If we had teleportation devices...

[NeoSioType]

that somehow defied physics by turning us into energy and back into matter at a different place would we come out right? Like conscious-wise? It's like killing a person and putting them back together before they technically died. From our perspective would we know no more, like death? Would this reassembled person be us in every possible way, but not?

[Dreams4free]

that somehow defied physics by turning us into energy and back into matter at a different place would we come out right? Like conscious-wise? Don't try to soften out questions with "like", draws closer similarities of a teenage girl to you. Anyhow, how the hell are we suppose to predicate the random condition of self consciousness on any rationale after a feat of "defied physics" that as far as I understand physics, makes no logical sense and is impossible. All we can do is pointless speculation. It's like killing a person and putting them back together before they technically died. O...k. Are we talking about Jesus or time travel. I can not see a line of relevance being drawn with the subject matter. From our perspective would we know no more, like death? Would this reassembled person be us in every possible way, but not? Again let alone your initial variable of human condition, you introduce another one without answering the first. When we are giving a perspective, we are receiving immediate cognitive delineation of codified experience. We can't judge a perspective of a condition that we don't even know has self awareness or not, let alone our temporal relativeness to malformed being.

[DrunkenArse]

For the most part, I'm with Dreams4free. I'll humor you though. You have to choose your answer. If you believe that we are nothing but our body and that our conciousness is purely a function of your physical state and we assume that the machine puts it back together again perfectly (and why not make that assumption, really) then you'd be fine. If you believe that our conciousness is contained in some sort of 'non-physical' 'super natural' 'energy' then it's up to you. does your machine recreate that perfectly as well? If so then you're fine, if not you're toast. That's about as interesting as this question get's, IMO. May this thread RIP.

[Bonsay]

Would this reassembled person be us in every possible way, but not? 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.

[Photolysis]

My instinctual reaction is that if the matter is the same at the molecular level, it would be you (since it would be your exact current body in a different position in space). If it destroyed you and rebuilt a new copy of you, it would kill your version of you, but create a new version of you that was identical in every way. Even this new version of you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. I have to admit though that I have some problems with the idea that I've not yet resolved. Let's say I switch every single atom of yours with another identical atom, whilst you stay at the same place. I would say it's still the same person, because there's nothing special about the matter that makes us up. However, if you teleport and get remade from different atoms, is it still the same person? For some reason, I have my doubts. Imagine the following: Scenario 1 Person A walks in, is copied at another location, Person A* walks out, Person A is broken down In this case, it is clear that A and A* are not the same since they exist independently of each other at the same time; it would be like identical twins or a clone, someone identical to you that is not your version of you. Scenario 2 Person A walks in, is broken down and copied at another location, Person A* walks out. This is the same as #1 except for the fact that both versions do not exist at the same time. I therefore see no reason why it would still be you in light of #1. Scenario 3 Person A walks in and has their exact same matter broken down and sent to the new location. Person A* walks out. In this case it seems clear that it is still the same person. And this is where I seem get a contradiction. If I change your matter whilst you're standing in front of me, it's still you, just with different matter. If I move your matter through space, it's still you, just in a different space. If I change both at the same time, then it would seem it would still be you, according to this logic. Yet if I change it whilst you're being teleported, I can't see any way to say if it's still you with different matter in a different place, or a completely new version of you. EDIT: Perhaps a resolution is to define an object as something that has a unique solution to the matter it is composed of, its position in spacetime, and has a continuity of existence, and only two of these can change at a time. If I teleport your matter, you still have the same matter despite a different position and a break in continuity so it is still you. If I swap your matter instantly with identical matter, you still have the same position and a continuity, so it is still you. If I do both at the same time, you have neither the same matter, the same position in spacetime, and no continuity so it is not you. This would also mean that we are the same object despite moving around and having our matter change (eating, breathing, countless other biological processes), because we still have a continuity. In fact, I think doing so would resolve my problems with this and provide a clear answer, and it would seem to work under all circumstances I can think of.

[Kromoh]

I think this topic goes back to the problem of consciousness. Yes, it would be like killing a person and putting a clone back together. However, I don't think it matters because humans don't have consciousness, but illusion of consciousness. It's not like your "spirit" or "vital force" would be killed in the process. You are what you are - if there is an identical version of you, then there really is another you. PS: Dream4free, stop being such a bitch. I have yet to see one post of yours which isn't at least slightly insulting. If you don't want to speculate, then don't even click a thread that starts with "if".

[Photolysis]

You are what you are - if there is an identical version of you, then there really is another you. Which is all very well for other observers but from one's own perspective it's not much help. The fact that a version of me would still exist doesn't help me when my version of me is dead!

[Kromoh]

I know exactly what you mean, I swear I do. But it really doesn't make a difference. We are all just a bunch of organized matter. Instinct makes us have self-identity, but that doesn't change what things really are. If someone made an exactly identical copy of you, it would be another you. Only the name of the machine wouldn't fit. It's not really "teleportation", since you aren't being transported, but "recreation". I doubt anyone would use it though. Our instinct of self-identity is too strong to let it.

[Bonsay]

The point here is, there is nothing in your brain or body that makes you, you. It is the mental process and even that is not something static, in the end even that arises from your brain. Therefore it doesn't really matter what atoms you're made of or where in space you are positioned. If the time frame in which messages are sent in our brains isn't infinitely small then you only exist for a moment. The thoughts from our brains, supplied by information from "outside" have in gotten us to a point where the thoughts become self aware. The question is what is the nature of this observer we see ourselves as. This is all nice and dandy, but another question is if there is an individuality in this "soul", observer entity. I guess if we create a replica of me, there will be two "me's" and two of these observers, each thinking and being the real deal. So..yeah.

[Xei]

I know exactly what you mean, I swear I do. But it really doesn't make a difference. We are all just a bunch of organized matter. Instinct makes us have self-identity, but that doesn't change what things really are. If someone made an exactly identical copy of you, it would be another you. I disagree but it is really impossible to argue because qualia are ineffable. I think that reductionism does not answer the problem of consciousness. In fact I consider the two to be somewhat mutually exlusive. I can see how reductionism explains why thoughts exist and what exactly they are, but I do not see WHY there is consciousness there - experience of thoughts. I can imagine thoughts without consciousness but this is not the case. Scenario 1 Person A walks in, is copied at another location, Person A* walks out, Person A is broken down In this case, it is clear that A and A* are not the same since they exist independently of each other at the same time; it would be like identical twins or a clone, someone identical to you that is not your version of you. Scenario 2 Person A walks in, is broken down and copied at another location, Person A* walks out. This is the same as #1 except for the fact that both versions do not exist at the same time. I therefore see no reason why it would still be you in light of #1. Scenario 3 Person A walks in and has their exact same matter broken down and sent to the new location. Person A* walks out. In this case it seems clear that it is still the same person. Yes well argued. In fact I believe a few years ago I posted pretty much exactly the same thing, pointing out the seeming contradiction when you decrease the distance between the two locations; because space is continuous there seems to be no definite cut off point at which the conclusion changes (to the complete opposite). Indeed if we consider the fact that the quantum world is fuzzy and does not have a particular location, the whole thing seems to make no sense whatsoever. I've just mulled it over and I think you can apply the argument for sake of completeness and purity to two separate situations: 1. Spacial discontinuity; destruction and creation taking place at different/identical locations at the same moment. 2. Temporal discontinuity; destruction and creation taking place at different (before/after) / indentical moments. You get the same paradox for both. I think nowadays I may have the answer (although it still leaves me with other huge paradoxes regarding consciousness). It came to me when I considered the China Brain and what would happen if, instead of the Chinese people following the same instructions as a neuron and hence emulating a thought, they instead acted totally randomly, and just happen by an incredible chance to copy the neural activity of a thought. I asked myself if this latter situation would cause consciousness (like you I think I'd argue the first definitely does) and I answered with a definite no. I can't give any clear argument, but it seems extremely intuitive. It therefore struck me that causality is essential to the understanding of consciousness; how one neuron directly causes another to fire and so on (the intriguing thing is that macroscopic causality shouldn't have any objective reality under reductionism, and this is essentially the hard problem of consciousness). I think therefore the paradox may be able to be answered by pointing out that in the first of your situations, the causality is severed, and so therefore consciousness is also. The murkiness of this solution which has just occured to me is that in a sense the causality is still there in a convoluted fashion acting through the teleporter...

[Bearsy]

Oh... great... look who's back.

[DrunkenArse]

Scenario 1 Person A walks in, is copied at another location, Person A* walks out, Person A is broken down In this case, it is clear that A and A* are not the same since they exist independently of each other at the same time; it would be like identical twins or a clone, someone identical to you that is not your version of you. I disagree. It would have all the memories that you do as well as all the thoughts and abilities. If you were in the middle of adding 345235244 to 8763427432 in your head while the procedure was carried out, then you would finish the sum on 'the other side'. It is an exact copy of you, your history and your thoughts. For all intents and purposes, it is you. A clone or a twin has the same genetic material but different life histories. The fact that the two evolve along different courses after the copy is made is nothing but a reflection of the fact that you are a 'different' person from one second to the next. After a given period of time, it would be more like twins. Perhaps a resolution is to define an object as something that has a unique solution to the matter it is composed of, its position in spacetime, and has a continuity of existence, and only two of these can change at a time. This is only necessary if there's a paradox and I don't see one. If there is one, then it's a clever definition. I think therefore the paradox may be able to be answered by pointing out that in the first of your situations, the causality is severed, and so therefore consciousness is also. The murkiness of this solution which has just occured to me is that in a sense the causality is still there in a convoluted fashion acting through the teleporter... That's precisely it. I really don't see the paradox. There's two people at the same time. It seems like we're pulling a paradox out of nowhere. I think the root of this is that we want conciousness to be something special, when it is just another physical process. It may be a very special physical process and may even end up getting fundamental laws of nature associated with it. In the end it's just a physical process. That's about as interesting as this question get's, IMO. Shows what I know. EDIT: Can we think up an example of this paradox that doesn't involve conciousness to make it easier for me to understand?

[Xei]

I disagree. It would have all the memories that you do as well as all the thoughts and abilities. If you were in the middle of adding 345235244 to 8763427432 in your head while the procedure was carried out, then you would finish the sum on 'the other side'. It is an exact copy of you, your history and your thoughts. For all intents and purposes, it is you. A clone or a twin has the same genetic material but different life histories. The fact that the two evolve along different courses after the copy is made is nothing but a reflection of the fact that you are a 'different' person from one second to the next. After a given period of time, it would be more like twins. I think the point is that his consciousness is not the same. Yes he is the same person and would act in exactly the same way, that is well accepted. The problem is when we consider what it is like to be teleported. Would you suddenly find yourself in the new body, or would your consciousness just end?

[DrunkenArse]

I think the point is that his consciousness is not the same. Yes he is the same person and would act in exactly the same way, that is well accepted. To me, that is the paradox. It doesn't come from anything intrinsic to the situation itself but only from our perceptions of what conciousness is and, as such, isn't much of a paradox. I think that the person stepping out of the machine on the other end would agree with me, don't you think?

[Xei]

Yeah, they would. But of course if two people came out they might get in a bit of a fight about it. Or if you didn't destroy the original. Personally I treat consciousness as an objective thing rather than an illusion, which I tend to consider something of a philosophical cop-out.

[DrunkenArse]

Personally I treat consciousness as an objective thing rather than an illusion, which I tend to consider something of a philosophical cop-out. I agree with you. I believe that it is objective, real and describable within the laws of physics. What other objectively real phenomenon has the property that copying an instance of it leads to paradox?

[Dreams4free]

I think this topic goes back to the problem of consciousness. Yes, it would be like killing a person and putting a clone back together. However, I don't think it matters because humans don't have consciousness, but illusion of consciousness. It's not like your "spirit" or "vital force" would be killed in the process. You are what you are - if there is an identical version of you, then there really is another you. PS: Dream4free, stop being such a bitch. I have yet to see one post of yours which isn't at least slightly insulting. If you don't want to speculate, then don't even click a thread that starts with "if". "If" implies a question, so generally it has a answer that is arbitrary between rational objectiveness, and observational reasoning that is subjectivity coherent to speculation upon principle. I pursue philosophy as defined as the "rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics". Speculation lacks absolute logical certainty, therefore we wager guesses and predictions. I.e.. God, and in turn we slide that into the religious forum for people that enjoy unbounded subjectivity; I prefer objective reasoning, as it yields answers, rather than even more questions. If you percieve all my posts to be "slightly insulting" the defect is in you. BTW: all you did was rephrase my positing of self awareness problem into consciousness and speculate on what I had to say. So logically your speculating on slightly insulting "bitch" principles, probably won't get to far with that. Consciousness is not a illusion, it is scientifically shown as a state of subjective alertness justified with respect to the individual. You may be perceiving a illusion, but perception in of itself is a cognitive feat through the senses, contrary to consciousness. The question "Am I dreaming" is asked when your subjective perception of your mind's instantaneous condition surfaces. Consciousness may be distorted and mistaken with perception, which can be erroneous, i.e.. believing that you are awake and realizing that you are not. Moreover consciousness is subjective of course, you can't compare the illusionary cognition rationale regardless... the cognitive malformation needs objective affirmation of multiple beings, not just the self. Calling me a bitch and slightly insulting is almost as unnecessary as your useless speculation; as well as a personal attack, which violates positing rules....Sigh

[DrunkenArse]

"If" implies a question, so generally it has a answer that is arbitrary between rational objectiveness, and observational reasoning that is subjectivity coherent to speculation upon principle. I can't parse that sentence. I don't want to sound too arrogant but that's normally a pretty bad sign...

