Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Teleportation

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 7:19:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If I were to teleport somewhere would it still be "me" on the other end or just some clone of me? One response would be that because the arrangement of atoms would be the same it would still be "me" , regardless of whether or not they are different atoms. This response is not satisfying because imagine if there is a multiverse vast enough to have an arrangement of atoms identical to mine, it would still be a different consciousness emerging with different experiences. So just because there would be a person with the same arrangement of atoms coming out the other end of the teleportation machine, that doesn't mean it isn't a clone of me. Thoughts?
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 7:21:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It depends on how you define "you." I have found on the majority of these thought provoking controversial concepts, it all comes down to the way you define key vocabulary, so their is not "right answer.

But personally, I think the person on the other end is you, my personal opinion.

Good topic tho :)
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 7:43:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Well, "me" is first-person, and hence depends on location. Thus, while the subjective experiences would be same for a clone (both would have exact same sense of identity) - it wouldn't be "you" since it is a different perspective. The law of identity/indiscernible only works when everything is identical, including spaciotemporal location, etc. so there big risk of equivocation when we use the words "same".
n7
Posts: 1,356
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2015 8:32:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 7:43:03 PM, Envisage wrote:
Well, "me" is first-person, and hence depends on location. Thus, while the subjective experiences would be same for a clone (both would have exact same sense of identity) - it wouldn't be "you" since it is a different perspective. The law of identity/indiscernible only works when everything is identical, including spaciotemporal location, etc. so there big risk of equivocation when we use the words "same".

This makes sense. The argument isn't taking into account space.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2015 10:52:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 7:19:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If I were to teleport somewhere would it still be "me" on the other end or just some clone of me? One response would be that because the arrangement of atoms would be the same it would still be "me" , regardless of whether or not they are different atoms. This response is not satisfying because imagine if there is a multiverse vast enough to have an arrangement of atoms identical to mine, it would still be a different consciousness emerging with different experiences. So just because there would be a person with the same arrangement of atoms coming out the other end of the teleportation machine, that doesn't mean it isn't a clone of me. Thoughts?
I would agree with you.
There are some who belief it would be the same person on the other side, but they should consider this:
Imagine an improved teleporter that would not only create a you* in booth B but would also leave your body in booth A intact.
However now I don't think anyone would be inclined to say they are the person in B.
The additional existence of a person shouldn't change your identity.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2015 11:37:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 7:19:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If I were to teleport somewhere would it still be "me" on the other end or just some clone of me? One response would be that because the arrangement of atoms would be the same it would still be "me" , regardless of whether or not they are different atoms. This response is not satisfying because imagine if there is a multiverse vast enough to have an arrangement of atoms identical to mine, it would still be a different consciousness emerging with different experiences. So just because there would be a person with the same arrangement of atoms coming out the other end of the teleportation machine, that doesn't mean it isn't a clone of me. Thoughts?

Very interesting question.

We can already transport single, sub-atomic particles. These are entities that are of the Quantum Mechanics realm. And we have seen that they can actually be in two places at once. Once they are split. The Theory of Quantum Entanglement explains--somewhat--this phenomena. It is very bizarre, to say the least. And we don't yet fully understand all of its nuances. Even Einstein had a big problem with thew idea of it, some 70 years ago, and doubted it could ever be proven.

So...believe that in maybe, oh, 100 years or so we will be able to "teleport" small, purely inanimate objects over miles. Say, a clay vase, from San Jose to New York. But living things are another matter. Oh, maybe in that time we can do small animals, but I think their cognitive processes would probably be compromised.

As far as a human, like yourself? And to have him arrive at his destination fully the same way--including personality and memory-wise? I think this is a very long way off, and if I had to bet I would say it will not ever get to the point.

The big rub here, I believe, is with our incredibly complex brains. Our minds. All those trillions of brain cells. Communicating with each other with chemical neuro-transmitters. One molecular-sized glitch or aberration or one change of even a micro gram of neuro-transmitter like dopamine or serotonin or GABA or whatever, and "you" would become a totally different person. Personality-wise.

