/sci/ - Science & Math

>That picture
>HURRR DURRR HUMANS HAVE SOULS
retarded

The paranormal part is the nonphysical part of your mind.

The picture is only related because fuck you

>>4814306
I don't think that has anything to do with souls.

And I don't want to talk to no scientist
That bitch has never seen real colors
It makes me real pissed

Are you a believer in qualia?

>>4814304
What happens to your tulpa when you get teleported?

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus
/thread
Also
>"You could not step twice into the same river"
Both you and the river are an ever changing process

>>4814306
>>4814306
>brains dont contain all the information
>destroying the brain and recreating it wont delete all that information
>you know this because you understand the brain 100%

gotcha. thanks.

>>4814338
0/10. You're an idiot.
The information stored within the brain is stored as the structure and composition of the brain. In other words, THE PART THAT IS TELEPORTED

>>4814338

Pretty sure that just depends on how the teleporter works, ace.

>>4814325
Before teleportation, she goes crazy and insists she's going to die. Afterwards, she invents a new name for herself and insists on being called it. She also encourages you to stop making payments on your loans.

>>4814304
Let's say that Frank teleports from New York to Beijing. Frank is dismantled in New York, his physical makeup -- including neurology -- is analyzed, and this information is sent to Beijing, where Frank is assembled with it. This newly assembled Frank will legitimately be Frank to anyone except for Frank. The Frank who was dismantled in New York is dead, there is now a perfect copy, and not even the copy is aware of this.

>>4814350

By what justification do you say that it is a different person?

>>4814357
I didn't say that.

The person on the other end would be composed of entirely different matter.

But. Our bodies are losing old atoms and gaining new atoms all the time. You aren't made of all the same stuff now that you were made of years ago.

>>4814350
How about this.

Lets say Frank traveled from New York to Beijing. It took him about 10 years(due to him studying the cultures along the road). During those 10 years Frank's body was in the process of replacing the dead cells that naturally die due to old age. By the time Frank got to Beijing, he carried none of the cells from the original Frank. This newly replaced Frank will legitimately be Frank to anyone except for Frank. The Frank who was originally in New York is dead. There is now a copy of Frank and not even this copy is aware of this.

>>4814359

Sure you did. You said one person died and a new one was created. How do you figure it's not just the same person?

>>4814364
Let's say that Frank teleports from New York to Beijing. Frank is dismantled in New York, his physical makeup -- including neurology -- is analyzed, and this information is sent to Beijing, where Frank is assembled with it. Now due to a mistake the information is sent at the same time to London and Tokyo instead of Beijin and Frank is assembled in London and Tokyo at the same time.

Now the original Frank was destroyed, and there are two copies thinking that they are the original one and were sent to the wrong place.

>>4814364
OP here, so essentially, he would die, but then be 'reborn' as an exact copy in a different place. what?

>>4814364
Let's say that Frank teleports from New York to Beijing. The machine malfunctions, however, and Frank is not dismantled in New York. His physical makeup -- including neurology -- is analyzed, and this information is sent to Beijing, where Frank is assembled with it. This newly assembled Frank will legitimately be Frank to anyone except for Frank. The Frank who remains in New York notes with satisfaction how stupid semantics fall apart.

>>4814364
I don't disagree with you. Self-continuity is a narrative myth (I would also remind you that not all cells are replaced -- e.g. many neurons and bone cells -- in spite of what your pop scientists tell you).

Consider the possibility that Frank is analyzed and assembled without being dismantled. Some would say the 'original' Frank is the 'real' one. But they are identical. Which means there are multiple instances of Frank. You might argue rightly that their consciousnesses are identical, but they are not the same consciousness in the physical sense, as there are two of them. Is you kill one then, the other lives on as Frank, but the other is dead. It is my fear that the situation is the same as with teleportation. And I am willing to err on the side of consciousness for this.

>>4814377
Even Neurons and bones are upkept, and whence replaced on small scales.

>>4814377
*on the side of caution (lol whoops).

>>4814379
Are you still upset about that other thread?

>>4814372
Yes, but both are legitimately Frank. There are just multiple instances of him.

My power just went out and it's really hard to type in the dark. I'm lucky I steal the Uni's wi-fi.

>>4814378
No. There is no original frank. Each moment of change brings about a "new" Frank. So in the case of >>4814375 where 2 of them exist, both of them are successors to the Frank that was disintegrated.

>>4814359
>This newly assembled Frank will legitimately be Frank to anyone except for Frank
>will be the same person except to Frank
>to Frank, it will be a different person

So not only you're retarded, you can't understand what you just wrote?

>>4814325

>>4814388
He's not the same Frank to New York Frank because the New York Frank no longer exists and is incapable of holding that opinion.

Why are you so mad?

>>4814350

It would take some serious progress to be able to disintegrate things, put them into information and somehow create them out of nothing like it happens with those Star trek teleporters.

feel free to step into teleporters then /sci/

knowing full well that engineers designed them

Following this thread's logic let's say Frank teleports half of himself to Beijing while the other half remains in New York.

Depending on how you look at it only half of Frank's total being went through, remained and/or was disintegrated and then remade on the other side, so either the old and new Frank have both died or Frank in general is dead.

Follow me here this is where shit gets real, what if someone then teleported both halves to New Beijing at the same time precisely?
When he appears is this Frank

a) Old Frank
b) Old and New Frank combined
c) New Frank
d) Dead

>>4814364
Neurons don't die. You are 100% neurons and those never go away.

Yeah OP, you would be killed the moment you get teleported. The new you would think its you, but you yourself would be death. Kinda like "The Prestige" just that you won´t have to kill yourself, the splicing into your atoms would do that

>>4814397
I still say New Frank. People here are unwilling to accept that Frank can be instantiated multiple times legitimately. You can still kill a Frank and have a Frank living. We're talking about the technology to construct a human.

>>4814394
That is why they call it a thought experiment.

If a new Frank is assembled in the new destination, where does all that matter come from? You cannot create something from nothing.

Or do they just pour some water, sugar and rainbows and let the machine morph that into a frank?

>>4814397
I misunderstood, I think. Wouldn't both halves have died by then?

FRANKLY, that is a ridiculous question.

SIMPLE TEST

DON'T KILL THE ORIGINAL ONE THE FIRST TIME

>DID YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS SPLIT?
CONGRATS, TELEPORTATION ISN'T MURDER

>ARE YOU UNCONNECTED TO YOUR DOPPELGANGER?
CONGRATS, TELEPORATION IS MURDER

>>4814417
Please refer to >>4814377

>>4814418
those things aren't me though so i don't care

and it's my choice to use it.

>>4814417

actually that kinda makes sense... but is that even possible?

>>4814417
abortion is muder too and we dont give a fuck

a so is eating meat, using leather stuff, and a lot of shit

>>4814419
Makes no reference to my test of not killing the first and seeing what happens.

>>4814418

Eating meat or wearing leather isn't murder, it's more desecration.

>>4814421
Of course not, it's 100% impossible for your consciousness to split.

It's a perfect thought experiment to explain to people WHY teleportation kills your consciousness.

>>4814397
The question lacks clarity. Suppose Frank got cut in half by a chainsaw waist down. However he survived. After 2 months without waistdown doctors finally found a way to attach the waist down to him again. Frank now looks exactly like the Frank before he got cut. Is the Frank that got his waist reattached the same as the Frank of the before? Is the Frank that got his waist attached the same as Frank that was without? To me, Frank is just a name that we attach to the process of changing.

>>4814422
It's the same. In my first example he was dismantled (i.e., killed), and in the one I linked to he was left intact (i.e., not killed).

>>4814428
I see that now

However you have to analyze the situation from Frank's point of view, as consciousness is a qualia.

You cannot analyze teleporation any other way

>>4814429
Incorrect, it has been scientifically proven the entirety of a human being's consciousness and mind exists within the brain. The rest of the body is merely a vessel that this brain controls. A person cut off at the neck is 100% the person they were before, merely with no vessel.

>>4814430
You're right that I didn't mention results. But I think it's stupid to think that the qualia could somehow be split between two distant entities. There are just now two qualia.

Are you a spiritualist or something?

>>4814431
Except for the part where they're dead, right? It depends on whether you identify consciousness with selfhood. Many might feel incomplete with loss of limb.

If you could break yourself down into information and perfectly reassemble yourself somewhere, might as well manipulate the information to change yourself into something else more to your liking.
Would be better than that surrogates movie.

>>4814431
Suppose we swap brains of 2 babies and put in the other's body. 20 years later, will do you think they will identify their brain with the original body or do you think their brain will identify with a new body?

The fact is, identity of a person is not dependent on the brain alone.

>>4814432
The perception of consciousness cannot be explained by science. Science requires that the world be viewed from a Solipsistic point of view.

Since you (as well as I) believe in science, we can only know that teleportation is safe to our unscientific consciousness by testing it.

>>4814441
Any adverse reaction they have due to body swapping is not physical but merely their personal reaction to it.

Their mind is 100% contained within the brain.

You don't believe the heart controls emotions do you?

The brain controls everything.

