So... If Star Trek type transporters existed, would you use one?

[Galacticruler]

I'm sorry, I don't want Transporter Psychosis.

[Grove]

I can't get to London.

[iamaphazael]

Why does almost everyone say you "die and another person continues to live your life"?

As far as science knows, you probably wouldn't even notice the transport, if you were reassembled exactly as you were before the transport.

Because it's a very interesting philisophical question. Yes, the person who steps off the transporter on the other side wouldn't even notice the transport, and as far as they're concerned, they absolutely are the same person who stepped onto the first pad; but the question is, what actually happens to that person. What you think about whether there even is an actual "consciousness" that is persistent over time, or whether we're just a very complex stimulus/response machine, probably affects how you come down on the transporter question, or whether you even think that the question matters.

[satcharna]

It's because people stick to the old idea of a "soul". A spirit that is your personality, and that, according to these people, doesn't make it through the transportation.

It's all silly superstition, as there's no such thing as a soul in the first place. The person that leaves is the exact same person that entered, they simply happen to be somewhere else.

[LeonG17]

It's because people stick to the old idea of a "soul". A spirit that is your personality, and that, according to these people, doesn't make it through the transportation.

It's all silly superstition, as there's no such thing as a soul in the first place. The person that leaves is the exact same person that entered, they simply happen to be somewhere else.

So you believe that ourselves are simply a collection of storage cells and electrical impulses that can be replicated as so we would be the copy?

[satcharna]

Indeed I do. There's been no research that's even hinted that we're anything but a set of electrical and chemical impulses in what is essentially a biological computer. It amazes and frustrates me that people still keep to superstitions that have been written off as unrealistic ages ago.

[LeonG17]

Indeed I do. There's been no research that's even hinted that we're anything but a set of electrical and chemical impulses in what is essentially a biological computer. It amazes and frustrates me that people still keep to superstitions that have been written off as unrealistic ages ago.

Lets not go into that, too many minefields to insult peoples beliefs.

[Rage097]

Indeed I do. There's been no research that's even hinted that we're anything but a set of electrical and chemical impulses in what is essentially a biological computer. It amazes and frustrates me that people still keep to superstitions that have been written off as unrealistic ages ago.

I agree completely, however this isn't a topic to start here in a diverse population of beliefs.

[satcharna]

Indeed not, and I apologize for bringing it up. It was meant as an explanation of my opinion on this matter.

[Rage097]

Indeed not, and I apologize for bringing it up. It was meant as an explanation of my opinion on this matter.

Understood, Rage...out *static*

[architeuthis]

Our cells die and copy themselves naturally. In terms of cells, we are not the same as we were 10 years ago, because almost all of our cells have divided and the originals have died off, yet we retain our memories, knowledge, ect. Is it really so different having a machine do it?

That is a good point, but I think it misses the question. Consider a situation where the original person did not have to be destroyed during the transport but remained behind intact, while on the other side a new copy is made. From each person's point of view they are themselves and always have been, or at least they seem to remember being so. Their individual senses of continuity of consciousness is uninterrupted. But in this case is there only one consciousness or is there multiple instances of the same one? I think the latter is true. Your consciousness is a sense of 'being here', it seems silly to say that there is only one of them when there is two biological entities present. If there is two separate consciousnesses this implies that somewhere along the line there has been a breach in the continuity of the original consciousness; where once was only one now there is two. This therefore means that consciousness could be defined as a specific point of view not as a set of memories, otherwise in this thought experiment only a single consciousness would be present, somehow dubiously shared between the two bodies.

Therefore, in the case of a transporter where the original is destroyed, that originals person's consciousness stops forever during the event of the transport; another word for this is 'death'. A separate person with the same memories but a new consciousness is built at the other end.

[paulram16]

I think the whole arguement hinges on the question of: is there a sole or something along those lines but thats going deep.

[Custard Donut (In Space)]

Even if you don't believe in a soul and feel we are just physical creatures, i think you (the you alive right now) would cease to be able to look out of your own eyes even if the copy on the other side is identical to you in every way, you'd be dead, and the new you wouldn't have a clue about it, they'd think the teleportation was perfectly successful, if you lived on Earth and worked on one of Saturn's moons you'd be dying twice a day as you made the commute.

If that makes any sense.

Edit* If we assume teleportation worked by one machine scanning you, ripping you apart and rebuilding you somewhere else (out of new molecules) there'd be a very easy way to show how the new you isn't "you," simply make the machine copy you but not destroy the original, there's now two you's, yuse, yoose... and you're obviously not the new guy.

Edited May 26, 2013 by Custard Donut (In Space)

[Awaras]

And even if there IS a soul, you can imagine a teleporter that creates a perfect copy of it as well, destroying the original one or sending it to the 'afterlife' or whatever...

Actually, if there is a soul and the machine is not able to transport it, then what would happen? I mean, if the soul exists I would imagine that it is a pretty essential part of a human being's consciousness, right? Wouldn't the first teleported individual just stand there staring blankly or just collapse?

[karolus10]

Knowing that you need to be literally dematerialized to apperar in other place is... mildly speaking, unsettling.

We really can't take a shuttle ??

Also everyone who believe that human soul exist separately from body can be disappointed, at least in star-trek universe we had William. T. Riker and Thomas W. Riker because of transporter accident and both of them where equally identical (despite fact that one was "abandoned") in every aspect.

[paulram16]

On the condition of there being a soul. It would probably make transport impossible. As soon as the original you is destroyed and you are materialised on the other side, i would assume the new you or the corpse of you would just collapse.

But if we suspend belief, we might come to a more reasonable conclusion.