|
Kit Walker posted:It being a gradual process is the major difference. If you are replaced one part at a time then you never lose continuity. You being replaced one part at a time IS you. Really? What is this speed limit of this continuity? What actually breaks it? The teleporter replaced your atoms faster than any thought or any biological action going on in your cells or between your cells. So what breaks this magical continuity you cling to?
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 14:07 |
|
|
Obviously you need to wait until the animons (soul particles) have sufficiently altered the quantum flux harmonics of your new atoms to retain continuity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
Berk Berkly posted:Really? What is this speed limit of this continuity? What actually breaks it? The teleporter replaced your atoms faster than any thought or any biological action going on in your cells or between your cells. So what breaks this magical continuity you cling to? The part where you stop being alive. Are you not going to address my post where I explained how your hypothetical scenario could avoid breaking that continuity? It's funny that some of you are bringing up the soul since from how I see it it's the only way that destructive teleportation could possibly transport your consciousness to the new body given the complete breakdown of your body and thus the self. That's an argument for your side, not mine. Kit Walker fucked around with this message at 02:26 on Apr 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
Kit Walker posted:The part where you stop being alive. Are you not going to address my post where I explained how your hypothetical scenario could avoid breaking that continuity? You never actually die. Not in any conceivable, factual, actual sense. So your assumption is false, and thus your explanation doesn't change anything. The magical continuity you keep referring is just as a fictional construct as the teleporters we are hypothesizing about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
Kit Walker posted:How? Because death, or being destroyed, means that your in a state of oblivion where you have no way to perceive yourself. But if you teleport yourself thankfully you do have a way of continuing to perceive yourself as your brain has been reconstructed with all your old memories and your old personality.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
Kit Walker posted:The part where you stop being alive. Are you not going to address my post where I explained how your hypothetical scenario could avoid breaking that continuity? You've got it backwards. The existence of a soul is compatible with either argument, because we don't know how souls work and can't measure or observe them. The non-existence of the soul, however, is strictly in favor of the "teleporters are safe" side, because nobody can point to any physical thing that is lost in the teleport. You don't have to be a materialist, but if you are, commit to it. e: You can even say "shut up Tuxedo Catfish, you're using 'soul' as shorthand for any Dualist framework and that's not how it works" and that would be fine too, at least that's a starting point. Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 02:40 on Apr 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
OK, what if you found out you were an identical twin, but your twin died in your mother's womb before it had developed a brain and was virtually just your zygote double. If you had a magical device that would instead make your zygote die instead of your twins.-and the twin was born but lived exactly the same life as you did, would you have lost your personal existence?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
Yes, since, in that case you changed actual history, you haven't just moved or re-arranged atoms/energy/information, you've magically altered events that have previously occurred(and their effects propagated out becoming causes in their own right and so on). A significant, honestly probably critical, part of what makes self is the context in which one exists in. Its extremely difficult if not impossible to say what happens if you can actually break causality like that. Berk Berkly fucked around with this message at 02:55 on Apr 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
crowoutofcontext posted:OK, what if you found out you were an identical twin, but your twin died in your mother's womb before it had developed a brain and was virtually just your zygote double. If you had a magical device that would instead make your zygote die instead of your twins.-and the twin was born but lived exactly the same life as you did, would you have lost your personal existence? That's a million times more complicated than the teleporter question. e: Like, the beginning of an answer to that question is "let's have a gentleman's agreement not to talk about time paradoxes" and then it gets worse. Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 03:05 on Apr 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:That's a million times more complicated than the teleporter question. Yeah, its definitely a filthy can of worms that should be closed immediately. I was trying to think of a way to re-frame the question in a way that would replicate the "arbitrary fleshy material VS emergent subjective experience" but time travel is a bit heavy handed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:What if I'm afraid of dying, and think it's good and healthy to be afraid of dying, but not afraid of the teleporter? Then you've got a fear of death that doesn't include being ripped apart atom by atom (which is a dumb thing to be afraid of tbf). Are you afraid of other similarly unlikely things, or do you not fear them? The thanatophobes are actually worried about the possibility, you see. It's not a mental exercise for them, it's a new and terrifying way to die. Basically what I'm trying to say is this is a religious argument disguised as something else.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
