"Transporter Psychosis" (fear of teleportation) and why I think it makes sense

[vger]

Yeah, I know, not exactly a science concept. But after reading that there was a recent breakthrough in "teleporting" a particle, I decided to see if my train of thought on this issue makes sense to the folks around here, since a lot of you are very critical thinkers. Anyone else I've tried to explain this to in case doesn't seem to be able to grasp it.

Granted, Star Trek's basic definition of "Transporter Psychosis" seems to be more about just getting freaked out by the idea of being disassembled and then recreated someplace else. But the real life implications of this are pretty awkward.

Let's assume that we could in fact, get teleportation to work the way it does in sci-fi. I'm not even going to get into teleporter accidents. Driving across town is dangerous too. What freaks me out is what happens to the consciousness that is being transferred. And I'm not even talking about the existence of a "soul." If souls exist, that would actually be less of a reason to worry about teleporting.

So, you step into your transport chamber, you get vaporized, your body (memories included) get converted to data, and another chamber elsewhere does the process in reverse. Now, is that person actually you? Or did you die permanently when you were vaporized? Assuming there is no soul, to me, that implies death. What comes out at the other end isn't you, but someone else.

Here's perhaps a better example. If you wanted to clone yourself, you could use the same transport chamber. You get your body and memories converted to data, but you don't get vaporized. Nevertheless, that data still gets transmitted and creates a duplicate? So which one is you? Clearly, YOU with your consciousness, is YOU. What came out the other end is just a clone of you. So clearly, if YOU get vaporized, you have ceased to exist. You will not emerge in the other chamber and continue your life. Your life ended, and someone new has taken your place. And from an objective perspective, there is no way anyone (even the duplicate) would be able to know the difference.

[Albert VDS]

A teleporter is the proof that the thing we call a soul is actually 80 billion neurons working together to create counsciousness. What will be on the other side is a living being who thinks he is you, but it wont be you. It's like a factory bike, it rides and brakes just like yours but to you it's just a clone/copy.

[Duxwing]

Yeah, I know, not exactly a science concept. But after reading that there was a recent breakthrough in "teleporting" a particle, I decided to see if my train of thought on this issue makes sense to the folks around here, since a lot of you are very critical thinkers. Anyone else I've tried to explain this to in case doesn't seem to be able to grasp it.

Granted, Star Trek's basic definition of "Transporter Psychosis" seems to be more about just getting freaked out by the idea of being disassembled and then recreated someplace else. But the real life implications of this are pretty awkward.

Let's assume that we could in fact, get teleportation to work the way it does in sci-fi. I'm not even going to get into teleporter accidents. Driving across town is dangerous too. What freaks me out is what happens to the consciousness that is being transferred. And I'm not even talking about the existence of a "soul." If souls exist, that would actually be less of a reason to worry about teleporting.

So, you step into your transport chamber, you get vaporized, your body (memories included) get converted to data, and another chamber elsewhere does the process in reverse. Now, is that person actually you? Or did you die permanently when you were vaporized? Assuming there is no soul, to me, that implies death. What comes out at the other end isn't you, but someone else.

Here's perhaps a better example. If you wanted to clone yourself, you could use the same transport chamber. You get your body and memories converted to data, but you don't get vaporized. Nevertheless, that data still gets transmitted and creates a duplicate? So which one is you? Clearly, YOU with your consciousness, is YOU. What came out the other end is just a clone of you. So clearly, if YOU get vaporized, you have ceased to exist. You will not emerge in the other chamber and continue your life. Your life ended, and someone new has taken your place. And from an objective perspective, there is no way anyone (even the duplicate) would be able to know the difference.

You would briefly feel excruciating pain and cease to exist, and the transporter would create a being thinking itself to be you: teleportation is a terrible idea.

-Duxwing

[Rickenbacker]

I understand the angst felt by the Star Trek characters, as the person being built by the teleporter at the destination is in some real sense, NOT the person who was destroyed in the first place. But luckily we won't have to face that kind of thing, as the amount of information we'd have to instantly scan and then transfer somehow is so huge that it's most likely physically impossible to teleport an entire living organism. And even if it was, and we had unbelievable bandwidth, it'd take so long that it's probably faster to just go there physically in the first place .

[rtxoff]

I do not think that you will feel any pain at all, assuming the transporter sequence is fast enough there would not be enough time for transmitting any pain signals to the brain.

I also assume that an actually working transporter will have to operate at much higher speeds then it is shown in StarTrek. However from a scientific point of view it is much more probable that we will develop a machine which would teleport us through some sort of Einstein-rosen bridge then actually disassemble our atoms to recreate them on another place.

But back to the original question, yes transporter devices could have some dangerous potential for our psyche. I guess no one with a clear mind would use such device knowing that you are going to die and live again as clone.

