5 ms·

I really don't understand why people get hung up on this (with the assumption of the impossible guarantee that it is 100% safe, or "bullet proof" as you put it)

I really don't understand why people get hung up on this (with the assumption of the impossible guarantee that it is 100% safe, or "bullet proof" as you put it). I am perfectly fine with a Prestige/Star Trek transporter, as long as it is a perfect copy, I don't really care if it is the "original" meatsack or the 100th... all I would want is to make sure the original dies quickly and painlessly (preferably after it is confirmed the copy was transported safely).

lotsoflumens 9y ago
The irony, as I see it, is that immediately after the transfer, the "you" that doesn't get transported might still be aware of your surroundings and understand completely what "your" fate will soon be (killed quickly). That would require an enormous amount of bravery and belief in the technology.
- orbitingpluto 9y ago
  Your comment reminded me of a old Outer Limits episode, "Think Like A Dinosaur" where the teleportation "equation had to be balanced." After a delayed confirmation, the technician had to kill the original woman. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_Like_a_Dinosaur_(The_Outer_Limits) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_Like_a_Dinosaur_(The_Out...
  - lotsoflumens 9y ago
    That was a great show - but I haven't seen that episode. Maybe Netflix will revive it someday.
    - maxerickson 9y ago
      For shows like that there are usually unlicensed copies on YouTube.
    - Falling3 9y ago
      Try to find it. This is probably my favorite episode and one of the best fictional explorations of the problems involved with teleportation.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
    I've read the short story this was based on. If memory serves it was the first time I encountered the concept of throwing someone out an airlock.
colept 9y ago
Because it shatters the meaning of what it means "to be." Am I a meatsack that houses consciousness or am I a complex stream of consciousness that controls a meatsack? In which case, if consciousness can be streamed, can that consciousness be hijacked? Or do I stop existing the moment it's transported? Too many uncertainties.
- trsohmers 9y ago
  I definetly think the latter, and I'd ditch my body for a newer one in 30 years if I could. Would be pretty great if a transporter also did "tune up" of all of the frail biological bits as part of the copying process (without messing with the brain hopefully) Of course, I think that this is extremely impractical so it isn't a decision that I actually have to face. In this hypothetical scenario though, I'd much rather use the "transporter" as a cloning machine... having two of me would be pretty awesome.
eduren 9y ago
I've seen similar arguments to yours (against the deconstruct-reconstruct matter teleporter), and they never seem to understand the real dilemma: It kills "you". Not the objective "you" of course, that lives on in the copy. It kills the subjective "you". By terminating the stream of consciousness, the person going into the matter teleporter dies. There's no way for the stream of consciousness to continue after that point. It's not ---------------X------------------ It's -------------------XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX--------------------------- If you're comfortable dying so that a copy of you can live the rest of your life, that's your business. But most people don't have that sort of objectivity.
- colept 9y ago
  Well put! This is what I am most afraid of.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    You are just carefully arranged to respond that you are afraid of it.
- tensor 9y ago
  We don't even know if there is such a thing as subjective "you". It's purely speculation. It seems humans would desperately like to think there is such a thing though.
  - eduren 9y ago
    I agree that the base notion of a subjective "you" is problematic. But I enter discussions like these with the assumption that the person on the other end is, like me, experiencing their life subjectively. "I think, therefore I am" and such. If we reject the subjective assumption, then this whole discussion is moot (and I need to re-consider my life and become a Zen Buddhist monk off in the hills somewhere)
- Falling3 9y ago
  I tend to agree with your conclusion but I think the reasoning is still incredibly complex and not really sound. Sleep is an obvious and frequent discontinuation of consciousness.
Falling3 9y ago
Would you feel the same way if someone cloned you as an exact copy (genes, memories, mental state) and then tried to kill you? There's no difference between that and teleporting except the order of operations.
tzs 9y ago
Unless the laws of physics require the quick and painless destruction of the original in order to get the information to send to the other side, I wouldn't count on it being quick and painless. All I'd count on is that it would be the cheapest method that does the job. If soundproofing the booth and killing you slowly and painfully saves them money over quick and painless, you are probably getting slow and painful. Personally, my threshold question for whether or not I would consider using a transporter is: can this technology be tweaked to make a duplicator instead of a transporter? If the answer is "yes", I'm not riding.

