Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kaijyuu]

This is a subject where empiricism cannot really touch, so calls of "mysticism" and such are kinda silly. You cannot empirically prove that you "see" or "feel" any more than your computer does. So then, does your computer "see" and "feel" in a similar way that you do, just with different output mechanisms to express what it sees and feels?

"Consciousness" cannot be empirically measured. As such, most any philosophical theory is open game to be applied to it. A valid assumption is that each instant of time, we have a "new" consciousness, in which case teleportation wouldn't be a big deal, since we're already being destroyed and remade every second. But it is not the only valid assumption; far from it.

[kaenneth]

If you were trapped in a burning building, with only a 50% chance of escape; unless you used the 100% reliable destroy/reconstruct teleporter, would you not use it?

[Tarran]

That's a very difficult question. It would likely depend on how much the world rests on 'you' and how much you care about that, what 'parts' of yourself you care about more, and if you believe 50% is a good enough chance to risk it.

I honestly wouldn't be able to say at this moment in time.

[Criptfeind]

Interesting. This idea of a soul. Well. I guess we can treat it as every other myth and ignore it. Don't force people to use the teleporters, and feel free to give them reasonable other options. But just because some religious sects don't like blood transfusions I will not let that keep myself from a life saving operation nor will I look down on others for getting these transfusions.

Past me is still me. It's like a line. The start of the line is still part of the end of the line.

Teleporting a person would be like drawing a line, ending it, and copying it exactly and continuing on without attaching it to the part before.

Why is this? Why is it not like drawing a line, picking up your pencil, then putting it back down to continue the line.

For some, yes.

Okay I guess.

Can you prove that we don't?

No. A negative can not be proven. Can you prove I am not invisible, intangible, and silent but standing behind you with my invisable, intangable, and silent lab top? Do you go about your life worrying about me following you?

Just because you don't care doesn't mean that others don't.

Okay. Good enough. So long as their morality does not impact my convenience.

This is a subject where empiricism cannot really touch, so calls of "mysticism" and such are kinda silly. You cannot empirically prove that you "see" or "feel" any more than your computer does. So then, does your computer "see" and "feel" in a similar way that you do, just with different output mechanisms to express what it sees and feels?

"Consciousness" cannot be empirically measured. As such, most any philosophical theory is open game to be applied to it. A valid assumption is that each instant of time, we have a "new" consciousness, in which case teleportation wouldn't be a big deal, since we're already being destroyed and remade every second. But it is not the only valid assumption; far from it.

No. This is not fully true. We can see people think. We do understand how the eyes work. The ears. Touch. Feelings. All of this is understandable and measurable. Our understanding may be imperfect. Our measures may be imprecise, but we can understand it and moving into the future we will understand it. If my computer thinks past what I already know it thinks about it is in a way that as of yet we are not even able to know if we will ever understand it.

[Max White]

what 'parts' of yourself you care about more

All of them. The preservation of each and every part. Thus why I would be totally ok with using the teleporter to preserve these parts.

[GlyphGryph]

One being roughly equal to awareness and the other being the sum of a person's personality and self-reflection.

Both of those get turned off at portions of the night to focus on basic mechanistic functions and maintenance stuff. And because of that maintenance stuff, you literally wake up a different person than the person who went to bed. For the parts  of your brain that most people would consider "you", there was no continuity. And the person who wakes up is different. Connections have been pruned, personality features subtly altered, chemicals changed.

Past me is still me. It's like a line. The start of the line is still part of the end of the line.

Teleporting a person would be like drawing a line, ending it, and copying it exactly and continuing on without attaching it to the part before..

Wouldn't this sort of thinking mean you are the same person as your mother? After all, there was never any point where the line of "your mother" broke on it's way to becoming "you". Which is definitely pretty cool to think about! But ultimately, I'm still not sure why a bit of line discontinuity matters.

This reminds me of the arguments people made in the early 1900s about not wanting to go up in planes more than anything else...

[GlyphGryph]

Also, I want to add that discontinuous lines, mathematically, are still quite capable of being the same line.

[kaijyuu]

No. This is not fully true. We can see people think. We do understand how the eyes work. The ears. Touch. Feelings. All of this is understandable and measurable. Our understanding may be imperfect. Our measures may be imprecise, but we can understand it and moving into the future we will understand it. If my computer thinks past what I already know it thinks about it is in a way that as of yet we are not even able to know if we will ever understand it.

Moving into the future, then, we can reproduce all that with computers. Touch. Feelings. Sight. You name it, we can recreate it.

Then, do these computers have a similar consciousness to our own? Or would they be mere fabrications?