>>4814439
>The perception of consciousness cannot be explained by science.
Not completely, but it attempt to explain it and do so with good descriptive and prescriptive power. This applies to literally anything, though. See the map-territory relation; to perfectly describe something, the description would have to be the thing.


>Science requires that the world be viewed from a Solipsistic point of view.
Quite the opposite, science asserts a reality outside of oneself that can be studied empirically.

>Since you (as well as I) believe in science, we can only know that teleportation is safe to our unscientific consciousness by testing it.
I have no disagreement with this.

>>4814443
>Their mind is 100% contained within the brain.
So any information they get from outside is not their own? What is contained in the original mind?

>>4814455
>What is outside the mind

Signals and possible inputs.

>>4814458
Aka. All the information that is needed to form "self" conception. Wiki up Mirror Test. Some animals with higher level of brains possess the ability to distinguish between self and others in mirror. Most animals dont form these in their mind. Humans dont have "self" conception until they reach about 6-18 months since birth. Thats because we need the information from vast information from outside world to create the "self" concept. If our mind already has a "self" that we can distinguish from birth, we would never fail the mirror test even as an infant.

I didn't bother reading the thread beyond a few posts in the beginning.

The point of OP's picture has nothing to do with "souls". It has to do with consciousness. The person going into a teleporter to get disintegrated and recreated elsewhere is technically dying and will NEVER experience what happens on the other side of the teleportation trip. Instead, an exact duplicate of the traveler from the moment of teleportation actually reappears at the destination. The "original" matter/life form that goes "in" the teleporter is destroyed forever.

>>4814465
Because they require the correct input to become what we recognize as human beings.

That doesn't mean their mind is some how magically outside their skull.

I know of the mirror test, look up feral children. Get the wrong inputs as a child (i.e. not raised by humans?) You're hardly what i'd call a human being after a few years of that during your critical development phase.

OP, I don't think time travel is possible. However, I think that sending signals back in time _IS_ possible.

What do you think about this?

>>4814467
You said exactly what I've been saying this whole time. Congratulations on being right.

>>4814468
>That doesn't mean their mind is some how magically outside their skull.
Nor is there any concrete mind inside the brain. Actually I never said the mind is outside the skull. I was alluding to the fact that mind is not a static thing but an ongoing process that is always changing and restructuring itself. When you said the mind is inside the brain, you're implying that mind is somehow a static thing. This is not true since we know that our mind is always changing.

>>4814480
The mind is 100% contained in neurons.

Think of it this way: if you write down a sentence on a page and burn it while having memorized the sentence word for word, the information (the sentence) exists. However, the original page on which you wrong the information is gone forever. You can write it again, but the original page is gone.

Does that make sense to those who do not understand?

>>4814474
>>4814467
Samehomosexual.

Also, since the person on the other end is 'exactly the same', they too have died in the teleporter, what do you make of that?

>>4814489
Not the same. Are you saying that the newly instantiated person is dead? How is that?

>>4814494
I'm saying that if what you're saying is true, they've experienced death. They've experienced everything the original had, and if teleportation kills him, then they've experienced that too.

>>4814482
Is this why you think exactly like the you of 1 day old? Whats your explanation of the differences in our thoughts throughout the different age of our life?

And also what do you see when you look at the mirror? Do you see the body that "you" wear? The brain that you use? What would happen if I cut off all those "not you" parts? Do you think your existence is beyond your body parts?

>>4814482
Are you sure the mind is inside neurons? Maybe you meant to say the neurons are the mind? In any case, do you have a picture of the mind? A model or microscopic picture?

>>4814497
Death isn't an experience, it's a lack thereof.

>>4814495
The person you're responding too articulates poorly, but I agree with him. The mind is essentially synonymous with the brain. All of the amorphousness you're attributing to the mind is characteristic of the brain as well. Definitions of 'self' are not always the same, as the self is mentally constructed and ambiguous in discussion.

I am not sure about your mind being equivalent to your neurons. I still, of course, believe that OP is right in that being erased and recreated again elsewhere=/=travel, as teleportation often implies.

However, what I am trying to say is that I believe that (and I am really unsure about this, but it's a hypothesis) the "mind" is a conglomeration of both the physical brain and electric signals within the physical brain. However, I am too fucking stupid to prove this or understand anything.

>>4814501
>Death isn't an experience, it's a lack thereof.
So you don't believe any particular brain processes occur when one dies? All those people seeing the light must just be magical...

>>4814508
That's called dying, not death.

>>4814505
I agree with that, but you're forgetting that the neurochemical circuitry (the 'electricity') is inside the brain. Which is why I say they're synonymous.

>>4814511
I'm saying that the signals within the brain shape the brain as it develops, just as the shape of the neuronal network shapes the signal. Hence, why the brain is able to recover to an extent after some damage.

Again, it's only a hypothesis. I have absolutely no credibility because I don't know jack shit about this.

>>4814516
Yes, that sort of plasticity is well supported by studies. It feels like you're trying to separate the brain's anatomy from its physiology. But it's all brain. You're already a de facto physical monist.

Uh. Yeah this pic is what I understand about this hypothetical method of teleportation. It's actually because I don't believe we have souls that I think this is correct.

Nothing about our consciousness or mind is transitory. It can't be moved from the current matter in your head. Its the running process of the matter in your head. If it is ever destroyed "you" are dead. The experience that you call "I" is gone. And yeah the doppelganger will have all of your memories but I can't imagine my experience/life continuing after being atomized in one place and reassembled from scratch elements laying around. There is no soul, brain death is . .well ..death and permanent.

TL:DR If I'm understanding your method of teleporation here you're just committing suicide and cloning yourself somewhere else. .The clone just happens to have your memories.

There's no more evidence of the mind being contained in the brain as there is evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow. Scientists are silly.

>>4814501
>>4814501
Lets suppose mind = brain. What is brain? Brain is a body part that stores information from sensory organs and processes them. Since brain = mind then mind is an ever changing process. If the mind is an ever changing process that is always rewriting itself, is there really any mind-essence thats not unchanging(eternal)? What I'm saying is that mind is simply a name. There is no mind-essence found when examined. There is a brain that stores memory and the same brain that processes those memories.

>>4814522
I already agreed with you. I would also add that memories are also an experience happening in the brain in the present, and are very fallible and susceptible to influence. More points to you, there.

>>4814472
Here's what I know:
We have things that travel faster than light.
Theoretically, this means that they travel backwards in time.
Thus, we totally can IF they actually move faster than light.
And it will be absurd. And Homestuck will seem trivial by comparison to the things that the human race cooks up.

>>4814522
The parts of your brain that make your organs function, work more or less in an unchanging loop until you die. Also, some parts of your brain, when destroyed or damaged, do seem to remove some faculties (from what I have read, see: lobotomy).

So you're just scanning somebody, and using that scan to materialize a copy of them using the data from the scan to assemble somebody who is identical to them in any way?

Since you have that data, can't you use it to to assemble multiple copies of the same person? All you would need is the atoms necessary to configure a human body, but none of the elements in the human body is rare or expensive.

>>4814531
What travels faster than light?

>>4814534
Yes, we know there is a brain. We've already established that. But there is no mind, other than in name.

However 1 thing, there is no unchanging parts in the brain. All parts in the brain cause something else to happen in the body/brain via chemical reactions/electrical. Thus all those parts are changing, it may seem unchanging when you look compare it to other body parts, but not when you look closer on a chemical level.

>>4814531
But how does one move faster than light?

For that, we must know completely the fundamental force that creates gravity and speed/acceleration/time dilation in the universe.

I believe that whatever is the actual "fabric" of space IS technically the "aether" or "medium" which encompasses everything. String theory seems to be a candidate but it sounds to me (though, mine is a naive and uneducated perspective) like string theory is looking at things the wrong way (particles instead of waves and using micro to explain the macro instead of looking at macro first before trying to explain how it stems from the micro scale).

>>4814540
I have no idea. It was months ago - there was a big stink about some particle moving faster than light.
HAHA disregard/cocks/etc
Neutrinos, and it was shot down last year.
Too bad, though. I though reality was in trouble, and that made me happy.

>>4814542
I like to make an analogy with a computer. There is hardware and there is software (your "personality"). The software is always somewhat intact. However, with each piece of the hardware you remove, you removed the ability of the software to perform a certain function; even if the software IS technically there; it simply cannot cause a reaction/effect without the hardware (the neural tissue).

>>4814338
i think it would delete some informations cuz since the brain is like a computer, it has some read only memory and some random access memory, the ram would get lost, like if you restarted your computer without saving things

>>4814557
I remember that. I was really fucked up and on drugs during that period of time. Funny thing is that at least a couple of months before it was announced that neutrinos might travel faster than light (which WAS disproven later, BTW), I was tweaking the fuck out one night and I was trying to read about physics. Somehow, I got the idea that neutrinos might travel faster than light.

tl;dr I predicted neutrinos might travel FTL, was obviously wrong and cannot into physics, months later saw the faulty experimental results in the news that implied neutrinos DID travel FTL, was freaked out. Later though, I saw that it was a mistake and though to myself "yeah, no shit... it couldn't have been right."

