[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 48 KB, 400x386, hey!itsspock!.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2345181 No.2345181 [Reply] [Original]

"Teleportation is the transfer of matter from one point to another, more or less instantaneously."

Let's say that we somehow manage to completely dematerialization of an organism from it's starting location, A; send the exact same data over a distance to another location, B; and then completely reconstruct the organism back to it's original form. We can say that the organism has momentarily died and revived at a different location, similarly to copying and pasting.

Are you dead? Is the 'original' you dead?

Likewise, if all of your data is copied and temporarily stored and the 'original' is completely removed from existence; then, we use the stored information to recreate you.

Are you alive or dead?

>> No.2345200

We all ask this question, it's not really scientific but more of a philosophical question, what makes you? What's so special about the current electric impulses in your brain that if it was replicated somewhere else, it wouldn't be you? Would a perfect clone be you? The most logical answer is no, it wouldn't. So for all intents and purposes the current concious you would ceased to exist, replaced by the exact same thing in everyway with every thought memory and persoanlity intact, except the concious that you exhibit now would be gone, replaced by a concious that thinks it's you, but hasn't been all along.

>> No.2345199

>>2345181
The whole discussion relies on your and every participant's refusal to define death. If you define death as the end of biological functions for more than some given period of time then yes, it died. But no matter what definition you choose it is as arbitrary as all hell.
/thread

>> No.2345219
File: 56 KB, 450x334, six_million_dollar_man.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2345219

We can rebuild him.

>> No.2345221

You're dead for the small interval in which you're "dematerialized" then, once you're "completely reconstruct[ed]" you're undead. OH SHI-

Really, it's a matter of definition. There's no way to answer the question in principle. If you're looking from the perspective of the biological organism, taking it apart is death and creating a new one following the same plan is just that - creation of a new organism. That is not, however, the only perspective. You could also treat it from the perspective of the consciousness of the organism, from which perspective the reconstructed organism continues the consciousness of the former. It's like paging out a program to RAM, hot-swapping a CPU then asking whether the program, when it resumes on the new CPU is the same as the program that was running on the old CPU - it is.

>> No.2345226

>>2345199

Not /thread, even though such constant question dodging in the name of science is a common thing on /sci/, this is not how we progress as a living thinking organism. Just because you have an apparent answer (which really wasn't an answer all, just a confession that you don't know the answer to an easily answerable question) doesn't mean you should post, It seems like 70% of the posts on /sci/ are elitists saying "Gtfo u guise am dum i 2 smert for this" With around 30% divided between true discussions and the real morons. If you guys were so smart, where's all the intelligence discussion that should be taking place with such a high concentration of smart people? There is none, you are not smart. you read a theory on wikipedia. You are a pretend elitist. Sorry I ruined your neckbeard delusions.

>> No.2345233

If you could eternally store someone's "pattern" you could have eternal life, without any fancy biotech or cyborg stuff.

Store your pattern, then when you get old and ready to die, store your memories.

Re-materialize a new "you" based on your young pattern, and download all your memories since then.

Bam, pick up where you left off. Shit is so fucking hax, it's bound to be impossible just because of how fucking game changing it is, heisenberg aside.

Star Trek had some bullshit about how the pattern couldn't be stored for a long time or used to make duplicates except in extreme circumstances.

>> No.2345236

>>2345226
Discussion for the sake of discussion is not intelligent. This topic is stupid. My claim remains valid. The entire discussion relies on your refusal to define death. As soon as you do this discussion is over. Your refusal to proves my point.
/thread

>> No.2345243

>>2345226
Not the same poster, but as I >>2345221 said much the same thing may I point out that you have not yourself provided an answer to this "easily answerable question" so I see no basis in evidence for your assertion that it's easy.

>> No.2345248

>>2345236

Who are you to decide whats an intelligent discussion and what's not? are you the authority on intelligent discussions? Delusional Neckbeard.

If you don't want to be part of what you deem an unintelligent discussion, then don't participate. Nobodies making you post here, and posting just to boost your ego is even more retarded than the most retarded post about christianity.

>> No.2345253

>>2345243

My bad this thread is where we think inside the box and compare sentient humans to computers, i'll kindly step out.

>> No.2345255

>>2345236
Then maybe you should discuss what defines death and argue over that as a precept to this discussion rather than being a douche.

>> No.2345259

>>2345221
>>2345199

OP here.

Why would the temporary end of biological functions be death? I mean, sure you cease to exist as I stated, but the conscious mind doesn't know that and it'd be no different from going to sleep and waking up the next day.