We don't even know how memory works, exactly. And we have found that the old classical models of the way the mind works, with different regions being responsible for performing specific functions, or housing certain memories or emotions, is severely overly-simplified.

Stop for a minute and consider the wonder of it all. Memory! Say...you are walking down the street and see an old white house with a shady front yard and a picket fence. And you immediately have a deja vu like memory of being a kid back at your grandparents' house, some 30 years ago.

Look at what is happening here: some specific wavelengths of light are entering your eye and then passing through your optic nerve into your pre-frontal cortex, and then on into your limbic center--the part of the brain that houses emotions and some memory.

So..this light is converted into neuro-transmitters (chemical) and then it somehow (?) locates or excites some miniscule brain cells (ions?) that are lodged deep in there and are holding that old memory of your grandparents' house.

All day, every day, every week, for years and years you have had trillions of trillions of light waves passing into your brain via the optic nerve, and then THIS one somehow is specific enough to be recognized and then triggers a deep-seated memory.

Replicate THAT process? With teleportation? Wow. I think it would be next to impossible.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2015 1:38:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The answer largely depends on your metaphysics (physcalist, dualist, etc)
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2015 2:22:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 7:19:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If I were to teleport somewhere would it still be "me" on the other end or just some clone of me? One response would be that because the arrangement of atoms would be the same it would still be "me" , regardless of whether or not they are different atoms. This response is not satisfying because imagine if there is a multiverse vast enough to have an arrangement of atoms identical to mine, it would still be a different consciousness emerging with different experiences. So just because there would be a person with the same arrangement of atoms coming out the other end of the teleportation machine, that doesn't mean it isn't a clone of me. Thoughts?

I say it most definitely would not be "you" on the other side, but a mere copy of you.

There are a couple of thought experiments to show this.

A teleporter can work in one of two ways. Either it can disassemble you into your component parts, send those parts somewhere else, and reassemble them, or else it can record everything about you, send the information elsewhere, and assemble "you" from that information using different parts. Either way, I don't think it would be you on the other end.

Considering the first method--sending your parts. Suppose I you build a card house, then left to get your girlfriend so you could show it to her. While you were gone, I accidentally knocked it over. But such is my genius, that I was able to use those cards and build a card house exactly like the one you built with every card in exactly the same position so that when you came back with your girlfriend, you couldn't tell that it had ever been destroyed. It seems obvious to me that the card house you're showing your girlfriend isn't the same cardhouse as the one you built. It's a different card house that happens to be made of the same parts. After all, I could've used those same cards to build a card house that didn't resemble yours at all, and it obviously wouldn't be your card house. Simply rearranging the parts couldn't make it your card house either.

Or, another way of looking at it, suppose I built a different card house, then knocked that over. Then a third person came in, used those same cards, and built a card house just like yours. If the card house I built wasn't your card house, then the third person's card house wasn't my card house. The only way it could be your card house is if your card house ceased to exist, then came back into existence, which I don't think it possible.

Now, consider the second method--sending your information. If teleporters work this way, then I think it's even more obvious that it can't be you on the other end.

One illustration is imagining that after recording your information and sending it elsewhere, the machine neglected to disassemble you. So, while another version of you was assembled remotely, you yourself would still be standing on the platform. Obviously, you can't be in two different places at the same time. If there are two versions of you, only one can be the original. Since there is continuity between you and the person standing on the platform, obviously, that's the original you, and the other is a replica.

Another illustration is that we imagine as the information is sent elsewhere that it is retrieved by two different machines, and instead of building one version of you, two versions of you get built. Obviously, they can't both be the same person because they're located in two different places ,and from that point on will have different experiences. So which one is the original? Well, if they're both made in exactly the same way, then if one is only a copy, it follows that they're both copies. Neither is the original.

