Self, death, and teleportation devices

[Rashiminos]

Your idea! Which would also be awesome, but I don't see why it would belong in this conversation, much like mine doesn't.

Let's say someone made the genuine offer of giving you a new car to drive based on the condition that you give up your current mode of transportation. Would you always forsake the new car simply because you're used to the current mode?

 

[Elrohir]

Your idea! Which would also be awesome, but I don't see why it would belong in this conversation, much like mine doesn't.

This isn't a discussion primarily of scientific fact, but rather a philosophical discussion about how large hypothetical changes to the body might affect consciousness, and is intimately connected with ideas of self, identity, and death. The religious and philosophical notion of the soul is highly related and, for many, is functionally identical to or or more of those key ideas. I don't think bringing souls into the equation really adds much, but it's not totally out of place, and doesn't warrant this kind of a response.

Come on man. We're having a discussion about teleportation and consciousness. Chill.

 

[Souron]

1. I never said souls don't exist. My stance is that there is no reason to believe that they do. They might!

Yeah, and so might Russell's teapot. Lets be real here. There is no teapot, and the is no soul.

2. When Christians say "soul" I think "magical thing that's beyond the 'physical' that science can't explain". NOT what I am thinking when I say consciousness.

It doesn't really matter though! Souls don't matter in this discussion.

What you're describing is quite magical. It does nothing, is binary in its existance, is the one unchanging thing in a continiously changing body. The most magical thing about it is the fact that there is no test for it's existance. There is no falsifiable claim to test if such a thing exists. If a copy was made with everything except your consciousness, how would anyone know the difference?

 

[Abaddon]

What if bacon could fly from the fridge into the frying pan, crisp itself up, and then fly straight into my mouth?

Then, I would believe in God.

 

[uppi]

Here's what I loosely remember:
To collect the information regarding all of my particles, you must actually (in the process) destroy the previous state of the particle (i.e., perturb what it was doing). This information is then stored as photons. These photons cannot be 'read' without disturbing the information state of the photons. Once the data is collected in the disk, it will not contain the 'true' information of those photons unless they are retained in a state that requires their destruction in the process of reading them (a less fine-grained retention is merely an approximation of what information the photons contained). Then, in order to recompose the body, the information must be harvested completely.

This is only fuzzily remembered, on my part. If it doesn't make sense to somebody who's studied physics, it might just be an imaginary concept on my part.

Your fuzzy memory is spot on. The "no-cloning" theorem of quantum mechanics postulates, that a full copy of a state is impossible. So any transfer retaining all information would have to destroy part of the information in the old body. You could* transfer all information to a new body by quantum teleportation, but you would never end up with two exact copies.

But that is only a limitation if an essential part of our consciousness is of a quantum nature. If one could make a close enough copy with classical information alone, the copies might be the same self, even if they're not exact copies. At the moment there is not information to decide either way.


*"You could" in this case means "it does not violate a fundamental theorem of modern physics". At the moment, however, a theorist would not be able to figure out how to do it, or even if this is possible. And an experimentalist would declare you mad if you suggested trying it.

 

[Kozmos]

I would prefer portals or some kind of quantum based teleportation instead of faxing myself.

 

[El_Machinae]

The question of the soul has really nothing to do with it.

I ask again: If you get killed in a chamber, would you expect to wake up in another chamber, simply because that other chamber constructed an exact clone of you? No matter whether you believe that souls exist or they don't, the answer is no.

I would expect it, if it's happened to me before!
If I have the memory of going into a chamber and exiting in another part of the world, then I would expect it to happen again.

If memories are stored as electric impulses in the brain's synapses, wouldn't the presumedly electron-beaming of the body's molecules, including synapses, necessarily reshuffle all the data of every single stored memory in your brain? The teleportee would almost certainly emerge from the arrival end of the process as a brain-dead jibbering idiot, no?

Well, the memories are stored in synapses. These are neurons that are separated from each other, and they have different ions available to modulate their interaction. If the cells/ions/etc. were all transported, then you'd still have the same mind as before. Or, at the very least, similar enough that it would not be confusing. I mean, after a vigorous sneeze, you change a lot of those synaptic relationship in subtle ways. Personhood is retained however

Your fuzzy memory is spot on. The "no-cloning" theorem of quantum mechanics postulates, that a full copy of a state is impossible. So any transfer retaining all information would have to destroy part of the information in the old body. You could* transfer all information to a new body by quantum teleportation, but you would never end up with two exact copies.

But that is only a limitation if an essential part of our consciousness is of a quantum nature. If one could make a close enough copy with classical information alone, the copies might be the same self, even if they're not exact copies. At the moment there is not information to decide either way.