The new conscious isn't rebuilt randomly, but instead it is an exact copy of not only your body but right down to your way of thinking. Can that still be called death, even if the original copy doesn't exist anymore?

>> No.2345260

I think that one of the most interesting phenomenons that would definitely evolve is a class or a cult of "purists" that would not teleport and would have lived their whole lives in their original body.

>> No.2345261

The original dies. Always without exception. Anybody saying otherwise is just giving in to fantasy.

>> No.2345270

Also >>2345243
See>>2345200

>Would a perfect clone be you? The most logical answer is no, it wouldn't

Question answered without having to define death.

>> No.2345277

>>2345259

>Why would the temporary end of biological functions be death? I mean, sure you cease to exist as I stated, but the conscious mind doesn't know that and it'd be no different from going to sleep and waking up the next day.

For the purposes of everyone around you, you continue to exists as though nothing happen. For the biological entity that you identify as yoursef, you step into the transporter and for all intents and purposes you cease to exist. A hundred miles away an exact replica of you - containing the exact same memories and physical traits pops into existence. From the point of view of the "copy" its existence has stretched from your birth, but it is a seperate physical entity from you.

>> No.2345281

you would create a babbling retard since your brain is built the way it is because of experience, not because the knowledge you posess is objective and a priori.

>> No.2345283

>>2345277

Boom, hit it out of the park my friend.

>> No.2345285

>>2345259
I don't think so, necessarily, but now we have a ship of Theseus paradox.

Why do you see the world from your own eyes, instead of someone else's? If you copied the person first, you'd have two exact replicas, yet each would have their own consciousness.

Destroying one would be the death of him. So wouldn't that also be the case if you destroyed someone and then reassembled him?

>> No.2345291

>>2345233
>If you could eternally store someone's "pattern" you could have eternal life, without any fancy biotech or cyborg stuff.
True, but I'd bet that "fancy biotech or cyborg stuff" is much easier than storing a molecule by molecule representation of a macroscopic object and then reconstructing that object instantaneously and with near-perfect fidelity.

>Store your pattern, then when you get old and ready to die, store your memories.
Problem: brain does not store memories as separate data but rather encodes them in the structure itself.

>Re-materialize a new "you" based on your young pattern, and download all your memories since then.
How does one decide which parts of the brain of the older individual represent valuable new changes, and which parts are deleterious effects of ageing?

>> No.2345292

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdxucpPq6Lc
Greetings from /co/! Thought you guys would appreciate this cartoon.

>> No.2345293

Actually, what they'd probably do is just take you apart and build you with completely different and easier to get matter far away. So in effect you were killed and cloned, but your clone won't know it and you'll be dead.

>> No.2345298

>>2345291
>Problem: brain does not store memories as separate data but rather encodes them in the structure itself.
Solution: Recreate the "engrams" or whatever actually stores memories and add them to the brain while preserving existing engrams.

>> No.2345303

>>2345291
You'll be making clones of yourself with 100% of your memories, you know. It's hardly immortality.

>> No.2345306

>How does one decide which parts of the brain of the older individual represent valuable new changes, and which parts are deleterious effects of ageing?
If you can know where and how memories are stored, I think you'll be able to figure that out.

>> No.2345311

If we had that technology, seems like there are better applications than transportation. For example, I could make 5 of me, and then we can each go to work just 1 day per week. If I need to get a project done super-fast, I'll just make an extra dozen of me.

>> No.2345313

>>2345303
Whether my own "consciousness" persists is irrelevant, only that my successors can continue my work with my past experience.

>> No.2345317

>>2345270
You didn't answer "the" question, you equivocated and answered an entirely different one. If I really need to point it out: a clone with the same genetic information does not share the memories, experiences, developmental coincidences or environmental changes of anyone else who only has the same genes.

>> No.2345321

>>2345259
>Why would the temporary end of biological functions be death?

I don't think it would be...havn't people been revived before through various means when their biological functions have ceased?

>> No.2345328
File: 65 KB, 1000x784, holydogmas.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2345328

>>2345181
I'm afraid your refusal to define "death" or "original" violates the Fourth Holy Dogma of /sci/: Positivism. You are ordered to discontinue asking meaningless questions.

>> No.2345332

>>2345317

You missed the key word perfect, perfect copy, in every way. Which is exactly what happens if you transmit matter this way. You are disassembled, transmitted as information and reassembled. A copy of the original. Hence a perfect clone.

>> No.2345338

>>2345321
It depends on where you demarcate "end of biological functions" much like the other issues of imprecision in this thread.

