50
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by 001100010010@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

You know those sci-fi teleporters like in Star Trek where you disappear from one location then instantaneously reappear in another location? Do you trust that they are safe to use?

To fully understand my question, you need to understand the safety concerns regarding teleporters as explained in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQHBAdShgYI

spoilerI wouldn't, because the person that reappears aint me, its a fucking clone. Teleporters are murder machines. Star Trek is a silent massacre!

(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Lumidaub@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

I've always had a hard time understanding what's so bad about the person who arrives being a clone, never saw the downside. Yes, I 'd definitely use it. One of the biggest hurdles in my everyday life is the "going there". When I was still working, the one thing I always complained about and what ruined my every morning was having to go there and return after. If I'd had the option to instantly teleport to work, I would have loved every day because I loved my work and I wanted to be there. Now that I'm disabled, I regularly have to cancel stuff like doctor's appointments last minute because my chronic exhaustion is acting up and I physically can't move my body there.

(If teleporting isn't available, I'd settle for a ship's computer core as a PDA)

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] JackbyDev@programming.dev 0 points 1 year ago

If automobiles were invented, would you use them instead of horses?

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Trekman10@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago

I don't buy the idea that disintegrating my molecules and reconstructing new ones is tantamount to murder or suicide.

If all I experience is being one place one moment and another place the next, then it's me. It's isn't some fucking clone, it's me. You're just being turned into some other form (energy, if we're using Star Trek rules) and then being turned back.

I'm pretty sure that at 26, I'm already a completely different person than the baby I was born as, literally. My cells have all died and been replaced. The horror. ./s

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] AGD4@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago

Doesn't Star Trek's transporter solution involve converting your atomic structure to Energy, beaming that energy to another place, and reconstitution your body using the same atoms? If so, that's not really dying anymore. Just re-arranging your original atoms.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] EdherJr@lemmy.eco.br 0 points 1 year ago

Imagine it malfunctions while you dissappear and you never reappear in another location, getting stuck in the void forever until the end of time

[-] 001100010010@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago
[-] keeyes@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 year ago

there's that short story by Stephen King called The Jaunt which has something like this. It's pretty good

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Zetaphor@zemmy.cc 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This question all comes down to your opinion of what makes a person a person, whether that means we have something greater than the collection of our atoms, or whether we are simply the emergent outcome of the complex arrangement of atoms. If you subscribe to the former then you also need to believe that this machine is somehow capable of either transporting/transplanting that "soul" for lack of a better expression. Where if you subscribe to the latter than this is most certainly a suicide cloning machine.

I personally subscribe to the idea that consciousness is an emergent property of complexity. Given a sufficiently large enough series of inputs you can observe new and unexpected outputs that appear to be on higher orders of complexity than their inputs. This response is an example of that, from electrons flowing through transistors we end up with operating systems, hardware IO, web browsers, networking protocols, ASCII standards, font rendering, etc. All of that complexity emerges from a massive amount of on/off switches arranged in patterns over time.

Following this chain of reasoning I believe that making an exact duplicate of me down to the state of each atom is no different than that entity being me, however as a conscious being with human ethics and morals I put value in the singularity of my existence, and so a plurality of Zetaphor is something I find undesirable as it fundamentally challenges my perception of what it means to be myself.

So assuming the entity leaving the transporter is me, there's two ways to approach the way a machine like this could operate:

  • It reads my state in its entirety and then destroys (or encodes for transport) that state
  • Or it's creating the new instance of me bit by bit as it reads my current state

That means one of two things, either there is a brief moment of time where two identical copies of me are in the universe, or there is a period of time where zero complete copies of me exist in the universe. So either I stopped existing momentarily and then was recreated from scratch (death and clone birth), or I existed in two places at once and then died in one (cloning and suicide).

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Narrrz@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

if you translocated Theseus' ship, is it still the same ship? what if you extracted the data from the transport buffer to reassemble the original in its original location?

[-] 001100010010@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

For a ship, yes. For a living organism with consciousness... I'm not so sure.

[-] DJKJuicy@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago

Well, if the technology actually existed, it would solve that whole "soul" question.

We would know pretty quickly if we transported humans and they came out the other side as soulless aberrations because their original just got killed.

So yeah, I would 100% use it after it first proved once and for all that the sum of our consciousness really is all the synapses and signals and grey matter in our heads. Because if so then what does it matter if your original matter has been erased and then recreated. Your clone is just as much you as you are you at that point.

[-] Anomander@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

Absolutely this.

Someone else can be the guinea pig, but if it's been tested and everyone came out fine? Yeah. I'll absolutely take advantage.

