Sorry about that ridiculous watermark.

  • Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    This is why I want monsters Inc style linked door-wormholes. It’s less… Reconstituted flesh.

    Less room for duplicates, more room for halfsies I guess

    • Rev. Layle@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      Hyperion suggests that you do not think about the fact that this is only a digital reconstruction of your original body, which died the first time you respawned. Do NOT think about this!

    • Shampiss@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Pascal’s wager argues that if there are 2 different and non provable outcomes to a belief, you should believe the one that has better consequences for you.

      In this case there are no divine consequences of being destroyed and reassembled in another location.

      This is probably more of a ship of Theseus question.

      • bigboig@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        27 days ago

        The point of Pascal’s wager is how non provable beliefs can’t be logically reasoned one way or the other. Like how there is no objective original and duplicate ship of theseus.

        People arguing over the danger of the transporter is a lot like trying to reason any unsolvable paradox, and especially like arguing over having faith. Better than roko’s basilisk, though, that’s pascal’s wager for scuzzy tools.

  • xantoxis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    I think I’ve explained this too many times to do it again, but: teleportation doesn’t have to be “destroy and reconstitute” any more than going through a door necessitates killing you and reconstituting you on the other side of the door. The key is establishing continuity of your mind across the intervening space, which is mostly an engineering problem.

    • vithigar@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Star Trek transporters are “destroy and reconstitute” though. They are explicitly described as such. The whole Thomas Riker situation even requires it to be the case.

      • WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Star Trek just throws all its rules out from one episode to the next. The Star Trek franchise is the McDonalds of sci-fi; you don’t choose it because it’s good, you choose it because it’s available.

    • PenisWenisGenius@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      I would be hesitant to get on a teleporter even if they were proven “safe”. It could be possible that from my point of view, that’ll be the last thing I ever see. But from everyone else’s point of view Im alive and I walked out the other end without breaking a sweat. But this is a different instance of “me”. From my point of view, would I be “dead” forever or would I be able to witness myself going out for drinks later that day?

      Maybe it turns out that if you make an exact backup of a brain, reconstruct and restore the biologic equivalent of ram and system registers back to their original state (sort of how operating systems do multitasking), then it all works out. But maybe turning the brain completely off or whatever is enough to put the “system” in an “off” state and when it restarts, it’ll be a new instance. Maybe you don’t remember the part where you stopped existing so it doesn’t matter.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Really makes you wonder if humans had a soul and an afterlife what exactly happens when the last copy of you finally dies naturally.

        Like you go to heaven and meet some version of you that lived for a fifteen minute coffee run, and boy is he missed that from his perspective he died at 19 years old because you just had to beam down and try the new Starbucks drink. All the other teleported yous are there.

        Shit what about your spouse? There could be like 900 of you but only 400 of her. Now you all have to spend eternity together.

    • lauha@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      But the mind does not have continuity. You mind ends and a new copy starts and thinks it has continuity.

    • DogWater@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      I think we are still in the realm of a physics problem for teleportation lol

      Fusion is an engineering problem. the sun does it. We’ve done it. We just suck at it.

      Teleporting is not possible as far as we know …unless I missed something huge in science news

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        I felt like they hinted in some episodes that there was some rule of nature they were exploiting to get it to work. Like imagine trying to tell someone in the 11th century that humans made machines that can fly, they imagine some mechanical thing flapping wings. They imagine it because they don’t know what air does when it passes over a fast moving surface. It isn’t like the transporter really stores your pattern down to every particle, there was something that they found that made it a lot easier problem to solve.

        • DogWater@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          Yeah someone mentioned the Heisenberg compensators to me in a different comment and I’m betting that’s what you are referring to.

        • DogWater@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          No, unfortunately. the closest we’ve come with that is proving that the universe isn’t locally real. Three physicists just won the nobel prize for proving it. Which is mind boggling in it’s own right

      • Waltzy@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        It’s not all that different to a fax machine, the way it’s described in st.

        You just need to be able to accurately scan and place atoms to achieve the ‘teleportation’ being discussed here.

        Thinking about it even that is probably not possible, as you’d need to know both the position and momentum and state of every sub atomic particle in the body.

        • DogWater@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          It’s definitely not because the more you know about an electrons position, the less you know about it’s speed and vice versa.

          • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            Heisenberg compensators are Star Trek’s answer to that. It’s physically impossible to do that in the real world, but in Star Trek they’ve figured it out

            • DogWater@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              For sure. I wish they would’ve given that to us instead of the molecule in that movie about the whale. (Sorry I’m not well versed on star trek

    • blady_blah@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      The real problem with all of this is that people can’t get away from the idea of a soul. Something intangible unmeasurable that is really “us” riding around in a meat-robot. It’s hard for people (me included) to realize that the meat packaging is all that we are. If you destroy My body and recreate it, nothing will have been lost. The continuity within the meat computer in my head is all that I am. There is no “me” outside of that… And that’s a really hard concept to accept and internalize.

      • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        If you destroy My body and recreate it, nothing will have been lost. The continuity within the meat computer in my head is all that I am.

        If you perfectly recreate your body without destroying the original, the original doesn’t start seeing and hearing through the clone. As far as the rest of the world is concerned, there’s no difference between the you that steps into the transporter and the you that steps out of it, but you do actually die when you’re “transported.” You don’t get to see what’s on the other side of the transporter, another being that shares your exact memories does.

      • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        I dunno even if there is no you in a metaphysical sense the deconstruction method still ends your personal subjective experience of being you which sucks. Sure the next you might be just as much you as the first one but you don’t get to be around to enjoy that.

        • blady_blah@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          I dunno even if there is no you in a metaphysical sense the deconstruction method still ends your personal subjective experience of being you which sucks. Sure the next you might be just as much you as the first one but you don’t get to be around to enjoy that.

          But it doesn’t and that’s the point. You are not the collection of atoms that make up your body, YOU are the software program that is running on your brain-computer. The software program can be transferred (or copied) and you are still you. There is no “you” outside of that software.

          • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            Your idea of what constitutes “you” Is wrong. Your subjective experience ends when you get dismantled. We can say this definitively, because when the transporter fails to dismantle the original, they don’t get to see through their copy’s eyes. If they don’t get to see what the transporter clone sees when both are alive, then it stands to reason that if they get dismantled, they still don’t get to see what their clone sees. Their subjective experience ends.

            • blady_blah@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              I disagree with you, but I don’t know that I can explain it anymore clearly than I already have. There is no metaphysical “you” that exists outside of the software running in your head. You would experience perfect continuity if your body was dismantled and reconstructed. There is no real “you” except the software program that is running on your meat CPU.

              Like I said, this is a hard thing to wrap your head around.

              • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                There is no metaphysical “you” that exists outside of the software running in your head.

                100% agreed.

                You would experience perfect continuity if your body was dismantled and reconstructed.

                I’m going to explain it a different way.

                This is Bill.

                🕺⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜

                I’m going to transport Bill over here.

                ☁️⬜⬜⬜⬜🕺

                That’s still the same Bill, right? There’s continuity?

                Now I’m going to do a Tom Riker, and unsuccessfully transport Bill.

                🕺⬜⬜⬜⬜🕺

                Which one is the real Bill?

                If I’m understanding your argument right, you seem to think both of these are Bill. Which they are, but they’re not the same Bill. Despite both of them subjectively feeling a sense of continuity, only Left Bill has existed for more than a few seconds. If I correct my mistake by shooting Left Bill in the head, his subjective experience of being Bill is over. If I never made the mistake, and successfully dismantled him, the same would occur. For him, continuity is not maintained through the transporter.

                I was never concerned with whether the me that steps out of the transporter experiences continuity. I’m only concerned with whether the me that exists right now does.

                • blady_blah@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  You understand me correctly and correctly predicted my response. Your last paragraph is the interesting part however.

                  Imagine you have an AI. It’s a fully functional self aware AI. Let’s call this software “Bob”. From one instance to the next, this software is just memory and processing inside a computer. It is aware of it’s place in the universe to the same extent we are. Let’s say you pause the CPU. Did you just kill the AI? Of course not. Now lets say you make a perfect copy of the AI on two separate computers in two separate locations. The AI asks me “which one is the ‘real’ me?” My answer is their both the “real you,” but one moment they start processing independently, they’re now two different individuals that deviate from the moment of the copy.

                  Now lets say you change a stick of memory in the original AI, is that the same entity? If you unplug the memory cards and fly them to another location and plug them back in, is that the same entity? If you FTP the entity from California to Germany and install it on another machine, is that the same entity? It’s all the same answer as making a copy.

                  We humans are only the sum of the software in our heads. There is no real us, only the code executing line by line in our biological processor. That’s why there is no “real you” in this discussion, only software, and the person on the other side of the transporter is just as much the real you as the copy that’s destroyed. You are just a self-aware program.