I had a debate on this subject a while back: http://www.debate.org...
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
slo1
Posts: 4,312
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2015 2:37:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 7:19:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If I were to teleport somewhere would it still be "me" on the other end or just some clone of me? One response would be that because the arrangement of atoms would be the same it would still be "me" , regardless of whether or not they are different atoms. This response is not satisfying because imagine if there is a multiverse vast enough to have an arrangement of atoms identical to mine, it would still be a different consciousness emerging with different experiences. So just because there would be a person with the same arrangement of atoms coming out the other end of the teleportation machine, that doesn't mean it isn't a clone of me. Thoughts?

You are not your collection of atoms and molecules be cause those change all the time therefore being created of all new atoms would not change you. In otherwords, the matter which made you up 10 years ago is not the same as the matter that makes you up today. That rules out "you" as being dependent upon a particular set of atoms.

If the atoms that make you don't matter the next question is whether the collection and organization of those atoms matter.

That is where it gets fuzzy. The organization of the atoms which comprise you is constantly changing. Memories, which are a big part of each individual, even are stored imperfectly. Since there is virtually no time or experience change from the example of teleportation, the memories of the would be the same for each individual.

I can see what you are getting at, consciousness. Would the consciousness of both be the same.

If consciousness such as choosing a favorite color arises from brain structure and function, then yes they would have the outcome. If it were a clone situation both would have their own separate consciousness but the same outcome on favorite color. As soon as their structures began to changes such as different memories due to having different experiences, they would begin to change.

This is not unreasonable from the empirical evidence. People's personality and preferences change drastically after brain injury where they have to relearn because a particular part of the brain is no longer functional.

If one does not think of consciousness as arising from the matter and organization of the brain and its function, but more of a separate entity then who knows what would happen. It would all be a guess because nobody knows if consciousness could be teleported.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 12:08:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 7:19:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If I were to teleport somewhere would it still be "me" on the other end or just some clone of me? One response would be that because the arrangement of atoms would be the same it would still be "me" , regardless of whether or not they are different atoms. This response is not satisfying because imagine if there is a multiverse vast enough to have an arrangement of atoms identical to mine, it would still be a different consciousness emerging with different experiences. So just because there would be a person with the same arrangement of atoms coming out the other end of the teleportation machine, that doesn't mean it isn't a clone of me. Thoughts?

Wouldn't it depend on how the teleportation is taking place?

If it's wormhole-style: Still you.
Nightcrawler-style hyper-dimensional shifting: still you
Telekinetic magic: Still you

The two ways that become questionable that I think of offhand are:

Star-trek style destruction/construction: "You" are destroyed, your "pattern" is buffered, and the "pattern" is reconstructed on the other side. That seems like it's not you.

Star trek style deconstruction/transference: "You" are broken into composite "Bytes", beamed to the new location via some kind of energy wizardry, and reassembled. In that case, it's all the "Same" parts, so it's the "same" body. The consciousness question, however, is stickier, and I would argue that "you" aren't "you" because the new "you" is a new instance of the "you" program--one with a significantly shorter uptime.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 1:04:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 7:19:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If I were to teleport somewhere would it still be "me" on the other end or just some clone of me? One response would be that because the arrangement of atoms would be the same it would still be "me" , regardless of whether or not they are different atoms. This response is not satisfying because imagine if there is a multiverse vast enough to have an arrangement of atoms identical to mine, it would still be a different consciousness emerging with different experiences. So just because there would be a person with the same arrangement of atoms coming out the other end of the teleportation machine, that doesn't mean it isn't a clone of me. Thoughts?

There is no proof that consciousness is an emergent of atoms or neurons.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 2:07:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 7:21:31 PM, Hayd wrote:
It depends on how you define "you." I have found on the majority of these thought provoking controversial concepts, it all comes down to the way you define key vocabulary, so their is not "right answer.

In this sentence, the word "their" is defined as "there." :P


But personally, I think the person on the other end is you, my personal opinion.

Good topic tho :)
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 2:11:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/26/2015 2:22:47 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/25/2015 7:19:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If I were to teleport somewhere would it still be "me" on the other end or just some clone of me? One response would be that because the arrangement of atoms would be the same it would still be "me" , regardless of whether or not they are different atoms. This response is not satisfying because imagine if there is a multiverse vast enough to have an arrangement of atoms identical to mine, it would still be a different consciousness emerging with different experiences. So just because there would be a person with the same arrangement of atoms coming out the other end of the teleportation machine, that doesn't mean it isn't a clone of me. Thoughts?