[The Jedi Master]

Teleportation is a horrid idea. The thing that came out wouldn't be you, or even a clone of you--it would be a pile of goo, because atoms do not work that way.

[xcorps]

Even if it did work that way, why destroy the original? Do the scan, rebuild the guy in the red shirt on Planet X but don't disassemble the original. When he dies, the original is still onboard. That way you can avoid paying survivors benefits and all the damn paperwork.

[ecat]

If my information is correct, in humans some 10 billion new cells may form and an equal number die in a single day.

10,000,000,000 cells replaced every single day.

You are not the person you were at birth, obviously you've grown some. You are not the same person you were this time last year, you've been completely rebuilt. You are not even the same person you were yesterday. How does this endless cycle of cell replacement differ from the mass cell annihilation and total reconstruction proposed by transporter theory?

Interesting to make a special mention of memory. Memory is nothing more than a set of neurons and the interconnections between them, if you can rebuild exact replicas of tissue and flesh you should get the memories automatically.

As for a special something independent of the physical that some call the soul? It does not exist and is something we probably cannot discuss here.

Finally, the question of the clone.

The question of which you is you?

I think this is to misunderstand the concept of you. You are a self contained set of complex chemical reactions, reactions which take place over shorter and longer periods of time. The entity that satisfied this condition before the cloning process with a chemistry that continues after the process is you. The entity created by the cloning process, even with identical physical appearance and neurons and synapses has a chemistry that begins once the cloning process begins and from that moment in time they diverge from the you that existed when the process began.

Edited June 17, 2014 by ecat

[RuBisCO]

If the soul does not exist or has no physical consequence then this is all moot: a well made copy of you as a good as the real thing. If a soul does exist then they will never be able to make a copy of you that works, behaves like you or is sentient. Consider human mind uploading as a form for teleporation (“teleporting†you into a virtual world, while the original is destroy or is already dead) we may before the centuries is out find out definitively if a soul really exists or not.

Imagine space travel consisting of making a neurological map of a person, transmiting that map to another star system and making a digital simulation or artificial neural network emulation of that person over there. Would that not be "teleporation"?

[Nuke]

i had a joke about a star trek breaking bad crossover, but it would violate forum rules.

[phoenix_ca]

Honestly I think this is all rather a moot point. There is no conclusive evidence for any sort of "soul" that is supernatural in nature. That said, rational understanding of the process of something doesn't necessarily lead to people being okay with it. What can be demonstrated as an irrational belief can still have very real detrimental effects on a person after they know its not real. To some extent this is true for people who have "lost faith" (aka left their church/faith they were brought-up with and become an atheist); that once fervent belief can still stick its ugly head in someone's psyche later in life. Much the same goes for radiation: You can sit someone down and explain to them in great detail how radiation works and why they should or shouldn't be concerned about some particular amount of radiation, but they may still be irrationally afraid of it. Or air travel: Someone can still be abjectly afraid of travelling by air, even if they understand that it is far safer than any other means of transport.

If transporters ever became an actual thing, it's anyone's guess as to how people might react. I'd suspect some would never be able to reconcile the idea of them existing, however temporarily, in a different state. We're completely used to the continuity of our existence, beginning to end, but being turned into something else for a time (or even permanently if we find a way to move consciousness to some other medium) could have some very serious psychological ramifications. Questions like "Am I still me?"

In any case, the whole topic reminds me of Alpha Centauri:

[Aethon]

Even if it did work that way, why destroy the original? Do the scan, rebuild the guy in the red shirt on Planet X but don't disassemble the original. When he dies, the original is still onboard. That way you can avoid paying survivors benefits and all the damn paperwork.

That's brilliant.. The copy at the teleport location is expendable. Rep points!

[Superfluous J]

Thought experiment time:

1. Someone invents a star-trek style teleporter where it disassembles you and then reassembles you out of local resources somewhere else, thousands of kilometers away. People use it because hey, no more rush hour and what's all this boring talk about if there's a soul or not? NO MORE RUSH HOUR.
   
2. Someone else tweaks the transporter to not disassemble you first, and the first person who goes through, once that person has been created on the other end the original is shot in the back of the head. Quick and clean, painless and all that.
   

Is the second one murder? Why or why not? Is the first one murder? If you answered differently, what critical thing makes one murder and the other not?

[phoenix_ca]

Thought experiment time:

1. Someone invents a star-trek style teleporter where it disassembles you and then reassembles you out of local resources somewhere else, thousands of kilometers away. People use it because hey, no more rush hour and what's all this boring talk about if there's a soul or not? NO MORE RUSH HOUR.
   
2. Someone else tweaks the transporter to not disassemble you first, and the first person who goes through, once that person has been created on the other end the original is shot in the back of the head. Quick and clean, painless and all that.
   