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Putting aside the whole problems with maintaining continuity in a civilization that laughs at all the problems of FTL and relativity why is continuity important?

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          I just don’t understand why a gap matters. I had to get knocked out for surgery once and I woke up the same person, sans appendix.

          • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            This is why I hate using the word consciousness in these debates. It’s too ill defined, and isn’t really what I mean anyway. The process of chemical reactions in my brain is my mind, regardless of whether it’s aware of any external stimuli.

            It’s also irrelevant to the discussion about teleportation. Whether or not you’re the same person after you’ve gone to sleep and woken up is debatable, but whether or not the person who steps into the transporter is the person that steps out of a transporter isn’t. Like I’ve said too many times in this thread, if you step into the transporter and it fails to dismantle you when it creates your copy, you and your copy are two distinct individuals. You don’t get to see through your copy’s eyes. So when the one who stepped into the transporter dies, that individual’s subjective experience ends. This is the same whether they die before the copy is made, as the copy is made, or after the copy is made. They never get to see the other side of the transporter.

            For the iteration who came out the other side of the transporter, this is a meaningless distinction. But for the iteration who stepped into the transporter, the distinction is quite literally life and death.

  • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    I’d like to know or see a Star Trek series about the development of Star Trek technology.

    Like the history of flight or the first ancient sea captains, … when it comes to the history of the humble teleporter, how many freakin people did they have to reconstitute, recombine, turn into a puddle of goo, teleport into a wall, remove their brains, reconfigure their organs, teleport into a bulk head or reanimate into empty space before they perfected the technology.

  • ElderWendigo@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    I’m on the fence: pro-transporter, anti-disintegration. If transporter technology existed without the suicide booth aspect and I could just send a copy of myself halfway around the globe in an instant I’d do it. Biggest problem I see is funding all the new clones of me running around. If there was somehow a way for us all to sync our memories occasionally without melting our consciousness that would be cool too.

  • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    My kid and I have discussed this at length. It’s true, Bones and a few others live in a universe where they’re the only soulful humanoids, surrounded by digital facsimiles. It must be depressing.

  • Katzastrophe@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Tbh the same logic can be applied to sleeping. If our consciousness is akin to computer ram and sleep is the brain cleaning up that ram, how can you know that when you wake up you’re still the same person that went to sleep last night?

    • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      how can you know that when you wake up you’re still the same person that went to sleep last night?

      Because you are composed of 99.99999% the exact same molecules. When you transport, you are literally ripped apart and recreated with new molecules at the destination site. That’s how the transporter works. Your bed does not work that way.

    • Bimfred@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Because brain activity doesn’t stop when I’m sleeping, it’s more like the brain is just idling.

      If we wanna go with computer terms, sleeping isn’t shutdown. Sleeping is sitting on the desktop with no active windows. All the background processes don’t stop when you’re just sitting there and admiring your sick wallpaper.

    • aeronmelon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      This is a cool thought because it’s not about being copied but more about the Ship of Theseus.

      Why do we sleep?

      “The body needs sleep.”

      No, the body needs rest. Our physical self just needs down time and relaxation and then it’s good to go again. Our BRAIN needs sleep. Specifically, REM sleep to process all the new data that was taken in. Converting short-term memories into long-term memories. Sorting and organizing data. A kind of hard drive defragmentation.

      Our sleep is normally presented like a sine wave. We regain base level consciousness cyclically several times a night, which is why we dream. Which is why our dreams are usually tied to recent memories. The more good sleep we get, the more our brains can deal with recent experiences.

      When we wake up, it’s like rebooting a device after an OS update. It’s us, but with altered software. We are as much the person we were yesterday as the Ship of Theseus is still the Ship of Theseus after having pieces fixed and replaced. The whole is who we are, not the bits that changed.

  • Steve@communick.news
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    I never understood the problem people seem to complain about here.
    A perfect copy, is perfect. There’s no detectable, no measurable, no identifiable difference.
    So what are you talking about? Unless you don’t think perfect is actually perfect.

    • m-p{3}@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      From an outsider’s point of view sure, but does your consciousness dies when dematerialized, only to have a copy of your consciousness going on in the rematerialized body as if nothing happened?

      • ricdeh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        That is only an actual issue when you are some sort of spiritualist. From a materialist point of view, the entirety of you is “just” a very complex interplay of elementary particles.

        • Melmi@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          I don’t think this is true. Even if consciousness is only a product of our physical bodies, there’s still the issue of who’s experiencing it.

          When this body dies, I’m dead. I don’t care if there are a million other perfect copies of this body or my mind out there, if this mind won’t be the one to experience it.