lotsoflumens 9y ago

The irony, as I see it, is that immediately after the transfer, the "you" that doesn't get transported might still be aware of your surroundings and understand completely what "your" fate will soon be (killed quickly). That would require an enormous amount of bravery and belief in the technology.

orbitingpluto 9y ago
Your comment reminded me of a old Outer Limits episode, "Think Like A Dinosaur" where the teleportation "equation had to be balanced." After a delayed confirmation, the technician had to kill the original woman. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_Like_a_Dinosaur_(The_Outer_Limits) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_Like_a_Dinosaur_(The_Out...
- lotsoflumens 9y ago
  That was a great show - but I haven't seen that episode. Maybe Netflix will revive it someday.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    For shows like that there are usually unlicensed copies on YouTube.
  - Falling3 9y ago
    Try to find it. This is probably my favorite episode and one of the best fictional explorations of the problems involved with teleportation.
- YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
  I've read the short story this was based on. If memory serves it was the first time I encountered the concept of throwing someone out an airlock.

colept 9y ago

Because it shatters the meaning of what it means "to be." Am I a meatsack that houses consciousness or am I a complex stream of consciousness that controls a meatsack? In which case, if consciousness can be streamed, can that consciousness be hijacked? Or do I stop existing the moment it's transported? Too many uncertainties.

trsohmers 9y ago
I definetly think the latter, and I'd ditch my body for a newer one in 30 years if I could. Would be pretty great if a transporter also did "tune up" of all of the frail biological bits as part of the copying process (without messing with the brain hopefully) Of course, I think that this is extremely impractical so it isn't a decision that I actually have to face. In this hypothetical scenario though, I'd much rather use the "transporter" as a cloning machine... having two of me would be pretty awesome.

eduren 9y ago

I've seen similar arguments to yours (against the deconstruct-reconstruct matter teleporter), and they never seem to understand the real dilemma: It kills "you". Not the objective "you" of course, that lives on in the copy. It kills the subjective "you". By terminating the stream of consciousness, the person going into the matter teleporter dies. There's no way for the stream of consciousness to continue after that point. It's not ---------------X------------------ It's -------------------XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX--------------------------- If you're comfortable dying so that a copy of you can live the rest of your life, that's your business. But most people don't have that sort of objectivity.

colept 9y ago
Well put! This is what I am most afraid of.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  You are just carefully arranged to respond that you are afraid of it.
tensor 9y ago
We don't even know if there is such a thing as subjective "you". It's purely speculation. It seems humans would desperately like to think there is such a thing though.
- eduren 9y ago
  I agree that the base notion of a subjective "you" is problematic. But I enter discussions like these with the assumption that the person on the other end is, like me, experiencing their life subjectively. "I think, therefore I am" and such. If we reject the subjective assumption, then this whole discussion is moot (and I need to re-consider my life and become a Zen Buddhist monk off in the hills somewhere)
Falling3 9y ago
I tend to agree with your conclusion but I think the reasoning is still incredibly complex and not really sound. Sleep is an obvious and frequent discontinuation of consciousness.

Falling3 9y ago

Would you feel the same way if someone cloned you as an exact copy (genes, memories, mental state) and then tried to kill you? There's no difference between that and teleporting except the order of operations.

tzs 9y ago

Unless the laws of physics require the quick and painless destruction of the original in order to get the information to send to the other side, I wouldn't count on it being quick and painless. All I'd count on is that it would be the cheapest method that does the job. If soundproofing the booth and killing you slowly and painfully saves them money over quick and painless, you are probably getting slow and painful. Personally, my threshold question for whether or not I would consider using a transporter is: can this technology be tweaked to make a duplicator instead of a transporter? If the answer is "yes", I'm not riding.