/sci/ - Science & Math

The whole climax of the movie The Prestige, is based on your metaphysical question and the ability to question such a situation. Go watch the movie OP.

that is a very interesting topic.
I always thought CLONE

Its basically like the movie prestige.

also, ya you'll die. Its cut-pasting, you can also copy paste just as easily.

You will die, but another you will be there to replace you that is exactly the same. and he'll be like "what I didn't feel a thing." cause hes brand new and didn't die.

You'd have as much in common with the person that steps out of the teleporter as you'd have with the person that wakes up in your body tomorrow morning, after you lose continuity of consiousness when you go to sleep.

His memories will trick him into thinking he's you, and the same person he was before; the same way you are tricked every day.

>>1770860
OP here. So what you're saying is that continuity of conciousness is an illusion. I dig.

>>1770856
>You will die, but another you will be there to replace you that is exactly the same. and he'll be like "what I didn't feel a thing." cause hes brand new and didn't die.

That's the correct way to think about it imo. You, as in the you that exists right now as a concious being would be gone completely. However an exact copy of you would be created who was the exact same in every way. There would be no sharing of conciousness though, you'd be entirely different beings and one would be dead, one alive.

>implying a soul exists

>>1770860
Kinda creepin' me out, Anon.

>>1770875
No-one is implying that. Please stop trying in being all wistful and cunning by reading between the lines, because frankly, there are no hidden messages to be read.

>>1770876
Relax. You, as you are right now, will be gone by the time you're reading the end of this sentence. You're constantly changing; you could say that the change is what makes you you, not the positions of all the particles. You are a process, not an instant.

to absolutely everyone else, it would be you.
but YOU would no longer exist

that's about it, really.

Wow never thought of sleep as a conciousness breaker....
4chan you have rattled my brain.

>>1770885
>implying there is no soul

>>1770875
>hurr durr confusing the concept of possessing conciousness for the concept of possessing a soul.

>>1770885
That's kind of the point. If the process can be replicated faithfully as per the OP, it is of little consequence if one process is terminated.

I've sometimes thought that every now and then a different being comes into your body and lives a part of your life......weird but if you think about it, when you change as a person it happens overnight....don't worry about me, i'm just weird

conciousness is not defined, we dont know what it is.
so any speculation what teleportation might do to it is useless. it is the same as arguing about the fate of a ship that reaches the corner of the flat earth.

you would be the same person, completely. you would KNOW you were the same person, because you would still be- exactly- identical to your former self.

So would I actually die and see only blackness/afterlife (inb4 shitstorm) and the other continue as though nothing has happened? What would happen to my current consciousness?

>>1770932

The same thing that happens when you die. Because that's what's going to happen. An exact copy of yourself is going to live on while you go to the abyss.

>>1770923
We don't know what it is...
yet!

>>1770923
pfffhahaha. I like how you played the 'baseless speculation' card but talked about the concept of teleportation seriously.

A+ would read again

>>1770941
you can define a hypothetical working teleportation system in engineering terms so there's a base for scientific speculation. we know what such a technology should be capable to do.

although some people here seem to have a very strong conviction about conscience it has no satisfying all-encompassing definition.
this is still a science board, not fairy tale board. i expect a bit more rigor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swampman

>>1770931
but it's not you. It would be like making an exact atom perfect copy of yourself, it would have your concioussness and everything is you, but not actually be you.

Your body is CONSTANTLY replacing itself with all new material. The matter you are made up of now contains nothing of what you were as a child.. or even a few years ago. Replace with the new and kick out the trash that's left. This happens your whole life till the day you die. Every so often you get a brand new body.

That goes for your brain too. Every so often, enough of it has been replaced that you effectively have an all new brain.

Does this mean the you that is now is not the you from before?

As someone said, consciousness is a process.. not an instant. The you from even a second ago is not the you now. Every instant, the you that was then dies and gives birth to the you now.

>>1770899
If that happened you'd never know it because you would still have exact same memories as you would if you had lived the day. Crazy eh?

>>1770941
When you copy that floppy, you are essentially teleporting that string of 1's and 0's, but instead of destroying the original, you let it live. The same way a Star Trek style teleporter would take atoms at the destination and rearrange them to form the information of you (atom type,location,energy, etc.).