Is the second one murder? Why or why not? Is the first one murder? If you answered differently, what critical thing makes one murder and the other not?

Of the top of my head, the first wouldn't be murder, it'd be suicide...sorta. There's another you so not really, with the big caveat that this is only true in a completely naturalistic universe. It's rather similar to the trolley car problem.

[Nibb31]

That's brilliant.. The copy at the teleport location is expendable. Rep points!

Except that he would have an exact copy of your consciousness, plus the knowledge that he's going to be wasted. How would you feel if you were summoned into existence with a lifetime full of memories, experiences, and accumulated knowledge and the sole purpose of being expended in a few hours?

[Awaras]

Wouldn't the same issue hold true for suspended animation? Heck, I've seen claims that our consciousness 'reboots' every time we sleep...

Edited June 18, 2014 by Awaras

[ecat]

Thought experiment time:

1. Someone invents a star-trek style teleporter where it disassembles you and then reassembles you out of local resources somewhere else, thousands of kilometers away. People use it because hey, no more rush hour and what's all this boring talk about if there's a soul or not? NO MORE RUSH HOUR.
   
2. Someone else tweaks the transporter to not disassemble you first, and the first person who goes through, once that person has been created on the other end the original is shot in the back of the head. Quick and clean, painless and all that.
   

Is the second one murder? Why or why not? Is the first one murder? If you answered differently, what critical thing makes one murder and the other not?

1) The first is not murder. A person walks into one machine and the same person walks out of the other machine. The phrase 'local resources' is meaningless, the compounds synthesised to create the person who exits the machine must be an exact match for the compounds that formed the person entering the first machine - or the transportation technology must be flawed -, the sources these compounds are generated from are immaterial.

2) You have certainly taken a human life. Whether or not this is classed as murder depends upon your government and law makers. See Allitnils http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lintilla_%28clone%29#The_Allitnils for a possible way to avoid controversy

Okay.

A thought experiment for you:

A mother gives birth to identical twins, we can say birth is by way of caesarean section and keep everything as near identical as we possibly can.

You are one of the twins. As the twins are truly identical, in effect clones. Are you also the other twin?

Edited June 18, 2014 by ecat

[78stonewobble]

Uhm... .... Uhm...

First off, twins are not identical copies. The complexity of a human being goes far beyond mere genes. Our thoughts and memories are the results of not only electrochemical states in the brain, but also the shape of the physical pathways in the brain. These pathways are shaped, not only through genetics, but also enviromental factors and experiences throughout life. It might even be dependent on an incredibly huge number of quantum states.

To me it's mostly a philosphical question.

Car 3096 of the assembly line is pretty much the same as 3097, but not quite, after all we atleast put a distinct numer on them. The copy is close, but not quite there.

If we look at software instead. We can make a perfect copy of everything that defines it. The copy literally is everything the original was.

My oppinion is as follows and is... well... mostly a response of practicality.

If I teleport Johnny Boy and does not destroy him in the process. Then I will have created Johnny Boy #2 an identical being, but from here on out his own and separate being (he will from this point on become unique). With the same rights that a being as the original Johnny Boy would have had.

If I teleport Johnny Boy and does destroy him in one of the places. I will, for the sake of practicality, call it transporting him. Before the action, the world had him in it and after the the world still had him in it.

...

It's a fun question though and I certainly wouldn't wanna be the first one to step into a "transporter". I also find it highly doubtfull that it will ever be possible.

A limited replicator for industrial and manufacturing purposes? Now that might be possible.

[Tw1]

Any human fax machine type transporter will not be used by me.

The "Soul" issue aside, we know the brain is what experiences consciousness. If the brain is destroyed, and a new one created, the consciousness is being ended, and a second one is created. Only to observers other than the original at the time of destruction, will the person assembled be the the same person as the original. Even the copy will respond as if they are the original.

From the point of view of the person being "transported" it will be death. We have no reason to assume consciousness will magically transfer from one identical body to another. (This is also why I've never accepted the clone = return from death idea.)

I somewhat value my continued existence, and ability to experience the world, so only trust a teleporter that would be wormhole based.

Edited June 18, 2014 by Tw1

[ecat]

Uhm... .... Uhm...

First off, twins are not identical copies. The complexity of a human being goes far beyond mere genes. Our thoughts and memories are the results of not only electrochemical states in the brain, but also the shape of the physical pathways in the brain. These pathways are shaped, not only through genetics, but also enviromental factors and experiences throughout life. It might even be dependent on an incredibly huge number of quantum states.

I agree with everything you say here, an exact twin is impossible, also, without transporter like technology an exact clone is impossible. But for the sake of my thought experiment they are identical.

[Herr Doktor Strangemember]

Thought experiment time:

1. Someone invents a star-trek style teleporter where it disassembles you and then reassembles you out of local resources somewhere else, thousands of kilometers away. People use it because hey, no more rush hour and what's all this boring talk about if there's a soul or not? NO MORE RUSH HOUR.
   