>>4814564
>>4814559
You guys are on the same wavelength.

I miss Frank already.

>>4814564
Well I am referring to neural "hardware" that is everything except the equivalent of a "hard disk" (which, I am GUESSING, might be where your memories are contained. I think it's in the back of the head somewhere? I remember seeing a diagram but I don't know if I am right.)

>>4814571
We'll figure out physics eventually, and then we'll find the places where they break. c is the limit. That's what we say now. But eventually, we'll have that "except when..."

>>4814573
>>4814573
Are you suggesting that a hard-disk isn't hardware?

>>4814583
No. Let me repeat what I said: when I was talking about removing hardware components and making the operating system/other programs unable to perform certain tasks with each hardware component you remove, I was implying removing any hardware component BUT that hard disk because without that, there could be no programs/operating system.

>>4814588
What if we make a copy of the hard disk and then replace it with the copy?

>>4814583
Oh, gotcha. Totally. I would point out that different kinds of memory are dispersed into different parts of the brain. There's a ton of integration. There's even 'learning' in parts that are not specifically dedicated to memory. But, again, this only strengthens your point.

>>4814592
If we replace it with a copy and it functions exactly like the "original" then it is the same.

Never got how this shit would work; the universe, galaxy, solar system, and planet are constantly moving in a fuckload of ways.

>Thinks he's teleporting to from Paris to Japan.

>Ends up floating in outerspace.

How would one account for such dynamic shit?

>>4814604
The earth is stationary within the earth's referential frame. That's like saying it's impossible to drive a car because the planet is hurling through space.

>>4814612
But the car is under the constant effects of gravity and shit while rotating along with the earth.

How would stuff like angular momentum and gravity's acceleration be conserved when teleporting?

>>4814636
Do you think the teleportee is being teleported magically? No, in this thought experiment the information that describes the teleported person is subject to the physical conditions of the world. I was imagining some sort of apparatus which received the information electronically.

On the whole, this has been a much better discussion that this would have gotten on /lit/. I think I might switch over.

The teleporter as pictured in the OP would never be made, as has most likely already been stated in this thread.

Why? Because there would be no point in disintegrating you. At all. You would be dead, and you would forever be dead.

What the OP described to us is his plans for a Human Shredding Fax Machine.

I think the guy talking about Frank experiencing dying or death has something. Technically even if death itself might not be registered to memory due to the fact once you’re dead you stop registering anything at all, I'm fairly sure there are individuals who have had near death experiences and talked about the experience of dying at the very least. Assuming they’re not all lying, the act of dying is probably an experience we can recollect if we survive it.

So if the Frank that appears does not recall dying to some degree it’s possible he is the same Frank. Unless of course by some convenient margin of error there's a significantly inexplicable degree of lag between the copying and pasting process and that minute information is lost during replication of his brain or the experience of dying is so instantaneous due to the process causing it it does not register.

My theoretical test for all this is we get some dead bodies, say from something like oxygen deprivation, we then teleport them making sure they’re clinically dead and if they come back to life on the other end the machine is probably copying not teleporting.

Now if dead bodies arrive dead, well it's possible the machine is still copying, but copying dead bodies.

The point is we should teleport the damaged or deceased first and see whether or not they're restored or revived to determine what exactly the machine does in the reverse.

First of all they were going to die anyway, and honestly bringing someone back to life whether they're a clone or not isn't a crime so volunteers should be more than willing.

>>4814647

So you're surprised that a science related discussion was more of a success on a science related board as opposed to a literature related board?

Cool story bro

>>4814642
I see, so in this case it's more of a "copy & paste" of a person than a "move" like I was thinking.

Guess you don't have to worry about the other shit if you do it that way.

Before we discuss teleportation we must define what is life and what is considered to be alive.

If life were considered consciousness then simply finding a way to manipulate consciousness would be the easiest method of teleportation.

If we could figure out how to go into a different dimension, where the rules of physics don't apply we could bend space and time around us therefore traveling massive distances.

I think this could be achieved through vibration, maybe exciting each individual atom on the human being itself in order to propel their matter into a different dimension.

>>4814653
Yes, but then you have to deal with the duplication and annihilation of consciousnesses.
>>4814652
Okay, but this subject is well within the overlap of the magisteria of both boards. It just requires some scientific knowledge and a philosophical clarity.
>>4814651
This is why I made explicit the border between dying and death. The living can experience dying, but not death. Once you are dead, you experience nothing. If there is a process registered in the mind while dying, this will be transferred to the second Frank. After this point, you will be -- as you said -- teleporting a corpse. I think the point was that you have to be able to duplicate the physiology of the brain which necessitates the livelihood of your subject.

dude if i had that machine i'd just make clones of myself without killing myself lol

Clone 1:Date my annoying GF...XD
Clone 2;Do chores
Clone 3:Go to the mall and cool off...
Clone 4:Go to the computer shop
Clone 5:Go to my cousins house
Clone 6:watch movies
Clone 7;Do my regular execises...
Clone 8:Eat my favorite foods...
Clone 9;Sleep all Day
Clone 10:Do my homework

Original ME;WATCH ANIME ALL DAY...^_^

>>4814663
I suspect that clone 10 would refuse to be the only version of you to do your homework. I suspect he would want to watch anime all day as well.

>>4814653

>it's more of a "copy & paste" of a person than a "move" like I was thinking.

Technically all a "move" function is, in regards to file transfer, is a copy/paste immediately followed by deletion of the original.

So in fact, OP's pic IS closer to a "move" than "copy/paste".

>>4814660
Yeh, I can't see a way around that. That's why I called it a "copy & paste"; since the original will still be around.

Unless you kill the original, then it's "copy, paste, & delete".

They probably won't like that though.

>>4814680
Shit, you have a point.

A conspiracy is needed. Get all of the copies to act like the originals, and hide the fact that the originals were destroyed.

>>4814701
This sounds like a really good shitty sci-fi movie.

>>4814680
But that isn't true, because "moving" entails a sort of continuity of the matter that is moved whereas copying something, annihilating it, and then recreating an exact duplicate BREAKS the continuity of the original, which was in fact not moved.

>>4814704
The machine malfunctions, the original (played by Mark Wahlberg or some shit) escapes; but now he's being hunted by the conspirators and worst of all, himself.

"The Last Original"

>>4814715
>Mark Wahlberg

I mean some shitty cheap sci-fi actor instead.

So many people still believing in a soul...on /sci/ wow! And there is so much retarded rationalization of your christian indoctrination going on in this thread.

>>4814866
It's not just christian.
The fear of the discontinuity of consciousness is as old as anything human.
It's the animal that prefers to chew off it's leg when trapped.

There's really only two ways to fight it: self-enlightenment or inhumanity

>>4814467
>I didn't bother reading the thread beyond a few posts in the beginning.

I should have done the same... /sci/ can't stay more than 10 posts talking about science and start talking about souls, ghosts, gods, etc...

>>4814467
It doesn't really matter. The mind still goes on in the duplicate.

something about the word identical which may just boil down semantics. Of course some of you seem to have one view of the word which doesn't fit mine, but would still make perfect sense so if you came up for a different word for that, so I'm not going to call everyone wrong or anything like that. I never came up with a firm definition of what identical meant until in high school when I learned a rigorous definition of congruent. With respect to triangles it would seem equivalent enough to the word identical for the word to be extraneous. The rigorous definition of congruent can help you spot the difference between identity, but you can go two directions with this.

First is that two triangles can have the same angles and same sides and differ in other properties, most critically, position if one triangle is rotated or translated from the other. This is critical because in any transporter/cloning scenario will the two Franks have the same position at the same time. Just like you can call your friend and have in construct a triangle congruent to yours, he cant make a true duplicate without traveling to your house and drawing it on top of yours, this still has issues being with time. Something similar applies to transporters, the system can transmit a tremendous amount of information however he new Frank can only ever have so much in common the old; not enough to be considered truly identical. Of course there is a chance this might not bother you.

>>4814866
How would having a soul change things?

>>4815010
By saying that the 2 people are not the same you are implying that something is lost during the teleportation. If nothing is lost then you cant argue that it kills you. So wether you admit it or not, you are believing in a soul if you think teleportation kills someone.

Also protip:
There is no reason we can now if you are the same person/same conscioussness than yesterday before you went to sleep, or if you are a different person that just remembers being the person yesterday, and will die when you go to sleep this night.
The continuity is an illusion created by our minds because we can remember the past, so it appears to us that we are always the same in some way, because that would mean that there is an unchanging element in our conscioussnes(a soul) and thats just bullshit.
The problem solves itself when you realize that fundamentally there is no soul and so there is no difference between being the same person everytime you wake up or a different that is like you. Its actually a pseudoproblem created by our false perception of ourselves.

>>4815461
How about this: from the perspective of the person entering the teleportation chamber to be transported elsewhere by being destroyed and recreated, teleportation is a voluntary act of suicide because that person is literally ABOUT TO BE DESTROYED. The person's experience will END right there, to be continued only by his doppelgagner on the other end.