[Kromoh]

"If" implies a question, so generally it has a answer that is arbitrary between rational objectiveness, and observational reasoning that is subjectivity coherent to speculation upon principle. I pursue philosophy as defined as the "rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics". Speculation lacks absolute logical certainty, therefore we wager guesses and predictions. I.e.. God, and in turn we slide that into the religious forum for people that enjoy unbounded subjectivity; I prefer objective reasoning, as it yields answers, rather than even more questions. If you percieve all my posts to be "slightly insulting" the defect is in you. You understood what I meant. No need to teach me what the word "if" means. "If you percieve all my posts to be "slightly insulting" the defect is in you." <- that is insulting in itself. Thanks for proving my point. BTW: all you did was rephrase my positing of self awareness problem into consciousness and speculate on what I had to say. So logically your speculating on slightly insulting "bitch" principles, probably won't get to far with that. Consciousness is not a illusion, it is scientifically shown as a state of subjective alertness justified with respect to the individual. You may be perceiving a illusion, but perception in of itself is a cognitive feat through the senses, contrary to consciousness. The question "Am I dreaming" is asked when your subjective perception of your mind's instantaneous condition surfaces. Consciousness may be distorted and mistaken with perception, which can be erroneous, i.e.. believing that you are awake and realizing that you are not. Moreover consciousness is subjective of course, you can't compare the illusionary cognition rationale regardless... the cognitive malformation needs objective affirmation of multiple beings, not just the self. I didn't rephrase your position, I actually disagree with you. There is a difference between awareness and consciousness, although they have similar meanings. Consciousness implies a conscience, an individual or identity. Awareness is a biological function, consciousness is the illusion created from it. Calling me a bitch and slightly insulting is almost as unnecessary as your useless speculation; as well as a personal attack, which violates positing rules....Sigh Responding a personal attack with another really doesn't help either. Also, it's not like all of my posts have an insulting tone.

[Xei]

I didn't rephrase your position, I actually disagree with you. There is a difference between awareness and consciousness, although they have similar meanings. Consciousness implies a conscience, an individual or identity. Awareness is a biological function, consciousness is the illusion created from it. That's dubious. In fact I think you're kind of confusing consciousness with conscience, because the two aren't particularly linked at all. Consciousness is extremely hard to define but normally it is simply the quality of experience, of having qualia; one good way is to say that if there is something that it is to be 'like' something, then that thing is conscious. I agree with you. I believe that it is objective, real and describable within the laws of physics. What other objectively real phenomenon has the property that copying an instance of it leads to paradox? Well, the paradox lies in the fact that consciousness is singular; for example, it does not make sense for the same consciousness to be in two different people at the same time.

[Dreams4free]

I can't parse that sentence. I don't want to sound too arrogant but that's normally a pretty bad sign... "If" implies a question, so generally it has a answer that is arbitrary between rational objectiveness, and observational reasoning that is subjectivity coherent to speculation upon principle. Sorry about my poor syntax. Essentially a question is answered with respect to subjectivity or objectivity. Subjective answers are given without coherent, defined purpose; so naturally are speculative. Thats all I had to say. The reason I defined it more extensively is because Kromoh believes that "if" only implies subjective answers, which is false.

[Kromoh]

The reason I defined it more extensively is because Kromoh believes that "if" only implies subjective answers, which is false. Not really. Stop being such a douche. You understood what I meant. If I tell you a joke, you don't need to explain me the neurophysiological process of humour. Oh look, an if sentence. *watches some heads explode*

[Dreams4free]

Not really. Stop being such a douche. You understood what I meant. If I tell you a joke, you don't need to explain me the neurophysiological process of humour. Oh look, an if sentence. *watches some heads explode* Sigh... now I am a douche. Wonder what my next personal attack will be..... *Sits in eager anticipation for more personal attacks*

[Kromoh]

Not like a personal attack, more like a constatation of fact. If you want political correctness, I've already said it: you're very insulting in your posts.

[Dreams4free]

Not like a personal attack, more like a constatation of fact. If you want political correctness, I've already said it: you're very insulting in your posts. Being politically correct literally means not objectionable, offensive commenting upon race, gender, religion, ideology or any other social grouping such as disability..... You claim that all of my posts are very "insulting". Yet I have never directed anything personally insulting, only explained my objective rationale. You are calling my philosophy, my ideology, "insulting". That is clearly not politically correct. As well as "constatation of fact" is probably the funniest self refuting phrase I have yet to here put seriously in a argument. *Still waits in eager anitcipation of continued personal attacks against said rationale*.