>>1770970
Hence the concessional disclaimer in the OP.

For a technical stiff I expect a bit more thorough reading.

>>1770994
Of course it's not you, but that's not the point. What makes you you?

It's like saying 2 CD's with identical tracklists are not the same. It's true, but irrelevant because they contain the same data, just as your brain would contain the same as a copy.

Those two CD's can be played in separate places at once, be changed into different things, etc.

Just a copy, nothing more.

>>1770923
He's obviously talking about the chemical and electrical balance in the brain that makes up who we are. When you get teleported, all these connections are disrupted permanently and arranged elsewhere. You will cease to exist because your brain will cease to exist.

>>1770995
That doesn't compare to the teleportation situation. With refreshing of (brain) cells, as you said, everything is done over time. The cells that don't change still retain their electrochemical balance from before, whereas with teleportation they're ALL stopped.

Interesting article that deals with this subject:
http://bardcan.wordpress.com/

>>1770840
>But it wouldn't be MY conciousness, would it?

LMAO, still believes in conciousness

There is one issue with everything everyone on this thread who is saying conciousness ends at death is saying.

People have been brought back to life after death. After brain death there have been very rare cases of people living.

Are you saying it is another person who wakes up?

>>1771038
>another person
be specific
Are we talking the same chunk of plastic used to make the CD or the content on the CD, which could exist on the original or a burned one?

Assuming that there is no such thing as a soul a human being is completely defined by his physical properties. A quantum copy would therefore be identical to the original, to the point that trying to draw a distinction between the two doesn't even begin to make sense.

Either that, or you assume souls exist. Doesn't matter if you don't want to call them souls, the concept is the same. Semantics won't save you.

>>1771045

A cd is not an accurate representation of conciousness. A cd is more like the memories we have, whereas the conciousness would be the pagefile in a computer.

>>1771046

Exactly my argument.

If there is some magical difference that we can't measure, that seperates the two conciousnesses, you are delving into the supernatural.

Has NOBODY around here heard of the Turing Transfer?

>>1771050

That thing that doesn't exist?

No, do go on!

>>1771047
I suppose that might be more accurate, as the pagefile is more of a current state or maybe we could use RAM or whatever, but it's still data being manipulated, don't get caught up in the fact that CD's seem a lot less flexible.

Memories can be manipulated too, it's just harder because when you actually experience something, you have SO much data surrounding that event that it's much more daunting to change it than, say, x=1 to x=2.

I'm of the position that it's still all data, so it doesn't make much difference what analogy you use, you'll still run into the same issues. The only reason the 0's and 1's on CD's, HD's, and RAM serve different purposes is because we designed them that way, they're still collections of data.

>>1771054

With that attitude I could call ANYTHING "just data".

The light from this monitor, is just data interpreated by my brain.

Every atom in the universe, is just data.

Hell, if everything is just data, you begin to delve into nihilism.

I would think that eveyr neuroscientist on the planet would disagree with you on the respect that everything going on in the brain is just data.

Isn't, as far as quantum teleportation is involved, the original image always destroyed by the scanning beam, as for uncertainty principle?

In this case you could not decide whether or not you have a soul, since there could be at all times only one of you, either here and there.

You could however argue whether your self will see the other side of the transition, or it will be the new one.

Consciousness is a doing thing, not a being thing.

>>1771058
>your self
>new one

No goddamn difference from a physical point of view.

>>1771060
maybe. maybe not.

>>1771056
I know, but I was implying that you were avoiding the question and hanging up on vocab. What difference does it make between the CD analogy and pagefile analogy, won't the answer be the same?

>>1771061
I don't give a fuck about "physical" point of view. I only care about my OWN

>>1771065
I'd argue that we are on a science board, but that would be false.

>>1771070
What I mean is, this is kind of like the Arthur Dent's dilemma when the mice are offering him a new brain in exchange for his original one. (...) His friends would be unable to tell the difference, but, as he argued, he would!

(which is the point of this entire thread, isn't it?)