*"You could" in this case means "it does not violate a fundamental theorem of modern physics". At the moment, however, a theorist would not be able to figure out how to do it, or even if this is possible. And an experimentalist would declare you mad if you suggested trying it.

You mirror what I've been saying. One could functionally copy a mind such that the mind was capable of cognition. If this resulted in the destruction of the original person, then there would be (effectively) a death followed by a new birth. The clone might not experience a break in consciousness, but there would be one.

However, if the copying process was so fine-grained that the destruction of the original was physically required (in a QM sense), and the process of interpreting the copied information also required the destruction of the storage media, then I think it's fair to say that the person has been truly teleported. As much so as if they'd just walked across the room.

QM, I'm pretty sure, is too fine-grained for simple consciousness. Unless I am misunderstanding. Transcranial magnetic stimulation, otherwise, would be killing people without their knowledge.

 

[warpus]

This isn't a discussion primarily of scientific fact, but rather a philosophical discussion about how large hypothetical changes to the body might affect consciousness, and is intimately connected with ideas of self, identity, and death. The religious and philosophical notion of the soul is highly related and, for many, is functionally identical to or or more of those key ideas. I don't think bringing souls into the equation really adds much, but it's not totally out of place, and doesn't warrant this kind of a response.

Come on man. We're having a discussion about teleportation and consciousness. Chill.

Hehe hold on

*takes a puff*

Okay I'm all chilled out now

See, even if souls existed, there would have to be somebody directing soul traffic. Let me explain. You get into a machine, which sends information about every single atom in your body to some far away place. Some people are saying that your 'soul' would go to wherever your body was recreated.

But what if your original body wasn't destroyed in the process? Would your soul stay or go to the new body?
What if the clone wasn't created until 50,000 years in the future? Your soul would wait until then?
What if instead of 1 clone 50 clones were created? Which one of the clones would your soul go to?

For all this to work there would have to be somebody keeping track of all these souls, figuring out where to put them. and in some cases, there isn't even a clear answer on where the soul should go! And sure, you're going to say God is the guy directing traffic, but all this just way too much crazyness to the discussion for me.

It's simple. You get into a machine that kills you - and you die. I don't see why we have to introduce a crazy amount of complexity to this.

Unless you believe in reincarnation, the answer should be clear here: Teleportation (not the star trek kind) kills you.

I would expect it, if it's happened to me before!
If I have the memory of going into a chamber and exiting in another part of the world, then I would expect it to happen again.

Yeah, but you'd be wrong! Sure, your clone would.. oh nevermind, I'm not going to keep repeating the same points over and over

 

[Rashiminos]

Hehe hold on

*takes a puff*

Okay I'm all chilled out now

See, even if souls existed, there would have to be somebody directing soul traffic. Let me explain. You get into a machine, which sends information about every single atom in your body to some far away place. Some people are saying that your 'soul' would go to wherever your body was recreated.

But what if your original body wasn't destroyed in the process? Would your soul stay or go to the new body?

The soul chooses which one to be in, possibly.

What if the clone wasn't created until 50,000 years in the future? Your soul would wait until then?

Traverse time instantaneously.

What if instead of 1 clone 50 clones were created? Which one of the clones would your soul go to?

51 flavors.

For all this to work there would have to be somebody keeping track of all these souls, figuring out where to put them. and in some cases, there isn't even a clear answer on where the soul should go! And sure, you're going to say God is the guy directing traffic, but all this just way too much crazyness to the discussion for me.

Have you figured out which car to drive, yet?

Unless you believe in reincarnation, the answer should be clear here: Teleportation (not the star trek kind) kills you.

If we can be sure of Mise's premise, it does. That's why I said that one is important. Some of us may not be so sure.

In answer to the original OP: There's no problem entering since a being that is identical in every way to myself will be over there doing things instead of over here being useless. I see no use reason to avoid using a perfectly good piece of technology if I was absent of reasons (logical or otherwise) to believe I would lose anything in the process. Heck, if I had any particular good qualities, why toss the body when two or more of me would be so much more useful?

Not stepping into the machine assumes there is something to lose or avoid.

 

[warpus]

@Rashimnos Would you step into a machine that makes a perfect scan of your body and all its constituent atoms - stores it, but then does nothing with that information except holding on to it.. but then kills you?

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

You know why it's pointless to answer questions about a teleportation device? Because there's no such thing as a teleportation device.

 

[Rashiminos]

@Rashimnos Would you step into a machine that makes a perfect scan of your body and all its constituent atoms - stores it, but then does nothing with that information except holding on to it.. but then kills you?

