• Is Beaming/Transporter technology possible?
    104 replies, posted
hmmm...wormholes?
[QUOTE=Splarg!;33972054]Yes, it is. Let's say you went through normally but the first you wasn't destroyed at the origin. Would you suddenly experience both bodies?[/QUOTE] I don't see why, the brains aren't linked in any way. Of course, if it turned out they were that would be an amazing discovery.
[QUOTE=kenshin6;33971797]I figure beaming/transporting technology in the future will be similar to what we have now. Actually, you could say that it already exists. Think of the internet, it is constantly transporting massive amounts of data across the world. Or maybe think about satellites. "Light" waves are beaming to and from them to give us internet, communications, or television shows. Transporting something with actual substance may be possible in the future when we figure out how to, say, turn a solid rock into raw data in 1 location, and rebuild it using that same data in another location.[/QUOTE] I really doubt you will ever be able to transport just the data of even just 1 g of matter from point a to b. 1 g lets say Carbon roughly contains 10^22 atoms. Every atom contains the data 3 coordinates (position) and 3 angles (orientation). Every single atom has 6 protons and 6 neutrons which also have a certain alignment and position. Then same for the 12 electrons. Now we just forgot about the quantum numbers (QN) which are main QN n, angular momentum QN l, spin s (just to keep it simple, so we wont take the magnetic m_l/m_j quantum numbers or mixtures of l and s to j) for the electrons. Similar (to keep it simple) accounts for the protons and neutrons. Lets say, every of those numbers needs 1 byte (which is far too less for the required precision but it's just an example). Then every atom needs 6*(12+12+1) + 3*(12+12) = 222 bytes. So one gram needs 2*10^24 bytes = 2 yotta bytes "disk space". Lets now transform this number into something you might be more familiar with. 2,220,000,000,000 Tera Bytes. Now lets assume you want to transport this via light. The data can only be sent with a lower rate than the frequency used for transport. For light, we have around 100 Tera Hertz. Modulation of the light (to imprint the data) must be lower than the carrier frequency (100 Tera Hertz) so lets say 50 THz. So you can send 50 TBit/s = 6.25 TByte/s. Lets assume you can do this on two perpendicular polarisations of the light and do this via frequency and amplitude modulation -> You gain a factor of 4: 25 TByte/s. Lets say, we use 10000 Channels simultaneously: 250,000 TByte/s. This would mean, for 1 g of data transported by light at the physical limits (which we are not able yet to reach technically) we need 8,800,000 seconds = 0,2829 years. This was just for transporting the data at physical limits with enormous channel parallelization. Now there is still the question how to read out the data non destructively and beat the quantum uncertainty limitiations...
From a physics point of view molecular transport of this form would ONLY work if the object is inanimate. The reason for this is simple. A glass of water for example does not move, if you took a picture of it, then took a second picture of it an hour later the glass and the water inside would still be the same (assuming none of the water evaporated). For matter transportation to work the device would have to save the state of the object it was deconstructing. For an inanimate object this would be easy since the molecular structure could be analyzed then duplicated. However we humans, and all living things for that matter are in a constant state of flux. Right now as you are reading this blood is pumping throughout your body, you're eyes are rapidly blinking, your body is in constant motion. For this to work the machine that is deconstructing us would have to take every differential part of us and make note of the rate of change. If even one changing thing in our body is not reproduce on the exact scale it was before then the whole thing falls apart and the person dies upon reconstruction. I am willing to bet that someday we will be able to scan the molecular structure of an inanimate object in 3D and be able to convert it directly to energy then reassemble it. But as for moving things, its not as likely. As for the comments on the "soul" that has nothing to do with it. There are constant electrical impulses in your brain that cause your behavior. Neural networks are already beginning to be understand, "consciousness" is is more of a series of electrical impulses and can be reproduced. Even things like memories are encoded in electrical signals much like a computer. As we approach the age of quantum computers we will be able to manipulate more of human memory and experience.
