10 hours ago, HiFlyer said:

Replicate three guns at an atomic level from an original. Now randomly sort the guns and hand them out. Which one is the original? Does it matter, from a practical standpoint? Especially if the recipient's do not know the guns are replicated?

Now do it with Gerbils. (Building up to it) does it matter now, except philosophically?

Now let's destroy the originals (Gerbil or gun, your choice) and also don't tell anyone. Does it make a difference now? To whom?

If it pretty much does not (unless everyone including the replicated person, knows that a switch has been made) then why does it matter at all except for a moral queasiness that's completely susceptible to societal change?

 

A gun is inanimate matter though, no consciousness, no mind, no you or me. 😃 Now if you take a brain that has a neuronal arrangement that generates a consciousness, and you stick it in a transporter and essentially destroy that neuronal arrangement, then that consciousness no longer exists and that person is dead.

Now... when you come to create your copy of that person, you could do one of two things. 1) Obtain some atoms from the other side of the galaxy somewhere and create your copy of that original person and its consciousness. 2) Create your copy from the same atoms of the dematerialized person. 

Whether you do 1) above or 2) above, in both cases the original conciousness, the original person is dead and gone and you end up with a copy.

As I said before, there is nothing unique about your atoms that make you, you. Those atoms are identical to atoms from the other side of the universe. Those atoms do not have your name written on them. Those atoms are not solely designated as your atoms only. So it males zero difference if you use different atoms or the same atoms you began with. Either way, if you step in the transporter, if kills you and you are dead.

So yes, it does matter. Unless of course you don't mind dying and letting a copy of you (that isn't you) take your place. 

11 hours ago, HiFlyer said:

As far as the transported person is concerned, he is you, with all the thoughts and even the exact same arrangement of neurons.

 

As far as the transported person is concerned, they would feel like they were the original, yes. But the true original, the person that was... is dead and gone.  

If I said to you "Okay, you are about to be transported, but actually, it will kill you and you won't exist anymore, you will be dead and gone, but we will make a copy of you from your original atoms". You might step in, but I certainly wouldn't. 😁

I don't think we need to worry because I doubt a transporter technology that works the way it does in Star Trek will ever be feasible. If such a technology is invented, it will be an entirely different technology. 

8 minutes ago, martin-w said:

As far as the transported person is concerned, they would feel like they were the original, yes. But the true original, the person that was... is dead and gone.

Even with that as a given, the question remains: Does it matter in any practical sense other than the emotional or philosophical?

You and I could be getting randomly destroyed and recreated by some currently unknown quantum physical process on a regular basis, and as long as nobody knows or tells us about it, absolutely nothing would be or seem different.

Even if we were told, and found that like death itself there was nothing we could do about it, our society (probably after a lot of drama) would either simply have to adapt to the new reality, or do some serious burying of its metaphorical head in the sand.

I concede our concerns about the concept of "Original" and "Copy" are understandable products of our natural survival instincts and societal upbringing, but at the same time we also inhabit a reality where billions of us wholeheartedly not only accept but anticipate (via various religions) magical resurrections into a new reality's/forms with no such qualms about originality....

(contradictions thy name is humans)

From a purely emotionless and completely objective perspective (rather than one driven by a biological fear of death response) what difference does it make that your consciousness was briefly interrupted by (temporary) death with a technological rather than spiritual resurrection.....?

I suspect the only difference is how we decide to feel about it; and our feelings as individuals and as a species are demonstrably subject to change.

Objectively there's no evidence the universe cares one bit about our debatable concepts of self, so..... if we could (for instance) send robots to go build cities in other star systems and then receive copies of (technically) deceased volunteers, well.....

From a practical perspective, humans would still be colonizing tha' stars, somebody would almost certainly step up to the plate, and our flexible social norms would be the only thing stopping us.

Well.... except the probable physical impossibility of the whole concept as depicted by Star Trek...

Hmmmmm....

We've gone far afield from the original post about xeroxed guns, but I think we as a species are beginning a journey with those, that leads in these directions eventually...

And we'll adapt!

 

1 hour ago, HiFlyer said:

Even with that as a given, the question remains: Does it matter in any practical sense other than the emotional or philosophical?