If you define it on a holistic level, maybe. If you define it on a cellular level, certainly not.

>> No.2345340

When you get ripped apart atom by atom, you fucking die. That's pretty simple. A perfect copy of you comes out the other end but your personal frame of reference ceases to exist.
Same goes for most mind uploading.
It's not a philosophical question at all. It's pretty trivial.

>> No.2345345

>>2345338
ok, so are we talking about cellular or holistic?

>> No.2345383

>>2345340
No, but what about consciousness after death?

IE "dead" people accurately describing things they shouldn't be able to see. Perhaps the universe isn't as positivist or materialist as you'd like to believe.

>> No.2345392

>>2345383
>IE "dead" people accurately describing things they shouldn't be able to see.

Can be explained by the a combination of inferences from the surroundings after they wake up and a minimal level of consciousness that is still experienced by a dying brain. The fact that they heard what the doctors were saying points to and inadequacy in our definition of brain death/cessation of brain function and not to a higher power or consciousness.

>> No.2345400

>>2345392
That's very nice, but how does one explain the incident where a woman claimed to have flown up on the roof during her "out of body experience", and seen a boot on the roof, and then when they went on the roof, they found the boot? Some things are just logically impossible to explain by conventional means.

>> No.2345403

>>2345383
Small amounts of activity in the brain =/= consciousness

>> No.2345407
File: 20 KB, 406x536, 1287670818819.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2345407

>>2345400
>That's very nice, but how does one explain the incident where a woman claimed to have flown up on the roof during her "out of body experience", and seen a boot on the roof, and then when they went on the roof, they found the boot? Some things are just logically impossible to explain by conventional means.

>claimed

>> No.2345413

>>2345407
But the boot was fucking there, you're telling me that she made the shit up and it just happened to be true?

My point is that these people have out of body experiences and they can describe things visually that they could not possibly have seen, especially when their brains were clinically dead at the time.


No amount of DMT or other chemicals can do that.

>> No.2345423

>>2345400
>That's very nice, but how does one explain the incident where a woman claimed to have flown up on the roof during her "out of body experience", and seen a boot on the roof, and then when they went on the roof, they found the boot? Some things are just logically impossible to explain by conventional means.

First of all, citation motherfucking needed. Shit like this sounds like sensationalist bullshit with no actual verifiable claims.

Second of all, even if it was true, there could be plenty of other explanations. If she was airlifted to the hospital she may have noticed the boot on the roof from the helicopter, why her subconscious latched onto that image is another question.

>> No.2345431 [DELETED] 

>>2345255
I already said it would be an arbitrary defintion regardless of what I propose or we agree upon.

>>2345248
You just proved my point.

If you guys what to actually discuss philosophy then you need to learn how to see to the heart of the problems being discussed. The true question here is "what is death"? If you are a materialist like you damn well better be then we can all agree that death is arbitrarilly defined. If you are a dualist then one might claim that death is a distinct phenomena which we have to approximate with our definition of death.

There are no duelists on /sci/, therefore this discussion is over. QED

>> No.2345435

>>2345413
I had sex with your father. I don't have to prove it because it's true.

>> No.2345437

>>2345255
I already said it would be an arbitrary defintion regardless of what I propose or we agree upon.

>>2345248
You just proved my point.

If you guys want to actually discuss philosophy then you need to learn how to see to the heart of the problems being discussed. The true question here is "what is death"? If you are a materialist like you damn well better be then we can all agree that death is arbitrarilly defined. If you are a dualist then one might claim that death is a distinct phenomena which we have to approximate with our definition of death.

There are no duelists on /sci/, therefore this discussion is over. QED

>> No.2345438

>>2345423
It was in this book I think.
http://www.harpercollins.com/books/Consciousness-Beyond-Life-Pim-Van-Lommel/?isbn=9780061777257

People were discussing it in sci one day. As far as I know the book is properly cited.

The airlift thing is possible, but what if she wasn't airlifted? It's also just one of many such experiences where people related things while they are deep in the shit that is death, not coming back, but fucking dead.

Dead people, especially people with no brain activity, should not have memories, and especially not accurate ones.

>> No.2345446

>>2345435
Uh, that's a terrible analogy.
Now, if for example you had an out of body experience where you saw someone having sex with my father, and then upon watching the hidden camera we saw it was true, that's a different story.

This is a lady who had surgery, and asked why there was a boot on the roof, and it turned out to be there.

>> No.2345458

>>2345438
>>2345438

>Dead people, especially people with no brain activity, should not have memories, and especially not accurate ones.