[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;33744760]I read an article saying that there were still some parts of consciousness that we have not found links for in biochemistry in the brain,[/QUOTE] "Have not found links for in biochemistry in the brain" =/= brain is controlled by ghosts
*snip*
*Looks at thread content* *See's no math or science* *Walks away* You're a bunch of idea guys. Keep speculating with your pseudo-science. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("This is not how you post in Mass Debate. Read the rules the next time you come here." - Swebonny))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=newbz;35623627]*Looks at thread content* *See's no math or science* *Walks away* You're a bunch of idea guys. Keep speculating with your pseudo-science.[/QUOTE] I cannot imagine this post being much more arrogant, especially considering myself and the poster above yours are undergraduate and graduate physics students respectively. If you're not seeing any science or math in this post [QUOTE=aVoN;33979913]I really doubt you will ever be able to transport just the data of even just 1 g of matter from point a to b. 1 g lets say Carbon roughly contains 10^22 atoms. Every atom contains the data 3 coordinates (position) and 3 angles (orientation). Every single atom has 6 protons and 6 neutrons which also have a certain alignment and position. Then same for the 12 electrons. Now we just forgot about the quantum numbers (QN) which are main QN n, angular momentum QN l, spin s (just to keep it simple, so we wont take the magnetic m_l/m_j quantum numbers or mixtures of l and s to j) for the electrons. Similar (to keep it simple) accounts for the protons and neutrons. Lets say, every of those numbers needs 1 byte (which is far too less for the required precision but it's just an example). Then every atom needs 6*(12+12+1) + 3*(12+12) = 222 bytes. So one gram needs 2*10^24 bytes = 2 yotta bytes "disk space". Lets now transform this number into something you might be more familiar with. 2,220,000,000,000 Tera Bytes. Now lets assume you want to transport this via light. The data can only be sent with a lower rate than the frequency used for transport. For light, we have around 100 Tera Hertz. Modulation of the light (to imprint the data) must be lower than the carrier frequency (100 Tera Hertz) so lets say 50 THz. So you can send 50 TBit/s = 6.25 TByte/s. Lets assume you can do this on two perpendicular polarisations of the light and do this via frequency and amplitude modulation -> You gain a factor of 4: 25 TByte/s. Lets say, we use 10000 Channels simultaneously: 250,000 TByte/s. This would mean, for 1 g of data transported by light at the physical limits (which we are not able yet to reach technically) we need 8,800,000 seconds = 0,2829 years. This was just for transporting the data at physical limits with enormous channel parallelization. Now there is still the question how to read out the data non destructively and beat the quantum uncertainty limitiations...[/QUOTE] you need new glasses.
Why are you making threads out of things that aren't a matter of opinions. Our current science does not know whether it's possible. There's nothing to debate of. As far as I know current "laws" of quantium mechanics don't allow beaming. It has to do with the fact that you cannot measure a particles state without manipulating it. And to "beam" you need to measure the particle first. I don't really remember that much so maybe someone wiser can correct me.
[QUOTE=Maucer;35624234]Why are you making threads out of things that aren't a matter of opinions. Our current science does not know whether it's possible. There's nothing to debate of. As far as I know current "laws" of quantium mechanics don't allow beaming. It has to do with the fact that you cannot measure a particles state without manipulating it. And to "beam" you need to measure the particle first. I don't really remember that much so maybe someone wiser can correct me.[/QUOTE] Since when has debate been restricted to the domain of opinion? This is intended to be a debate for the theoretical limits of imagined possible future technology, not mere speculation about our current human capabilities. The interesting questions the debate asks are metaphysical, not practical or technological.
[QUOTE=aVoN;33979913] lots of science[/QUOTE] I remember hearing that this would be possible by transmitting the data through x-rays to satellite relays that would allow reconstruction at any base station. Actually reading the physical object and converting it to data would be a different story though.