What does that have to do with having a soul? It is merely committing suicide. Are you REALLY that thick-headed that you think because if Frank enters a teleporter and gets vaporized and then recreated, just because the new Frank is identical to the one that went in, it is the same Frank? The Frank that entered the teleporter is gone forever. However, the Frank that came OUT of the teleporter acts like it was no big deal because Frank originally entered the teleporter expecting to be transported somewhere. At that moment, with that intention in his mind, he is annihilated and a copy is made. The copy is thinking that it is experiencing a continuous "trip" because it has all of Frank's memories. However, Frank is dead and the clone was just born.

>>4815484
You are merely repeating the problem without making an argument and adding an ad hominem.
If Frank1 and Frank2 are identical...they are identical, its that easy...except if you can point out that F1 has something that F2 doesnt have.

>>4815496
Okay. How about this experiment.
You are sitting on a chair in room A.
A perfect clone is made of you and put into a room next to yours, Room B.
A man opens the door to Room B and shoots you in the head.

Your clone leaves and continues your life.

From your point of view, black screen.
From your clone's point of view, something entirely different happened.
From an observer's point of view, there's no difference at all. Absolutely no difference.

But to you, though?
You're dead.

You might argue that once you're dead you won't care. Which is a valid point i guess, but if i gave you the gun in your hand and asked you to "dematerialize" yourself manually by shooting yourself through the eye, i doubt you would do it.

>>4815646
"A man opens the door to Room A"
small but important mistake there.

look we all seem to understand consciousness is a process, not an object. SO taking that fact into consideration picture this:

there is a fire burning on a log. You suck the oxygen out of the atmosphere and the combustion reaction ceases. Then you put the same oxygen back into the atmosphere and the heat sets the log on fire again.

the first reaction ceased when the oxygen was removed and though the fire is burning the log in the exact same way it is a NEW reaction, not a resuming of the previous reaction.

thats how a teleporter would affect consciousness. By destroying the original and replacing it with something new.

I can haz "teleportation"?

>>4815727
you seem to be missing your original point. "its a process" and thus if the process is same, it hasnt been destroyed.

The matter your doppelganger is composed of is identical to that of the original. The biological system is exactly the same, right down to the thoughts, feelings and memories.

The matter we are composed of is constantly in flux. If it is the matter we're made of that makes us who we are, then by this logic, we are constantly morphing into new people.

The fallacy people tend to fall into in this scenario is the idea that we are a separate entity to the rest of the world - the illusion of the ego. But we're not, we're a pattern.

And this pattern is perfectly replicated in your doppelganger - it is you.

>>4815727 look we all seem to understand consciousness is a process, not an object.

But this is wrong.

>implying teleporters have to rely on dismantling and reassembling people down to the last quanta of energy

>implying this technology wouldn't be used to make a billion clones

>implying we won't learn a better way when we find out how space works

>>4815646
If someone opens the door to room A and not to room B the clone isnt perfect but just another human being. The instant you see something your clone doesnt you become 2 different persons and your stream of consciousness is discontinued and the clones isnt.
If however you could make a perfect clone in an exact copy of a room(assuming our mind is only deterministic without random elements) you 2 would have the same mind. If you could vaporize one of the rooms in an instant it wouldnt make a difference to you. You still would be alive.

You call it "your own perspective" others call it ego, or soul. Its an (neccesary, helpful, evolved) illusion, nothing more

>>4815797

/thread

>>4815829

It's a thought experiment, we need these implications to carry on discussion.

>>4815829
>quanta energy
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>>/x/

>>4815797
You're right, but you're wrong about one crucial thing; several identical consciousnesses can exist, but that doesn't make them the same thing.

It's true that both patterns are identical, but that's irrelevant.

Each consciousness is a seperate entity from the others, and thus has its own seperate internal perspective. If you have clones A, B, C and D and you kill clone A, the others are unaffected.
But from Clone A's perspective, there's now a black screen.

Clone A is likely to care about this outcome, even if clones B, C and D are equivalent.

Sure consciousness is a slowly changing pattern. But you already know what consciousness is like; there's a sense of coherence/continuity, and you are a seperate entity no matter how identical your clone is.

"It wouldn't matter" is true only if you ignore that each consciousness has its own internal perspective. Something that you already have first-hand proof of.

Unless you think making an identical clone gives you hive mind qualities? Perhaps you get bee-like vision and double hearing, hmm?

>>4815861
>identical
>but not the same thing
if its identical its the same thing.
So you either show that one mind has qualities the other hasnt or you dont have an argument.
We only have a problem with matter that it can't be identical because it always relates to the space around it.
Think of it like this: You draw a line from a to b
Then you draw another line from a to b on another paper. They are the same lines.

(please dont just repeat ...but the point of view)

>there's a sense of coherence/continuity
and I already pointed out that this is an illusion because we have the ability to remember the past and plan for the future. Your memories are nothing but patterns imprinted on your brain, nothing more. And this mode of perception creates the illusion that we are always the same being...but we are not, because there is not a single unchanging element in our self(no soul). Are you the same person you were 10yrs ago?

How can you know that there is a continuity?
How do you know that when you go to sleep...from your point of perspective...you dont die just to be replaced with a clone in the morning who thinks he is you?
Is it just because the body is the same or is it the matter? Ofcourse not, that would be stupid.
Is the brain the same? Its not. There is so much going on in your brain when you are unconscious. There is no way knowing if your brain isnt doing too much while sleeping so that you die.

I mean what would you think if we could reconfigure your brain while you are asleep so that its exactly like mine? Would you still be you? Would you still experience it from "your point of view" but with my personality/memories?

Would it bother you the same if you walked through a portal and came out the other side (think Portal game)? Yet that's transportation.

I don't think transportation bothers you, OP. It's the disintegration that bothers you (can't say I blame you either).

>>4815892
>if it's identical it's the same thing
that's why there's only one electron in the universe

>>4815914
sorta reminds me of indra's net/jewel/pearl/etc

>Far away in the heavenly abode of the great god Indra, there is a wonderful net which has been hung by some cunning artificer in such a manner that it stretches out infinitely in all directions. In accordance with the extravagant tastes of deities, the artificer has hung a single glittering jewel in each "eye" of the net, and since the net itself is infinite in dimension, the jewels are infinite in number. There hang the jewels, glittering like stars in the first magnitude, a wonderful sight to behold. If we now arbitrarily select one of these jewels for inspection and look closely at it, we will discover that in its polished surface there are reflected all the other jewels in the net, infinite in number. Not only that, but each of the jewels reflected in this one jewel is also reflecting all the other jewels, so that there is an infinite reflecting process occurring.


Buddhist use this metaphor to describe the universe using hindu/local religion's customs

>>4815861

Dude we don't even know what consciousness is. You're talking out of your arse.

Its true, teleportation is impossible. A copy of you is made, you are destroyed, and the copy is created at a different location.

There was an Outer Limits episode on this. They thought the transportation failed, but in fact, the person was successfully copied and created, and there were 2 of the same person, and the original needed to be destroyed.

This is the same way that "mind-uploading" is not possible. Your consciousness is in your brain only. Any exact copies are separate consciousnesses. But there is only one you. Transportation and mind-upload generally involves killing the original

>>4814306
Your retarded. This is a science board and the discussion of "souls" has no place here.

teleportation involves killing the original consciousness.

it's unprovable, just like god/free will
stop act like a fundatmentalist/atheist, it's just the same shit as theist

this is a science board please keep pseudo-science and religion off this board

>>4816075
>Talking out your arse
Explain how this is physically possible.

>>4816109

>Your consciousness is in your brain only. Any exact copies are separate consciousnesses. But there is only one you. Transportation and mind-upload generally involves killing the original

Wrong.

Conciousness is a wave not a particle.

The same conciousness continues just in a different medium.

>>4816112
> discussion of "souls" has no place here.
> killing the original consciousness.

you do realise that you are a dumbass... right?

>>4816112
>killing the original consciousness
I think you're confused

>>4816160
I think you took the Battlestar Galactica remake too seriously. You essentially have to invoke a ghost to have any real continuity here at all.

>>4815892
That is sophistry. Duplicates are duplicates. Photocopiers do this all the time.

lol consciousness makes no sense.

a better thought experiment than teleportation is replacing each neuron one by one with a silicon chip.

you can give a watertight argument that the consciousness will be the same.

then again you can also give a watertight argument that the consciousness will be different.

>>4816233
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

>>4816242
that's not how conversations work.

how about trying some words.

>Conciousness is a wave not a particle.
absolute nonsense

>>4816167
coming from a religious moron, no doubt

whats hard to understand. Copies are copies, destroying the original certainly ISNT GOOD FOR THE ORIGINAL.

Think of tele-porters like fax machines. A copy was sent great distances, the original, either gets destroyed or it doesnt, but the original doesnt go anywhere, it stays in the exact same location.

Anyone claiming consciousness isnt a scientific term is a fucking child

>>4816249
words

>>4816247
> coming from a religious moron, no doubt

typical /sci/. make a retarded statement, get called out for it, gratuitously call the other person religious and think you've now won the argument.

