ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags star trek , teleportation

Reply
Old 28th November 2012, 11:05 AM   #81
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,719
Originally Posted by Recovering Agnostic View Post
...what if they scanned me and created a copy, but wiped our memories of the process? How would either of us know which was the "real" one? And if there's no way of telling, what basis do you have for saying that the person stepping out of a transporter wouldn't be me?
Surely this is a trivial point? If you make an exact copy of anything and then mix the two objects up, nobody could tell which was which. I can't see how that changes anything. The original would still be the original and the copy would still be the copy even if the evidence for which was which was lost.

If you make a copy of a person then both the original and the copy will be fully convinced they are the original, but if you got scanned and later on someone made an exact copy of you on Mars, do you imagine you would suddenly find yourself looking out at Mars? No. Another 'you' would be looking at Mars, presumably wondering how the hell you got there.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 11:05 AM   #82
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
 
BenBurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
Posts: 35,280
Originally Posted by aggle-rithm View Post
Not sure if anyone's mentioned it, but "Think Like A Dinosaur" is a rather disturbing short story that does a good job of exploring the ethical considerations of teleportation. It goes into the consequences of a possible transport malfunction in which, until the success of the transport can be verified, the original must be kept alive. But only until...
Yeah, that was hideous.
__________________
For what doth it profit a man, to fix one bug, but crash the system?
BenBurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 11:07 AM   #83
Nick227
Illuminator
 
Nick227's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,417
For me you can't realistically claim to be a materialist and then be in a drama about getting in the Teletransporter. It's just talking the talk without the walking the walk.

Nick
__________________
If you want to know what neural processing looks like... open your eyes!
Nick227 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 11:08 AM   #84
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,853
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
If you make a copy of a person then both the original and the copy will be fully convinced they are the original, but if you got scanned and later on someone made an exact copy of you on Mars, do you imagine you would suddenly find yourself looking out at Mars?
Yes, absolutely. If materialism is true, in what way is it meaningful to answer "no" to that question? Whatever processes go into thought and identity, all of those processes are being carried out on Mars. So, yes, that would mean that "I" (as defined in any reasonable way) would be looking out on Mars.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 11:13 AM   #85
Aepervius
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,719
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Here's a slight variation, especially for those who would not use the teleporter.

You and a total stranger are kidnapped by a mad scientist. The stranger is the same age and has remarkably similar physical characteristics to you.

The two of you will be forced to participate in an experiment. One of you will be placed in the Sending chamber. There, the subject's brain will be invasively scanned; the process will be painless, but will completely disintegrate the brain.

The other subject will be placed in the Receiving chamber. There, the neural connections of the subject's brain will be altered to replace all of its memories, habits, and perceptional patterns (encompassing such things as which foods you like the taste of) with those from the scanned brain in the Sending chamber. This process is rapid and physically painless.

The Mad Scientist flips a coin to decide who goes in which chamber. If it comes up heads, you will go in the Sending chamber. While the coin is in the air, what are you hoping it comes up as?

Few people would want to be in either chamber, of course. But in this case non-participation is not an option. Which chamber would you prefer to be in?

Respectfully,
Myriad
In the receiving chamber. My personality might get changed to match the sending one, but I would still be alive, and who know maybe there is a chance the process fail and I get to keep my current personality. ETA the sending guy is defintively 100% dead no matter what.

Last edited by Aepervius; 28th November 2012 at 11:14 AM.
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 11:18 AM   #86
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,719
I just waved my magic wand. You may not have noticed, but this created an exact copy of you in Copenhagen*. Can you see the little mermaid? No? Why not? Your copy can see it so why can't you?

Yes, you can make the semantic argument that "you" can see it, but that's just wordplay. Open your eyes and tell me if the little mermaid is there. No. Of course not. You're still exactly where you were, staring at your screen. Nothing changed.



*Mars would have caused problems with the lack of atmosphere, and Copenhagen was my random selection of a pleasant place to accidentally materialise.

Last edited by Jack by the hedge; 28th November 2012 at 11:21 AM.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 11:20 AM   #87
Aepervius
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,719
Originally Posted by Beerina View Post
One could argue every time you fall unconscious, and I mean not even dreaming, which is a kind of I think therefore I am consciousness, you die.

