Transporter Philosophy

[Zamzara]

Richard Dawkins touches on this concept in his new book: he points out that over the course of a human lifetime, all of the atoms in the body are replaced several times, so in an adult there is almost certainly no part of the original body or brain left.

Of course, that happens gradually instead of all at once, but I'm not sure it's fundamentally different.

 

[Hellbound]

Richard Dawkins touches on this concept in his new book: he points out that over the course of a human lifetime, all of the atoms in the body are replaced several times, so in an adult there is almost certainly no part of the original body or brain left.

Of course, that happens gradually instead of all at once, but I'm not sure it's fundamentally different.

Yeah, I was building up to that point

 

[Just thinking]

Well -- if I may inject a brief comment, it seems as if this topic is analogous to asking what is it that makes certain combinations of molecules alive as opposed to just existing? If you take a group of atoms we call a living organism, separate them into individual atoms and molecules and then reassemble them exactly as before, will this reassembled group of atoms once again be alive?

 

[Just thinking]

Yeah, I was building up to that point

Well, I did sort of hint at this earlier ...

Well, we do change, even mentally. As we mature our tastes do change, and perhaps we do become "someone else" over time. But it's very gradual ... and I doubt ever totally complete (except perhaps in some mentally afflicted individuals).

 

[Just thinking]

Well -- if I may inject a brief comment, it seems as if this topic is analogous to asking what is it that makes certain combinations of molecules alive as opposed to just existing? If you take a group of atoms we call a living organism, separate them into individual atoms and molecules and then reassemble them exactly as before, will this reassembled group of atoms once again be alive?

My gut feeling ... No.

(Sorry for the double post.)

 

[Dilb]

Well -- if I may inject a brief comment, it seems as if this topic is analogous to asking what is it that makes certain combinations of molecules alive as opposed to just existing? If you take a group of atoms we call a living organism, separate them into individual atoms and molecules and then reassemble them exactly as before, will this reassembled group of atoms once again be alive?

If you don't, then you must necessarily think a non-material thing is responsible, because there's certainly no physical reason why it shouldn't (to be technical, no physical process depends on the state the system had in the past). And if you believe in a soul (which is what this thing is, even if you don't like the term), then you're free to think the teleporter won't work or the duplicate won't be you, and there's not much to discuss. We could maybe talk about you're specific idea of dualism and whether that would create a p-zombie or an actual new life, for example, but to a materialist that's a relatively uninteresting question.

 

[chriswl]

Well -- if I may inject a brief comment, it seems as if this topic is analogous to asking what is it that makes certain combinations of molecules alive as opposed to just existing? If you take a group of atoms we call a living organism, separate them into individual atoms and molecules and then reassemble them exactly as before, will this reassembled group of atoms once again be alive?

How could it not be?

You're talking about pulling it apart at the atomic level, and then putting it back together perfectly. So it will be exactly as it was before you pulled it apart. Thus it will behave exactly as it did before. So on what basis could you claim it would no longer be alive?

 

[Just thinking]

If you don't, then you must necessarily think a non-material thing is responsible, because there's certainly no physical reason why it shouldn't (to be technical, no physical process depends on the state the system had in the past). And if you believe in a soul (which is what this thing is, even if you don't like the term), then you're free to think the teleporter won't work or the duplicate won't be you, and there's not much to discuss. We could maybe talk about you're specific idea of dualism and whether that would create a p-zombie or an actual new life, for example, but to a materialist that's a relatively uninteresting question.

How could it not be?

You're talking about pulling it apart at the atomic level, and then putting it back together perfectly. So it will be exactly as it was before you pulled it apart. Thus it will behave exactly as it did before. So on what basis could you claim it would no longer be alive?

I know and fully understand the reasoning behind all these arguments -- and I don't believe there is something special such as a soul or whatever needed for something to be alive -- but on the other hand, taking something apart to the atomic (molecular) level does in fact kill it, no organism can survive that. Putting it back together might restart some of the processes that are necessary for life -- but the life that existed before the reassembly may need something more. As an example, no organism (even a single cell) starts life in a simple single step, it develops and grows with all the processes starting at different stages of development, as do all higher forms of life as well. Our brains do not even exist as s separate organ until well along in the reproductive cycle -- and parts of it don't even fully develop until after birth. Just as death may be considered a process, so may life, and avoiding this process may in turn avoid life itself.

 

[Dave1001]

Let us say that Star Trek style transporter tech is invented and people start beaming around here and there. The impression of this technology is that people or items are converted to energy which is sent to the destination and reformed into matter. What was discovered after the technology was in use for a while was that the original was destroyed and a copy was made at the destination. This was discovered when glitches in the system cause multiple copies of people to be created and each of these copies is identical and believes themselves to be the original person.

My question is, would this matter to you?

Would you be okay with transporting yourself or your loved one if you knew it wouldn't be the same person, just something exactly like the same person?

What might the large scale reactions of religious and non-religious people be?

ETA: This was supposed to be in religion and philosophy but I missed. Would a mod be a dear and move it for me?

I would be a late adopter to transporter technology of myself for that very reason. However, I would be less resistant to transporting loved ones so long as the copy was good enough to be undetectable to me.

 

[chriswl]

I know and fully understand the reasoning behind all these arguments -- and I don't believe there is something special such as a soul or whatever needed for something to be alive -- but on the other hand, taking something apart to the atomic (molecular) level does in fact kill it, no organism can survive that. Putting it back together might restart some of the processes that are necessary for life -- but the life that existed before the reassembly may need something more.

I think the assumption, in all these transporter examples is that not just the position but the velocity of every atom is duplicated.

The Star trek Transporter wouldn't have worked very well if you arrived at your destination requiring heart massage because all the movements in your body had stopped. Or, even worse, if you were frozen to absolute zero because the thermal vibraton of your atoms had not been duplicated.