[QUOTE=mcattack1092;33714582]A transporter is a fictional teleportation machine used in the Star Trek universe. Transporters convert a person or object into an energy pattern (a process called dematerialization), then "beam" it to a target, where it is reconverted into matter (rematerialization) (from Wikipedia) [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c7/Transporter2.jpg[/img] Does anyone think that transporter technology is actually possible? In my opinion, beaming a person from site A to site B would kill the person at site a and creating a completely new person at point B. This means that each time a person uses a transporter, they would be 'killed' and a 'clone' of them would appear at their destination. Secondly, the amount of power and information required to reconstruct the matter of a person would be so massive, that no power source nor storage device would be able to complete the task, either in the present or future.[/QUOTE] I prefer to think of it as there's nothing in our current understanding of science outright prohibiting Star Trek-esque transporters, but the outright unfathomable amounts of energy such a device or devices would actually need might as well make it impossible. So, plausible? Yes. Practical? No. Will we see them before our sun explodes? probably not. :v:
what, in 5,000,000,000 years we will not have engineered some way to make perfect clones of ourselves? (~5 billion years is the remaining lifetime of our sun)
[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;35673225]I prefer to think of it as there's nothing in our current understanding of science outright prohibiting Star Trek-esque transporters, but the outright unfathomable amounts of energy such a device or devices would actually need might as well make it impossible. So, plausible? Yes. Practical? No. Will we see them before our sun explodes? probably not. :v:[/QUOTE] Science and technology that is shown to someone with no knowledge about such things is comparable to magic. All it takes is one person to figure out something and our entire concept of science could change.
The world is heading towards a paragram shift anyway, kinda like what reedbo is saying. Our current theories are a patchwork mess and we need someone like Copernicus to see the obvious. [editline]27th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=aVoN;33979913] intelligent stuff [/QUOTE] not only that but you would have to send with infinite precision the exact deformation of spacetime in that area, which is impossible
I would only step through a wormhole or tear in space, not get recreated through a teleporter. As my current being is destroyed. I think as the first electrical impulse you ever had in the womb is you, and it developed from there to where you are now. When you are torn apart and stored into information it disrupts that original electrical impulse from birth, and recreates it it on the other side. But it will not be perfect. It will be a different impulse and the original is gone, killing the original and the original ceases to be.
[QUOTE=redrum2012;35584987]From a physics point of view molecular transport of this form would ONLY work if the object is inanimate. The reason for this is simple. A glass of water for example does not move, if you took a picture of it, then took a second picture of it an hour later the glass and the water inside would still be the same (assuming none of the water evaporated). For matter transportation to work the device would have to save the state of the object it was deconstructing. For an inanimate object this would be easy since the molecular structure could be analyzed then duplicated. However we humans, and all living things for that matter are in a constant state of flux. Right now as you are reading this blood is pumping throughout your body, you're eyes are rapidly blinking, your body is in constant motion. For this to work the machine that is deconstructing us would have to take every differential part of us and make note of the rate of change. If even one changing thing in our body is not reproduce on the exact scale it was before then the whole thing falls apart and the person dies upon reconstruction. I am willing to bet that someday we will be able to scan the molecular structure of an inanimate object in 3D and be able to convert it directly to energy then reassemble it. But as for moving things, its not as likely. As for the comments on the "soul" that has nothing to do with it. There are constant electrical impulses in your brain that cause your behavior. Neural networks are already beginning to be understand, "consciousness" is is more of a series of electrical impulses and can be reproduced. Even things like memories are encoded in electrical signals much like a computer. As we approach the age of quantum computers we will be able to manipulate more of human memory and experience.[/QUOTE] The device that recreates the body could put molecules in motion, but I agree it is a major difficulty compared with inanimate objects. And the device would have to reconstruct the body extremely fast. [editline]6th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=tristanguy2;35839064]I would only step through a wormhole or tear in space, not get recreated through a teleporter. As my current being is destroyed. I think as the first electrical impulse you ever had in the womb is you, and it developed from there to where you are now. When you are torn apart and stored into information it disrupts that original electrical impulse from birth, and recreates it it on the other side. But it will not be perfect. It will be a different impulse and the original is gone, killing the original and the original ceases to be.[/QUOTE] What if your original body is kept, then when the clone returns his memory is copied onto it? You would remember the trip without having to "die".