Comparing continuity to the soul is absurd, the better analogy is software. A program running is a process, which can be sped up or slowed down, even stop or started, but a 'break' in the process is the termination of that program. You can copy it, but the old process is still gone. Now obviously, consciousness is not an arbitrary process, it's a certain kind of process, but the fact that it's not isomorphic to the transistors or the medium does not make it not real. Thus a copyer that copies every measurable property of a person is not necessarily a continuity of that process. Note that the inability to describe exactly what that conscious process is, to 'prove it' as some posters have demanded, does not change the previous logic in the slightest. To deny the previous logic is to deny that consciousness exist at all, that you are therefore already dead, and that there is no meaningful difference with the way you are now, with your rotting carcass. If you prefer to stay alive, then you must have a meaningful difference as the basis of that preference, and that thing is life. rudatron fucked around with this message at 05:02 on Apr 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 05:00
|
|
|
Peztopiary posted:Then you've got a fear of death that doesn't include being ripped apart atom by atom (which is a dumb thing to be afraid of tbf). Are you afraid of other similarly unlikely things, or do you not fear them? The thanatophobes are actually worried about the possibility, you see. It's not a mental exercise for them, it's a new and terrifying way to die. Basically what I'm trying to say is this is a religious argument disguised as something else. It's not the unlikeliness that reassures me, though. I'm not afraid of my consciousness being extinguished, because I think that fear is based on a misunderstanding of what consciousness is/does, but I am afraid of my memories and personality being lost. Those are irreplaceable (in real life, sans teleporter thought experiment) and I don't want all the development of my personality and experiences to go to waste.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 05:00
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Comparing continuity to the soul is absurd, the better analogy is software. A program running is a process, which can be sped up or slowed down, even stop or started, but a 'break' in the process is the termination of that program. You can copy it, but the old process is still gone. Now obviously, consciousness is not an arbitrary process, it's a certain kind of process, but the fact that it's not isomorphic to the transistors or the medium does not make it not real. Thus a copyer that copies every measurable property of a person is not necessarily a continuity of that process. My contention is that there is no continuity, and I see no evidence that there is. Nothing in how I live my life from day to day or even moment-to-moment requires continuity, because memory (and a similar physical context) is sufficient. e: All of which would apply just as much to a computer program, by the way, except even moreso because computers make calculations in literal discrete steps, which I can't say for certain about reality or my brain. rudatron posted:Note that the inability to describe exactly what that conscious process is, to 'prove it' as some posters have demanded, does not change the previous logic in the slightest. To deny the previous logic is to deny that consciousness exist at all, that you are therefore already dead, and that there is no meaningful difference with the way you are now, with your rotting carcass. If you prefer to stay alive, then you must have a meaningful difference as the basis of that preference, and that thing is life. Saying that consciousness lacks continuity isn't the same as saying it doesn't exist. It just means that each instance exists very briefly. Also, life doesn't even require consciousness. So there's no contradiction in valuing life and not valuing consciousness, or, as in my position, to value consciousness in general but not any particular instance of it. Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 05:17 on Apr 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
Again, there's a way to teleport that doesn't involve being ripped apart atom by atom but as a whole, it's called quantum teleportation, and it's in fact the only physically allowed form of teleportation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 07:01
|
|
|
So, what if your brain wasn't destroyed wholesale in the process. A piece is scanned, destroyed, and built on the other side. Its then networked artifically with you back at the start. Then another piece is done till your fully transfered over. Does this change how people feel about continuity? How fast can this be done before it feels like destruction? Is it functionally different then your brains normal process of replacing neurons?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 07:21
|
|
|
Killer-of-Lawyers posted:So, what if your brain wasn't destroyed wholesale in the process. A piece is scanned, destroyed, and built on the other side. Its then networked artifically with you back at the start. Then another piece is done till your fully transfered over. Does this change how people feel about continuity? How fast can this be done before it feels like destruction? Is it functionally different then your brains normal process of replacing neurons? The point of the thought experiment isn't to redesign teleportation to render the question moot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 11:15
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:My contention is that there is no continuity, and I see no evidence that there is. Nothing in how I live my life from day to day or even moment-to-moment requires continuity, because memory (and a similar physical context) is sufficient. That you continue to perceive from moment to moment is evidence of continuity, isn't it? Even if you go to sleep, get knocked unconscious, etc, when you wake up you're still the observer behind your eyes and not someone else.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 12:17
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:Again, there's a way to teleport that doesn't involve being ripped apart atom by atom but as a whole, it's called quantum teleportation, and it's in fact the only physically allowed form of teleportation. Quantum teleportation seems to require the destruction of the original object, so our problem likely remains for the average skeptic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 12:58