>>4816247
The problem we have is that we assume that consciousness/Frank/etc is a static entity. There is no static Frank, Frank is always in motion and therefore always changing. Any time frank moves, hes a new frank from the old one. Did the old one die? No. He just changed. As such, when Frank is teleported, he changed.

>>4816260
cool cuz this is my first day ever at /sci

Good to see you are so quick to speak out against /sci though

Its clear you hate science, just admit that

>>4816264
Honestly, it comes down to how the teleporter works. Most claim to un-materialize and re-materialize the person, which would not just be changing the person, it would be annihilating them and then using the parts to build an exact copy, but still just a copy nonetheless

Okay. I have one camera, which is recording a video file.
I then create an identical copy of the camera and smash the original.
The video in the original camera, when looked at, will show the screen getting smashed and the recording abruptly end.
The video in the copy will show the same video with one major exception; the recording continues.

>>4815797

My thoughts exactly.

>>4815797
No it isn't. Utter nonsense.

>>4816264
The copy is a hell of lot more discontinuous from the original than the successive forms that the original evolves through. It's a copy. Two of the same thing are two things, not one thing twice.

>>4816452

Well thanks for your strong assertions with absolutely zero explanation!

Op's image is actually an interesting conundrum.

Imagine an exact clone, with all your memories, and everything is created of you. The instance of his inception, you commit suicide. are you dead? Do YOU continue to exist? Do you experience things?

>The matter your doppelganger is composed of is identical to that of the original. The biological system is exactly the same, right down to the thoughts, feelings and memories.
Assuming no errors during copy, sure lets assume this is true

>The matter we are composed of is constantly in flux. If it is the matter we're made of that makes us who we are, then by this logic, we are constantly morphing into new people.
The only matter that makes us who we are is brain matter.

>The fallacy people tend to fall into in this scenario is the idea that we are a separate entity to the rest of the world - the illusion of the ego. But we're not, we're a pattern.
No, we are indeed separate entities

>And this pattern is perfectly replicated in your doppelganger - it is you.
No, its a replica of me

>>4816501
I think its pretty clear that you are dead. This is a science board. These are not complicated questions, not or these complicated answers. It truly surprises me the amount of people that cant comprehend OPs picture, it is so simple yet people refuse to accept it.

Instead, people want to believe in magic and shit. this is god damn /sci/ start acting like it

>>4816504

How is 'brain matter' distinct from other matter?

>>4816504

>Thinks reality is entirely intuitive, and hence requires no explanation.

>>4816504
>replica
This is a biased word. It insinuates that the copy is not an exact one. Which shows us where you stumble: you still think that an exact copy is somehow distinct from the original

And that is why you should stop arguing, because we are not talking about inexact clones, and your arguments have nothing to do the topic at hand.

>>4816642
>his is a biased word. It insinuates that the copy is not an exact one. Which shows us where you stumble: you still think that an exact copy is somehow distinct from the original

"replica" is not a biased word.

Yes, it is distinct, even if it molecularly identical.

>And that is why you should stop arguing, because we are not talking about inexact clones, and your arguments have nothing to do the topic at hand.

No one disagrees about them being exact copies, for the sake of the argument.

You're not a number of neurons; you're the communication they create; you could theoretically replace anyone in between the signal and it wouldn't effect you.

You're just some information, and destroying what created that information don't have any effect on you, so the teleported you is you as much as if you didn't teleport at all.

Sadly the implication is that you don't really exist; you just think you do.

>>4817961
Same body, yes. Same thoughts, yes. Same consciousness? No.

From your point of view, you'd get disassembled and then you die.

>>4817985
>Same consciousness? No.
It's an exact physical copy. If the consiousness isn't the same then consciousness isn't the product of something physical.

are you desintegratin all time with your movement?

\thread

If you step into a teleporter you will die and someone who is identical to what you were when you died will live.

You are the currents in your brain, not your cells, I can replace as many cells as I want as long it's just skin and shit, if you start fucking with my brain I start to get worried.

No thanks.

teleportation is not control+x control+v.
is a movement that doesn't respect the euclidean distance.
for dummis: teleportation is a non continuos movement.

>>4818004
Oh I didn't know this, I thought we didn't know how teleportation worked yet.

>>4818004
>continuos movement
Ehh... Does that even exist in the first place?

>Scan a model with a 3d scanner
>Send the data over the atlantic
>Destroy the original model
>Build a new model with the data and a 3d printer
>OMG ITS THE SAEM MODEL!!1ONE IT JUST UNDERWENT NON-CONTINUOUS MOTION BY IGNORING EUCLIDEAN DISTANCE
Nope.

That's not teleportation, that's copy, paste and then destroy the first one.
There's a little difference.

>>4818037
Okay then Newton how are you going to perform teleportation then?

>>4818037
That is how all of those quantum "teleportation" experiments work. You take atom A, figure out its state and then paste that state onto atom B some distance away. The process of figuring out the state of A destroys it [no cloning theorem of quantum mechanics].

If Person B is exactly the same as Person A.
There is no reason Person A doesn't get to experience Person B.
So Person A experiences Person B viewpoint. Even if he doesn't die.
I'll argue that Person A also experiences Person C, D, E... without having to be a clone.
Because B will evolve differently than A, yet share the consciousness.
So it could as well be another person. There is no individuality.
We live through each conscious being, forever.

>>4818040
turn the subject into a teleport-capable medium without destroying it.

>>4818067

Different atoms, different person.
Just arranged the same way

>>4818290
All electrons/particles look exactly the same. An electron created in the particle accelerator today looks exactly like an electron created billions of years ago.

> actually believing destructive "teleportation" isn't murder
> actually believing destructive "teleportation" is even a form of teleportation at all

full retards in this thread, everywhere.

You have a steel axe head and plastic handle, it is an axe. You melt down the steel and plastic into blobs, move it physically to another location, and recast the steel and plastic into a axe head and plastic handle. At what point did the axe stop being an axe?
When you melted it down prior to transport.

You have an axe as above, except this time you place it a machine that analyzes it, sends that information to a machine with a stockpile of steel and plastic, which then assembles a new but identical axe. The axe in the first machine is destroyed in the analysis. At what point did the axe stop being an axe?
When it was destroyed during the analysis.

this is basic reading comprehension, people. what part of "the initial object is destroyed" don't you fucking understand?

The first example is not teleportation, it is using the same material from the original to reconstruct a duplicate of the original at the destination. Thanks to entrophy, it won't be a perfectly identical duplicate.

The second example is not teleportation, because all it does is a glorified 3D printer that uses different matter from the matter that was destructively analysed.

Know what counts as legitimate teleportation?
Spatial warping or time displacement.
Like the portals from Portal, or the star gate from Star Gate, or theorised wormholes in space. Devices or anomalies that connect two points in space and/or time, which let whateverthefuck that moves through it go to the destination without traveling the intermediate distance.

.. all because the writers for Sci-fi shows couldn't spare the budget to have a shuttle pick up the heros every fucking time they needed to scene transition.

>>4818360
> these two examples
AND FURTHERMORE, the information that "is" the axe travels the intermediate distance, which means it is limited to light-speed, which means you can not "teleport" INSTANTLY to a distant location like ... oh, say, Alpha Centauri. (which is what one thinks when they hear the word)

spoilers: which is where i wish this discussion would go to so it would leave this board forever, and never return.

>>4818360
>thinks we have a soul that dies when we are teleported

humans are just biological robots, stop believing in fairy tailes

>>4818376
did i fucking say that? no i did not you dipshit
not fucking once in that entire post did i mention the word "soul" go on an look

you could disassemble a human body like someone can disassemble a car, shove it onto a truck, and move it from the west coast to the east coast and reassemble it into functional order and nothing would fucking change, unless you fucked up and forgot a part.

but you'd be wrong if you said "yeah i transported a car by way of truck to the east coast" no mother fucker, you transported CAR PARTS, not an actual car. a car is something you put on a driveway. you can't disassemble a human body into elemental carbon, hydrogen, and all the other elements, and then say "yeah i moved a human body at light speed to a teleporter pad" no you fucking didn't, you moved a chunk of carbon and rearranged it at its destination into a new human form even if it was identical to what all that carbon originally was.

if you can stop the reassembly process and never reassemble the object you've just disassembled for "teleporting" then congrats, you have a DESTRUCTIVE TELEPORTER... which isn't fucking teleportation, IF YOU WOULD HAVE SOME FUCKING READING COMPREHENSION.

>>4818383
so what are you trying to say? humans are biological robots and therefore somehow dies when they are teleported? do cars dies when they're teleported?

I'd be okay with going thru a star-gate like 'teleporter'...