[QUOTE=aVoN;33979913]I really doubt you will ever be able to transport just the data of even just 1 g of matter from point a to b. 1 g lets say Carbon roughly contains 10^22 atoms. Every atom contains the data 3 coordinates (position) and 3 angles (orientation). Every single atom has 6 protons and 6 neutrons which also have a certain alignment and position. Then same for the 12 electrons. Now we just forgot about the quantum numbers (QN) which are main QN n, angular momentum QN l, spin s (just to keep it simple, so we wont take the magnetic m_l/m_j quantum numbers or mixtures of l and s to j) for the electrons. Similar (to keep it simple) accounts for the protons and neutrons. Lets say, every of those numbers needs 1 byte (which is far too less for the required precision but it's just an example). Then every atom needs 6*(12+12+1) + 3*(12+12) = 222 bytes. So one gram needs 2*10^24 bytes = 2 yotta bytes "disk space". Lets now transform this number into something you might be more familiar with. 2,220,000,000,000 Tera Bytes. Now lets assume you want to transport this via light. The data can only be sent with a lower rate than the frequency used for transport. For light, we have around 100 Tera Hertz. Modulation of the light (to imprint the data) must be lower than the carrier frequency (100 Tera Hertz) so lets say 50 THz. So you can send 50 TBit/s = 6.25 TByte/s. Lets assume you can do this on two perpendicular polarisations of the light and do this via frequency and amplitude modulation -> You gain a factor of 4: 25 TByte/s. Lets say, we use 10000 Channels simultaneously: 250,000 TByte/s. This would mean, for 1 g of data transported by light at the physical limits (which we are not able yet to reach technically) we need 8,800,000 seconds = 0,2829 years. This was just for transporting the data at physical limits with enormous channel parallelization. Now there is still the question how to read out the data non destructively and beat the quantum uncertainty limitiations...[/QUOTE] But you're saying you would need to transmit each individual atom. I'm no chemist but 1g of Carbon here is the same as 1g of Carbon in the room next door. You're not taking into account data redundancy. We could instead just transmit the "carbon" atom as a few bits, and the oxygen atom as another few bits. We could take it a step further and say a clump of X carbon atoms is the bit sequence 100101010110 (random number pulled out of thin air), and the same for sensible volumes of other elements. Basically what I'm trying to say is we don't need to transmit the positions of protons and neutrons etc., just the atom itself. But, even with that that's a lot of data. I don't know maybe we could .zip humans :v: Anyway just an interesting thought, on what seems impossible
[QUOTE=tristanguy2;35839064]I would only step through a wormhole or tear in space, not get recreated through a teleporter. As my current being is destroyed. I think as the first electrical impulse you ever had in the womb is you, and it developed from there to where you are now. When you are torn apart and stored into information it disrupts that original electrical impulse from birth, and recreates it it on the other side. But it will not be perfect. It will be a different impulse and the original is gone, killing the original and the original ceases to be.[/QUOTE] Imagine if you suddenly disappeared from existence for a nanosecond and then a perfect clone of you, in the position you would have been in if you still existed for that nanosecond, is created. Is that not you? How do you make the distinction?