You are relying on stored memories to inform the later-awakened consciousness on its personality and whatnot.

It's like a candle that was blown out and relit. Is it the same flame? Is that even meaningful?

So disassembly may already be overkill for killing you, even if the exact same atoms are reassembled into the exact same place.

Still, I have no problem "dying" in the sense of sleeping or this most restrcted type of teleportation. I will re-awaken, not a copy, which would awaken regardless of whether the original was destroyed or kept.
Losing consciousness does not change the udnerlying material. See my point is that even if we change slightly with cells regeneration the underlying evolving material *is* the one bearing emerging property of the mind. When you lose cosnciousness or sleep or aare in reversible coma, the brain is still there even if does not show *obvious* sign of emerging property.

This is where we differ. You see the self as the thought, I see the thought as an emerging property of the brain, and the brain as the *required* component. There is nothing beyond the brain, no soul , no thought (again emerging property of the communication of the neurons) nothing special which get transmitted as info to the ether or whatnot. You have the brain, it works, it get slightly regenerated (as everything wear down) but it is. Destroy it, you destroyed the person. make an identical copy, you make a *new* person which has the same emerging property but isn't the original one (which died).

Let me send you abck the question. You have a cube of pure carbon. You burn it down. Then you use vapor deposition and microscope to precisely reproduce the same structure as the original cube.

Is it the same cube ? Or is it a copy of the original cube ?
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 11:20 AM   #88
Spockette
Scholar
 
Spockette's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 109
Originally Posted by aggle-rithm View Post
Not sure if anyone's mentioned it, but "Think Like A Dinosaur" is a rather disturbing short story that does a good job of exploring the ethical considerations of teleportation. It goes into the consequences of a possible transport malfunction in which, until the success of the transport can be verified, the original must be kept alive. But only until...
Ah! You beat me to it. Great story (a novelette, actually), won a Hugo. The process there did not destroy the individual, which was the ethical problem. Although the whole point was that humans would perhaps have seen the problem differently than the dinosaurs did.
Spockette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 11:22 AM   #89
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,853
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
I just waved my magic wand. You may not have noticed, but this created an exact copy of you in Copenhagen*. Can you see the little mermaid?
I don't know. Go to Copenhagen and ask me.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 11:24 AM   #90
Aepervius
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,719
Originally Posted by Nick227 View Post
For me you can't realistically claim to be a materialist and then be in a drama about getting in the Teletransporter. It's just talking the talk without the walking the walk.

Nick
You either have a way different definition of materialist than I have or I am not using the correct definition. Materialist or betetr physicalist means for me that there is only matter , and interraction of that matter (chemistry) involved in the brain and nothing more. (if we restrictit to the themes at hand)

Last edited by Aepervius; 28th November 2012 at 11:30 AM.
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 11:29 AM   #91
Aepervius
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,719
Originally Posted by Nick227 View Post
The Teletransporter returns! I was having another Teletransporter debate of an entirely different kind in the Arts section. Anyway...

I find what you write essentially correct, but consciousness does not belong to a "you." This "you" is merely an emergent property of that consciousness. Would you not agree?

Nick
Yes, but I do not see an identical emerging property in a copied brain as "me" even if exhibit the same property. It vbelong to a potentially infinite class of copy, but is not me. The original brain died. It does not matter if an infinity of emerging property copied into rbaina re identical. I the original will not see anymore. Somebody else with the same thought will.
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 11:33 AM   #92
Aepervius
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,719
OK let us change a bit the parameter. Imagine that for an incredible accident, random happenning of cosmic proportion, somebody in 2000 years has the same thought / emerging property as I have now, same memory, same thought. I have died 1900+ years before him.

Do you really think this would be me, that the I of now would be seeing what that person would be seeing, because essentially the teleporter experiment comes down to that.
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 11:35 AM   #93
Nick227
Illuminator
 
Nick227's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,417
Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
You either have a way different definition of materialist than I have or I am not using the correct definition. Materialist or betetr physicalist means for me that there is only matter , and interraction of that matter (chemistry) involved in the brain and nothing more. (if we restrictit to the themes at hand)
Yes, me too. So where's the drama about getting into a Teletransporter?