If you teleported to a thousand different places at once there will be a thousand you's.....but you can only be one.
That answers your fucking question....it's copys...case closed.

You die every moment, the smallest division of time you can experience is the length of your lives, the reason you don't realize it is because your memeory feeds your imagination images and data of the past.

Thus, if a teleporter were to malfunction and just copy you without destroying the original, both of you would be equally much yourself the first moment of existance, after which your lives would diverge.

>>1770860
This. 1000x this.

>>1771099
I don't die every moment. You're full of shit.

>>1771136
So your experience of time is all at once, as compared to not in slices? You experience your tenth birthday right now in all it's high resolution sensory input with all the feelings attached precisely as when it happened, while at the same time you're sitting and surfing this depraved site, along with every single moment in between, afterwards and before?

Well no? You're only really living in the now, surfing this depraved site, that means all your past experiences are illusions, some crude representations of what a dead man once experienced.

>>1771000
>>1771089
/thread

So many absurd notions in this thread. Stream of consciousness is not destroyed from moment to moment, you tits. Now, who you are is constantly changing with new input, but that's not the same thing as the previous ceasing to exist and being replaced.

It also isn't destroyed during sleep, that's just a lessening of activity so it can do the equivalent of defragmentation.

As for the classic teleportation problem, it can be solved by created a state where you exist in both places at the same time, with your consciousness spread between them (2 bodies, singular mind), then simply terminate the body at the end you were leaving from. Consciousness is not interrupted because although the body is indeed destroyed, the consciousness was already fully in the other body by this point.

BUT what if teleportation was just traveling at the speed of light, like goku's instant transmission.
That shit dosen't particularize you into atoms it just sends you flying at high speeds.
I solved it mofos, you can invent it now

Simplify the problem...

How does the invisible man cross a large puddle?
With 2 feet in he is whole, as evidenced by the foot shaped holes in the water.
If he steps forward one foot disappears, another foot-hole appears...but is it his? Is he perhaps half dead?
If he jumps forward he disappears & perhaps only a copy of him is to be found a few feet ahead.

To do this and be sure it is him that has moved he, briefly, requires three legs.
A third foot-hole appears & he rests his weight upon it.
One of the first 2 disappears, but he is still whole and complete for he has two feet.
A third foot again appears and the remaining first foot disappears.
He is now in a different location and he is sure it is himself that has moved.

>>1771089
>That answers your fucking question....it's copys...case closed.
But the copies would all be convinced they were the original you. And you'd have no way to somehow prove that you are the original unless you carefully document the whole teleportation sequence.

A similar scenario would be that we "teleport" 'you' to the same place with a thirty second delay, but not removing the original who we instead kidnap and torture to death. The copy 'you' would think that nothing happened, and he would be right, he would be a direct continuation of your line of thought, being entirely unaware of the dead self he originated from.

If you've ever seriously thought about the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics and quantum suicide you'd be familiar with all this.

Imagine a timeline with every point on the line branching into an infinite amount of other points. Now imagine that you've lived all these timelines, but upon encountering a terminal point(your death) on any such line you'll snap back to a point on the line where you live, with no memory of your death-line.

This is quantum immortality, and the concept of it is the most beautiful thing i can imagine.

Standard teleport thread intermission...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdxucpPq6Lc

>>1771180
>quantum immortality
wow that is a beautiful theory

Technically, the same could be said about our perceived progression of linear time.

Our past self is not the same person that we are in the present or will become in the future, and with the steady progression of each passing moment, we forever lose that individual that we were at that time.

In a sense, we die and are replaced by a new us at every instant, and are preceded by a multitude of the shed skins of the people we once were.

tldr; it happens all the time.

Those interested in this discussion may find the following exercise interesting:

http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/identity.php

Personally, I hold to a psychological reductionist view. Namely that the person who stepped out of the teleporter would be 'you' due to a the sense of psychological continuity and thus continued existence of the self.

