That's the thing, your view of humanity is rather idealistic. Most people are too cynical to assume that other people will help them out of the goodness of their heart. Not to mention that there are loads of people who indeed WOULDN'T help simply because someone else needs help.
Also people with disabilities aren’t helpless and can still be useful to a community
Obviously. But "making it public knowledge what requests each individual member has contributed" will inevitably lead to scrutiny of people who don't contribute as much as others. That's where you'd need to decide whether this person (who seems to be receiving more than they're giving) actually cannot do more than they're doing or whether they're abusing the system.
So how do you determine if someone has contributed enough to receive something in return? What about people who cannot meet that demand, because of sickness and/or disability or other reasons?
I had this conversation right here earlier. There is no "splitting", it's a copy. Like copying a file to two different harddrives and deleting the file in the "original" path. Neither of them is more real than the other.
Yeah that was shitposting because I'm embarrassed af. I don't actually know why I wrote "SE Asia" back then. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense looking back now, I should know better. Sorry, didn't mean to offend, must have had a brainfart.
You seem to imply that's because it's a "different" body made of different atoms. The atoms in our bodies are constantly exchanged already, we're constantly recreating our bodies even without transporting. I don't think that's any different.
Oh, that's new. The context isn't in the image, people without visual impairments have to infer it as well, is there a reason why I should include it in an image description?
I've been on the internet for too long, so based on experience I start vaguely suspecting confrontation in any exchange longer than two comments :)
The Riker problem is of course interesting and I don't know what I'd do in that situation (other than make out - just like Will and Tom did) or how I think I/we would decide who gets to be the "real one", for lack of a better term. I'm very glad I won't ever have to figure that out. But yes, that's probably what my view implies: there'd be two of "me", exact copies. Like when I copy a file to two different hard drives and then delete the source. There'd be no "real" one, they're both the same file, just in different places.
I'll have to think about your view because, I have to admit, I'm having trouble really seeing it and that's annoying me. It's just too different from how I think, I suppose. Thank you for giving me some food for thought then :)
I don't know. From my understanding, Thomas Riker is indeed the same person as William - in the very first instance after transporting. After that, their experiences are different and their consciousnesses diverge to form different people. I'm not the same person I was two seconds ago, even without transporting, while sitting motionless in my chair.
Split personalities, btw, would mean two personalities in the same brain, that's not what's happening here.
No afterlife, no souls - though I can see how it would be tricky for a believer. But I can't see teleporting as "ceasing to exist", simply because I consider my "self" and my consciousness to be identical to the structures in my brain. There is nothing else but the atoms that have come together in the specific combination to form my body, and those atoms are constantly being replaced by other atoms anyway. When using a transporter, the current combination of atoms is simply recreated at the other end to seamlessly continue its function and processes (assuming perfect copies of course), thus effectively "transporting" my consciousness.
Depends on what we define as "consciousness". If it's just what my brain does, it doesn't cease to exist at all because it's rebuild in the clone. If it's a soul, I don't know, that's above my paygrade.
I'm assuming it's painless and that my clone would have my memories. That's still "me". "I" am the sum of the structures in my brain and what my brain does with it.
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)
That's the thing, your view of humanity is rather idealistic. Most people are too cynical to assume that other people will help them out of the goodness of their heart. Not to mention that there are loads of people who indeed WOULDN'T help simply because someone else needs help.
Obviously. But "making it public knowledge what requests each individual member has contributed" will inevitably lead to scrutiny of people who don't contribute as much as others. That's where you'd need to decide whether this person (who seems to be receiving more than they're giving) actually cannot do more than they're doing or whether they're abusing the system.