 

If you regard being dead as mattering then yes. I think if it were you, you would rather be alive than dead. 😃

 

1 hour ago, HiFlyer said:

You and I could be getting randomly destroyed and recreated by some currently unknown quantum physical process on a regular basis, and as long as nobody knows or tells us about it, absolutely nothing would be or seem different.

 

But if you did know about it, as you would with the transporter, you'd rather not die. 

 

1 hour ago, HiFlyer said:

I concede our concerns about the concept of "Original" and "Copy" are understandable products of our natural survival instincts and societal upbringing

 

Nope, its  fact that its a copy. Not a product of our upbringing. Fact is fact.

 

1 hour ago, HiFlyer said:

but at the same time we also inhabit a reality where billions of us wholeheartedly not only accept but anticipate (via various religions) magical resurrections into a new reality's/forms with no such qualms about originality....

 

Well I cant speak for religious people because I'm not one of them, but I would imagine they regard their "magical resurrections" as generating the true THEM, their intact "soul" being transported by that magical process. Pretty sure they don't think they are going to die and be replaced by a copy.

 

1 hour ago, HiFlyer said:

From a purely emotionless and completely objective perspective (rather than one driven by a biological fear of death response) what difference does it make that your consciousness was briefly interrupted by (temporary) death with a technological rather than spiritual resurrection.....?

 

See above. And its not temporary. 

 

 

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

If you regard being dead as mattering then yes. I think if it were you, you would rather be alive than dead. 😃

Which is again, personal/cultural/philosophical. All over the world, for their various reasons people make a contrary choice every day.

The universe at large shows no evidence of 'caring' if it's you or your indistinguishable copy that shows up for work tomorrow. Even your neighbors won't care unless they are told of the switch, and that's because it objectively almost certainly doesn't matter except on the level of human emotion, and there's no evidence the universe cares about that, either.

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

But if you did know about it, as you would with the transporter, you'd rather not die.

But that just takes my actual question and without answering it, replaces it with your original assertion. My question was what if you did not know.

Further, I ask if knowing (and creeping out the transported) is the only difference, then again it's demonstrably a human foible, because if you remove that human thought variable, the rest of the universe goes on completely unchanged. How do we in reality differ from a replicated inanimate object except in our own imagined self-importance?

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

Pretty sure they don't think they are going to die and be replaced by a copy.

As a kid looking at the shenanigans of the adults around me, I used to remind myself that if I believed the moon was actually made of green cheese, the moon would still be rocks and stuff because reality is not affected by the beliefs of little old me. I tested it by imagining I could fly like superman and etc, and the universe remained steadfastly unimpressed. In our various cultural myths, humans seem to often decide to ignore the hint....

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

Nope, its  fact that its a copy. Not a product of our upbringing. Fact is fact.

I'm not sure where we missed each other on that one. I never said you were not a copy after the process. I said your human objections and disquiet were the result of transitory human beliefs, which I would posit there is no evidence the universe cares about. The only practical difference would be in creeping out a few hairless apes.

Bambi could wander through the portal (or whatever) without a thought, and life would go on apace. Are we really, in the grand scheme of things that much more important than Bambi?

Why, exactly? Our big brains? The aliens might laugh at our arrogance as they nuked the planet from orbit..... 👽

OK, I'll bite on the transporter debate.

First, we have to establish how it works in order to understand the implications of using it.  From what I've gathered watching all the Start Trek episodes over the years, the transporter deconstructs the body into its component molecules, but it doesn't actually "beam" all these molecules to the destination and reconstruct them. Instead it transmits the body's entire molecular *pattern* to a receiver/buffer at the destination, and then a replicator reconstructs the body from that pattern.

Therefore, the initial transport step of breaking down the body to a molecular level in order to make the pattern effectively kills the original body.

Now, if you don't believe in a soul or spirit, then there is no *practical* difference between the original and the replicated body.  Yes, the atoms and molecules are not the originals, but that doesn't matter.  It's the way they are configured that matters and that's what makes each of us unique.  All of one's memories, traits, personality, attributes, flaws, etc. would be perfectly copied.  If the process is flawless, then one could do this thousands of times and never know the difference despite being deconstructed and reconstructed each time.

Even if the transporter were real and worked perfectly, I would not use it.  I don't like the idea of being obliterated and then copied, even if it makes no practical difference.

