[QUOTE=Maximo13;29242786]Why can't we ,instead of destroying the particles and making an exact replica, use the disassembled particles to reform the person again?[/QUOTE]
That's not how quantum teleportation works.
[QUOTE=AK'z;29242870]Packets of light?
How is transferring photos, a breakthrough... Optical Fibres could do it 10 times faster.[/QUOTE]
...dude, they mean quanta, the fundamental component of light, at the speed of light which is 3x10^8 metres per second, fibre optic usually hits about 2x10^8 metres per second if you're lucky.
[editline]17th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Dolton;29243421]Simple solution for teleporting humans.
Instead of teleporting you where you want to go teleport where you want to go to you :eng101:
Just build a really big time machine for planets and shit.[/QUOTE]
Except time machines are even further away than teleportation.
At least we have a form of teleportation in some sense, but time machines are a pipe dream right now.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;29202974]It said destroying and recreating, i think that would kill you and rebirth you.[/QUOTE]
actually we did this in philosophy, it scared me.
[QUOTE=Chrille;29237756]If it duplicates everything perfectly why wouldn't it be conserved?[/QUOTE]
No, I meant conserved like in conservation of energy or momentum.
[editline]17th April 2011[/editline]
i.e. an increase in momentum somewhere must mean a decrease somewhere else.
That doesn't happen with consciousness. Say you had a teleporter of the destruction/recreation type : what's to just stop you from ignoring the destruction process and just using it to create a clone of yourself? It'd have the same consciousness, so now there'd be two consciousnesses.
[QUOTE=johnT447;29203414]I'm sure someone already done this[/QUOTE]
Nikola Tesla?
This sounds very promising, I mean, think of the applications.........
Also, :science:
The word "quantum" makes me cry.
Entangled particles do not transmit any information. You basically have all the info on your lap but you choose not to look at it until the other particle is away, so that you could say "ooo! Teleportation!".
So is the natural "movements" of an entangled particle indistinguishable from purposeful ones?
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;29243668]This is the kind of statement I don't understand. Two identical systems in two different places and people assert that they're not the same. That implies there's some sort of metaphysical "youness" that isn't being taken into account.[/QUOTE]
You keep viewing this from an external perspective. We're talking about the teleportee's perspective, and his alone. When I walk into a teleporter, my own perception of the universe through my eyes ends as if I had just been standing to a nuke that went off. For everything else including my clone, it would seem as if I has went through just fine. The Clone would think he had gone through and come out on the other end just fine, when he was really just born a few moments ago.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;29251844]So is the natural "movements" of an entangled particle indistinguishable from purposeful ones?
You keep viewing this from an external perspective. We're talking about the teleportee's perspective, and his alone. When I walk into a teleporter, my own perception of the universe through my eyes ends as if I had just been standing to a nuke that went off. For everything else including my clone, it would seem as if I has went through just fine. The Clone would think he had gone through and come out on the other end just fine, when he was really just born a few moments ago.[/QUOTE]
If your "teleporter's perspective" is inconsistent with what an observer sees, your understanding is flawed.
It's came to my attention that nobody on facepunch, with a few exceptions like JohnnyMo1, has any grasp on metaphysics whatsoever.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;29243668]This is the kind of statement I don't understand. Two identical systems in two different places and people assert that they're not the same. That implies there's some sort of metaphysical "youness" that isn't being taken into account.[/QUOTE]
How is it a metaphysical "youness" it's pretty obvious that if you destroy the original and create a copy, it's still a copy and not the original, I'm really not seeing what is so hard to understand about this.
[editline]17th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Robbobin;29252608]It's came to my attention that nobody on facepunch, with a few exceptions like JohnnyMo1, has any grasp on metaphysics whatsoever.[/QUOTE]
So we're arguing science vs philosophy now?
[QUOTE=AaronM202;29202974]It said destroying and recreating, i think that would kill you and rebirth you as a mindless braindead hunk of flesh.[/QUOTE]
-I didn't read the thread :v:-
[quote]the original and create a copy, it's still a copy and not the original, I'm really not seeing what is so hard to understand about this.[/quote]
but if there's no difference between the original and the copy, who cares?
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;29252646]So we're arguing science vs philosophy now?[/QUOTE]
Not at all. Science and philosophy are very compatible. However the question identity is very much a philosophical question (I'm studying the very question right now).
[QUOTE=Kybalt;29237981]really facepunch? and especially johnnymo1. honestly, this whole "you" consciousness conservation, i figured it out at least 3 years ago, and i didn't bother bringing it up because i figured it was quite obvious and everyone else already understood this. there's an article on cracked explaining it for fucks sake.
you are your awareness and consciousness. when you die this disappears. that's all death is. when you get teleported by this method, you die. it's completely irrelivant that whatever comes out on the other side.
[editline]17th April 2011[/editline]
ding ding ding we have a [img_thumb]http://www.facepunch.com/fp/ratings/winner.png[/img_thumb][/QUOTE]
the question is transporting matter and not rebuilding it
[editline]17th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;29252646]So we're arguing science vs philosophy now?[/QUOTE]
science and philosophy dont have to clash son
[QUOTE=Robbobin;29252740]Not at all. Science and philosophy are very compatible. However the question identity is very much a philosophical question (I'm studying the very question right now).[/QUOTE]
Well I know for a very solid fact that I exist and it is I experiencing it. If I am destroyed and a copy is created, No matter how exact that copy is, I am dead, ad in whatever causes me to experience this, whether this is spiritual or something else is not important, if I am destroyed and a copy is made, I have still been destroyed.