>>1771180

Alas quantum immortality does not work.
Immortality requires a infinite chain of events - the subjects eternal life.
The question is then: Does a specific and desired infinite set exist within the infinite number of infinite sets that is produced by the infinite number of quantum divisions?
The answer is: It is infinitely unlikely that that flawless set can be found.
Why?
Because of the Diagonal Argument.

lrn to teleport faggots and try yourselves:

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/05/quantum-teleportation-achieved-over-ten-miles-of-free-sp
ace.ars

>>1771173

he would be pwned by recursion
since he needs a third leg for this, he becomes a three legged person and needs a fourth leg to stay sure...

IF the human consciousness can be transferred to a digital space, then it could be held in a loading-program which acts as an intermediary between the body pre-teleport and post-teleport. The new body would be loaded with the digitally-stored consciousness and you would be good to go again.

This hypothesis is based on the assumption that we can replicate human neural activity in machines, which I don't doubt.

A person can lose thousands of neurons and still be the same person, so it stands to reason that our consciousness isn't hard-wired into each neuron. People can even lose entire regions of the brain and the plasticity of the human brain shifts to help accommodate for the change.

>>1771208
These people don't know what they're talking about. Quantum Entanglement can't be used for sending information.

i have... no words... this is what i have been thinking about my whole life...

MFW when this is the exact same thing I talked about with my friend yesterday evening

>>1771225
Not so. The third leg is but a copy of one of his originals. But it must be used to bear a share of his weight and thus be a part of him, even though it's action is a duplication of an existing action.
Thus when the original matter is removed, bit by bit, there is no interruption of chain of consciousness/existence.
You brain is in two halves, but no physical principle prevents one half being in Boston and one being in Calcutta...provided they remain in communication.

Have all of you never read any Asimov?

>>1771206
>Alas quantum immortality does not work.
>Immortality requires a infinite chain of events - the subjects eternal life.

It may not be quantum immortality, it may simply be quantum longest-possible-subjective-lifespan.

The key point of quantum immortality is not that no one dies, as obviously wars is raging around the globe and people commit suicide to left and right or die of various other causes. Your subjective experience could diverge from mine tomorrow, in your world i may be dead this evening, in my world, you could be the dead one instead.

If we can reach a subjective optimum for everyone in some possible timeline we can more or less handwave away everything though. More or less it boils down to the fact that everyone that dies or is already dead in my universe did subjectively not die at that point, but in order for my subjective experience to be maximized, their deaths happened to be selected just as they were, along with every other persons life.

We could of course also argue that subjectivism is searching for The Longest Possible Lifespan, as such, people would live, die and snap forward in time in a certain order to specificly give rise to my specific subjective experience, which translates to all subjective experiences being The Chosen One. This is of course beyond presposterous and i might just as well belive in God, but it is a highly amusing thought experiment.

>>1771257 Such as...?

ISAAC ASIMOV

Gold, The Final Science Fiction Collection

Part One - The Final Stories

Left To Right
Typed by Bateau

Robert L. Forward, a plump, cherubic physicist of Hughes Research Laboratories at Malibu, and occasional science fiction writer, was demonstrating the mechanism in his usual bright and articulate manner.
"As you see," he said, "we have here a large spinning ring, or doughnut, of particles compressed by an appropriate magnetic field. The particles are moving at 0.95 times the speed of light under conditions which, if I am correct, a change in parity can be induced in some object that passes through the hole of the doughnut."
"A change in parity?" I said. "You mean left and right will interchange?"
"_Something_ will interchange. I'm not sure what. My own belief is that eventually, something like this will change particles into antiparticles and vice versa. This will be the way to obtain an indefinitely large supply of antimatter which can then by used to power the kind of ships that would make interstellar travel possible."
"Why not try it out?" I said. "Send a beam of protons through the hole."
"I've done that. Nothing happens. The doughnut is not powerful enough. But my mathematics tells me that the more organized the sample of matter, the more likely it is that an interchange, such as left to right, will take place. If I can show that such a change will take place on highly organized matter, I can obtain a grant that will enable me to greatly strengthen this device."
"Do you have something in mind as a test?"
"Absolutely," said Bob. "I have calculated that a human being is just sufficiently highly organized to undergo the transformation, so I'm going to pass though the doughnut hole myself."

"You can't do that, Bob," I said in alarm. "You might kill yourself."
"I can't ask anyone else to take the chance. It's _my_ device."
"But even if it succeeds, the apex of your heart will be pointed to the right, your liver will be on the left. Worse, all your amino acids will shift from L to D, and all your sugars from D to L. You will no longer be able to eat and digest."
"Nonsense," said Bob. "I'll just pass through a second time and then I'll be exactly as I was before."
And without further ado, he climbed a small ladder, balanced himself over the hole, and dropped through. He landed on a rubber mattress, and then crawled out from under the doughnut.
"How do you feel?" I asked anxiously.
"Obviously, I'm alive," he said.
"Yes, but how do you _feel?_"
"Perfectly normal," said Bob, seeming rather dissapointed. "I feel exactly as I did before I jumped through."
"Well, of course you would, but where is your heart?"
Bob placed his hand on his chest, felt around, then shook his head. "The heartbeat is on the left side, as usual--Wait, let's check my appendicitis scar."
He did, then looked up savagely at me. "Right where it's supposed to be. Nothing happened. There goes all my chance at a grant."
I said hopefully, "Perhaps some other change took place."
"No." Bob's mercurial temperament had descended into gloom. "Nothing has changed. Nothing at all. I'm as sure of that as I'm sure that my name is Robert L. Backward."

way to disrupt a cool discussion
lemme copypaste moby dick up in this bitch...

>>1771272
If Ahab used some kind of translocation...sure, it may be relevant.

"Hast seen the White Whale? Man the teleporters!"

>>1770840

If this machine can scan you, destroy you and then reassemble you, then it can also scan you NOT destroy you and assemble a copy of you.

You meet the copy, you talk to the copy and then some one busts a cap in your head.

The end result is the same, except the second way is more honest about what is actually happening.

>>1771290
You've been watching
>>1771186
?

ship of theseus, this happens all the time, by the way. nearly every cell of your body is replaced every month. and sleep probably could count as well, depending. a theoretical machine that does this would be incredibly scary, considering there would be no way of telling whether or not the person on the other end is really you. your friends wouldn't be able to tell, and neither would you, having all the same memories.

Am I right in thinking that as our body cells die and new ones are generated, that it works in the same way as the transporter?

as in: if everyone one of your cells are replaced after a certain point, your not declared dead.. I imagine the same as the transporter?

>>1770840
"conciousness" is not unique or metaphysical. Conciousness arises from brain chemistry nothing more. Chemistry is replicable.
It is possible to clone your Conciousness with enough technology. The Conciousness would be the same at the time of duplication, but it would change immedialty after. Ie, two new beings. This is becuase your conciousness is always changing, dependent on external factors and shit. The two people although they start the same would end up being different.

See the episode of TNG where they accidnetl;y transport someone without killing the orginal. You end up with two Rikers! A few years pass, and these Rikers are sligtly differnt from eachother!

Oh /sci/, you know I love this kind of shit.

>>1771290
Similar but not exactly the same.

In the first instance the copy will be oblivious to the fact that it is a copy, so long as the person entering the teleporter wasn't aware of how it works. From it's perspective, it has simply stepped through the teleporter and appeared where it wanted to appear.

>>1771304
Thomas Riker

>>1771304
William Riker

>>1771298

Just so. But it is clear that we're looking for continuity of consciousness in teleportation to avoid creation of copies of ourselves. To be functional & conscious half way through the process may satisfy some posters itt.

If teleportation technology actually existed and worked good, everyone would use it even if it meant dying all the time.

Why? Imagine spending nine hour on a international flight one way, and then instantly teleporting back. You'd think "fuck, that was handy, and obviosuly i'm alive and feel good" when you pop out the teleport exist, so even knowing it's a "subjective death" you would use it because it's just a so incredibly good method fo transportation. And it is incorporated in your memory line seamlessly, it's not a terrible interruption, every newly teleported version of yourself would remember all the teleports and feel they weren't any problem for you, so you'd grow accustomed and comfortable with the idea of teleportation.