Dave

I'm wondering if you have the concept down of how the matter-energy-matter transporter works.  Dave is correct about everyone having their transport pattern in the Starfleet computer system.   The Transporter then breaks the person's molecules/atoms down into energy and beams then to the destination to be reassembled into the person's pattern.  No copies are being made. Original molecules/atoms are being used.

Everyone be aware of the Brundle-fly concept! 😲

My 2 cents for today!

1 hour ago, HiFlyer said:

Which is again, personal/cultural/philosophical. All over the world, for their various reasons people make a contrary choice every day.

 

Yes, but it still doesn't make any difference to the fact that when you sue a Star Trek style transporter, you are dead, your life is over. 

 

1 hour ago, HiFlyer said:

The universe at large shows no evidence of 'caring' if it's you or your indistinguishable copy

 

I didn't say the universe did care. That's irrelevant. What is relevant is that you are dead. 😁 If you are okay with dying use your transporter, if not, don't.

 

1 hour ago, HiFlyer said:

My question was what if you did not know.

 

Well obviously if you didn't know then you wouldn't be able to make an informed decision as to whether to use your transporter. But... objectively you would be dead.

 

1 hour ago, HiFlyer said:

I ask if knowing (and creeping out the transported) is the only difference, then again it's demonstrably a human foible, because if you remove that human thought variable, the rest of the universe goes on completely unchanged.

 

Knowing isn't the only difference. Doesn't matter if you know or you don't know, OBJECTIVLY you are dead if you use it. You don't stay alive because you "didn't know". 😁

 

1 hour ago, HiFlyer said:

As a kid looking at the shenanigans of the adults around me, I used to remind myself that if I believed the moon was actually made of green cheese, the moon would still be rocks and stuff because reality is not affected by the beliefs of little old me. I tested it by imagining I could fly like superman and etc, and the universe remained steadfastly unimpressed. In our various cultural myths, humans seem to often decide to ignore the hint....

 

Exactly objective reality is objective reality. And objectively you are dead if you use the transporter, just as the Moon is rocks not cheese, you are dead if you use the transporter and a copy is made. 

 

2 hours ago, HiFlyer said:

I said your human objections and disquiet were the result of transitory human beliefs,.

 

Not really, all animals are genetically programmed for survival, not killing ourselves in transporters. 

 

 

47 minutes ago, charliearon said:

The Transporter then breaks the person's molecules/atoms down into energy and beams then to the destination to be reassembled into the person's pattern.  No copies are being made. Original molecules/atoms are being used.

 

My point though is that it doesn't matter if the original atoms are used to reassemble the person or not. Once you are broken down into basic atoms you are dead. You would effectively be reconstructing a new person from the same atoms, which is no different to reconstructing a copy of the person from atoms from the other side of the universe. Its essentially the same. Charlie isn't written on every atom, they are not unique to you as a person. They are identical to carbon atoms anywhere else in the universe. Its essentially a copy of you from the same raw materials, the atoms that used to compose your living body. 

Utilizing the same atoms doesn't make it the original person. Atoms are just basic building blocks with nothing about them that is uniquely you. 

Clinically... as soon as the neurological pattern is destroyed that person is dead. Doesn't matter if you make a new neurological pattern from the raw atoms. 

Edited November 30, 20232 yr by martin-w

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

Now, if you don't believe in a soul or spirit, then there is no *practical* difference between the original and the replicated body. 

 

The reconstructed person wouldn't be the same person though.  The neurological patterns in the brain that generate consciousness, make us who we are, would have been destroyed by the transporter and then a copy of those neurological patterns created again from the same atoms. Whether what we are is a soul or just neurological patterns, its still disrupted, destroyed when the transporter dematerializes the person. 

 

 

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

t transmits the body's entire molecular *pattern* to a receiver/buffer at the destination, and then a replicator reconstructs the body from that pattern.

 

Nope, pretty sure that the Star Trek transporter breaks the body down into basic atoms, beams it to the destination, then reassembles the person from those atoms. Essentially killing you and then making a copy from the same raw materials. 

Do you remember the Trek episode where Scotty's pattern had been in the buffer for decades (Dyson sphere episode) essentially he had been dead for decades and then a new Scotty made from the atoms. That new neurological pattern that was his consciousness wasn't the same neurological pattern that had been deleted decades prior. In my interpretation of course. 