[-] olivier@lemmy.fait.ch 0 points 1 year ago

Even if the clone is undistinguishable from your old self, that old self has died. "you" has died. You didn't teleport to Mars, you died on Earth.

[-] Anomander@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

You're repeating what OP said.

Thing is, the idea that an "old you" has "died" is a modern soul conceit. If "me" is just the combination of meat, electricity, and memories - then for all intents and purposes I was simply taken apart in one place and reassembled in another. Continuity of all three is maintained when I am reassembled on Mars with my body and memories intact. There is no "old" and "new" me - because what you or OP think defines "me" isn't something that dies when the meat stops working briefly.

This isn't some radical complicating factor people just aren't thinking of - it's the same base debate as the existence of a soul. Interesting, but unprovable and utterly irrelevant to practical day-to-day life.

[-] rainh@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

But we can "prove" that isn't true because what if you aren't disassembled on the first side? Just copied over. Either you have a sense and control of both bodies at once, or in a real teleport where you are disassembled, you're gone the moment you teleport and the "you" that remains is another different person with exactly your thoughts, feelings, motivations, memories, etc.

[-] Trekman10@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago

what if you aren't disassembled on the first side? Just copied over. Then it's not what most people imagine when they say "yes".

Using the star trek transporter as the example, you actually experience the teleportation process. In one episode, we see the perspective of someone being transported and they go into a white void, briefly, and then appear in the 2nd location. It takes like 8 seconds. We also know that some transporters are faster than others.

I don't believe there's anything special about my current body. Barring teleportation, I fully believe that if it were possible to disassemble a person, but them in a box, ship them across the Pacific Ocean, and then put them back together again, that they'd be the same person.

I don't see how being converted into energy and back represents death.

[-] richieadler@lemmy.myserv.one 0 points 1 year ago

People experiencing the transport process is due not understanding how copies work. Damn, they don't seem to grasp the idea of a backup.

[-] Trekman10@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago

Seeing as anything that we copy or make backups of now is not self-aware, I don't see what that has to do with anything. If anything, a teleport (as conceived of and described in science fiction, not how it might "actually" work) is more like moving a file from one tree to another. The whole idea of the teleport as a plot device is to create a form of near-instant transportation. I feel like these thought exercises where "what if the teleporter cloned you and killed the original copy" miss that.

Its like, "hmm what if the train from New York to Boston actually brought you to a cloning facility in New Haven, shot you in the head and then replaced you with a lab-grown clone that went on to Boston in your stead" well then it wouldn't be what most people think of when they think of taking the train.

In order for me to be convinced that the common depiction of teleportation is a form of cloning and murder, I would need someone to prove to me that humans have souls in a metaphysical sense - that there's something about us as individuals beyond the sum of our lived experiences and the atoms that make up our bodies.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] PenguinJuice@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago

How would we ever know for sure if the copy was really you or not? What question could we ask that only your objective self would know, but the sum collection of cells would not?

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Depends on the technology employed.

Quantum entanglement? Sure. All day, every day.

That annihilation shit that Star Trek does? Hell no.

I'd also take a method that's between the two. If it could split me up and send those very same atoms across the void to other side where they're recombobulated I'd be fine with that, too. Assuming it's not painful.

Edit: My sister: "What if it's the most painful experience ever, but the machine deletes that memory?"

Star Trek Transporters don't annihilate you. According to all the stuff from Star Trek it literally disassembles you, moves your particles through space in a matter stream held in a containment field, and reassembles you at the new location.

So the Ship of Theseus question doesn't actually apply, your physical material is the same before and after. The question is if disassembly constitutes dying, and if the reassembled you at the new location is a resurrected you, or if disassembly isn't dying, then it is in fact just a form of transport.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Zetaphor@zemmy.cc 0 points 1 year ago

Quantum entanglement would mean that while it reads your initial state and encodes the new state there are two copies of you in existence, that is cloning, then the initial state dies. Unless the process of reading that state is destructive, then you just die and are cloned.

The method between the two you suggested also means you die momentarily and then are recreated. For the period of time it takes to encode your atoms into a method of transport and then reassemble them at your destination, you no longer exist in complete form.

[-] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

But I still exist and am not quantumly annihilated.

And afaik about entanglement, it would just clone me on the other side leaving another copy of me at the start. At least, that's how it reads when describing the difference between entanglement and how Star Trek works.

[-] Zetaphor@zemmy.cc 0 points 1 year ago

Exactly, if you are not annihilated then that means two identical versions of an entity that thinks it's you exist simultaneously, and now one of them has to be killed to maintain the illusion of this being transport rather than cloning.

[-] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 0 points 1 year ago

I've seen the 6th Day. I think I can manage 😤

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2023
50 points (100.0% liked)

Asklemmy

44248 readers
775 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS