Thread: If we had teleportation devices...

Just got back from a small vacation. For the most part I want to thank you for your posts. So it's good night for me.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

If someone made an exactly identical copy of you, it would be another you.

But it wouldn't be my consciousness. The person might be identical to me, but it isn't me.

Obviously this makes no difference to anyone else. Someone steps in, what appears to be the exact same person steps out. Even the person stepping out wouldn't know the difference, but from your perspective (well, if you could still perceive things), you're dead.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

A clone or a twin has the same genetic material but different life histories.

Being a bit pedantic; you know what I meant

Originally Posted by Photolysis

But it wouldn't be my consciousness. The person might be identical to me, but it isn't me.

Define "consciousness". That is a very vague term for science.

It would be a different ego, somehow, yes, because you associate your ego with your body. Meaning, if you and your exact clone saw each other, you wouldn't consider yourselves the same. But that is only a ratinalization; as long as you two are an identical copy, you are the same, even though one is independent from the other.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

I believe so. If you change this teleportation device into a replication device you'd have a thousand of "you's". Every one would feel like the original, because they would all be this original. There is nothing unique about the atoms in your body. So in theory teleportation devices like that just kill you and create a replica. Whatever death even means at this point.

This man is a genius. Listen to him.

This this this this this.

Define "consciousness". That is a very vague term for science.

Well it's a very tricky term to define. Philosophers could spend years arguing over this sort of thing, so I'll go with "an individual mind with a sense of self" as a quick and rough definition.

It would be a different ego, somehow, yes, because you associate your ego with your body. Meaning, if you and your exact clone saw each other, you wouldn't consider yourselves the same. But that is only a ratinalization; as long as you two are an identical copy, you are the same, even though one is independent from the other.

If you and your clone saw it each other, it's very obvious you have 2 separate people. The fact that you might act the same is irrelevant. I do not have the same perceptions or experiences (they differentiate) as that person. If one stubs their toe, the other does not feel it.

You say we associate our ego with our body? I think you have it the wrong way around; an ego is associated with a body.

Also, just because something has the same properties, it does not make it the same object. It makes it interchangeable, but still not the same. If I have 2 identical cars, it's clearly nonsense to say they are fundamentally the same object and it's an illusion they are different; they're clearly 2 different, independent ones, albeit the same make, model, and otherwise identical.

Well, even a slight change of the route on an atom would make you different, yes. But making an exact clone of a person is only an hypothetical situation, just like you seeing your clone. So we have to analyse it hypothetically.

For you and your clone to be truly identical, the two clones would have to be isolated from the rest of the universe, with no time passing during the cloning, and you two positioned symmetrically. If that happened, you reactions would be exactly the same, as if in a mirror. There wouldn't be some sort of "telepathy" between the clones (that is just stupid); but in this hypothetical situation, you two would have the exact same reactions independently.

When exposed to different experiences, though, you and your clone would differentiate, following the principle of the chaos theory - the more time that passes, the more different you become.

Not sure how alive this thread is anymore But anyways, just thought I'd add in my two cents.

It seems like we are substituting the entire meaning of teleportation with something new just because the new meaning makes more sense. Teleportation is, when put as simply as possible, transportation over a distance, implied to be instantaneous. Now, it has come to be know, just by force of logic, to include the process of being broken down in one location and reassembled in the other. At this point we are breaking down language to make way for practicality. But to assume that what is in one location is destroyed and a new version is created in the new location is far too large a jump to conclusions to be logical. Not that this would make sense as an actual machine, but to change the definition to mean this and only this is unacceptable in the current absence of such a machine. All the OP said was we would be broken down, yet it implied it and the rest of the thread followed.

In my opinion it would make more sense for the energy we're broken down into to be sent to the new location, where it would meet a reverse effect and therefor be turned back into matter. Given the possibilities implied by the technology we're talking about, this seems easier than finding a new atom for every atom that was in you.

Furthermore, we are confusing consciousness with something akin to a soul or spirit. To quote the highly respected neurologist, Michael Gazzaniga; "The consciousness is not a thing in the brain that information is poured into. It's the struggle of different circuits to hold the stage for a second." What I gather from that quote and everything he said with it is that consciousness is made by which parts of the brain are being used and when. By this logic, if we could make a brain, it would be conscious, despite the lack of any body or metaphysical mind. Also, this would mean that something made in a teleporter, even if from scratch and not the old atoms you were made of, would be you in every respect but that of ethics.

Originally Posted by Xedan

In my opinion it would make more sense for the energy we're broken down into to be sent to the new location, where it would meet a reverse effect and therefor be turned back into matter. Given the possibilities implied by the technology we're talking about, this seems easier than finding a new atom for every atom that was in you.

It's easier to find a new atom for every atom that was in you, than break down each of your atoms, convert them into pure energy, transfer the energy to the place you wanna go without losses, and recreate each of the atoms there were in your body orderly.

Of course. It's impossible to recreate a human body like that. I don't know what is your grasp of human biology and biochemistry, but it's much more complex than you imagine.

And you're right about consciousness being a function of the brain.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

It's easier to find a new atom for every atom that was in you, than break down each of your atoms, convert them into pure energy, transfer the energy to the place you wanna go without losses, and recreate each of the atoms there were in your body orderly.

And technically after the conversions they would no longer be the "same" atoms.

I always wondered about this, but mostly thinking of this as a way to kill someone. What if someone puts a chair, or a fridge in the way of these or something big and heavy, would the person become part of the fridge and die because of it, it will be like teleporting through a wall. What if you teleport into another person trying to teleport, or someone just standing there.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

And technically after the conversions they would no longer be the "same" atoms.

Define "same atom". Aren't two identical hydrogen atoms the same atom? Unless they are proven to be different, they're exact copies, and thus behave the same way.

What atoms make up your body doesn't matter. All the constituents in your body are constantly being renewed, and yet you remain.

The point here is that the definition of "self" humans have is very bad. The "self" the the sum of the components placed in a particular configuration. You are made of matter, and nothing else. In fact, "you" don't exist - not in a strict sense. You change so fast that it's impossible to pinpoint what is you. Each breath you take makes you a different thing.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Define "same atom". Aren't two identical hydrogen atoms the same atom? Unless they are proven to be different, they're exact copies, and thus behave the same way.

What atoms make up your body doesn't matter. All the constituents in your body are constantly being renewed, and yet you remain.

The point here is that the definition of "self" humans have is very bad. The "self" the the sum of the components placed in a particular configuration. You are made of matter, and nothing else. In fact, "you" don't exist - not in a strict sense. You change so fast that it's impossible to pinpoint what is you. Each breath you take makes you a different thing.

Yes yes I agree. I was merely pointing out that by converting the body to energy and back to it's form would make it impossible for the result to be the same original atoms, thus defeating the purpose of going through that extra effort.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

Yes yes I agree. I was merely pointing out that by converting the body to energy and back to it's form would make it impossible for the result to be the same original atoms, thus defeating the purpose of going through that extra effort.

Lul I misinterpreted your intention, sorry.

Ok a few questions. Do we assume that people have "souls"? If so where are the souls located? I do NOT mean this to be a serious answer. Suppose that there is an atom in your body that is always a part of your body and doesnt get switched out like most other atoms in your body do. Say your soul resides in that atom. (accounts for reincarnation) If that atom is not transported into the new body then it would not be you. if it is it doesnt matter if every other atom is different it would be you.

Now an alternate idea assuming that our perceptions are the only thing that makes us us. If at any point in time there are two versions of you then the original ould percieve one thing and the other you would percieve something else making it a seperate identity. Now also if there is too long of a delay between when you are taken apart and put together then your consciousness would die and the other would be a sepreate identity (even though it has all of your memories and thinks like you) To solve this you would have to be created at the same exact instant that you are destroyed.


Do yall have any thoughts about my ideas? Any changes you would make to my ideas?