>>4818394
Star Gate is a genuine teleporter because you could stick your hand through, and actually feel what that and is experiencing at the destination point. There is no interruption of conciousness, no molecular disassembly/reconstruction, all it does is connect two points in space (and maybe time, too, if the writer is feeling like a dick) you could theoretically stand in the middle half-in and half-out, and experience both locations *simultaniously* which would be fucking awsome

>>4818387
because i'm pretty fucking sure you're being a faggot troll, i'll only say this once, in a way that even someone from /v/ could understand:

If it does not act like the portals from valve's game Portal, it is NOT A GENUINE TELEPORTER.
If it EVER claims to "disassemble" you, "reassemble" you at some point in moving you, OR the information "that is you" (whatever, a figure of speech) has to travel the intermediate distance... then it is probably a deathtrap.

>>4818430
you're saying something dies when teleported disassembles you, now I ask you this, what dies? And what is reassembled? If you dont believe in a soul and think human beings are biological computers then no one is dying. Especially when the same matter component is used to reassemble the same exact body.

>>4818436
0/10 but keep trying, someone else might fall for it

>>4818440
go be a christfag somewhere else

>>4816109
what if we slowly change your neurons by their electronic substitutes, one by one. Eventually your mind will be completely moved onto a new medium, thus giving you immortality.

>>4818449
how another possibility, instead of throwing away the neurons that you replace with electronics substitutes why not combine those to form a complete organic brain that functions just like you

Since it's made out of new molecules, what happens if it just copies you, you step out, and another you is made without you being disintegrated?

According to the people who say disintegration and recreating your atoms doesn't kill you, you somehow exist in two places at once, to everyone including you.

I don't understand this reasoning so can someone explain it to me?

>>4818470
The disintegration makes you magically aware in the new you. If you're not disintegrated it doesn't work, DUH.

>>4814304
Since we don't have and likely never will have teleportation, how about the Star Trek solution to the problem: The matter that makes up your body is converted to energy, which is projected to the destination point, and converted back into matter. There's only ever just one of you.

>>4818470
disintegration and recreating doesnt kill you because there is no "you" that is alive. What is alive is the body. The "me" "you" "I" are simply names we assign ourselves

>>4818499
*facepalm* don't argue semantics with me, you know what I meant.

>>4818504
Yea I know what you mean and its a flawed concept. When people say "people die" they mean the body ceases to function. When the teleporter disintegrates and reassembles you, the function remains the same. In the case of two identical "you", both are equally valid in existence because both "you" function the same.

>>4818499
There is a cognitive awareness unique to our brain. If someone recreated you 100% next to you, there would still be a reference point that your brain uses to differentiate between the two of you.

If you were copied, you'd see the other you, but have no control over it. To everyone other than you and the other you, it would just be semantics as to which is the real one, but I'd imagine both of them would consider themselves unique individuals.

>>4818507
Yes, but the original would not be the copy. IE: If it happened to "you" you would not be aware of anything the other brain and body combination is doing or aware of.

>>4818511
There isnt a static reference point, so you cant say "this is my original" reference point.

>>4818511
Unique to "every" brain. Not a soul or anything, but the brain is basically capable of having a sort of inherent "self" to it that it recognizes. The me typing, though you can claim it's an illusion, is not the same me as another 100% identical "me" somewhere else. So I'm saying "you" won't wake up if you are disintegrated and suddenly be in Beijing or Tokyo, most likely. Though it doesn't matter to anyone not being disintegrated.

>>4814417
actually teleportation (of a particle) doesn't work like that, you can't make a copy.

>>4818514
see >>4818517

If we had a static reference point, we'd have something to point out which is original or not, but since we dont, both are will be using the same name. From the start of copying of the "original" to the end, the so called "original" will not be the same person as the original of the time before the copying process. Both are a legitimate successor to the original before the process which no longer exist.

>>4818494
> StarTrek teleporters

*cough*
>>4818360
> .. all because the writers for Sci-fi shows couldn't spare the budget to have a shuttle pick up the heros every fucking time they needed to scene transition.

StarTrek teleporters are the definition of a destructive teleporter; several episode plots revolved around teleporter malfunctions, or appearing to malfunction, or experiencing some limitation based on the environment...
All which caused the result of "appropriately colored goo on the teleporter pad" every single fucking time it happened.

You do NOT want StarTrek teleporters.

>>4818517
I would be able to if I were the one being teleported and was not disintegrated. It seems pretty obvious that the person stepping out of the teleporter is going to be the same individual copied, but if it were me, I would identify myself as me and the copy would do the same. But the constantly changing "me" that is currently typing this will not be wherever the teleportation ends up.

if I put a DVD in a burner in New York, and I set a laser to disintegrate the track as it is being read, while I'm burning out the track in Los Angeles - have i built a information teleporter?. No of course not I have a copy machine. Hence the teleporter is murder. It's a cloning device that destroys the original, remove the destroy original portion and it's just a cloning device.

>>4818531
Hang on lemme illustrate this using variables.

We have a variable called A that is not static and thus always changing.

Once we copy A and create B, something will change within the time it took to copy A. Once that A changes it becomes C. A no longer exist in this time. There is now a B and a C both are successors to A. Now the thing to remember is B and C are also non-static, so after any amount of change, they will turn into D and E and so on. However due to conventions, we still call the C as A yet somehow we dont want to call B as A. Pretty weird/illogical convention.

If you want to learn more about this type of stuff, especially time travel, i recommend you to read The Future of Spacetime. I am currently reading it, its quite interesting. It goes really in depth, yet makes it easy for everyone to understand

>>4814306
Go back to /b/ or reddit with your science vs religion/philosophy bullshit, fucktard.

So there are two perspectives, the perspective of the outside world and the perspective of the person getting teleported.

To the outside world, absolutely nothing changes. This is completely objective. Since every single part of that person is copied, it is exactly the same person as before.

But from the perspective of the person getting teleported, his consciousness disappears forever. Something is lost, even though nothing should be lost.

Why can this inconsistency exist? Since the former is completely objective, while the former is just a perception of the world... I can only conclude that the former is an illusion. The sense of self, the consciousness that we tell ourselves we own just isn't a part of reality. At all.

YOU DON'T FUCKING EXIST, MAN

YOU'RE JUST A BIOLOGICAL MACHINE REACTING TO YOUR ENVIRONMENT

WE ALL KNOW THIS, WHY CAN'T WE ACCEPT IT

So... if you create a perfect clone of yourself, then can you live in two bodies? I don't think so...

>>4820458
It's like copying an AI from one computer to another computer. No, it's not different because "you're conscious while the AI isn't". It's exactly the same. The AI might even react with the same confusion, not understanding how he perceives the other AI as something different from himself even though it's exactly the same, but this is just because of its programming. It's exactly the same with you. You're just programmed by nature to perceive your consciousness as invaluable.

Itt-people that dont understand how life works.

if it were so simple as reconstructing, we'd have done it already.

the thing you dont understand is that when youre born, you come out screaming and from that point on youre you until you die. Theres a spark in there thats you, and its maintained by your body. Once it stops being maintained, you die. No coming back.

You cant teleport like that, having simply been copied and recreated. The new spark, or new life (new moment in time suspended and kept alive by a body) is entirely unaware of how the new body works.you wont have any of your previous memories.

again, its not as simple of copying, reassembling, and yyour good to go. We dont know what life is, but its safe to assume it cant be simply reconsgructed elsewhere. Life is really just that moment in time when youre born being kept alive by your body.

Now if we can make copies of our mind, then yes, it would be possible. All our connections are there, but you need to be able to remember and be at home in your brain. If you can make a copy of your mind, it should be possible to put that copy in the new body andkeep on going.

>>4820511
So if I take apart a machine, then reassemble it 3 feet to the left of its original position, it'll work completely differently?

>>4820511
What you are describing is called 'mind.'
Yes, the assumption in all of this is that if all neural connections are reproduced, you would be reproducing mind.
I think it's silly, that we don't know where mind is and that the simple production of the same arrangement of cells doesn't 'move' mind. But since the proponents of such transport also don't know where mind is, they just ignore the problem.

They still acknowledge the destruction issue, though, as OP did.

>>4820540
False comparison: you are leaving out the ONLY component that respondent is talking about -- MIND.

>stand up
>pick up a pen
>take the cap off
>take one step to your right
>put the cap back on
>/sci/: OMG ITS A NEW PEN WHOA WTF TELEPORTATION IS REAL

>>4820546
The mind is just as much physical machinery as your leg.

>>4820511
>if it were so simple as reconstructing, we'd have done it already.
Hahaha, thats a good one.

...

...you're joking right?

>>4820431
>>But from the perspective of the person getting teleported, his consciousness disappears forever. Something is lost, even though nothing should be lost.

>>Why can this inconsistency exist? Since the former is completely objective, while the former is just a perception of the world... I can only conclude that the former is an illusion.

You went straight off the deep end with that -- you should have concluded there was something missing in one end of your assessment.
(That thing is 'mind' or 'consciousness' or even 'soul.')

you could compare your mind to a flame. If you blow out a candle, and light it again someplace else, is it still the same flame? I'm really curious though as of what science will say about "I" and shit like that, eventually.

>>4820562

Your candle (stream of thought) goes out every time you fall asleep. Deal with it.

>>4820548
>The mind is just as much physical machinery as your leg.

Did you not read >>4820543?