First of all, all of the cases you cite usually involve *brain death* which is a clinically defined condition and not a physical one (typically the rest of the organs of the body work fine, and in some cases some low level functions like autonamous breathing also works)

Clearly, our definition of death is flawed or wrong. We make an assumption about the level of cephalagram activity that we define as brain death, there is growing evidence that this assumption is wrong.

>> No.2345469

>>2345458
What if our assumptions about consciousness are wrong?

I'm sorry, but say what you want about the definition of brain death, but a brain with flatlined brainwaves and all the blood drained out can't do shit.

>> No.2345471

>>2345438
Oh my, a study on the brain by a cardiologist.

>>2345446
You missed my point. The point is that you haven't cited a proper source that that event ever even happened, people make up stuff like that all the time to try and prove that they are right when they have no solid evidence for it.

>> No.2345473

>>2345469
>I'm sorry, but say what you want about the definition of brain death, but a brain with flatlined brainwaves and all the blood drained out can't do shit.

>can't do shit

That is an assumption, at the very least, the flatline part is probably wrong on some level.

>> No.2345492

>>2345260
I would be one of these purists. I am too afraid and do not want to be dematerialized and rematerialized somewhere else. to me that is death

>> No.2345494

>>2345471
I don't have the book on hand, but as I said, the book has its on citations. Anons read it before and said it was legit. There's my citation.

And a cardiologist deals with dying people all the time, he's not going after the neurological implications of death, he's researching specific events.

>> No.2345501

>>2345473
Ok, I'll drain the blood out of your brain, I'm sure it will work just fine. Oh yeah, I'll also lower your body temp to 65 degrees. Enjoy.

>> No.2345514

>standard teleporting ethics
In short, fun hypothetical questions, but luckily it's so physically impossible that we really don't have to worry about it.

I'd be more concerned talking about the ethics of cloning people for spare organs.

>> No.2345516

>>2345438
Oh lawd, dat book.

>Start study assuming that everyone has an NDE when they are close to death
>Upon finding out that not everyone has one jumps to the conclusion that it must not be caused by physiological factors
>Spend rest of study looking at unverifiable anecdotal evidence

It's an old school "BUY MY BOOK TO LEARN THE SECRETS OF LIFE" scam.

>> No.2345521

>>2345260
I'd be a purist.
Let's say I wanted to go on a vacation.
*I* would die, so I would never get to see my destination. But an identical clone would. Did I get to go on that vacation, or did the clone?
So what's the point?

>> No.2345522

>>2345501
>Ok, I'll drain the blood out of your brain, I'm sure it will work just fine. Oh yeah, I'll also lower your body temp to 65 degrees. Enjoy.


Is this supposed to represent an argument? Good riddance.

What you consider as evidence for post-death consciousness, I consider a interesting coincidence or evidence for the continuing brain activity even with brain-wave flatline.

In fact, the boot incident isn't interesting at all, I don't see why it can't be a mere coincidence. A single dying person (not a repeated observation) that hallucinated a boot on the roof of a hospital, which just happened to be there? I wonder how many of these post-death claims that turn out to be wrong are not reported (as opposed to those that are reported - see: confirmation bias) If on the other hand you secretly hid items all around the hospital and then killed and revived the same person a dozen times and she managed to identify their location and then you repeat the experiment with a few hundred participants to get statistical significance - THAT would be evidence for your claim.

>> No.2345533

>>2345514
I say that's terrible unless we clone them with the inability for thought. Or just, ya know, clone the organs.

>> No.2345540

>>2345533
Of course, but I'm sure the crazy religious people would still throw a shitstorm if we cloned people such that they didn't have a brain, but us rational people would consider it.

>> No.2345554

>>2345438
>>2345438

>People were discussing it in sci one day. As far as I know the book is properly cited.


A book that examines anecdotal cases with no cited p-values is considered evidence?

Dear lord, if thats the case then the higg's boson was found 20 years ago.

>> No.2345710

>>2345540
I'd still prefer to just clone the organs. It would probably take less energy overall too.

>> No.2345779

>>2345181
Save that data to a backup file before we rematerialize you, and let you step off the transporter pad. You think it worked and you're here, conscious of being the first you. Now we turn the backup file on and rematerialize a second you. Is the first you conscious of being the second you? No, that would be silly. The second you isn't sharing the consciousness of the first you, it has its own copy. But wait, if the second you isn't the first you, that means the first you isn't the zeroth you either.
> You're dead, buddy.

>> No.2345803

dematerialized = enough said


your dead