Teleportation

[motorollin]

If teleportation ever becomes possible, I find it most likely that it will work like in Star Trek:

1. The traveller's molecular structure is converted in to a pattern or algorithm

2. The pattern or algorithm is sent to the destination

3. The pattern or algorithm is used to reconstruct the traveller's body from a stock of matter

However, this poses several problems:

1. What happens to the traveller's original body at the source? Is it broken down in to stock matter? Is this equivalent to killing the original person?

2. Once the biomass is recreated at the destination, the nervous system would have no electrical activity. Thus the heart would not beat, leading to brain death. Would a medical team at the destination be able to ¨kick start¨ the traveller's nervous system with an electrical current in order to revive them?

3. The body at the destination would effectively be a clone of the original body. So would this be the same person? Since they have a biologically and chemically identical body and brain it is reasonable to assume that they will think and behave in the same way as the original person, and if memories are stored chemically and this can be reproduced then they will even share the memories of the original. But is this enough for the traveller's consciousness to be preserved? Will this be exactly the same person that entered the transporter, or would it effectively be a new person? This is really a philosophical question: are we just a bundle of nerves, tissues and chemicals, or are we more than the sum of our parts? Do we have something more (the soul?) which would not survive the process of the body being broken down and recreated?

Discuss :-)

--
moto

[motorollin]

@Karlos
Ok, well forget that the idea came from Star Trek's theory of transportation. As a scientist, how would you answer the issues listed above?

--
moto

[motorollin]

Karlos wrote:
if the original person is not destroyed before their clone is reconstructed at the receiving end, they are not the same person anymore

How do you know that? How do you know that an exact duplicate of the same brain physiology and chemical layout would not result in an identical, or even shared, consciousness?

Karlos wrote:
If the process physically destroys the original prior to the construction of the clone, it's harder to say. The clone would have the conscious memory of the original and would likely regard him/herself as the same person, despite the obvious interruption of physical existence

I agree here. I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here as I don't really buy the concept of the soul. But don't you think it's possible that destroying the original body would effectively kill any non-corporeal element of the person's existence? (just like if they died). The duplicate might end up a soulless being.

Karlos wrote:
I would imagine the cloned entity would eventually develop some form of neuroses deriving from the knowledge of the destruction of their original self

I'm not sure about that. Assuming that their body was *exactly* as it was before, and they retained all of their memories and personality traits, then their sense of continuity of the self would be preserved (as in your sleep example). I don't think the destruction of their old body would be as much of an issue for most people as you think since they don't 'lose' anything. But again, we just don't know.

--
moto

[motorollin]

How can you copy something without knowing its current state?

--
moto

[motorollin]

CannonFodder wrote:

motorollin wrote:
How can you copy something without knowing its current state?

How can you believe in a God without knowing it's state?

I don't. But somebody who does would argue that he is evident through his works. However, I don't think this is entirely relevant. We're talking about making a copy of a living, physical being, not belief in a spiritual deity.

--
moto

[motorollin]

CannonFodder wrote:
I do and I don't.

Do you mean that you do believe in God but you don't argue his existence in that way?

CannonFodder wrote:

However, I don't think this is entirely relevant. We're talking about making a copy of a living, physical being, not belief in a spiritual deity.

I disagree, it depends on how deep one goes into their understanding of of the metaphysical.

If you're talking about the physical structure of an object then I don't think it's a matter of metaphysics. The argument was that you can copy something without knowing its structure, not whether that object exists or not.

--
moto

[motorollin]

CannonFodder wrote:
Basically, the thoughts most people have when stoned or on mushrooms I have when clean. ;-)

Must must be quite inconvenient :lol:

I don't fancy an existential crisis right now so I won't think too hard about your comments. I'll leave it until I'm a bit more chirpy :-)

--
moto

[motorollin]

Karlos you're such a geek :lol: :-P But I thought your post was funny, so I suppose that makes me one too...

--
moto

[motorollin]

Sorry Dandy but the mention of the name ¨Hawking¨ normally means the end of the conversation for me :lol: IMO he's a crackpot.

--
moto

[motorollin]

Yes, a crackpot.

--
moto

[motorollin]

Explain to me how the theory of infinite parallel universes, some with black holes and some without, the one in which we live conveniently being one without (which is why we can't observe their effects) is scientific.

--
moto

[motorollin]

Apparently some theorists believe that computers will one day become powerful enough to exactly simulate the world as we know it. They have gone on to say that it is highly likely that we do in fact exist inside such a simulation.

So maybe God does use Java...

[EDIT]

I accept no responsibility for existential crises which may result from reading this posting.

[/EDIT]

--
moto

[motorollin]

@CannonFodder
The Oxford English defines a crackpot as "eccentric or foolish", and a crackpot idea as one which is "eccentric or impractical". Websters adds "unrealistic" to the list. By that definition, I think many of his ideas are crackpot ones, and he is potentially a crackpot himself. We'll probably never find out though, since he will be the first of our kind to evolve in to an energy-based life-form and move to a higher plane of existence.

--
moto

[motorollin]

CannonFodder wrote:
Eccentric he maybe but I wouldn't say the man was foolish.

Maybe, but that definition says "eccentric or foolish, which means he only has to meet one of those two criteria in order to be defined as a crackpot.

CannonFodder wrote:
Foolish is calling your boss a c*nt! ;-)

You know my reasons for doing that. And I wouldn't have done it if the boss in question didn't happen to be my friend who I know would understand and forgive me :-)

CannonFodder wrote:

We'll probably never find out though, since he will be the first of our kind to evolve in to an energy-based life-form and move to a higher plane of existence.

The first?  People die everyday. :-P

You know what I meant. Stop beng awkward :-P :lol:

--
moto

[motorollin]

Dandy wrote:
As far as I understood the concept of body and soul the body is mortal, while the soul is not.

So why do you think the soul wouldn't survive, if the body broke down?

Because I'm not convinced that the "soul" is anything more than our way of comprehending our conscious existence. I believe that when the body dies, your consciousness dies with it.

--
moto