You are making a vast assumption that doesn't make much sense.
'Brain' is mechanical -- but consciousness, mind, soul -- these are very different things.
You can insist they *must* be part of the physical, but we really don't have a lot of evidence to show it, and the evidence against it is strong.

I can tell nobody here has done a hard drug in their life

>>4820564
>Your candle (stream of thought) goes out every time you fall asleep. Deal with it.

So, you've never had a dream?
And you suggest each waking that you are using a different mind, with the same memories?

>>4820570
I have a different mind every split second.

>>4820570

Your stream of thought stops, but its held in suspension with your body

The issue here is you all think living things are more machines than biological beings

>>4820571
Functionally, that kind of assertion answers none of the questions we just asked.
You just gave us nonsense for a statement.

>>4820589
>Functionally, that kind of assertion
Stop the pretentious bullcrap. I answered your question with yes.

>>4820592
>implying biological beings are not just incredibly complex machinery

>>4820570
So you think your awareness jumps directly into a dreaming state the instant you fall asleep?

>>4820592
>held in suspension
Seriously, what the fuck are you talking about.

>>4820592
False dichotomy.
Biology is just squishy robotics.

Don't we recycle all our cells in seven years? Each time we're basically a new person from seven years ago.

itt trolls trolling trolls

You can't make it to a board like /sci/ and still believe in souls or sparks or that kind of esoteric bullshit

Itt close minded fuckers shooting down other peoples ideas on why they think it cant happen, and not coming up with their own ideas or speculations.

Aka the modern science community.

blind religion of science inc

What if it's a teleporter that doesn't destroy you, so it just does a copy of you, and you both have to fight to the death to prove which has the real soul because that's how logic and science works.

Ponder this.

If biology is just squishy robitics, why cant we easily make cells and other living things.

Simple answer, you all cant admit you dont know something.

A perfect clone of me when my current me is no longer here isn't a doppelganger, its me.

it makes no difference to the universe if the new person made is not "you", as long as it recreates everything exactly as it was before you were disintegrates. souls are bullshit

>>4820597
>>4820610
Again, there seems to be a vast difference between merely 'biological' beings and the situation for people (mind, recall it?).

If you reduce the organism to strictly mechanical items, yes, you might end up with another organism, but you've just ignored the part we care about!
(For those people visiting from /b/, I mean 'mind,' not the pink wigglies.)

Apparently, there are some ITT that still want to insist we are strictly mechanical by just ignoring the questions about consciousness and mind.
I guess they are hoping the rest of us are asleep at the wheel.

>>4820660
>it makes no difference to the universe if the new person made is not "you", as long as it recreates everything exactly as it was before you were disintegrates. souls are bullshit

Very possibly -- but we are actually talking about the benefit and cost to US, not to the universe.

Let me put it differently: we know the universe doesn't change fundamentally if we get shot in the head, but it's still something we think will change our Friday night dinner plans.

>>4820673

>(For those people visiting from /b/, I mean 'mind,' not the pink wigglies.)

QUALIA DETECTED

THREAD SHUTTING DOWN IN FIVE... FOUR... THREE...

>>4820660
>it makes no difference to the universe if the new person made is not "you", as long as it recreates everything exactly as it was before you were disintegrates. souls are bullshit

So you think the universe conspires to keep everything intact - not just energy and matter, but individuals?

lol okay

>>4820696
no no, it makes no difference to anything in the universe, because as long as the copy is exactly you, it will for all intensive purposes be you. It will have the same mind and behavior as you and will know what you knew before the transition.

>>4820643
Yes, but what's the difference then, if another you is just made without disintegrating you? What's the point of even disintegrating you other than to keep too many 100% identical copies of you from running around?

I'm saying the mind going into it will not suddenly appear where the clone is, moving around and being fine. Your original frame of reference ends when you are disintegrated. Otherwise, why would it only count as you if you're killed first, but if you're not killed first, the duplicate created suddenly isn't you?

>>4820720
phrases like that are a diamond dozen

>>4820708
Such assertions are ridiculous: you aren't even giving reasons or support for this.

(And, I know you think you have heard 'for all intensive purposes' before -- the phrase is 'for all intents and purposes.')

>>4820712

>Yes, but what's the difference then, if another you is just made without disintegrating you? What's the point of even disintegrating you other than to keep too many 100% identical copies of you from running around?

That would be the reason. Alternatively, the copying/analyzing process may need to strip every atomic layer, causing destruction in and of itself.

>I'm saying the mind going into it will not suddenly appear where the clone is, moving around and being fine. Your original frame of reference ends when you are disintegrated.

Yes. This is true. It's the same as falling asleep.

>Otherwise, why would it only count as you if you're killed first, but if you're not killed first, the duplicate created suddenly isn't you?

They're both you. You are destroyed and another you is created. Both are equally you.

>>4820721
Yeah, the English language sure is a doggy dog world.

>>4820721
Ah, damn, still laughing

>>4820708
If someone made a 100% identical version of you, which was for all intent and purposes an exact copy of you, would you be fine letting someone shoot you in the head so the copy can take over for you?

Or if someone just made a 100% accurate copy of your brain and put it into a computer, would you be alright with having someone bash your brain in a few seconds later?

Since technically it's "you", and the same as "you". You'd both be the exact same, but I doubt you would be alright with offing yourself so an exact duplicate can take over for you in another part of the world.

>>4820712
Pretty much none. Simply a matter of numbering. It would be me, but seeing as there is already a me and me is singular, it would doubtfully be correct to call both of them me. Until one of them is gone, I would say that one of them is the me and one of them is the clone. Its pretty much a quantum state, until one of them is removed, you cannot say which one is the clone and which one the me.

>>4820735

>If someone made a 100% identical version of you, which was for all intent and purposes an exact copy of you, would you be fine letting someone shoot you in the head so the copy can take over for you?

The copy IS me! I am both.

>Or if someone just made a 100% accurate copy of your brain and put it into a computer, would you be alright with having someone bash your brain in a few seconds later?

Probably not, but I operate on the idea that the brain will likely be destroyed in the uploading process.

>Since technically it's "you", and the same as "you". You'd both be the exact same, but I doubt you would be alright with offing yourself so an exact duplicate can take over for you in another part of the world.

Of course, replicated clones have every right to life as well. I am both of them.
If I did still had a reason to hang around in location A of this repliclone teleporter scenario, then both mes will go around doing their business, presumably.


Alternatively, you eliminate one so your two selves don't develop separately that they might later come to confliction. Fighting yourself would be embarrassing.

>>4820735
Yes, it would very much be fine, although a more humane way than a bullet to the head or a bashing of my head would be nice.

I don't know about the computer case tho. However it may very well be impossible to tell I am in a computer or not. If it is impossible to tell, then maybe I shouldn't care as well.

The problem is you think the duplicate is taking over, no, the duplicate is you. Nobody takes over.

>>4820728
But either way, isn't one of you murdered when it happens? If you want to be technical about it.

Also, what difference does it make if it does strip your atoms first or not? If it does or doesn't, isn't the outcome the same?

If you step into a teleporter, it wouldn't be as if you went to sleep and woke up, I would imagine. Since if someone teleported you to multiple different locations, each one with an identical and equal "you", they all will feel like they were the original, but the original frame of reference of the person stepping into the teleporter would be over, wouldn't it?

>>4820737
No, obviously the original, "you" is the "real you".

If it was a perfect, identical copy (consciousness and otherwise), than would you and your clone be thinking/reacting in an identical fashion? Like a mirror image?

>>4820745

>If you step into a teleporter, it wouldn't be as if you went to sleep and woke up, I would imagine.

It would to the you that steps out of the teleporter.

>Since if someone teleported you to multiple different locations, each one with an identical and equal "you", they all will feel like they were the original, but the original frame of reference of the person stepping into the teleporter would be over, wouldn't it?

Assuming a perfect replication of the brain, no, it wouldn't. The state of the person's mind would be replicated, and the clone would experience an instantaneous continuation of it.

Am I the only that used to think when I was little that something was using me as a camera, and that it was weird, that even though there were loads of other people, the world was seen through me, and that it was weird that me was the focal point of the world?

I dont get how people dont have this grasp on life.

for all intensive porpoises...

So it's like that trick in the Prestige, but we don't die in agonising deaths?

>>4820745
I don't know if its murder, thats something for the law to find out.

If you manage to make a 100% perfect copy, there is likely no difference in stripping first or afterwards.

>>4820747
Obviously not. Obviously my me is the one with the same conscious as me, since both have exactly that, they are both equally me. The "real me" is only to be decided after one of them is done.
Technically, you are correct, one of them is the original, but since both are a 100% correct copies, it should be impossible to tell which one of those is me.

The thinking and reaction will likely be depending on the environment. Since one of them will be somewhere else, they will likely think differently, the way of thinking may however be identical.

>>4820742
Of course, you're both the same. But killing the original or the copy is both killing "you". So if your original brain is destroyed during an upload or teleporting incident, one of you has been killed.