To anyone:
If your answer to that question is yes, they would have a similar consciousness to our own (like most every sci fi author in the past half century assumes):
- Why do you believe that? Do you have reasons beyond circular arguments like "because they do" or "because the alternatives are silly"?
If your answer to that question is no, they're fabrications:
- What makes our consciousness different?


Depending on your answers to those, you can answer whether destroy/recreate teleportation is for you. If consciousness is intrinsic to the system itself, then no it is not. If it separate, then maybe (depends if you can transfer it). If it is inherently transient, then it's perfectly fine.

[Tarran]

Wouldn't this sort of thinking mean you are the same person as your mother? After all, there was never any point where the line of "your mother" broke on it's way to becoming "you".

Personally, I disagree. This is on the mind, not the body. Your mother's mind is not connected to you.

Even with the body, when the umbilical cord is cut, then it breaks.

Which is definitely pretty cool to think about! But ultimately, I'm still not sure why a bit of line discontinuity matters.

Because the original ends.

Also, I want to add that discontinuous lines, mathematically, are still quite capable of being the same line.

I can't find myself able to believe you. Aren't those two lines contradictory.

[GlyphGryph]

No, because a line or (more commonly) a curve is defined by the function - you are on the same curve/line no matter which section you touch, because you are still on the curve/line defined by the function. And a discontinuous function obviously creates a discontinuous line.

In fact there's a whole class of functions called step functions that describe a line that is discontinuous.

It's... it's not something you have to "believe" me on. Its basic mathematical graph theory. You can go look it up.

[fqllve]

Both of those get turned off at portions of the night to focus on basic mechanistic functions and maintenance stuff. And because of that maintenance stuff, you literally wake up a different person than the person who went to bed. For the parts  of your brain that most people would consider "you", there was no continuity. And the person who wakes up is different. Connections have been pruned, personality features subtly altered, chemicals changed.

That happens during the day as well, though. Every stimuli alters your brain architecture and neurochemistry subtly, making you more likely to react to future stimuli in certain ways. As has been said a few times in the thread, every second you are literally a different person. I don't believe that's analogous to teleportation though.

Is consciousness strictly neurochemical? Probably, and if so then teleportation is fine. But even then it's easy to foresee small errors in transmission when we're speaking about teleporting the quantities of atoms that exist in the human body.

Again though, whether stuff like that is important is subjective. Some people would detest the idea of spontaneously hating pizza.

[GlyphGryph]

Because the original ends.

That's a bit circular. Continuity matters because the original ends, but why does it matter if the original ends? And it doesn't really /end/, does it? It just picks up somewhere else.

Unless "original" is just the stuff its made out of... but you said it wasn't about the physical stuff. So I'm not even sure what original even means to you. Either mentally or physically, I can't imagine a way that the "original" isn't long gone, what with us being dynamic representations of an ever shifting population of smaller beings that are constantly dying off and replenishing themselves.

[Fenrir]

Some people would detest the idea of spontaneously hating pizza.

I doubt that errors in such a process would be so orderly. More likely it would just leave one a vegetable. Sometimes the things I upload and download become corrupted, but this has never resulted in an entirely different and functioning program.

[darklord92]

In my mind, if teleportation works, it really could disprove the notion of a soul. A soul needs to stay i nthe body to give it life doesn't it? if you teleport, your matter is "moved" not your spirit, what would happen if you were the exact same person ( the who premise of teleportation ).

Also as for the talk about not appearing on the other side, I'm sure there would be some kind of redundant buffer your body is stored in. so technically you would be in three places at one for a very very brief moment. The original spot your in, the buffer or a "digital plane/cyberspace", and finally your destination, before the original would be destroyed and once teleportation is confirmed the buffer is wiped.

[Tarran]

That's a bit circular. Continuity matters because the original ends, but why does it matter if the original ends?

To you it might not matter, we're different people. To me it does matter. Once again we're different people.

If we consider the line a state of mind, if it ends, to me it seems like 'death' of this current state. AKA the end of the line. Sure, everything else will continue on like nothing happened, but this 'state' typing to you will end.

At least, that's how I see it.

And it doesn't really /end/, does it? It just picks up somewhere else.

That's subjective, honestly. To me, it ends. It's the copy that picks up somewhere else.

Unless "original" is just the stuff its made out of... but you said it wasn't about the physical stuff. So I'm not even sure what original even means to you.

It's the 'state' of mind. I don't know how to describe it.

Say you have an image. You copy it perfectly. You then destroy the original.

For all intents and purposes, the copy it is a perfect exact copy of the original. But it is not the original. At least that's my opinion.