The transporter copies the movement of all the atoms in your physical body, thus it duplicates all the physical processes that were happening in the original. The copy really is physically indistinguishable from the original in every way. Could we ever construct such a machine? Of course not, it's just fiction, though it can be interesting as a philosophical thought experiment.

 

[Just thinking]

... The transporter copies the movement of all the atoms in your physical body, thus it duplicates all the physical processes that were happening in the original. The copy really is physically indistinguishable from the original in every way.

But that's not quite the argument I put forward. I am wondering if the order and time in which these processes individually begin as an organism becomes alive in its own right are necessary for life to continue.

 

[Dilb]

But that's not quite the argument I put forward. I am wondering if the order and time in which these processes individually begin as an organism becomes alive in its own right are necessary for life to continue.

Not according to any physical theory. Unless you think that "life" shouldn't be thought of as a physical process, which means you are not a materialist.

 

[chriswl]

But that's not quite the argument I put forward. I am wondering if the order and time in which these processes individually begin as an organism becomes alive in its own right are necessary for life to continue.

No. Its not "beginning" its continuing. Like pausing a movie and then letting it run. No start up procedure is necessary.

 

[Just thinking]

Not according to any physical theory. Unless you think that "life" shouldn't be thought of as a physical process, which means you are not a materialist.

No. Its not "beginning" its continuing. Like pausing a movie and then letting it run. No start up procedure is necessary.

Well, since all life as we know it goes through a series of physical processes in reproduction (continuation) I don't think of that as a trivial argument. At what point does the offspring in a mammal become the offspring with its own self awareness? At the moment of conception? I doubt it -- especially without a developed brain. All I'm saying is that the physical processes that occur in the development of any living organism may be necessary in order for it to become self aware (if not even alive) -- and having all these processes start at the same time (as in materialization) may not yield the desired results. There is nothing non-materialistic about that.

 

[Dave1001]

Yeah, but I think it was more than a couple of months ago... unless I missed one. It's one of those subjects that crops up periodically in Science or Religion from time-to-time.

Similar issues were discussed in one of the first threads I started a couple months ago, on why I was unenthusiastic about being "downloaded" into a computer for fear that I wouldn't actually experience subjective consciousness as the "copy".

 

[chriswl]

Well, since all life as we know it goes through a series of physical processes in reproduction (continuation) I don't think of that as a trivial argument.

This is completely irrelevant to the transporter question.

At what point does the offspring in a mammal become the offspring with its own self awareness? At the moment of conception? I doubt it -- especially without a developed brain.

You weren't talking about self-awareness. You were just questioning whether it would be alive.

 

[Just thinking]

This is completely irrelevant to the transporter question.

This is extremely essential in transportation as all physical processes would have to re-start at the instant of re-integration; the creation of a completely developed, self-aware, fully functioning organism in the blink of an eye from nothing more than a blueprint.

You weren't talking about self-awareness. You were just questioning whether it would be alive.

Of course -- and self awareness (at least so far, and to be certain) requires life. But it all falls back to the concerns of individual processes being introduced at different times, or points of development. Even a single cell that splits goes through multiple processes before another individual living cell exists. So, too does self-awareness -- it doesn't exist at the moment of conception, or even in the sperm and/or egg cells. Self awareness may very well require time and development to occur in parts of the brain of the organism -- in stages, if you will. Eliminating these stages (which is what one does in instantaneous transportation or reassembling the person atom-by-atom) may not result in what you expect.

 

[Just thinking]

Not according to any physical theory. Unless you think that "life" shouldn't be thought of as a physical process, which means you are not a materialist.

I am basing all my reasoning on nothing but observed physical behavior and processes of life. If you are going to start painting me as something other than what I have repeatedly argued against (not just by saying so) you are going to present yourself as a troll.

Now, your assertion is that my points are not substantiated by any physical theory, right? If so, then by what process or theories do you point to to indicate that fully developed life can come into existence without going through all the pre-individual-life stages? Or that a fully developed mature consciousness can come about in the same way?

 

[Hellbound]

Well, since all life as we know it goes through a series of physical processes in reproduction (continuation) I don't think of that as a trivial argument. At what point does the offspring in a mammal become the offspring with its own self awareness? At the moment of conception? I doubt it -- especially without a developed brain. All I'm saying is that the physical processes that occur in the development of any living organism may be necessary in order for it to become self aware (if not even alive) -- and having all these processes start at the same time (as in materialization) may not yield the desired results. There is nothing non-materialistic about that.

Actually, I'd point out that yes, there is something non-materialistic about that.

Because for that to be true, one must then assume that there is something being stored/created/maintained somehow seperate from the physical strucutre. It assumes a non-physical piece that must be present (because we've exactly duplicated the physical). It is inheritly non-materialistic, it's just an assumption far enough down that it isn't obvious. But it is a dualist position.

 

[Just thinking]

Actually, I'd point out that yes, there is something non-materialistic about that.

Because for that to be true, one must then assume that there is something being stored/created/maintained somehow separate from the physical structure.

No it does not. Many things are "created" along the path to self-awareness that are purely physical, but none-the-less critical in their timing of development. Have you not heard of people that have been blind since birth having a hard time (if not impossible) coping with sight if somehow it is given to them through surgery late in life? Or that if certain parts of the brain do not develop (or are allowed to develop) when they are suppose to, the individual has serious behavioral issues? The evidence to this and other abnormally timed brain developments is not new.

It assumes a non-physical piece that must be present (because we've exactly duplicated the physical). It is inherently non-materialistic, it's just an assumption far enough down that it isn't obvious. But it is a dualist position.

No disrespect -- but BUNK to that.