[QUOTE=Trumple;35850156]But you're saying you would need to transmit each individual atom. I'm no chemist but 1g of Carbon here is the same as 1g of Carbon in the room next door. You're not taking into account data redundancy. We could instead just transmit the "carbon" atom as a few bits, and the oxygen atom as another few bits. We could take it a step further and say a clump of X carbon atoms is the bit sequence 100101010110 (random number pulled out of thin air), and the same for sensible volumes of other elements. Basically what I'm trying to say is we don't need to transmit the positions of protons and neutrons etc., just the atom itself. But, even with that that's a lot of data. I don't know maybe we could .zip humans :v: Anyway just an interesting thought, on what seems impossible[/QUOTE] Well, the nuclear core is not unimportant (especially not for molecules. Here e.g. nuclear spin becomes important) but even if we just transmit "hey, it's carbon", we need to transmit the exact state the electrons are in. Otherwise you lose all chemical bonds and relations. And since we have not only the position of the electrons but also the principle quantum number (qn), angular momentum qn, spin qn , magnetic qn (to keep it simple - no molecular qn yet involved. But they are anyway similar), the data will explode. Anyway, if it's roughly 10^23 bits per g or 100 times that number - It doesn't matter, it's still way to much information.
[QUOTE=mcattack1092;33714582]A transporter is a fictional teleportation machine used in the Star Trek universe. Transporters convert a person or object into an energy pattern (a process called dematerialization), then "beam" it to a target, where it is reconverted into matter (rematerialization) (from Wikipedia) [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c7/Transporter2.jpg[/img] Does anyone think that transporter technology is actually possible? In my opinion, beaming a person from site A to site B would kill the person at site a and creating a completely new person at point B. This means that each time a person uses a transporter, they would be 'killed' and a 'clone' of them would appear at their destination. Secondly, the amount of power and information required to reconstruct the matter of a person would be so massive, that no power source nor storage device would be able to complete the task, either in the present or future.[/QUOTE] I'd always want to see this in the future: [img]http://pnmedia.gamespy.com/planetunreal.gamespy.com/images/oldsite/clusterimages/translo.jpg[/img] But then again, something so small would need so much power. What would power a teleport if it were made? Nuclear? Fusion? Nanites? A infinite power source? Possibilities are endless.
[QUOTE=tristanguy2;35839064]I would only step through a wormhole or tear in space, not get recreated through a teleporter. As my current being is destroyed. I think as the first electrical impulse you ever had in the womb is you, and it developed from there to where you are now. When you are torn apart and stored into information it disrupts that original electrical impulse from birth, and recreates it it on the other side. But it will not be perfect. It will be a different impulse and the original is gone, killing the original and the original ceases to be.[/QUOTE] but what if it [I]is[/I] perfect? (this is hypothetical, obviously) [editline]8th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Mrglitch2000;35871813]I'd always want to see this in the future: [img]http://pnmedia.gamespy.com/planetunreal.gamespy.com/images/oldsite/clusterimages/translo.jpg[/img] But then again, something so small would need so much power. What would power a teleport if it were made? Nuclear? Fusion? Nanites? A infinite power source? Possibilities are endless.[/QUOTE] nothing, you could be deconstructed into energy which is then transported to the other side and re-assembled into you
I think the main issue with this discussion is that we do not know what consciousness is and therefore would not know what would happen to it.I guess this statement may stand for both the "clone and destroy the old one" and the transferring methods. If our brain were to work like a computer for instance, we'd loose our consciousness and possibly some of our short term memory, a computer uses electric impulses to work and since you can't clone those like atoms, they will be transferred to something else. What it turns into, I do not know, but energy simply do not just turn into nothing. As for the body after the transfer, it would most likely not function due to the fact that any kinetic energy in which was in the previous body did not get transfered and therefore your heart, lungs and bran would not be alive at all. If we somehow would still be alive after the journey, the brain would only be able to remember the last "saved" bit of memory (assuming the brains memory works like a computer), your personality would be the same and you'd pretty much be the same person. The problem is if this person actually is you. If we with current technology created a human transferring device which actually works and is able to create/transfer a alive clone/person and scientists did a test on it, the person who comes out would act the same way. But if consciousness is actually some kind of a "soul" rather than a physical part of the brain, sort of "being" the energy and electrical impulses (kind of hard to explain), then the person exiting the transferring device would act, think and remember the same as the person who entered, but not be the same person. The problem (and my point) is that the only person knowing this would be the energy left when the previous person was destroyed and if the device is considered to be working, anyone thinking this would kill themselves in the fashion of getting rid of their old consciousness, and getting a new one which does not know what happened to the old one thinking it is the same because it has the same memories and personality. This device being called "safe" would then possibly end up with everyone killing themselves every time they get transferred, but nobody would actually know this because the new personalities think they are the old one. It's you dying and a clone taking over for you thinking it is you.