No. I don't see a purpose in storing information about my body and not doing anything with it, and thus I would be loathe to destroy my body not knowing if there was anything afterwards that I may wish to be concerned with.

You know why it's pointless to answer questions about a teleportation device? Because there's no such thing as a teleportation device.

The Earth is flat? Do tell.

 

[Clement]

I had long (and admittedly pointless) conversations on this subject with maybe three or four different people and we all pretty much ended up agreeing that the result of teleportation is instant death.

Sure the copy that comes out at the other may be exact, and you as an entity are not lost, but its not "you" if you see what i mean, and that is the case (in my opinion) whether the exact same molecules from your body are projected to your destination or if you are only scanned and copied at the other end.

The "scan, copy and destroy" method of teleportation is a good example in that if you were to first scan yourself, have a copy made at the other end but then halt the process where the original is destroyed then you suddenly have two "you's" in existence, its obvious to the original person that they are in fact not looking out of the eyes of the new entity on the other end of the teleportation device and vice versa, they are now both clearly seperate entites.

The second method where your exact same molecules are sent and then re-arranged into their original form also has the problem that at least for a split second you must be ripped apart at a molecular level, this has to mean death even if you are re-arranged perfectly at the other end.

Its my opinion that you cannot teleport in the above two methods without losing the ability to see out of your own eyes and think with your own mind, and of course for anyone who fears losing their "self" its probably a risk not worth taking for most people should it ever be invented.

Kind of a depressing subject in some ways, at least i find it so.

 

[warpus]

No. I don't see a purpose in storing information about my body and not doing anything with it, and thus I would be loathe to destroy my body not knowing if there was anything afterwards that I may wish to be concerned with.

But wouldn't God put your soul into another body? Or does that only work if there's existing clones of your body around? Couldn't he just create one for you?

You know why it's pointless to answer questions about a teleportation device? Because there's no such thing as a teleportation device.

People were talking about planes before there were planes.

 

[Rashiminos]

But wouldn't God put your soul into another body? Or does that only work if there's existing clones of your body around? Couldn't he just create one for you?

When did I say anything, previously, about God?

If we were suggesting the existence of God, then God could decide to create a body I would imagine.

I was talking about having insufficient evidence as far as persons being entirely physical. As a stipulation for a hypothetical, that's fine. It is the first premise I would have a problem with, though.

There is also the unknown (unfalsified) possibility that a soul, having been separated from a physical form, could recreate (the aforementioned magic) its prior form, or find (manifest even) a new form to inhabit.

 

[warpus]

When did I say anything, previously, about God?

If we were suggesting the existence of God, then God could decide to create a body I would imagine.

Somebody would have to be directing traffic and "God" is the best word I could think of to describe somebody who does that.

I was talking about having insufficient evidence as far as persons being entirely physical. As a stipulation for a hypothetical, that's fine. It is the first premise I would have a problem with, though.

Why not assume that we are entirely physical until evidence to the contrary comes up? After all, there is nothing out there at all that would make one think that we are more than just the sum of our parts/atoms/whatever. Or is there? If so, wouldn't that be filed under "evidence"? If that existed, I'm sure it would have been presented for all to see in this thread already

Do we not assume that our computers are 'purely physical' (whatever that really means) ?

Why bring in extra complexity until there is a reason to do so?

magic[/I]) its prior form, or find (manifest even) a new form to inhabit.

Possibilities are fine and dandy, but there is an infinite number of them. What if there is a cloaked alien spaceship orbiting the planet which coordinates the distribution of souls on our planet? Or what if it's the Loch Ness monster that's doing it? Or maybe souls were designed by hyperdimensional beings to return to their dimension once our bodies died?

So many possibilities, so many directions this conversation could go in. Why not stick to what we know and ignore the possibilities, which are probably wrong? (How could they not, there's an infinite amount of them - if one is right what are the chances you picked the right one? infinitely small)

 

[Rashiminos]

Somebody would have to be directing traffic and "God" is the best word I could think of to describe somebody who does that.

Does God drive your car?

Why bring in extra complexity until there is a reason to do so?

Some may know.. differently. Their attempts at articulating such may fail for reasons beyond their control, i.e. those blind people can't see the pink elephant. Even if this is not the case, delusions are sufficient to complicate the issue (and which ones are the delusional ones).

So many possibilities, so many directions this conversation could go in. Why not stick to what we know and ignore the possibilities, which are probably wrong? (How could they not, there's an infinite amount of them - if one is right what are the chances you picked the right one? infinitely small)

How does one pick apart cause and effect from coincidence?