Edited November 30, 20232 yr by martin-w

@martin-w  Sorry, totally disagree!  If transported people are dead, then how did Lt. Barkley grab a hold of the giant worm-like people in the matter stream to save them?  Personally, I'm hanging on to my "Charlie atoms"!

57 minutes ago, charliearon said:

The Transporter then breaks the person's molecules/atoms down into energy and beams then to the destination to be reassembled into the person's pattern.  No copies are being made. Original molecules/atoms are being used.

 

25 minutes ago, martin-w said:

Nope, pretty sure that the Star Trek transporter breaks the body down into basic atoms, beams it to the destination, then reassembles the person from those atoms.

So you guys contend that the transporter actually converts the molecules into energy and then transmits and stores the energy in the destination buffer?  OK, I think that would work, too.

Charlie is right, though, that if the unique molecules are actually converted to energy and then converted back into matter at the destination then it is not a copy but a reconstruction using the same molecules.. 

Dave

4 minutes ago, martin-w said:

Yes, but it still doesn't make any difference to the fact that when you sue a Star Trek style transporter, you are dead, your life is over. 

The question is not whether one version of you is dead: its if that makes an objective difference to the world/universe at large when an indistinguishable/perfect copy takes over right where you left off. Also, one of my original questions was: Is a 'person' the 'meat' that he/she is made of, or are 'you' more granularly described as the accumulated thought's/knowledge/outlook/patterns/habits of a life?

The milieu in which one is raised will probably have strong influence on how one answers that question.

18 minutes ago, martin-w said:

Knowing isn't the only difference. Doesn't matter if you know or you don't know, OBJECTIVLY you are dead if you use it. You don't stay alive because you "didn't know".

And again I never said original you was not dead. I asked does it objectively matter, except to people's feelings.

22 minutes ago, martin-w said:

Not really, all animals are genetically programmed for survival, not killing ourselves in transporters.

We are also not genetically hardwired to fly to the moon or drive cars or spend half of our lives in offices doing strange human stuff away from the sun.... But.. we do it daily as part of our current reality as a species. We adapted to the change, (as successful animals do and unsuccessful animals do not) and if transporters were ever a thing, some portion of humanity would adapt to that (if not stopped by some other portion) just as our dung tossing species adapted to becoming a nuke tossing species.... 🚀

Besides that, I mentioned earlier that one objection was the ingrained animal fear of death, coupled with societal belief, which you countered with:

4 hours ago, martin-w said:

Nope, its  fact that its a copy. Not a product of our upbringing. Fact is fact.

Which I thought of as a bit of a non-sequitur, since what I was getting at, was that being a copy (or the deceased original) only mattered on an emotional level, and objective reality 'cares' nothing about fear/emotions etc.

Hypothetical:

If the only way to get to a colony transport receptor around Barnard's star (for instance) in less than a thousand years and without the chance of being irradiated by cosmic rays or smashing into a pebble at a good portion of lightspeed is/was to be transported....

Well...

Hmmmmmm..... Are we meat? Or are we information?

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

Charlie is right, though, that if the unique molecules are actually converted to energy and then converted back into matter at the destination then it is not a copy but a reconstruction using the same molecules.. 

The way the transporters work has always been a bit of a black box. originally it was very straightforward, but as real life objections were raised over time, the explanations got more hand-wavy.

Real-life physics tends to suggest that the original os destroyed just by the process of disassembly, but you better believe there's been spirited debate in/on various nerd forums across the globe.

A later hand wave is that there is a cross-dimensional component to beaming that preserves the original, but that kind of contradicts the whole matter buffer thing.....

Take your choice. Do Star Trek Teleporters Actually Kill You? Here’s the Science

18 hours ago, charliearon said:

@martin-w  Sorry, totally disagree!  If transported people are dead, then how did Lt. Barkley grab a hold of the giant worm-like people in the matter stream to save them?  Personally, I'm hanging on to my "Charlie atoms"!

 

Anything is possible in science fiction, the writers don't care if it makes no sense. 😁 

Laurence Kraus wrote a book about the physics of Star Trek. I've not read it, but apparently its very good.