This always comes down to a philosophical argument of "what is consciousness" so I'll just cut out the middle-man. [I believe] consciousness is a redundant state of self awareness. Redundant because consciousness requires a redundant cycle of consciousness for its effects to be prevalent. It starts at birth and ends at death. If your consciousness ceases entirely (IE: your brain activity shutting down 100%, clinical death), even for a moment, a new consciousness needs to be started and that cycle of redundancy becomes broken and you [I]as you are aware of yourself[/I], die. The new consciousness will see it as nothing but a blip; but your own state of self awareness (as it is at this moment) becomes a severed link and you as you are aware of yourself cease to exist. I suppose likewise that in rare cases where people have had their brain shut down 100% and were later revived, that their cycle of consciousness was severed and that they did indeed die, and a new conciseness started up again. Again, likewise people who have had their brain activity cease 100% generally come back into life in a vegetative state, and often times remain in a vegetative state forever. My personal belief is that in these circumstances, the redundant cycle of consciousness has failed to start up again. The person is nothing but a cluster of nerves, and has no distinct state of self-awareness and they remain in a permanent half-life until their body dies. My personal belief is that in cases like [url=http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/23775873/ns/today-today_news/t/pronounced-dead-man-takes-miraculous-turn/]this[/url] the person as they were initially aware of themselves have actually died. I believe that either this man retained some thread of consciousness, or a new cycle of consciousness started. So, A) he never lost consciousness entirely or B) he as he knew himself died, but a new consciousness started up. I guess it's impossible to know because a new consciousness (if it were there) wouldn't be aware that it ever got severed. Conclusion: I think you (as you are aware of yourself) would indeed die if you went through a quantum teleporter. Theoretically, I'd never step into one unless it was absolutely necessary because I do believe that from my own perspective, I'd cease to exist. Death of the consciousness. [editline]11th May 2012[/editline] Also, "unconsciousness" is just a word. I've been unconscious twice before and it's merely a state of limited awareness, and I do have faint wisps of memories of what transgressed during those times. Not so much "un-conciousness" as it just is a state of limited mental awareness. Losing consciousness [B]entirely[/B] (0 brain activity) is something different.
So I wasn't the only one wondering about the consciousness thing?
Fuck that. If they ever make transporters that disassemble you and reassemble you somewhere else, you wouldn't pay me to get into one of those things. I like being alive, thank you very much. The chances of me being OK in a kind of Dr Manhattan kind of way are pretty slim if you ask me. It seems to be the same as just being disintergrated and then having some imposter clone take over your life afterwards.
[QUOTE=aVoN;35871486]Well, the nuclear core is not unimportant (especially not for molecules. Here e.g. nuclear spin becomes important) but even if we just transmit "hey, it's carbon", we need to transmit the exact state the electrons are in. Otherwise you lose all chemical bonds and relations. And since we have not only the position of the electrons but also the principle quantum number (qn), angular momentum qn, spin qn , magnetic qn (to keep it simple - no molecular qn yet involved. But they are anyway similar), the data will explode. Anyway, if it's roughly 10^23 bits per g or 100 times that number - It doesn't matter, it's still way to much information.[/QUOTE] I suppose I don't know enough about atoms to provide an argument...but, out of interest, what WOULD happen if we were to try and reconstruct, say, a cube of plastic without knowing the positions of the electrons and subatomic particles and we just assumed some kind of default arrangement?
