act, look, etc) the two figures are the same person, at least in the short term, and any divergence from eachother that comes from differing experiences is not one diverging from the "default".

I don't think that your distinction would really work on a societal level, either: what if you have two identical people running around who were wanted for a murder? Obviously, either under a system based around punishment or a system based around rehabilitation (especially for the latter), they both need to be prosecuted yet, under your distinction, one would be punished without the right to say that he did (or actively did not ) do the crime.

An interesting experiment to do would be to find people who would acceptfully undergo the procedure discussed at the bottom of the previous page - the Scientist With A Gun example. You set the experiment up so the person teleported is moved to a different chamber (say the chamber moves slowly during the teleportation procedure) - or the same chamber with a different position - and the "new" person is created in a chamber that was in the location of the one that the person originally entered, thus creating the illusion that the newly created chap is the physical entity who went into the chamber earlier. Assuming they knew what was going on, would the one that thought himself (incorrectly) to be the newly created copy be more or less agreeable to being shot?

In summation: if you can't verify a distinction by empirical means, the distinction is meaningless.

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by Ärketrollmannen

No the 'you' of yesterday has been altered, not destroyed.

I disagree, you are reducing me to nothing more than a physical shell now, and raising other problems, for example, roughly every 10 years, every atom in your body is replaced.

If you did indeed use this machine then you would die.

I die with every passing moment, and I am reborn in every moment.

To you, you will be dead and you will have been replaced by a clone.

but I already am dead some 60*60*24*365.25*26*10^-43 times.

If you were assasinated and a clone was put in your place, would you consider yourself alive then?*

*Unlikely scenario, but just imagine you are George Bush or something

my memories would live on, and the me that exists would know no different, unless the me that exists was told, and then no, I would not be alive.

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

An interesting experiment to do would be to find people who would acceptfully undergo the procedure discussed at the bottom of the previous page - the Scientist With A Gun example. You set the experiment up so the person teleported is moved to a different chamber (say the chamber moves slowly during the teleportation procedure) - or the same chamber with a different position - and the "new" person is created in a chamber that was in the location of the one that the person originally entered, thus creating the illusion that the newly created chap is the physical entity who went into the chamber earlier. Assuming they knew what was going on, would the one that thought himself (incorrectly) to be the newly created copy be more or less agreeable to being shot?

I don't think either would, because they are both the same, excepting of course the birfurcation of their existances that has occured in the time since the duplication.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

I don't think either would, because they are both the same, excepting of course the birfurcation of their existances that has occured in the time since the duplication.

Perhaps I worded it badly - the person would go into the experiment knowing that a copy would be created, and then one of them will be shot.

Obviously, most of the data would be useless as people are stupid and would argue for themselves (as it were) no matter the situation, however, I don't see why there wouldn't be people who would, on the understanding that only one of the two lived, be more willing to be killed if they sensed they were the "copy" - which is something the experiment would be set up to suggest.

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Perhaps I worded it badly - the person would go into the experiment knowing that a copy would be created, and then one of them will be shot.

Obviously, most of the data would be useless as people are stupid and would argue for themselves (as it were) no matter the situation, however, I don't see why there wouldn't be people who would, on the understanding that only one of the two lived, be more willing to be killed if they sensed they were the "copy" - which is something the experiment would be set up to suggest.

why do you think there would be a correlation between "having a copy of yourself shot" and "being shot if you are a copy of someone else"

[acropolis]

hmmm.

for one thing, not all the cells on your body are constantly replaced. your brain cells are the same as they were when you were born. obviously there is a solid rotation of skin cells, but i think everyone here could care less if all their skin was removed and replaced. its brain people care about. the 'died and reborn' anyway argument has no place.

to tactitus' 'he might be slightly different' argument, well, what if he wasn't? what if you knew for god damned sure he was going to be exactly you in word and deed and thought and, most importantly, in choice, given a set of options? the question isn't "do you think our imaginary technology would work right" it is "assuming it works."

for people who say "no i wouldn't," how strongly do you feel that way? kind of like a lot of people feel about flying, where they would be perfectly happy to spend 6 days in the car to avoid getting on a plane, but would hop on a plane in a minute (very unhappily) if someone in their family needed them to, or simply would never ever do it?

tbh, i see this as a pretty easy way to differentiate between an atheist and an agnostic. an atheist would get on no problem, an agnostic wouldn't. I would get on even if the other end wasn't running, but that's mostly because I'm a suicidal depressive. Different strokes I guess.

good thread etc.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by acropolis

to tactitus' 'he might be slightly different' argument, well, what if he wasn't? what if you knew for god damned sure he was going to be exactly you in word and deed and thought and, most importantly, in choice, given a set of options?