You cannot die in a correctly functioning Teletransporter. One body ceases to be and another is created. But "you" is only an emergent property of brain activity. If the body is perfectly reproduced then the "you", the "I", is identical.

Nick
__________________
If you want to know what neural processing looks like... open your eyes!
Nick227 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 11:36 AM   #94
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,719
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
I don't know.
What do you mean by "I"? You mean, of course, the original "you" for whom nothing has changed.

There's a "you 2.0" who does see the little mermaid. But you, who are reading this, cannot.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 11:39 AM   #95
Aepervius
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,719
OK let us change a bit the parameter. Imagine that for an incredible accident, random happenning of cosmic proportion, somebody in 2000 years has the same thought / emerging property as I have now, same memory, same thought. I have died 1900+ years before him.

Do you really think this would be me, that the I of now would be seeing what that person would be seeing, because essentially the teleporter experiment comes down to that.

ETA: to make it clear *I* am the brain. Not the illision of "emerging property" but the brain. Many people seems to think here they are "only" the emerging property. I do not see that so. I see myself as the mass of cell and its reaction below.

You are not the ray of light coming from the lamp, that's only an emerging property of the lamp. You are the full lamp.

PS: maybe it is a dupe post as the forum slowed to a crawl for me.
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 11:40 AM   #96
Nick227
Illuminator
 
Nick227's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,417
Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
It does not matter if an infinity of emerging property copied into rbaina re identical. I the original will not see anymore. Somebody else with the same thought will.
There is not in actuality an "I" that is "seeing." That is Cartesian Dualism, and of course social parlance. There is seeing and there is a story that "I am seeing". There is not in actuality an "I" that is doing the seeing. This is materialism.

Nick
__________________
If you want to know what neural processing looks like... open your eyes!

Last edited by Nick227; 28th November 2012 at 11:49 AM.
Nick227 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 11:41 AM   #97
Aepervius
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,719
Originally Posted by Nick227 View Post
Yes, me too. So where's the drama about getting into a Teletransporter?

You cannot die in a correctly functioning Teletransporter. One body ceases to be and another is created. But "you" is only an emergent property of brain activity. If the body is perfectly reproduced then the "you", the "I", is identical.

Nick
I fail to see how that is materialist. The You is not the *emergent* property. The You is the brain which is *manifested* thru the emergent property. They are in *together* and no separable. You seem to think that you can simply separate them and reconstruct a similar brain with the same emergent property. I hold that maetrialistically you can't. You make a copy but the original is lost.
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 11:43 AM   #98
Aepervius
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,719
Originally Posted by Nick227 View Post
The is not in actuality an "I" that is "seeing." That is Cartesian Dualism, and of course social parlance. There is seeing and there is a story that "I am seeing". There is not in actuality an "I" that is doing the seeing. This is materialism.

Nick
And if the original is destroyed then the *I* stops living. The new brain copy is not an *I*. Pretending it is is going beyond materialism.
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 11:48 AM   #99
Nick227
Illuminator
 
Nick227's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,417
Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
OK let us change a bit the parameter. Imagine that for an incredible accident, random happenning of cosmic proportion, somebody in 2000 years has the same thought / emerging property as I have now, same memory, same thought. I have died 1900+ years before him.

Do you really think this would be me, that the I of now would be seeing what that person would be seeing, because essentially the teleporter experiment comes down to that.
According to materialism there can be no persisting self. It's a transient emergent phenomena. And one that the brain is usually hard-wired to believe in because this increases vastly the chances of survival. Belief in the existence of an enduring personal self is thus hugely favoured in evolutionary terms but, according to materialism, is nevertheless not true.

So there is no question that there is a self which is doing or experiencing thinking.

Focussing attention on thought creates the sensation that there is someone that is doing or having the thoughts, but actually they are just arising in consciousness and being focussed on by automatic processes.