I say it most definitely would not be "you" on the other side, but a mere copy of you.

There are a couple of thought experiments to show this.

A teleporter can work in one of two ways. Either it can disassemble you into your component parts, send those parts somewhere else, and reassemble them, or else it can record everything about you, send the information elsewhere, and assemble "you" from that information using different parts. Either way, I don't think it would be you on the other end.

Considering the first method--sending your parts. Suppose I you build a card house, then left to get your girlfriend so you could show it to her. While you were gone, I accidentally knocked it over. But such is my genius, that I was able to use those cards and build a card house exactly like the one you built with every card in exactly the same position so that when you came back with your girlfriend, you couldn't tell that it had ever been destroyed. It seems obvious to me that the card house you're showing your girlfriend isn't the same cardhouse as the one you built. It's a different card house that happens to be made of the same parts. After all, I could've used those same cards to build a card house that didn't resemble yours at all, and it obviously wouldn't be your card house. Simply rearranging the parts couldn't make it your card house either.


I think this is a false analogy.

Or, another way of looking at it, suppose I built a different card house, then knocked that over. Then a third person came in, used those same cards, and built a card house just like yours. If the card house I built wasn't your card house, then the third person's card house wasn't my card house. The only way it could be your card house is if your card house ceased to exist, then came back into existence, which I don't think it possible.

Now, consider the second method--sending your information. If teleporters work this way, then I think it's even more obvious that it can't be you on the other end.

One illustration is imagining that after recording your information and sending it elsewhere, the machine neglected to disassemble you. So, while another version of you was assembled remotely, you yourself would still be standing on the platform. Obviously, you can't be in two different places at the same time. If there are two versions of you, only one can be the original. Since there is continuity between you and the person standing on the platform, obviously, that's the original you, and the other is a replica.

Another illustration is that we imagine as the information is sent elsewhere that it is retrieved by two different machines, and instead of building one version of you, two versions of you get built. Obviously, they can't both be the same person because they're located in two different places ,and from that point on will have different experiences. So which one is the original? Well, if they're both made in exactly the same way, then if one is only a copy, it follows that they're both copies. Neither is the original.

I had a debate on this subject a while back: http://www.debate.org...
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 2:12:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/30/2015 2:07:31 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/25/2015 7:21:31 PM, Hayd wrote:
It depends on how you define "you." I have found on the majority of these thought provoking controversial concepts, it all comes down to the way you define key vocabulary, so their is not "right answer.

In this sentence, the word "their" is defined as "there." :P


But personally, I think the person on the other end is you, my personal opinion.

Good topic tho :)

lol, I was evening talking about grammar too lmao
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 2:12:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/30/2015 2:12:05 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/30/2015 2:07:31 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/25/2015 7:21:31 PM, Hayd wrote:
It depends on how you define "you." I have found on the majority of these thought provoking controversial concepts, it all comes down to the way you define key vocabulary, so their is not "right answer.

In this sentence, the word "their" is defined as "there." :P


But personally, I think the person on the other end is you, my personal opinion.

Good topic tho :)

lol, I was evening talking about grammar too lmao

haha well it certainly illustrated your point ;)
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2015 2:15:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/30/2015 2:12:55 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/30/2015 2:12:05 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/30/2015 2:07:31 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/25/2015 7:21:31 PM, Hayd wrote:
It depends on how you define "you." I have found on the majority of these thought provoking controversial concepts, it all comes down to the way you define key vocabulary, so their is not "right answer.

In this sentence, the word "their" is defined as "there." :P


But personally, I think the person on the other end is you, my personal opinion.