2. Someone else tweaks the transporter to not disassemble you first, and the first person who goes through, once that person has been created on the other end the original is shot in the back of the head. Quick and clean, painless and all that.
   

Is the second one murder? Why or why not? Is the first one murder? If you answered differently, what critical thing makes one murder and the other not?

The difference is intent. In case 1 the intent is quick and easy transport. In case 2 the intent is to kill a person.

Same as if someone buys a gun, then breaks into the home of the victim creeps into the victim's room and shoots him, only to find out the victim died in their sleep 2 hours earlier. The intent, the plan, the action all carried out.

Regards.

[Tw1]

The difference is intent. In case 1 the intent is quick and easy transport. In case 2 the intent is to kill a person.

True, but the result is the same. Death. I prefer forms of transport that deliver me alive to my destination, rather than ones that deliver an indistinguishable copy to the destination, killing me.

[WestAir]

The difference is intent. In case 1 the intent is quick and easy transport. In case 2 the intent is to kill a person.

This might not be the case.

The transporter is a technology. It is designed, just like the gun in both scenarios. If the designers design diss-assembly of the passenger at the origin, that's murder too. That's no different from designing a booth that vaporizes you when you press a button. In fact, it's the exact same thing, except the bonus is it copies you into a suicide booth somewhere else. (hopefully).

At the most basic, fundamental level, murder is implied in both scenarios with the only difference being the creation of a life in the first.

[theend3r]

I wouldn't mind. Actually I would clone myself gather experience, save it, make next generation clones and repeat until I'd become the most skilled and experienced organism on earth and then proceed to rule it all using my super clones.

[Mazon Del]

For those who feel icky about the whole interruption/cessation of conciousness side of it, what exactly makes this different from sleep? While you are unconcious anything could happen to the universe and you have no real way of proving otherwise. Think about this possibility, every time you fall unconcious you die. Except the information in your brain is pushed into another universe that is exactly the same, except everything has been 'advanced' by several hours and now you are 'waking up'. There is no way to prove or disprove that such a thing is happening. We simply take it for granted that the being that wakes up in the morning IS us because there isn't much point worrying about the alternatives. Teleportation technology isn't much different really. Leaving aside the possibility of some teleportation that works via wormhole, first you is vaporized and never knew a thing. Second you appears and only knows that a second ago he was somewhere else. If teleporters existed that were safe (basically I was reasonably guarenteed that a version of me was definitely coming out the other side, healthy and whole) I'd use them without care.

Perhaps another piece of the question for those that do care though. Most religions (certainly not all) generally speaking declare that animals do not have souls. And yet, they live and operate as beings, they clearly have memories, and they appear to have emotions. What of feral humans? Humans that as children were left in the wilderness to die, but instead thrived but as animals. They cannot be rehabilitated to become a full human, they can be trained much like any of the apes, but most human skills are unlearnable to them. Would one say that these 'animals' have souls? If one operates on the assumption that humans do and animals do not, then the first human through the teleporter either shows that humans have souls and they are not transferable (they suddenly pop out an animal), souls are transferable (the conciousness is there), or shows that humans do not NEED souls (no soul is present, but the person in question still operates normally without any changes). In the latter two cases, does it really matter which is true? We could 'solve' the ethics debate by being technically horrible and having every newborn immediately pass through a teleporter, thereby ensuring that on the offchance that humans through teleporters don't have souls that no human has one and therefor has a pass on 'final judgement' (so you cannot be punished in the 'afterlife' for participating in this 'murder') and ensuring that all human souls are passed on in an 'innocent and pristine' state, which most religions tend to treat neutrally if not well. With this system, you never need to worry about losing your soul, because you never really had one to begin with. Horrible (maybe?), but effective.

Incidentally, if you want to read a book series where people grappel with this question often (more on the clone with backup memories for immortality side of things than teleportation, but really its the same) read Dark Space. It is an enjoyable (I grab the new ones when they come out) if not a particularly great series if you like hard sci fi, it is definitely on the soft side, and the author seems to have a serious beef with the idea of people doing immortality, any immortality. As characters frequently see any of the infinite great things of being immortal, then they run into one tiny problem (every case I have seen so far is either correctable via policy or engineering) they go "Oh my god! What have we done?! This technology is ONLY bad!" There is even a character that has been alive for 10K years and when the others try to convince him that being immortal is just wrong (but what about your soul?!) he's like "You people are stupid, being immortal is great." and then in the space of 5 seconds while he is off doing something by himself he suddenly goes "Oh god...what about my soul?! I must turn this machine off!". So everybody flipflops all around. But the main good point for the sake of this argument is that he does keep coming up with hypothetical bad situations for people to get into with this tech.