[quote]science and philosophy dont have to clash son[/QUOTE]
yeah just look at determinism
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;29252803]Well I know for a very solid fact that I exist and it is I experiencing it. If I am destroyed and a copy is created, No matter how exact that copy is, I am dead, ad in whatever causes me to experience this, whether this is spiritual or something else is not important, if I am destroyed and a copy is made, I have still been destroyed.[/QUOTE]
but are you even the same you from 10 seconds ago? what if you had dementia or something, you'd keep reinventing yourself.
WHAT A CRRRAZY WORLD WE LIVE IN
sure but my point is that in some fields science doesn't have the right to say shit and viceversa
psychology has a lot of trouble thanks to that since sometimes talking about consciousness (hear it facepunch?) enters metaphysics and cant be studied as a science
example: count to 3 and raise your arm
how did your thought of raising your arm become a physical action
where's the link between consciousness and physical brain
see?
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;29252646]How is it a metaphysical "youness" it's pretty obvious that if you destroy the original and create a copy, it's still a copy and not the original, I'm really not seeing what is so hard to understand about this.[/QUOTE]
Nothing. That's not what's being argued. We're arguing what makes the original special, if anything.
I don't deny that they're different objects, but if they're physically indistinguishable, how can you say, "That guy died, this is a different person." They share all memories, experiences, and qualities.
[QUOTE=Gonzales Santos;29252893]sure but my point is that in some fields science doesn't have the right to say shit and viceversa
psychology has a lot of trouble thanks to that since sometimes talking about consciousness (hear it facepunch?) enters metaphysics and cant be studied as a science
example: count to 3 and raise your arm
how did your thought of raising your arm become a physical action
where's the link between consciousness and physical brain
see?[/QUOTE]
Oh god I'm not going to get any sleep am I...
How can people not understand JohnnyMo1's concept? The copy created by the teleporter is exactly the way you are when you are destroyed. Down to the last atom. You would become disintegrated but an exact replica down to the last atom would be created. So you would not be teleported, you would just be destroyed. There is no magic conciousness ghost that flies through the teleporter into the new you.
[QUOTE=Patjo_sweden;29252939]How can people not understand JohnnyMo1's concept? The copy created by the teleporter is exactly the way you are when you are destroyed. Down to the last atom. You would become disintegrated but an exact replica down to the last atom would be created. So you would not be teleported, you would just be destroyed. There is no magic conciousness ghost that flies through the teleporter into the new you.[/QUOTE]
That's not my point. That is almost the opposite of my point.
philosophy is best osophy
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;29252908]Nothing. That's not what's being argued. We're arguing what makes the original special, if anything.[/QUOTE]
Well that depends on what you mean by special. A clone no matter what is still a clone. If you used conventional (or at least whatever can be classed as conventional at this point) cloning methods the clone, no matter how close it is to it's original, it is still not the original. I may not know what causes the feeling of conciousness, I do however know is it exists.
I won't purport to know that you suddenly zip into the new body and start controlling it, but the consciousness controlling the new creation is utterly indistinguishable from the old one. (if consciousness is purely mechanical) So what makes them different people? How can you say someone has died if he is recreated in perfect detail? Does that consciousness really end, then?
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;29252803]Well I know for a very solid fact that I exist and it is I experiencing it. If I am destroyed and a copy is created, No matter how exact that copy is, I am dead, ad in whatever causes me to experience this, whether this is spiritual or something else is not important, if I am destroyed and a copy is made, I have still been destroyed.[/QUOTE]
Well that depends entirely on what your criteria for youness is. I'm pretty sure you and Johnny are agreeing on the facts, you're just both drawing a different conclusion because Johnny's version of youness relies on something different (possibly psychological continuity, rather than actual objects). A similar analogy could be a river.
The actual atoms are constantly moving, while the geographical feature itself is constant (comparatively, at least). Similarly in the teleportation thought experiment, the atoms are being destroyed and hence, by your interpretation of youness (based on discernible, unique atoms), 'you' cease to exist. However by Johnny's interpretation (assuming his is based on psychological continuity), whether or not you are consisting in precisely the same atoms is irrelevant.
For some reason I found this really hard to put into words, but basically what I'm saying is that all you're disagreeing on is semantics.
Personally I prefer Johnny's interpretation, because according to a definition based on atomic structure, you're not the same person as you were 7 years ago because your whole body has regenerated since then.
That's what I got from the first pages at least. And what I believe so whatever.
[QUOTE=blubafoon;29252836]yeah just look at determinism[/QUOTE]
That isn't a clash. Determinism is just a branch of philosophy. There is no fundamental clash between science and philosophy whatsoever. As I see it they're essentially the same thing - science is just more inductive.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;29253029]I won't purport to know that you suddenly zip into the new body and start controlling it, but the consciousness controlling the new creation is utterly indistinguishable from the old one. (if consciousness is purely mechanical) So what makes them different people? How can you say someone has died if he is recreated in perfect detail? Does that consciousness really end, then?[/QUOTE]
In a physical sense, nothing would make them different, they would be exactly the same in every way as you said. However whatever causes the individual conciousness would be destroyed in the original person, thus causing the technical death of the original person, while the starting of a new conciousness in the new copy.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;29253038]WFor some reason I found this really hard to put into words,[/QUOTE]
Me too. This is some mindblowing shit.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;29253086]That isn't a clash. Determinism is just a branch of philosophy. There is no fundamental clash between science and philosophy whatsoever. As I see it they're essentially the same thing - science is just more inductive.[/QUOTE]
I was agreeing but ok
determinism loves it some cause and effect
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