Nick
__________________
If you want to know what neural processing looks like... open your eyes!
Nick227 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 11:48 AM   #100
phunk
Master Poster
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,739
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
I don't know. Go to Copenhagen and ask me.
So you wouldn't object to being vaporized as long as there's another you somewhere?
phunk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 11:52 AM   #101
Nick227
Illuminator
 
Nick227's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,417
Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
I fail to see how that is materialist. The You is not the *emergent* property. The You is the brain which is *manifested* thru the emergent property. They are in *together* and no separable. You seem to think that you can simply separate them and reconstruct a similar brain with the same emergent property. I hold that maetrialistically you can't.
You can when the emergent property is an illusion.

Dennett called it the "centre of narrative gravity". The presence and focussing on thought suggests that there is someone having the thoughts, rather as coherent peripheral activity suggests a centre. This is the so-called self, a sensation of a seeming centre created by focussing on thinking. This seeming centre will be identically recreated in the teletransporter.

Nick
__________________
If you want to know what neural processing looks like... open your eyes!

Last edited by Nick227; 28th November 2012 at 11:56 AM.
Nick227 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 12:20 PM   #102
Aepervius
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,719
Originally Posted by Nick227 View Post
You can when the emergent property is an illusion.

Dennett called it the "centre of narrative gravity". The presence and focussing on thought suggests that there is someone having the thoughts, rather as coherent peripheral activity suggests a centre. This is the so-called self, a sensation of a seeming centre created by focussing on thinking. This seeming centre will be identically recreated in the teletransporter.

Nick
No what you reconstructed is a brain with the identical property, but not the *same* brain.

To take my example above, the cube get destroyed you reconstruct an identical cube. But it is not the *same* cube. If you hold that the person original do not die thru the trnsaporter, then you are saying that above it is the same cube. It isn't. It is an identical cube. It is an identical brain. But it would not be ne. just a different person with the same apparent property.

This is what you seem to fail to miss. What you say is right if you look at the *property* only. but the *I* is not the property (apparence) only. It is the now-detsroyed-and-dead original brain. *I* would not see mars if I step in that trnasporter. An identical person with the identical same emergent property would see mars. *I* the original would be dead.
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 12:26 PM   #103
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,853
Originally Posted by phunk View Post
So you wouldn't object to being vaporized as long as there's another you somewhere?
Starting from materialism, if I am created elsewhere at the instant that my current body is vaporized, then I have effectively been relocated. Whether I object to this or not will depend on how I feel about being relocated.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 12:32 PM   #104
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,853
Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
No what you reconstructed is a brain with the identical property, but not the *same* brain.
Your brain today is not the same brain you were thinking with yesterday. Your brain is constantly changing; atoms and molecules and even whole cells are replaced.

Whether you are "still you" doesn't depend on which physical atoms are operating to manifest your mind; replacing the physical matter doesn't have any effect on the continuity of your consciousness. Or if it does, then the current you has very little continuity than the "you" of the past. The "original you" was lost years ago.

Continuity of objects, and in particular continuity of identy, are useful physical constructs but have no underlying material significance. Continuity of consciousness is illusory, and replacing your brain no more "destroys the original you" than going to sleep does.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 12:40 PM   #105
Myriad
Hyperthetical
Moderator
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,763
Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
In the receiving chamber. My personality might get changed to match the sending one, but I would still be alive, and who know maybe there is a chance the process fail and I get to keep my current personality. ETA the sending guy is defintively 100% dead no matter what.

That answer is fully consistent with unwillingness to use the conventional transporter. It implies that the continuity of something other than memory is more important that that of memory. Now, in the receiving chamber you do have continuity of biological life. But in theory you could also have that in the sending chamber if the mad scientist preserved the functioning of that body's other organs (heartbeat, breathing, hormonal regulation, etc.) using a life support system. And I don't think it would change your answer if he did.

So what else of value is preserved in the receiving chamber? Some kind of continuity of individual self-awareness? Does that exist, and if so does it really outvalue one's life experience accumulated in memory and perception habits?

In any case, when you come back with the memories and perceptions of loving the SO of the person in the sending chamber, will "your own" SO (and family, friends, etc.) -- that is, those of the person who was in the receiving chamber, who now knows nothing about them -- prefer it that way or wish it were the reverse?