As for your third point, you wouldn't be controlling any of them autonomously, they would all be moving about and being you to yourself. Also I'm sure most people would try to be individuals in some small way upon learning there are identical clones of themselves, by dint of people wanting to be unique in some way.

If the you that stayed behind was then killed, you wouldn't suddenly be controlling another body somewhere, it would be permanently dead. You agree with that right?

If you have a purely materialistic view on metaphysics, you still have to concede that you *aren't* the same person. Even if consciousness and the like can be replicated, your physical self is composed of an entirely different suite of mass and energy.

You can say, "a hydrogen atom is a hydrogen atom is a hydrogen atom" but this isn't so. Every particle exists as its own entity, and switching the composition of your entire being inherently changes you.

>>4820761
It has been removed, but "you" as a person will not be dead, if you are not dead, can you have been killed?

The old body would be permanently dead, you would however still be there. You were just duplicated before.

What this all comes down to is people that believe that it takes something supernatural to "be" a person and people that don't. If you believe we are but how our brain makes us to be and there is no "soul", you have no problem with one being disintegrated somewhere and being built up somewhere else.
If you believe there is a soul that cannot be disintegrated and be built up somewhere else, you cannot accept and believe that somehow the clone is you. The "soul" would not be with it.

Believe what you wish, I know that if it ever becomes possible, I will be crossing huge distances in the matter of seconds.

>>4820765
The mass that constitutes you now is not the one you were born with, a difference without a distinction.

>If you have a purely materialistic view on metaphysics
I don't do philosophy, I just interpret evidence.

>>4820758
It's because your mind and the seat of your consciousness is in your brain. Sometimes it's more apparent to people so it seems like they're looking out from themselves.

I used to think the entire world was just a "thing" that existed outside of my frame of reference and because I myself existed the world existed. But I was pretty young. That kind of thinking is more common in younger people.

>>4820749
Yes it would be like that to the you that emerged from the teleporter.

>>4820760
Well if you were to put yourself into the shoes of the person stepping into the teleporter, it's reasonable to believe that the original consciousness would be 100% copied, but the one that stepped in one would not want to be killed off just so another copy would exist somewhere. I don't know of many people who would ever accept something like that just so they can get to Tokyo or Beijing a few hours earlier than by plane.

>>4820772
I don't believe in the soul, but I believe that the continuation of my own consciousness inside of my own body is unique. And if another exact duplicate of me is created somewhere to do something, letting someone kill me just so there aren't two of me, is tantamount to suicide or accepting death.

>>4820772

Youre still entirely ignoring frame of reference. When this frame dies, whats the likelihood that youre frame of reference will be switched to that one, on it own. It wont.there can be an exact copy, but most likely, the you im talking to right now will just die.

teleportation in the traditional sense cant really happen until we move our frame of reference to an artificial one, kind of like servers.

/thread

>>4820780
It is, but if you use teleportation based on that system, you have already accepted death. If you do not want it, don't teleport.
Also, say there is a 100% perfect copy of you, what exactly would make your continuation unique?

>>4820784
It will not be switched. Say you allow both to live, they both will have their own frame of reference, however up to the point you made the second one, both will have a frame of reference that is exactly the same. If you destroy one before or at the same time you make the other, there is no change in frame of reference, there will be a person that is exactly like you and had the exact same frame of reference as you somewhere else.
You are thinking people are something very special and that our thinking is supernatural. Look at us like a computer program.

If you cut and paste the program, it is still the same program. It will do exactly as it did before (depending on the new environment its in now). The computer program didn't change, if you have 2 of the same program running at the same time, it means that both of them will from that moment on be unique. However the OP picture shows the first one being removed before or at the same time as the new one is made. Thus there is never a moment where it is made unique, the other one is simply it at a different location.

>>4814306
Have you seen The Prestige?
OP's teleportation works like Tesla's machine and it hasn't anything to do with the"soul".

>>4820742
"I am both, the copy is me." ?
Facile to say that, but we are asking -- your experience, your personal identity -- it would be just from one of the bodies, right?

So, are you saying that you would be OK with getting killed -- ending your own life, existence, your percept of everything -- just because you believe the other guy is also having your thoughts?

i learned so much

>>4820854
A movie as a philosophical or scientific evidence is silly.

In the movie, he allowed himself to be replicated, and then allowed himself to die -- ignoring the willing suicide frame of reference entirely, on the basis of keeping the story going.

That is the same as ignoring will to live.

>>4820860
There is a difference between ending the life prior or at exactly the same time as the new one being made or having both run around for a while after which you remove him.
If you do it before or during the other one being made, you will be the new person, if you give them both time too experience something new, you make it so both of them become different.

>>4820873
I think you just invented that rule.

Remember, we're not talking about the bodies being identical (which you seem to be trying to explain) -- we are talking about the EXPERIENCE of being a person.
You have no reason to suppose the Frame of Reference of being a person is going to be changed.
If we're using movie references, the hero of Sixth Day was duplicated, and although the other guy was the same as he, he felt cheated of his life and family because of the frame of reference issue.

>>4814845
Made me laugh so hard.

>>4820873

The timing it would require would have to be crazy exact. youd have to kill and recreate at the EXACT same moment in time. And even then its sketchy.

But to the above poster that said living isnt special. I think this is lost as you get older, but I rember being little, and now, just thinking about how unique being alive right now is. Look around you. Youre seeing everything and its your view. Its not someone elses, its you. Youre the sight of your world. Think of it as like an alien ship or whatever using you to look at the world. Its so unique its insane. For lack of better wording, youre the world. Youre looking at the world. Through your eyes.

being alive is really fucking special. Youre not just some machine and chemical reactions. Youre you. This is your frame of reference. Youre something in a body.

Idk how to explain it. Being alive, living, and thinking is really fucking special. You cant just change that to some other body.

This.is fucking lost to older people that just take it for granted. But when I was small, itd scare the fuck out of me.

This is just a glorified cloning device...except you kill the host.

>>4820543
>thinks mind stays the same no matter what you do

So basically, you guys need 300 posts to argue whether or not you get killed when teleporting?

>>4821117
Yep. There are 3 kinds of people here discussing things

1. there is soul(wont admit it though lol)/conscious/mind that is static and dies.
2. there is no no soul/conscious/mind, therefore body still dies(no idea how they come up with this conclusion. maybe remnants of former-christian influenced society?)
3. there is no soul but there is a conscious/mind that is always changing, and thus does not die when teleported

>>4820760
>>Obviously not. Obviously my me is the one with the same conscious as me, since both have exactly that, they are both equally me.
You are talking nonsense here:
Your consciousness is not in both bodies.
Think of it this way -- you are the person looking out through your eyes. If there is another body of you built, you have no reason to assume you would be xperiencing both bodies. _You_ are the one looking out of your body, he out of his.
I think you must be assuming you'd share the experience of both at the same time, and then get to pick and choose what to do with your leftovers.

>>The "real me" is only to be decided after one of them is done.
'Done?' Do you mean, once the process is finished, your consciousness 'goes into' one of them?
Well, it's that moment afterward we have been talking about -- where _you_ are in just one body, and there is another copy, perhaps, with his own consciousness. You would not volunteer to die just because someone walked up and said the other guy says he's the real one.

>>Technically, you are correct, one of them is the original, but since both are a 100% correct copies, it should be impossible to tell which one of those is me.
No one is talking about some outsider making an observational difference -- we're talking about your subjective point of view.

>>The thinking and reaction will likely be depending on the environment. Since one of them will be somewhere else, they will likely think differently, the way of thinking may however be identical.
THEY -- now you are getting it. Both of them will have different minds, we assume, right? That means different people, it means entirely different consciousnesses, and that was the point.

I like to think that happens whenever I go to sleep.

>>4820938
>>The timing it would require would have to be crazy exact. youd have to kill and recreate at the EXACT same moment in time. And even then its sketchy.

You write this as though we have some knowledge of how and when consciousness or mind moves from a body into another.
What does timing have to do with it?
Are you assuming that consciousness isn't tied to the brain, but can move between bodies?
And that it can be tricked, if it isn't 'looking' in the time you destroy one and create another?
And then, on top of that, making a judgment it would still be tricky to do, because of how much you know about the hardware and the timing and the process?

>>4821403

What I was getting at is that, based on how I think, the switch would have to be instant. Im just being stupid on that point.

I think the moment you die, your consciousness or frame of reference or whatever switches to whatever is being born at that exact moment in time, whatever it is. So in doing the switch, thatd have to happen.

Again, just ignore it, I got carried away and went fullretard. Never go full retard.

>>4821428
Oh, I get it.
There is an oriental philosophy/religion that deals with just that.
I don't think they ever perceived it was to be a technological switchover.

Huh -- I wonder if they'd have any problem with it at all.

> didn't read whole thread
> gave very little thought to the image

You have a hidden assumption that there was an individual in that body to begin with.
/thread

>>4821467
>>/thread

Wow -- did you just get in, read little or nothing, and decide you, particularly, have the end for the whole discussion?

Hope you never have any kind of management job.

>>4821484

I'm a qualified brain surgeon, I only do this 'cause I like being me own boss!