 

[Tabster]

What about wave particle duality?

If we fired Dr Mise at a high enough speed at a small enough hole in a wall, wouldn't he just turn into a waveform on the other side?

Once he is a wave form he can be beamed about using mirrors or perhaps some kind of Aerial. Then at the correct location aimed at a similar hole in a wall where he would emerge on the other side as a rapidly moving Dr Mise particle.

This should avoid a lot of your philosophical problems caused by the original being destroyed.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Would that make a difference? I would imagine that the process of being turned into pure energy feels a lot like getting shot in the face.

No, it makes no difference. A brief moment of agony is a small price to pay for light-speed space travel. Or "travel". The identity of the survivor isn't worth fussing over, either. If you look forward to their experiences, you won't be mistaken. Because there's nothing to be mistaken about.

Well, none of the individual particles in your body are the same from one decade to another. IIRC, after 7 years, all your cells will have changed.

IIRC, some cells stay put your whole life. However, the molecules within probably get changed over.

Consciousness isn't a soul. It's just a sense of identity and continuity. It's the product of biology. So a Consciousness dieing only mean that a body is dieing.

What he said. We can put it another way, too, which might help. If your definition of "you" and "your consciousness" is modest enough, it exists, and amounts to certain activities of your brain and body. But if you define "you" as an ectoplasm of consciousness that somehow is a consciousness even while you are not conscious, then "you" do not exist.

 

[lovett]

Yeah, I think there's a difference. It's much easier to create a copy that thinks it's you.

If that was the case, whats stopping "you" being sent to several locations? Creating multiple of you?

@ Mise, that was done in one of those old scifi Tv shows. Outer Limits or something, I don't recall which. A woman went into the teleporter, but there was a glitch and the machine on the far end did not send the confirmation report, so the machine on her end didn't kill her. But once the confirmation report came, the operators were supposed to kill the "old" self, so there wouldn't be 2 of them. But it was a healthy aware woman.

Think about it this way: That person doesn't have to be killed. What would happen if you made a perfect replica of yourself using some sort of an advanced xerox machine? Would your consciousness magically transfer to the new copy? What would happen to the original? Would the cousciousness only transfer once the original is killed? That doesn't really make much sense, does it?

The "scan, copy and destroy" method of teleportation is a good example in that if you were to first scan yourself, have a copy made at the other end but then halt the process where the original is destroyed then you suddenly have two "you's" in existence, its obvious to the original person that they are in fact not looking out of the eyes of the new entity on the other end of the teleportation device and vice versa, they are now both clearly seperate entites.

This seems to be a problem that is excising a number of people here. That if you could use a teleport device to perfectly replicate yourselves, but your original self remained, the replica is obviously not you. From that it follows that a teleport of the type described would obviously not preserve your life if you were to use it.

Obviously? That strikes me as a very odd word to use here. let's step back a second: What we have one is give a certain hypothetical scenario and assessed our intuitive response to it. We have drawn the hypothetical Clement draws and seen that our intuitive response is to conclude the original person is 'you' and the replica' obviously not you'.

That seems like an interesting type of reasoning. It's certainly not deductive reasoning; we haven't proceeded from any set of premises via a sequence of logical deductions to conclude that the replica is 'not you'. Nor is it clearly inductive reasoning. We haven't gone and gathered evidence about repeated instances of the situation in question; it's a hypothetical!

Anyone with a brief acquaintance with epistemology will be aware that it seems like we're all out of ways in which we can validly reason; in which we can come to true conclusions. What we're doing is intuitionist, and for some reason we're meant to trust that. Why are we meant to trust that? I think it is plausible to suggest that the only reason we have to trust our intuitions is the they tend to produce correct answers in common cases. If I throw a brick at a window I intuit that that window will break and so far, without fail, that intuition has been correct. In fact, my intuitions tend to be correct; I can justify following my intuitions inductively. Most of the time my intuitions are correct.

Intuitively I reckon that if I drop a hammer and a feather the hammer is going to hit the floor first. And I'm almost always right. But if I were to try this in a very unusual situation I might not be right at all. That's because when I say 'My intuition are usually right' I'm drawing on my experiences of common everyday cases. I make a mistake when I try to apply my common intuitions to extraordinary case. I no longer have any reason to believe that they are going to be correct. They simply haven't been formed to deal with such cases.

It seems to me that a scenario in which an exact replica of me is made is quite definitely not a common everyday case. It is an extraordinary case quite outside my experience. Consequently I am not justified in taking my intuitive response seriously; I am not justified in saying that the replica is obviously not me.

If I want to say this, I better come up with some actually reasoning behind simple intuition.