(If pheromones were as important an aspect of intimate interpersonal relationships as some theorists think they are, our mad scientist could arrange to transfer those too...)

Respectfully,
Myriad
__________________
Actually, most of my friends are pretty smart. So if they all jumped off a bridge I'd at least try to find out if they had a good reason.
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 12:43 PM   #106
Thunderchief
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 168
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
No.



And if I claimed that "you" would be the "you" on Mars, could you provide any evidence to justify considering one or the other?
Well that would be your claim, so I think it would be up to you to justify it. All I claim is that "I" walk into the Scanner on earth and that "I" walk out of it. I see no reason why the act of copying me would transfer my mind to to a brain on Mars, which would anyway be producing its own mind, Identical to mine (initially at least) but not the same mind. The mind is a product of the brain. Of course the "me" on Mars would be thinking; "Wow I was just on earth now, I'm on Mars". ;-) but its not the same me. This is not unique to the mind though, if I take a classic car and transport it to Mars the original is still on earth. the one on Mars is not the same car, even though it is identical.

The question becomes do you care? well in the case of the car I might not, but in the case of me, I definitely do. :-)

A transporter is simply an instant perfect clone maker, if I send my perfect clone off to Mars, I am not going, my clone is.

I hope that clarifies my point of view.

Simon.

(This all assumes that a perfect copy can be made, from what I vaguely understand, you can't actually create identical atoms. correct me if I'm wrong.)
__________________
Heisenberg Probably Rules!
Thunderchief is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 12:43 PM   #107
Nick227
Illuminator
 
Nick227's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,417
Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
This is what you seem to fail to miss. What you say is right if you look at the *property* only. but the *I* is not the property (apparence) only. It is the now-detsroyed-and-dead original brain. *I* would not see mars if I step in that trnasporter. An identical person with the identical same emergent property would see mars. *I* the original would be dead.
The "I" is the illusion. There is not an actual I that is seeing Mars.

There is seeing.
There is the thought "I am seeing Mars."
But there is not, in actuality, an I which is seeing Mars.

The recreated body, emerging from the Teletransporter pod on Mars, will see Mars. It's brain will create the thought "I am seeing Mars." From this thinking the illusory sense of self will be recreated.

The recreated brain will manufacture the same illusion as the original and that illusion is utterly unsubstantial.

~~

It is a deep one. Derek Parfit created the Teletransporter thought experiment in, I think, 1986 in his book Reasons and Persons. To this day, generations of people who consider themselves materialists still are adamant that they wouldn't travel and that there must be something that is lost.

It's very personal, I think. It's easy to be a materialist when you're looking at the world "out there." Parfit's Teletransporter forces you to look at just what you consider to be "you," and for most they don't seem to be along for that ride.

Nick
__________________
If you want to know what neural processing looks like... open your eyes!
Nick227 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 12:47 PM   #108
Nick227
Illuminator
 
Nick227's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,417
Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
To take my example above, the cube get destroyed you reconstruct an identical cube. But it is not the *same* cube.
But we're not talking about something substantial here. Try it with, say, a hoop. Put the hoop upon the ground and the eye can create the sense of it having a centre. There is no physical centre, but it can create the sense of it.

Now, destroy the hoop and recreate it. Put it back on the ground. The eye again creates the sense of it having a centre, even though there is nothing physical there.

The recreated brain will create the same thought patterns as the original. Attention on those thoughts will happen according to the same programming as the original. Thus it will create the same illusory sense of there being someone that is having the thoughts.

Nick
__________________
If you want to know what neural processing looks like... open your eyes!

Last edited by Nick227; 28th November 2012 at 12:51 PM.
Nick227 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 12:50 PM   #109
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,853
Originally Posted by Thunderchief View Post
Well that would be your claim, so I think it would be up to you to justify it.
My claim is that there is no meaningful sense in which "you" are on Earth that "you" are not also on Mars, and giving precedence to one or other other is unjustified.