          A copy of me can be fundamentally perfect, but simply as a product of being physically separate meat our consciousnesses will be separate. If instead of teleporting, both perfect copies stayed alive and had a chance to talk to each other, this would be apparent. I will continue to experience life from the eyes of my old body, not the clone. We could then go on to live our lives separately, and we would diverge. Because we’d both be separate simply by the physical nature of our existence, we’re not interchangeable, and it wouldn’t make sense to kill one of us and assume that now it’s “teleportation”. We didn’t see out of the other’s eyes before, so why would we see out of the other’s eyes when we’re dead? No, we’d just die.

          The only way I can see this not being an issue is if the awareness somehow transfers, which requires some sort of technomagic beyond our comprehension, or outright rejection of the existence of consciousness, which is a bold claim.

        • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          It’s true that the entirety of a person is “just” a very complex interplay of elementary particles, but I don’t think it’s only an actual issue if you’re a spiritualist. I’m a naturalistic determinist, there’s no such thing as souls or spirits.

          My line of thinking is this. Let’s say I step into the machine, and it makes a perfect copy of me at another location, but fails to dismantle my body. Since we’re talking about the transporters in Star Trek, there is precedent for this happening. I step out of the transporter entrance, and another me steps out of the transporter exit. I don’t see through that person’s eyes, I don’t hear through that person’s ears. They are separate entity, no matter how similar they are to me.

          If the transporter had successfully dismantled me, I still wouldn’t see through that person’s eyes or hear through their ears. I would be dead. Another person with my memories would step out of the exit. As far as the rest of the universe is concerned, that person is me. But I don’t care about the rest of the universe, I care about my own brain, which has been destroyed. Why would I agree to be transported, if I don’t get to see what happens after?

        • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          But I’m not looking from my copy’s point of view, am I? And if you posit that I may be the copy in the first place, then the original isn’t looking from my point of view.

          • Steve@communick.news
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            Both feel they are you. And it’s only one point of view, during the time you both exist, that’s lost when one of you dies. The second you persists.

    • ramble81@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      ITT people who think they’re only themselves only if they’re completely continuous. Any number of them could have been replaced with a clone while sleeping and not know the difference. I am me, and that’s all the matters to me.

      • Melmi@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Of course I wouldn’t know. But the former me who got dragged off is dead. That’s the whole point, the clone has no way of knowing and simply continues on life while the original dies.

        And because we only exist in the present, we rely on our memories of the past to tell who we are. Our memories tell me I’m me, so I think I’m me.

        Maybe it doesn’t matter to you, but the reason I don’t want to die is because I want to be aware. If I am never conscious again, but a copy of me is, good for them I guess, I wish them the best, but it’s not what I want. I’m not conscious of waking up in the morning, even if they’re me. I’m dead.

        • ramble81@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          And you would have known you’d been swapped how? What if someone came up to you and said that they have irrefutable proof that you were replaced with a clone of yourself a few years ago. How would you know the difference unless told. And even once told, what does it matter if you can’t pinpoint the exact day?

          • Melmi@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            It only matters in that a person died. A person with their own subjective experience that they no longer get to experience. It doesn’t matter that in this case I inherited their memories, and it doesn’t matter when it happened other than out of curiosity. I’d mourn them the same.

            And as for how I would know… If I’m the clone? Obviously I would never have any way to know, short of someone coming up to me. On the other hand if I were the original, I would “know” because I would be dead. (Or rather, I wouldn’t know anything, because the dead don’t experience or think)

            Edit: It matters that I inherited their memories in that it might influence the way I see the world, my identity, and their death, but it wouldn’t change the fact that I mourn them. I am a distinct person from other versions of me, regardless of whether I’m a clone or they’re a clone, and if they die it’s just as much a tragedy as any other human death.

          • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            If it already happened, there’s nothing to be done. But if I find out that there’s a thing that I’m doing every single day that’s killing me and making a copy, I’ll simply stop doing that thing

            • ramble81@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              I guess that’s where I’m confused like OP is. What difference does it make at that point? You’ve been going through it countless times, nothing has changed, you were no different, so what does it matter?

              It’s like the people that are anti-vaxxers, they’re freaked out with no basis that “it’s changing who I am!” even though there’s plenty of evidence to the contrary (I would assume general transporter tech wouldn’t be available to the masses if it wasn’t in this scenario)

              • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                Strictly speaking, I’ve never used a transporter before. It’s important to nail down specific definitions and concepts here. What do I mean when I say I? I’m referring to the human using the alias starman2112; the individual entity typing right now. I’ve gone more in-depth in other comments, but essentially I am the ongoing chemical reactions between the neurons in my brain. This reaction has been perturbed, interfered with, but never stopped.