Good topic tho :)

lol, I was evening talking about grammar too lmao

haha well it certainly illustrated your point ;)

*covers face in shame*
I was getting all "big boy" philosophical and it just made me look like a 2nd grader
jkhiggons
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 9:30:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 7:19:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If I were to teleport somewhere would it still be "me" on the other end or just some clone of me? One response would be that because the arrangement of atoms would be the same it would still be "me" , regardless of whether or not they are different atoms. This response is not satisfying because imagine if there is a multiverse vast enough to have an arrangement of atoms identical to mine, it would still be a different consciousness emerging with different experiences. So just because there would be a person with the same arrangement of atoms coming out the other end of the teleportation machine, that doesn't mean it isn't a clone of me. Thoughts?

If we talk about teleportation as a copying mechanism, no, infinite precision is not possible.

Using real teleportation however like quantum or such that may come to be, you would be you, as much as you are from one moment to the next as you live now, ever changing slightly, affected by maybe an infinite number of different forces.
Legendary_Houp
Posts: 56
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 9:43:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/25/2015 7:19:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If I were to teleport somewhere would it still be "me" on the other end or just some clone of me? One response would be that because the arrangement of atoms would be the same it would still be "me" , regardless of whether or not they are different atoms. This response is not satisfying because imagine if there is a multiverse vast enough to have an arrangement of atoms identical to mine, it would still be a different consciousness emerging with different experiences. So just because there would be a person with the same arrangement of atoms coming out the other end of the teleportation machine, that doesn't mean it isn't a clone of me. Thoughts?

Well, you could ask the same thing even without the teleportation. I am not the same me that I was yesterday. I am not the same me I was even thirty seconds ago. Our bodies and personalities are constantly changing, every time we exhale, inhale, eat, do exercise, we are changing piece by piece who we are even just by single atoms at a time. Your body can lose up to 40,000 skin cells a day, and the layer of skin on the surface that you are looking at right now will be a completely different layer in about a month. So in that respect, no we are not the same person. Even one tiny change results in a different "me" than what I once was. But that is all technicality, really I think we are the same person, even though we are constantly changing. It all depends on how specific you are with the word "same" and how philosophical (or material) you choose to be.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 1:24:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I should have added in my OP that, in a way, teleportation is already being used by the United States Government.

But it is actually only one aspect of something far more complex and momentous, and that is: Time Travel.

The government has been doing time travel for about a decade or so via a covert (well, up until recently! LOL) undertaking called Project Swiss Watch.

It all began back in 1947, when an alien space craft crashed in the desert of the US Southwest, outside of small town in New Mexico. Called Roswell.

We first began to reverse-engineer some of the technology we discovered from the crashed craft. This original operation was called Project Lego. It lead us to enormous progress in the fields of chemistry; material science (kevlar; plastics!); as well as computer science, and biomed technology, like unobtrusive body-scanning for medical illnesses.

The speed of the CPU and the memory speed and HD capacity of the current top-of-the-line PCs would be about half of what they are if not for Project Lego.

So, anyway..yeah, Project Swiss Watch uses Quantum Mechanics, specifically a property of that discipline referred to as Quantum Entanglement; coupled with "wormhole infusion" in order to manipulate, or access, the Space Time Continuum.

That is: Time Travel.

More on this can be found on my thread dedicated to the subject. Enjoy! Through my former schooling in physics I have some into contact with a gentleman who was once a part of Project Swiss Watch, when he was with Lockheed's SkunkWorks Division.

Through him I have been fortunate to be privy to some amazing insights which I think are only fair to share with the public, as I am a huge fan of freedom of information and don't like to see our elected officials and the scientific community they protect keep from us any new sort of technology.

The government has thus fat kept Project Swiss Watch a secret, as they are afraid--perhaps rightfully so--that the technology will be privatized and then used for agendas which fly in the face of their own.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2015 9:57:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/27/2015 12:08:32 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Star-trek style destruction/construction: "You" are destroyed, your "pattern" is buffered, and the "pattern" is reconstructed on the other side. That seems like it's not you.

Thomas Riker would agree.

I've heard of this being pursued in real life and I was shocked that anyone would consider it a viable method of transportation. Funny... if the pattern is buffered and reconstructed seconds after you are destroyed then it is a successful transport. But if your pattern is buffered and constructed and you are destroyed 5 minutes later... a human being was just killed.