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Then death is rather meaningless if it's followed by the immediate recreation of a completely indistinguishable replacement. Dzhay posted:Again, why should I care about your notion of "died" and "your"? OwlFancier posted:Death would become inconvenient but not really a problem. OwlFancier posted:I'm not dead in any meaningful sense of the term. OwlFancier posted:Then I would posit that death, as you use the term, is utterly meanignless, and that you need to either use a different term or posit an alternative term for the absence of anything resembling you continuing to exist. OwlFancier posted:Why should I care what happens to me if my death would literally have no effect at all on the world? OwlFancier posted:If I'm dead I won't be in a position to care, and if I'm cloned there will be no material consequences for my death, so, why should I care in advance? OwlFancier posted:And again, why should I be afraid of my own death if it has no consequences for anyone else? Berk Berkly posted:You never actually die. Not in any conceivable, factual, actual sense. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 13:07
|
|
|
Philosophy: I'm not dead in any meaningful sense of the term.  *clone fucks wife, raises kids, has life*
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 13:20
|
|
|
I know. This thread has shown me that some goons are so smugly detached from reality that they would be perfectly happy getting killed in the name of progress.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 14:01
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:That you continue to perceive from moment to moment is evidence of continuity, isn't it? Even if you go to sleep, get knocked unconscious, etc, when you wake up you're still the observer behind your eyes and not someone else. Nope. It's just evidence of short-term memory. I don't know whether I'm the same observer from one moment to the next -- I have memories that suggest that I am, but that's exactly the same thing the clone would think.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 14:10
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:Nope. It's just evidence of short-term memory. I don't know whether I'm the same observer from one moment to the next -- I have memories that suggest that I am, but that's exactly the same thing the clone would think. In what sense would you not be the same observer? In what sense could you be a different observer but still observing?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 14:16
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:That you continue to perceive from moment to moment is evidence of continuity, isn't it? Even if you go to sleep, get knocked unconscious, etc, when you wake up you're still the observer behind your eyes and not someone else. Well I assume I am because, well, what's the alternative? But how would I know if I wasn't?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 14:17
|
|
|
Cosmic inflation seems to naturally produce a Level I multiverse containing infinite space and therefore an infinite number of Hubble volumes. Basically, the universe has an infinite number of dice rolls, so inevitably it will instantiate any given outcome more than once. The consequence is that, if you travel far enough - which you aren't able to do because of how space works, but imagine that it's possible - then you will eventually come across a familiar universe containing a familiar Milky Way containing a familiar Solar System containing a familiar Earth containing a familiar - in fact, an identical - you. (This is all more or less the consensus among cosmologists.) Except it's not you. It's a different organism. If you step into a teleporter it's not what comes out the other side. It's a completely separate, independent entity. If you kill yourself here it won't die over there. People in its universe won't mourn your death, but people in your universe certainly will, because, even though another organism 101029 meters away has survived your death, you are dead. Thinking of yourself as a conscious self or whatever - which is a concept that neuroscience presently doesn't even know what to make of - doesn't clarify the situation; we don't even know if it maps to reality. Recognizing that you are a discrete organism, by contrast, makes a whole lot of sense. Also it seems like people who pull the "Biological concepts and definitions don't make sense because OMG cells get replaced" card or the "What happens when you go to sleep?" card haven't put much effort into understanding four-dimensionalism and/or are hung up on the paramount explanatory value of consciousness per se, which is funny because, as far as modern science is concerned, consciousness is a terrible snake pit of smoke and mirrors. If none of this resonates with you then 
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 14:20
|
|
|
Peta posted:Except it's not you. It's a different organism. If you step into a teleporter it's not what comes out the other side. It's a completely separate, independent entity. If you kill yourself here it won't die over there. People in its universe won't mourn your death, but people in your universe certainly will, because, even though another organism 101029 meters away has survived your death, you are dead. Thinking of yourself as a conscious self or whatever - which is a concept that neuroscience presently doesn't even know what to make of - doesn't clarify the situation; we don't even know if it maps to reality. Recognizing that you are a discrete organism, by contrast, makes a whole lot of sense. Actually, thinking of yourself in terms of consciousness and selfhood rather than as an organism is probably still bad news for the pro-teleportation crowd. The Level I multiverse shows us that even if two consciousnesses/personalities/selves are qualitatively identical, they still are significantly different from one another. Unless you want to argue that existence in separate Hubble volumes some googolplex meters apart is an insignificant or irrelevant fact. Which I predict that the pro-teleportation crowd will try to do.    