Well my point was: how would/could you ever know that? I suppose you could make some sort of statistical argument: e.g., 'after putting a million people through the transporter the number of observed cases of ''abnormal'' behavior was no larger than with the control group', but I wouldn't find that especially comforting.

the question isn't "do you think our imaginary technology would work right" it is "assuming it works."

For some reason, I have an easier time imagining transporter technology than imagining that we'll ever know exactly what consciousness is and how to measure it.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

why do you think there would be a correlation between "having a copy of yourself shot" and "being shot if you are a copy of someone else"

What?

[dda]

If you had this technology then would you be able to store a copy of yourself at the same time, rather like saving a game on the computer. That way, every day or two you could back yourself up. Thus if you made a bad mistake or had an unfortunate accident, you could have yourself put down and have the backup actifvated. It could put divorce lawyers out of business though.

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by dda

If you had this technology then would you be able to store a copy of yourself at the same time, rather like saving a game on the computer. That way, every day or two you could back yourself up. Thus if you made a bad mistake or had an unfortunate accident, you could have yourself put down and have the backup actifvated. It could put divorce lawyers out of business though.

why would it put divorce lawyers out of business?

[dda]

Correcting mistakes. You go back to a happier time. "It wasn't me that married her, it was future me who doesn't exist."

Actually, a rather poorly thought out attempt at a joke.

The fly comment was based on the film "The Fly" and to a lesser extent "The Fly II" by the way.

Anyway, this is how teleporters of the future will work:

You have chamber A at location 1
You have chamber B at location 2
You step into chamber A
The teleportation device moves the entire universe instantly, until chamber A is now at location 2. Simple. No destruction or creation of a "you" and you have changed location.

[SepH]

you call moving the entire universe instantly "simple" ?

[Minty]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

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?

Put people on deathrow through it

There are enough of them

[Marilyn Manson]

Why would you want to put people on death row through a teleporter?

[Minty]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Why would you want to put people on death row through a teleporter?

To answer Nodrog's question.

You can test it on plenty of criminals, put 1000 through it.

If 1 dies, then bugger

[dda]

Having thought it over, I wouldn't use a teleporter to transport myself but it would certainly be a nice way to send my luggage.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Minty

To answer Nodrog's question.

You can test it on plenty of criminals, put 1000 through it.

If 1 dies, then bugger

But that isnt what dead means here, we dont mean dead as in a corpse. You wouldnt be able to tell the difference from the 'outside' (perhaps not from the 'inside' either)

[furball]

The problem is that 'person B' stepping out of the transporter possesses exactly the same characteristics, features and memory as 'person A' did before entering the transporter. Thus, it is impossible to prove whether 'person A' has in fact teleported, or has died.

[Jennifer]

If you wanted to transport a person, including their memories etc etc, you'd have to make an absolutely identical copy of the person, on a quantum level, transferring the state of each atom to another atom that is in a 'blank' state. If you did not do the copying on a quantum level, you may as well create a genetic clone, which is clearly not the same person, just another human withthe same genes as you.

If the copying happens on a quantum level, you can't end up with two copies, due to something called the 'no-cloning theorem'. Transferring the state of a particle from A to a 'blank' perticle B, once B is in the state that A was originally in, A is no long in its original state. Hence all this speculation about which of the copies is really you is entirely pointless.

I would argue that all the information about 'you' including memories etc is stored in the states of the particles, since the paricles themselves are indistinguishable, so if you were to copy the states exactly so as to preserve the memories of the person, I think that they would be the same 'person'. However, I would not hold enough confidence in this conclusion to step into a transporter.

Incidentally, the problem with quantum measurement and uncertainty is not necessarily a problem, since you don't have to measure a particle in order to recreate the state using another particle. In fact, to try to do so is actually completely the wrong thing to do.

If you wanted to transport an entire human, I guess you'd have to treat the body as a very large entangled system. I actually have no idea how you would prepare the 'blank' state of particles.

[dda]

What about concerns that this would be a simple way of getting rid of those the government didn't like?

[Teleporter Operator] Why hello there Furball taking a little trip today?

[Furball] Yes. Going to the big GD gathering in Tasmania.

[Teleporter Operator] Fine then, hop right in.

(brief pause while operator sets teleporter for the bottom of the Mariana Trench)

[Furball] Glub!

[Teleporter Operator] Oops, there must have been a malfunction!

[Big Brother] Heh!

[Society] Yawn.

We must never forget conspiracy theories!

[furball]

I guess I'm the only person who will ask:

Why me?

[Yahwe]

i read it as flavius in my head.

more by choice than accident.

[furball]

i'm not sure who that reflects on more.

flavius, probably.



ps. does this look like a yahwe post?

[dda]

Originally Posted by furball

I guess I'm the only person who will ask:

Why me?

Furballs are happy friendly things. Just the sort of thing that sinister governments are always trying to stamp out.

[Cannon_Fodder]

and fat cats hock up.