[QUOTE=RearAdmiral;35931557]Fuck that. If they ever make transporters that disassemble you and reassemble you somewhere else, you wouldn't pay me to get into one of those things. I like being alive, thank you very much. The chances of me being OK in a kind of Dr Manhattan kind of way are pretty slim if you ask me. It seems to be the same as just being disintergrated and then having some imposter clone take over your life afterwards.[/QUOTE] But the clone would technically be seen as you. it would literally be you. No difference whatsoever. During a normal lifetime almost all the atoms in your body are replaced, cells rebuilt. You change and replace them all the time. The only difference with this kind of teleporter would be that they are all replaced instantly. As long as object A (you) goes in, and object A comes out I dont see the harm. even if 1+3 = A and 2+2=A It's still just A (you). Let's compare this to another scenario, We have a teleporter which instead of killing you, splits you up into atoms, sends the atoms over one-by one in a faster-than-light stream. then, at the destination it reconstructs you out of the same atoms that entered. What's the point of sending the atoms over, when you could just use atoms/materials at the destination. Why waste energy sending the materials to the destination? In an episode of Stargate SG-1, one of the main characters (Teal'c) gets "stuck" in one of the stargates. IE, all the information about how to properly reconstruct him at the destination is there, but he's clinically dead. Saved as nothing but raw computer data. At the end they mange to get him reconstructed though, and there are no problems. He's still himself.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;35908136]This always comes down to a philosophical argument of "what is consciousness" so I'll just cut out the middle-man. [I believe] consciousness is a redundant state of self awareness. Redundant because consciousness requires a redundant cycle of consciousness for its effects to be prevalent. It starts at birth and ends at death. If your consciousness ceases entirely (IE: your brain activity shutting down 100%, clinical death), even for a moment, a new consciousness needs to be started and that cycle of redundancy becomes broken and you [I]as you are aware of yourself[/I], die. The new consciousness will see it as nothing but a blip; but your own state of self awareness (as it is at this moment) becomes a severed link and you as you are aware of yourself cease to exist. I suppose likewise that in rare cases where people have had their brain shut down 100% and were later revived, that their cycle of consciousness was severed and that they did indeed die, and a new conciseness started up again. Again, likewise people who have had their brain activity cease 100% generally come back into life in a vegetative state, and often times remain in a vegetative state forever. My personal belief is that in these circumstances, the redundant cycle of consciousness has failed to start up again. The person is nothing but a cluster of nerves, and has no distinct state of self-awareness and they remain in a permanent half-life until their body dies. My personal belief is that in cases like [url=http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/23775873/ns/today-today_news/t/pronounced-dead-man-takes-miraculous-turn/]this[/url] the person as they were initially aware of themselves have actually died. I believe that either this man retained some thread of consciousness, or a new cycle of consciousness started. So, A) he never lost consciousness entirely or B) he as he knew himself died, but a new consciousness started up. I guess it's impossible to know because a new consciousness (if it were there) wouldn't be aware that it ever got severed. Conclusion: I think you (as you are aware of yourself) would indeed die if you went through a quantum teleporter. Theoretically, I'd never step into one unless it was absolutely necessary because I do believe that from my own perspective, I'd cease to exist. Death of the consciousness. [editline]11th May 2012[/editline] Also, "unconsciousness" is just a word. I've been unconscious twice before and it's merely a state of limited awareness, and I do have faint wisps of memories of what transgressed during those times. Not so much "un-conciousness" as it just is a state of limited mental awareness. Losing consciousness [B]entirely[/B] (0 brain activity) is something different.[/QUOTE] There are all sorts of problems with this. What makes the new consciousness not you? You mention several times "you as you are aware of yourself" but the new conscious entity has a self and believes it is the same one as the old one, so why would there be any distinction? The idea of "youness" is vague and you've begged the question by bringing it up and using it as you feel like several times instead of with any sort of real analytical reasoning.
I'd say the only feasible method today would be via a wormhole or something that doesn't deconstruct you. But science could just be fucking awesome and figure a way around that.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.