                In what way am I still “me” after being transported? I’m precisely the same person, right? But I’m not. I’m a perfect copy of the last person. Say the transporter failed to dismantle him when he stepped into it. Does he see what I see? Hear what I hear? No. We are separate people. So if it had dismantled him, would he see what I see, hear what I hear? Still no, of course. He’s gone. He doesn’t see or hear anything anymore.

                Now that I understand that, despite having countless memories of stepping into and out of transporters, how could I possibly bring myself to step into one “again?” In reality, it would be the first time for me, and I would be dooming myself to never see or hear again, unless it malfunctions and fails to dismantle me.

                I don’t appreciate the comparison with anti-vaxxers. The problems with transporters are not based on lies or incorrect assumptions, it’s based on the fact that it kills you and creates a copy.

    • usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Because it’s still a copy, so you still die. Imagine if there was a delay between the copy being produced and the original being destroyed, long enough for them to see each other if transported within the same room.

      To Be

      • Steve@communick.news
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        You are a different person than you were yesterday.
        You have all sorts of new and different experiences from that person.
        You’re even a different person reading the last word in this sentence, than you were when reading the first.

        But you’re no less you, are you?

          • Steve@communick.news
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            Yes! Great movie!

            spoiler

            That machine was much more than a transporter. It didn’t have to destroy the matter to duplicate it.

            Angier was stupid to keep killing the other versions of himself. He could have created a much better trick, being in several places at once.

            And they each would have felt they were the original Angier. Who could say they were wrong? They all were, and are still, the original. Just different versions of him, with different experiences. No different than you, being the same person who was different yesterday than you are today.

        • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          You are a different person than you were yesterday.

          In some senses, yes. In other senses, no. Since my birth, there has been an uninterrupted set of reactions between neurons in my brain. Individual neurons may be added or removed, various inputs and chemicals may change this reaction, but this ongoing reaction between them has never stopped. If you show me another person with the exact same pattern of neurons in their brain, with the exact same pattern of reactions happening within it, then they are for all intents and purposes a perfect copy of my mind. But if you shoot the me that’s typing right now in the head, then the me that’s typing right now doesn’t get to see what happens tomorrow, even though for all intents and purposes there is still a starman2112 in the world.

          • Steve@communick.news
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            But the Starman typing today, doesn’t get to see tomorrow any way. They get replaced by the next Starman.

            • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              I fundamentally disagree. As I said, my mind is a continuous ongoing process of reactions between neurons in my brain. Even while I’m asleep, this process continues. Even as neurons die and are replaced, this process continues. I am the same starman that I was yesterday, and that I will be tomorrow.

    • henfredemars@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      But is the copy me from my conscious point of view? I don’t care that it looks the same externally. Will I still be inside the ship?

      • Steve@communick.news
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Yes. The copy is you as far as it can tell.
        And the original you doesn’t exist anymore to be able to tell anything.

        So “you” continue, from your point of view.

        • Kaity@leminal.space
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          no… that’s not sufficient. There’s a new me that was not me that is now me, yes, but the original me is gone. Story ended from my point of view, from the new me’s point of view it was all fine but they will end in the next transport.

          If it can be undeniably proven exactly the same as sleeping or anesthesia, fine. If consciousness provably persists all the way from de-materialization, transport, and re-materialization, like Lt. Barkley. fine. But if there is any doubt that consciousness ends, and a new consciousness is created, that is where the problem lies, and why many, like McCoy, won’t use one willingly.

          • Steve@communick.news
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            But consciousness doesn’t persist through sleeping or anesthesia. It stops, then starts again some time later. The continuity of memory seems persistent to the consciousness, so it can’t really tell the difference. Because it would be impossible for a consciousness to perceive it’s own down time.

            And it’s not really accurate to say a new consciousness is created. It would be more accurate to say the same consciousness is recreated.

            • Kaity@leminal.space
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              I’m not trying to be combative, just to illustrate the point: “cite your sources.”

              Definitive research is needed.

      • SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        It mainly depends if you believe in a soul that is never copied that makes it “you”, or a purely mechanical view of consciousness that says if all parts are copied there is no difference.

    • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Imagine the machine makes one such perfect copy of you without successfully dismantling you. That person stands in front of you. Do you see through their eyes? No. If you die, do they die too? Of course not. It doesn’t matter how perfect the copy they are, they are not the same person as you. If the biological processes in your body end, you die. The you that steps into these teleportation machines never gets to see what happens on the other side of them.

      • Steve@communick.news
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        And that happens naturally all the time.
        The person you were yesterday, or even a minute ago, never gets to see who you are now.

    • criitz@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      A copy isn’t you, it’s someone else, a clone. It means you die when you step into the teleporter and someone else takes over your life.

      • Steve@communick.news
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        But a perfect copy is more like the you who stepped onto the pad, then then you are like the you who went to sleep last night.
        All sorts of changes happened, while you were sleeping.
        All sorts of changes happened while you were typing your last comment.
        The you of now is a very different person then the you of 5min ago.

            • Melmi@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              Fundamentally, no. It doesn’t matter if the copy is identical in every way, it’s physically separate.

              The fact that one is the “original” and one is the “copy” doesn’t matter. The fidelity of the copy doesn’t matter. It’s literally just the fact that it’s different meat.

              The copy will believe it’s me, and will for any outside observer be identical to me, but I will still exist as a separate entity. Up until the next instant, where the clone-and-kill machine enters the next phase, kills me, and I’m gone, and there’s a new copy of me out there with a new consciousness, living my life. But the version of me who was me is dead.

              What happens if it doesn’t kill me instantly? What happens if I get to look my transporter clone in the eyes? We won’t have the same consciousness, we’ll have two separate copies of the same consciousness. And then it kills me. And I watch myself die.

              • Steve@communick.news
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                Yes. You watch yourself die, and you continue being you.
                You’re always doing exactly that already.
                Every moment of every day. You replace yourself, with a new self.

                • Melmi@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  Except the person who died is dead, and they stay dead. The person who died’s final moments will be seeing their clone standing over them, and their memories will diverge.

                  They’re clearly different meat, different consciousnesses in that moment. They won’t know what the other is thinking, they will have to speak to communicate.

                  How are they not separate people in that moment?

            • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              Think of it like this. I have a computer hard drive. I can make a perfect clone of this computer hard drive. Every single one and zero accounted for on a separate disk. While these hard drives contain the same information, changes to one do not cause changes in the other. While they contain the same data, they are not the same hard drive.

              • Steve@communick.news
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 month ago

                If you have two drive in a RAID 1 array. They have the same data. If one dies, it doesn’t matter. Everything important is preserved without interruption.

                • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 month ago

                  But I’m not in a RAID array with my teleportation clone. As far as the data contained within my brain goes, nothing is lost if I die the very instant that my clone is made, but I posit that what makes my mind my mind isn’t just the data held within it.

  • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    The best take on transporters was in a ‘Buzz Lightyear’ cartoon.

    Buzz tells his team that a scientist has developed a transporter. The farm boy says that it sounds like a great invention; with a transporter the ship can stay up in orbit and the crew can teleport to the surface.

    Everyone just looks at him like he’s an idiot.

  • Infynis@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Fuck it, kill me. My mind is the part I care about anyway. If you get that where it’s going, I’m not bothered. You could even make some improvements on my meat housing before you replicate the next one, I don’t mind. Go wild

    • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      What if you wake up in hell, or on the next plane of existence, knowing that a soulless likeness of you is carrying on with your friends and family as if nothing happened, and nobody will mourn for your death?

        • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          If the transporter kills you, then whatever “you” are is gone. What is replicated at the end of the transporter is just a facsimile. It acts like you, and thinks like you, but it is not you. You are dead.

          • pixeltree@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            Sure it is. My current specific conciousness won’t get preserved, but guess what, I lose consciousness every night. From the perspective of the me that arrives on the other end, it’ll be just like waking up. They have all my memories, mannerisms, personality, there are no differences between them and me besides the fact that my conciousness doesn’t continue. From their point of view, they have continuity of existence. From their perspective, and from outsiders perspective, there’s no difference, for all intents and purposes they are me. Why would I feel bad about them living our life? “You are dead”. When I go to sleep, my conciousness ends, and in the morning someone who has my memories and personality and mannerisms gains consciousness. I really don’t see the difference.

  • IronKrill@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Not to mention, if we have the technology to construct human bodies and minds on the other side of that teleporter, what is to stop them from modifying the machines to change your brain (or body). I have lost any trust I once had in any government or company to believe them if, hypothetically, they tell me they have the know-how to change my opinion of Coca Cola upon reconstruction.