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
Peta posted:Quantum teleportation seems to require the destruction of the original object, so our problem likely remains for the average skeptic. No because physically an object is the wavefunction and quantum teleportation just put the object's wavefunction in a different position. The 'information' of your structure doesn't get scanned and then transmitted somewhere else to be reconstructed or anything like that.Of course you can also talk about teleportation without involving any physics, but people hav brought in things like many-worlds and then you have to take into account how the physically allowed form of teleportation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 14:38
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:No because physically an object is the wavefunction and quantum teleportation just put the object's wavefunction in a different position. The 'information' of your structure doesn't get scanned and then transmitted somewhere else to be reconstructed or anything like that.Of course you can also talk about teleportation without involving any physics, but people hav brought in things like many-worlds and then you have to take into account how the physically allowed form of teleportation. DataA from ObjectA goes to ObjectB and ObjectA is destroyed. I'm not saying this is the nail in the coffin - I don't know enough about it and I haven't thought enough about it to have a strong opinion - but for people who are skeptical of the original thought experiment it should still cause concern.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 14:46
|
|
|
Peta posted:Actually, thinking of yourself in terms of consciousness and selfhood rather than as an organism is probably still bad news for the pro-teleportation crowd. The Level I multiverse shows us that even if two consciousnesses/personalities/selves are qualitatively identical, they still are significantly different from one another. I can't say I've put a lot of stock in which hubble volume I occupy. Doesn't come up on my online dating profile.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I can't say I've put a lot of stock in which hubble volume I occupy. I'm glad you've admitted that you occupy one Hubble volume instead of many Hubble volumes. This is the first step.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 14:50
|
|
|
I dunno, I might occupy more than one, depends where the edge is. If I lay diagonally in bed when I'm asleep I might occupy several.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 14:51
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Well I assume I am because, well, what's the alternative? But how would I know if I wasn't? You tell me how it's supposed to work, because to me the concept that you could "not be the same observer" is nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I dunno, I might occupy more than one, depends where the edge is. If I lay diagonally in bed when I'm asleep I might occupy several. You should consider enrollment in a weight-loss program.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:You tell me how it's supposed to work, because to me the concept that you could "not be the same observer" is nonsense. ? I think I am the same observer I've always been. But I wouldn't really know if that was incorrect. Because all I have is a memory of the past, which creates a feeling of continuity. But anyone can remember things, it doesn't mean they actually happened or are true. Peta posted:You should consider enrollment in a weight-loss program. I like to spread out when I sleep, arms and legs everywhere. Plus I am assuming that a hubble volume is the average volume of a space telescope so it seems pretty reasonable that I could intersect multiple of those if I spread out enough.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:? This is a completely useless completely baseless incarnation of Cartesian doubt with no apparent connection to reality. Granted Cartesian doubt has for the most part always struck me as an excruciatingly dumb and worthless exercise and I feel like I'm missing whatever important part of the brain causes other people to appreciate it. Peta fucked around with this message at 15:09 on Apr 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
Seems p applicable in the context of creating memories with a teleporter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
Peta posted:DataA from ObjectA goes to ObjectB and ObjectA is destroyed. I'm not saying this is the nail in the coffin - I don't know enough about it and I haven't thought enough about it to have a strong opinion - but for people who are skeptical of the original thought experiment it should still cause concern. This is the oppostive of what I said. In quantum teleportation, object_A goes from position 1 to position 2. Saying quantum teleportation means death also means saying moving around or going forward in time means death (which is not an inconsistent position as someone suggested earlier, but one that few people will hold). Regular, non-quantum, teleportation is of the destroy, transmit data, reconstruct variety. However, it's been shown that you can only get at theoretical most 5/6ths of the information through that way. So what comes out the other end probably won't be human anyways.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
If instances of consciousness separated by space are different from each other, why should we consider instances of consciousness separated by time to be the same?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 14:07 |
|
|
The Belgian posted:This is the oppostive of what I said. In quantum teleportation, object_A goes from position 1 to position 2. Saying quantum teleportation means death also means saying moving around or going forward in time means death (which is not an inconsistent position as someone suggested earlier, but one that few people will hold). Regular, non-quantum, teleportation is of the destroy, transmit data, reconstruct variety. However, it's been shown that you can only get at theoretical most 5/6ths of the information through that way. So what comes out the other end probably won't be human anyways. Uh, the whole point of quantum teleportation as far as I can tell is that, yes, quantum information is preserved in its transmission from one pile of atoms to another pile of atoms, but the first pile of atoms has to be destroyed in the process. Tuxedo Catfish posted:If instances of consciousness separated by space are different from each other, why should we consider instances of consciousness separated by time to be the same? We don't. I extend through both space and time (no separation) until the teleporter zaps me out of existence and reconstructs me elsewhere. This amounts to a gap in both space and time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 15:22
|
|