In fact, if while you were unconscious for the procedure, I moved your physical body to Mars and then created a perfect copy on Earth, there would be no way to tell the difference -- which means there is no difference. Your insistence on protecting the "original" is based on instinct and our intuition about the persistence of objects, not based on facts or evidence or the nature of the objects themselves.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 01:03 PM   #110
phunk
Master Poster
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,739
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
Starting from materialism, if I am created elsewhere at the instant that my current body is vaporized, then I have effectively been relocated. Whether I object to this or not will depend on how I feel about being relocated.
Why does it matter that it happens at the same instant?
phunk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 01:05 PM   #111
rocketdodger
Philosopher
 
rocketdodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,926
Some information that might clear things up for a few people:

1) If you are making a copy, you don't need to destroy the original. Asking "so you are ok with vaporizing yourself?" is a stupid red herring. A more relevant question is "are you ok with merging with a previously copied self?" That question is both more subtle and far more interesting.

2) Mathematically, there is no actual continuity between present and future from the perspective of a conscious being. Our mind is by definition self contained -- it can only use information that is already present within itself. The act of sensing the environment is merely moving information from the environment to a local version in the mind. This implies that we can only know of events after they happen -- our perception of the now is merely comparing the latest information from the past with previous information from the past. And there isn't even any logical basis for perception of the transition between the now and the future.

The point? The point is that at any given time, all your mind can make use of is the previous physical states of your brain. Our entire consciousness is based on nothing but the past. Meaning, there is no loss of continuity when you make a copy -- the history of the original is identical to the history of the copy. Which makes the consciousness between them identical for a brief moment in time.

What people are really worried about, even if they don't know it, is that the original will exist for some time interval after the copy is made and thus there will be a slight divergence in the experiences between the two bodies. If you are worried about it, then don't kill yourself after the copy is made -- simple as that.

But if you think that, at the moment the copy is made, it is just a *copy*, you are wrong. A number of variations on the teleporter experiment illustrate just how arbitrary that notion is. What if you are in deep space and have no reference points and the copy materializes in front of you? How can you tell if you are the copy or the original? You can't. What if the teleporter freezes the consciousness of both the original and the copy, and then physically swaps the position of the copy and the original? How can you tell if you are the copy or the original? You can't. Mathematically, there is nothing special about either the original or the copy.
rocketdodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 01:07 PM   #112
phunk
Master Poster
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,739
Originally Posted by rocketdodger View Post
Some information that might clear things up for a few people:

1) If you are making a copy, you don't need to destroy the original. Asking "so you are ok with vaporizing yourself?" is a stupid red herring. A more relevant question is "are you ok with merging with a previously copied self?" That question is both more subtle and far more interesting.
In what way is there any merger possible in anything we've discussed in this thread?
phunk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 01:07 PM   #113
Nick227
Illuminator
 
Nick227's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,417
If I think myself about getting into the Teletransporter, and pushing the red button, there is this knee-jerk reaction in my mind like "F***, I'm going to die!"

But I do believe in materialism, and I've seen it's postulation on the nature of self backed up in meditation, so the knee-jerk reaction is no longer so strong. I can push the button. But I must admit it's still a close call.

Nick

eta: actually, who am i kidding? no way i'd push the *********** button
__________________
If you want to know what neural processing looks like... open your eyes!

Last edited by Nick227; 28th November 2012 at 01:22 PM.
Nick227 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 01:10 PM   #114
phunk
Master Poster
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,739
Originally Posted by rocketdodger View Post
But if you think that, at the moment the copy is made, it is just a *copy*, you are wrong. A number of variations on the teleporter experiment illustrate just how arbitrary that notion is. What if you are in deep space and have no reference points and the copy materializes in front of you? How can you tell if you are the copy or the original? You can't. What if the teleporter freezes the consciousness of both the original and the copy, and then physically swaps the position of the copy and the original? How can you tell if you are the copy or the original? You can't. Mathematically, there is nothing special about either the original or the copy.
Which is why destroying either one, from a materialistic point of view, is murder.
phunk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 01:11 PM   #115
rocketdodger
Philosopher
 
rocketdodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,926
Originally Posted by phunk View Post
Why does it matter that it happens at the same instant?
It doesn't.

What matters is that the original is vaporized in the same quantum state as the copy is in when it materializes.

To be specific, the copy can also ( or should, rather ) materialize in the state corresponding to the state of the original one planck time after it is vaporized.

