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

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

spoiler

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

  • Lumidaub@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m assuming it’s painless and that my clone would have my memories. That’s still “me”. “I” am the sum of the structures in my brain and what my brain does with it.

    • jsveiga@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s “you” for other people, and even for the clone. But it’s not “you” for your your present you, this “you” dies (in startrek style teleporter)

        • czech@no.faux.moe
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Its the same as dying. If you’re that blase about dying then yea- makes no difference.

            • usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              It is though. There’s a separate consciousness that starts around the same time, but it’s separate and a divergence from yours. A copy of your consciousness goes on, but the one you’re experiencing stops.

              • Lumidaub@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You seem to imply that’s because it’s a “different” body made of different atoms. The atoms in our bodies are constantly exchanged already, we’re constantly recreating our bodies even without transporting. I don’t think that’s any different.

            • czech@no.faux.moe
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Your consciousness stops for you in both scenarios. In the teleporter scenario a clone lives out the rest of your life. To everyone around you its as if nothing has changed but for you, specifically, time stopped progressing at the sending-teleporter.

        • jsveiga@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re right, instant painless death, then no regrets (I’m assuming you - like me - don’t believe im afterlife, or souls, as startrek style teleporters are incompatible with those).

          But I don’t want to cease to exist just yet.

          • Lumidaub@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            No afterlife, no souls - though I can see how it would be tricky for a believer. But I can’t see teleporting as “ceasing to exist”, simply because I consider my “self” and my consciousness to be identical to the structures in my brain. There is nothing else but the atoms that have come together in the specific combination to form my body, and those atoms are constantly being replaced by other atoms anyway. When using a transporter, the current combination of atoms is simply recreated at the other end to seamlessly continue its function and processes (assuming perfect copies of course), thus effectively “transporting” my consciousness.

            • jsveiga@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              PS: On the afterlife/soul issue, yes it’d be tricky - that’s why I assumed you (like me) didn’t follow that line of thought.

              Assuming a soul inhabits the body would require either that the transporter technology had the hability to convert/rebuild souls - and in Riker’s case to CREATE new souls, which would be the highest heresy - or that the souls would have to figure out where the transporter would materialize their body, and through supernatural powers, self-transport instantly there to reposses it. And in Riker’s case, one of the bodies would be souless, and having no soul to get ethernal damnation or salvation, this copy would be free from God’s blackmailing. I bet the writers didn’t think of the consequences of that episode, if conservatives had understood that…

            • jsveiga@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              In one episode of startrek ng a glitch ends up creating two copies of Riker (transport is apparently aborted, he’s recovered back to the ship, but the transporter on the other side materializes “him” too - bad handshaking in comms do that kind of thing in real life transactions too).

              Both believed they were the original (and one believes he was abandoned on the planet).

              Same goes for using it as a replicator (if the information can be sent as data, it can also be copied, stored and rematerialized multiple times). The aforementioned episode makes that canon.

              Then if you’re not dead, who are you after multiple copies are created? If your conscience was effectively transported to the copies, do you now have split personalities? Because each copy will live a different life from this moment on.

              Assuming the original ceased to exist, and the other - or others - are copies is more consistent imo, because assuming you “are” the produced being on the other side doesn’t work for multiple copies.

              • Lumidaub@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I don’t know. From my understanding, Thomas Riker is indeed the same person as William - in the very first instance after transporting. After that, their experiences are different and their consciousnesses diverge to form different people. I’m not the same person I was two seconds ago, even without transporting, while sitting motionless in my chair.

                Split personalities, btw, would mean two personalities in the same brain, that’s not what’s happening here.

                • jsveiga@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  But if your personality was transported to to two bodies, that is literally splitting a personality, which will diverge from there. Not the same meaning used for the term in real life, but effectively a splitted personality. If you have one somehing and it becomes more than one, it was split.

                  • Lumidaub@feddit.de
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    It’s a copied personality. The same brain structures recreated in two identical bodies. Is that an issue?