Teleportation problem
starman2112 @ starman2112 @sh.itjust.works Posts 3Comments 2,760Joined 2 yr. ago
starman2112 @ starman2112 @sh.itjust.works
Posts
3
Comments
2,760
Joined
2 yr. ago
I'm not a philosopher, so this response will be imperfect and is subject to revision.
Then why do you think that the perceived continuity of having an ego is a real thing that exists?
My current response to this is that something can exist without being made of something. Consciousness is an emergent property of a sufficiently complex, chemically active neurological system. (Someone can poke holes in this definition if they like, but come on dude, principle of charity. You get what I mean.) Essentially, "how it feels like to exist" is a real, if immaterial, thing. Just like mathematics and language.
If someone makes a perfect copy of my brain and body over by the lever, using none of the materials from my original body, then it is a different brain and body, no matter how arbitrarily similar it is. The consciousness that was by the entrance to the teleporter will never experience pulling the lever.
I hate that comic. Equivocation is a fallacy. Your alarm clock is proof that you don't lose experiential consciousness when you sleep.
Apologies for the point-by-point reply. I have many responses to many things, which don't necessarily fit into a cohesive structure of paragraphs.
Asking which is "you" would be like watching a cell undergo mitosis and then asking which one is the original cell.
Disagree. In mitosis, both child cells contain parts of the original. This is akin to Farscape Season 3's "twinning—" a method of cloning in which neither result has any claim over being the "original."
This is different from a Star Trek/The Prestige style transporter—you can keep track of which one is the original: it's the one who went into the entrance. No part of their physical body is present in the transporter clone.
the previous two things should mean that there is something about what you are that makes it, you, and not someone else, nor some unconscious zombie
Yes. A continuous conscious experience. Notably different from an experience of continued consciousness. We must avoid equivocation here. "You" has multiple definitions, some of which are more useful and relevant than others.
If that thing, whatever it is, is part of the material universe, then the perfect copy must have it too by definition, it wouldn't be a perfect copy if there was something materially different about it, and then it would have to be you, because it has whatever that thing is that makes it "you".
There is something materially different about the you that steps out of the transporter. They're made of different atoms and subatomic particles. This isn't even a Ship of Theseus situation—like, if you replace every single part of your car over the course of a year until every single part is different, there's some ambiguity about whether it's the same car as it was the year before. But the car that came off the production line right after it may be made using the same materials in the same pattern, but it is unambiguously a different car.
You could say it's the "same" car, in that it's the same color, make and model using the same materials, but if someone crashes it, you would not say they crashed your car, no matter how arbitrarily similar they were at the time of the crash.
Continuity (for anything, not just humans) by itself isn't really a "thing". It isn't made of anything, and doesn't seem to interact with the physical world in any measurable way.
Continuity isn't a physical object, but it definitely exists. For one example, the lithium in my phone's battery is the same lithium that was in it when it was made. The phone would work just fine if the lithium atoms were constantly being replaced, but they don't seem to be. Continuity is a real phenomenon.
Yeah, I am assuming Star Trek transporters. If it's a wormhole then it's fine
Personally I love memes that mix different moral/philosophical dilemmas in silly ways
I'm assuming this is a transporter as exists in Star Trek, and not some kind of wormhole.
Imagine if it didn't deconstruct your original body, and only made the perfect copy at the exit. Would there be two "yous?" Under your definition, yes, but they are very clearly two separate entities. There is a "you" that walked into the entrance, and there is a "someone else" who walked out of the exit. I think a continuous consciousness is not only relevant, but crucial to a meaningful definition of "you."
And nobody post that "you die when you fall asleep" comic. It equivocates different definitions ofbghese words in a confusing and misleading way.
And what would kickstart your heart beating?
Skydive naked from an aeroplane, or perhaps a lady with a body from outer space
I'd pull the lever if I was tied to the other track. The only meaningful difference is that there will be someone who shares my values and experiences roaming the earth after I die. I can live with that.
I wonder if that would inspire him to become healthier and live longer. If I knew someome sacrificed their life so I could live, I would probably treat my body a lot better. Maybe I should go through a transporter...
It depends on how it works. The most popular form of transporter works by scanning your body down to the subatomic level, deconstructing the original body, and creating a perfect replica somewhere else. Imagine for a moment that it didn't deconstruct the original body (as seen in Star Trek: The Next Generation episode Second Chances). The original and the copy are two separate entities.
A transporter doesn't move you, it kills and reincarnates you. Unless it uses some kinda space bending wormhole tech to physically move the atoms from one spot to another, of course—then it doesn't kill you, and you're safe to pull the lever
Define "you." An identical collection and pattern of atoms and subatomic particles? Then yes. A continuous consciousness as experienced by the "me" on the entry side of the teleporter? No.
Would I kill myself to save five lives and create one? Yes
Pics for the lazy
All these comments are trying too hard. The only two options are "OK?" and "that watch?"
Verbose disses only work in rap
Dawkins is to atheism as Fred Phelps is to Christianity
They would at least need to have your ID on record, so they know you aren't just getting a new private key at a different library every day. That said, I'd be happy with it if that record only showed that my ID had been used to acquire such a key, without any link between the ID and the key
Yeah it is, and it's also like everyone's opinion. People might be more interested in giving atheists a fair shake if it weren't for people like you, only interested in letting everyone know how smart and rational you are. Sure, it keeps people from questioning their beliefs when every atheist they see is a condescending douchebag, but at least everyone knows you're a special star-spangled skeptic.
I'm also an atheist, have been for a long time. I also hate getting lumped in with these dbags. I could try to formulate a well-reasoned argument for why we shouldn't admonish religious people, but you cannot reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into, and the performative kind of hate that people like Lovable Sidekick have towards all religious beliefs and practices is not founded on reason.
I cannot convince Lovable Sidekick to stfu, because they do not care about the effect they have on our image, they care about people knowing they're an atheist. I might convince other atheists to stfu, by making fun of the insufferable ones.
Atheist here, Dawkins is proof that atheists can still be fucking stupid
See also: Carl of Akkad, Thunderf00t
I hate atheists man
I posit that consciousness is a chemical process occurring in your brain. This process is continuously ongoing, and when it stops, you die. If a transporter constructs a perfect copy of you, down to the chemical process that constitutes your consciousness, then there is no continuity between your original body and this new one, because it's a wholly different brain.