>>1771304
>"conciousness" is not unique
I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.
>or metaphysical.
Consciousness is almost by definition metaphysical.
>Conciousness arises from brain chemistry nothing more.
Unprovable and highly improbable conjecture

>>1771304
http://www.startrek.com/database_article/second-chances

They then teleport Riker from a planet to the Enterpize, but accidently teleport him bask to the surfae as well. Hence both Rikers are not the orginal. The orginal, was in fact destroyed (thats how teleporttaion works).

In any case, you have two beings with the exact same consciousness at the moment of teleportation!

>>1771304
Thats the point of the OP you delicious fool.
If I were to take a teleporter that works like this, MY experience of the universe would end. Because I would be dead.
And an exact replica of the way I think and feel (due to identical neurostructure and electrochemical state) would be walking about on the other end, but I would not be experiencing it.

>>1771316
>Unprovable and highly improbable conjecture
Given that brain damage(and various drugs) give rise to extreme distortions of perception and conciousness i'd say it's quite definitely proved it's a result from structure and chemistry of your brain-organ.

>>1771304


Ensign Picard

>>1771322
blue shirt?????????

>>1771315
and it could be used for medical purposes.. if we had the technology to transfer atoms to their original pattern half way around the world, we should be able to alter the pattern slightly. ie. go in with a broken arm; exit in another country with arm fixed

>>1771322

Captain Picard

>>1771316
>Unprovable and highly improbable conjecture

WOW, you're just a fucking faggot. Whatever we define as "Consciouness" defintly takes place in the chemnisty of the brain. This is a well proven scientific fact. This has been known for centuries. No one even attempts to dispute this anymore becuase the evidence is so overwhelming.

If you really think that the thing we call "consciousness" doenst occur in the brain, then wtf is yor big hypothesis? You think it occurs in the foot?

GTFO FAGGOT!

>>1771324
Techspeak: biofilters.

>>1771316
HA HA HA HA HA
Nice Troll FAGGOT

2/10

>>1771324
Or "backuping", if we can scan someone good enough to replicate, we can scan them good enough to store them before they go on a drunken shopping-cart mountain race.

Imagine how much more entertaining youtube would be if personal injury or death would not be a showstopper for over the top suicidal stunts

>>1771324
1) They dont transfer the same atoms. They pretty much take a snapshot of you (pattern), they recreate you using the snapshot. They use entirely new atoms to recreate you. Your orginal atoms are destroyed.

2) Yeah, then can "tweak" your pattern. They do this all the time, to elimiate disease and shit.

>>1771336
>destroy the atoms

>>1771332
Or "backuping"

Yeah, they do that sometimes too.
Did you never watch Star Trek?

"I could tell you my adventures beginning from this morning,
but it's no use going back to yesterday...
because I was a different person then."

>>1771337
Yeah, they destory the atoms.
They convert them to energy.

>>1771339
>Did you never watch Star Trek?
Yes, a few random episodes, but given that all science fiction on TV is equal amount science-fantasy i've never bothered to seriously follow any series.

Science fiction works much better in book-format

>>1771339
I did, but I'm more into the Engineering side and practical uses. This could be possible in the near future.

>>1770840
So basically we'd be like computer files.

Cut & Paste elsewhere. What if we copy and paste?

Interesting.

>>1771341
learn to annihilate.
you need an equal quantity of antimatter to convert shit into energy. and by energy I mean a fucking huge explosion.

>>1771346
Then we'd end up with ass-piracy. Upload your girlfriend to the pirate bay and 20 minutes later everyone is having sex with her.

Well, if we take the magic out of it...Consciousness is the sum of inputs (including internal inputs created via abstractions of internal states) which are not inhibited. The illusion of self comes from both the continuity of consciousness (meaning you continue to experience inputs, both top down and bottom up, without significant breaks. Even sleeping is comprised of a continued cycling of internal states, which your brain cannot distinguish from external input) and the individuality created by the unique structuring of your neural net due to your unique experiences.

So, when you are suddenly moved to a new location without sensory knowledge of it...and I propose that skew of perspective will be the only thing you would know of the event you described.

From there, if you met a "you" which did not experience the skew in perspective, you would be forced to conclude you are the copy due to your lack of continuance.

It's this convert & transmit method that's killing us.
In order for the tenant of the brain to move there must be a brain in place to move into.
Build each bit of the remote body before the original is dismantled.