To be more specific, the copy can also materialize in any subsequent such state, as long as the deterministic sequence of transitions between the first post-vaporized state and the materialized state is valid. Meaning, if the teleporter vaporizes you then simulates a period of your life then materializes you, everything is still kosher.

The essential thing about consciousness is the particles in your mind following a deterministic causal sequence. As long as that causal sequence is preserved -- by any medium -- your consciousness remains the same.
rocketdodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 01:14 PM   #116
Thunderchief
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 168
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
My claim is that there is no meaningful sense in which "you" are on Earth that "you" are not also on Mars, and giving precedence to one or other other is unjustified.

In fact, if while you were unconscious for the procedure, I moved your physical body to Mars and then created a perfect copy on Earth, there would be no way to tell the difference -- which means there is no difference. Your insistence on protecting the "original" is based on instinct and our intuition about the persistence of objects, not based on facts or evidence or the nature of the objects themselves.
You are missing the point. Of course there would be no way to tell the difference, well you would know of course, however the "me" on Mars is still the original. I am in no way saying that the copy is any less "me" but it is obviously not the original.

The point of all this is that simply the "me" that steps into the working scanner never goes to Mars, he gets destroyed and a copy is created on Mars. the copy is fine with this, however the original is dead and will never experience Mars.

Of course this may well be the case already, the "me" from 10 years ago is not possibly the same "me" typing this, all my cells have been replaced since then. (I think that's the theory anyway) We do however think a lot alike! ;-)

If I create a copy of my classic car, totally identical. park them next to each other. You could not tell which is which, however they are not the same car. They are separated by time and space and can never be the same car. Just as I can never be the "Simon" who went to Mars. I will always be the very lucky original who was not destroyed. :-)
__________________
Heisenberg Probably Rules!
Thunderchief is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 01:14 PM   #117
phunk
Master Poster
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,739
Originally Posted by rocketdodger View Post
It doesn't.

What matters is that the original is vaporized in the same quantum state as the copy is in when it materializes.

To be specific, the copy can also ( or should, rather ) materialize in the state corresponding to the state of the original one planck time after it is vaporized.

To be more specific, the copy can also materialize in any subsequent such state, as long as the deterministic sequence of transitions between the first post-vaporized state and the materialized state is valid. Meaning, if the teleporter vaporizes you then simulates a period of your life then materializes you, everything is still kosher.

The essential thing about consciousness is the particles in your mind following a deterministic causal sequence. As long as that causal sequence is preserved -- by any medium -- your consciousness remains the same.
I can only think of one reason why it matters that the original dies instantly... so that they have no time to realize "oh crap, I've been copied but I'm still here, and I don't want to die".
phunk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 01:15 PM   #118
rocketdodger
Philosopher
 
rocketdodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,926
Originally Posted by phunk View Post
In what way is there any merger possible in anything we've discussed in this thread?
I told you the question was far more interesting

I expect a merger would entail somehow reconciling the neural network connectivity between the two instances, effectively teleporting both of them at the same time and modifying what is reconstructed. It can be done, but it would be pretty darn complicated.

It wouldn't be that jarring for you, though. Think about any events from your past that aren't directly related to each other. A trip you took to some city, for example. When did it happen? Was it you? I could have easily just slipped those memories into your mind, as if they were experienced by a copy of yourself, and you wouldn't know the difference.

Continuing that analogy, before I asked just now, were you thinking of those memories? I bet not. So a merge would just be like having more memories of stuff you didn't have memories of before, and you wouldn't know it, until you recalled those memories for some reason.
rocketdodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 01:17 PM   #119
rocketdodger
Philosopher
 
rocketdodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,926
Originally Posted by phunk View Post
Which is why destroying either one, from a materialistic point of view, is murder.
yes
rocketdodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 01:19 PM   #120
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,853
Originally Posted by phunk View Post
Why does it matter that it happens at the same instant?
It doesn't, except that if you're going to wait until later to form me elsewhere, then my reaction will depend on my feelings about being relocated AND sent to the future, plus I have to factor in the possibility that something will happen and I won't get formed elsewhere at all.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:46 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.