& has anyone solved that maze?

>>1771353
B-b-but you wouldn't download your friend's hot wife...

>>1771350
>learn to annihilate

They use methods other then annihilation to destroy atoms. You do know it is science fiction right? LMAO

Theortically, you could destory atoms without annihlation. Learn to nuclear physics.

>>1771357
So anesthesia, a flight to australia and an impostor makes you a copy?

>>1771357
LMAO, no, just no.

Your
>skew of perspective
idea is bullshit

What if we reproduce a body perfectly, atom-by-atom, including the brain, but the new person lacks memory and experiences, falling flat in the ground like a newborn. Does that means there is a "soul", after all?

>>1771357
19 year old detected who has it all figured out.
i guess it's /thread time m8s. everybody go home

>>1771369
hey anon, you mispelt nucular

>>1771376

>reproduce a body perfectly, atom-by-atom, including the brain

>but the new person lacks memory and experiences


But memory and experience comes from the chemisty of the brain. If we got atom by atom correct, we would produce this same chemistry.
Hence we would produce the experincers and memories.

WTF are you 12?

>>1771376
why would it fall to the ground? It would be able to do the same functions as us..?

>>1771369
but only annihilation converts matter into energy.
1/10

>>1771376

No. You just have a body without the Human(tm) 1.0 OS loaded into it.

>>1771384
>>1771385
excuse my ignorance, but have we reproduced a person already, and does it kept it's memory and personality?

>>1771394
>reproduce a body perfectly
>the new person lacks memory and experiences
Why the fuck would you choose to perfectly reproduce some braindead dude who has no memory and experiences in the first place, ya dolt.

>>1771394

We do know that memories are part of our body.

as i see it, we need a intermediate state.

think of it like replacing a brain with an artificial one. you can't do it in one go, it would kill the patient. but if you do it step by step, removing only a part of the brain and but the replacement there, the patient will survive.

as one anon stated in this tread we need to make a host for the consiousness while the teleportation is done or, as another stated, make it so it's one mind in two bodies. personally i would prefer the latter

>>1771394
Your question is retarded, if we reconstruct a person atom by atom it will be an identical person to the template according to our current knowledge.

You might as well ask "If 4chan build a satellite and find out the world is flat, well obviously if it turns out to be flat we'd all be a victim of the Grand Jew-Lizard-Mind-Control Conspiracy, but does it feel likely to happen?

>>1771388
Again, its a fucking scifi show! What part of scifi dont your understand?

They say they destroy the atoms without annilation. They dont say exactly fukcing how, BECAUSE ITS SCIFI!

GTFO TROLL!

>>1771419
Moreover, the distant parts must be created before the original part is destroyed. Also the new parts must be in communication with the original body, in parallel to the original components, before the originals are deconstructed.

>>1771409
I'm just making honest questions. If you think you have an answer at least provide a reliable link proving memory and personality were reproduced successfully in some experiment.

>>1771440
You need a blank brained body for the remote consciousness to move into.

>>1771412
I know this is what 4chan says. I never seen a reliable proof, anyone have a link?

>>1771437
why? you are just making up bullshit.

>>1771427
>BECAUSE ITS SCIFI!
!=
>A WIZARD DID IT!
Star trek is science-fantasy fiction. In science fiction you don't handwave away all the technical details and then put in a cookie-cutter/textbook example story or episode.

Every episode of star trek could be remade into an equivalent fantasy episode about a crew of wizards on a magical boat, and it would probably make more sense.

>>1771445
Memories are part of our physical forms because of the evidence that they can be removed/damaged by physical means - blunt force to the head; lobotomy; alcohol etc.

>>1771445
WTF?

0/10

>>1771450
See the first 60% of this thread for why.

>>1771458
There is no evidence that all our memories are stored in physical form. Brain damage can impair our ability to store or recall memories. That does not imply that all our memories are stored in physical form.

>>1771465
What form would they be stored in if not physical? Does the brain have a Astral Antenna to project memories to the Lizard Plane in the form of Unobtainium?

>>1771465
Evidence? Drown in it...
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Memory_%28biological%29

>>1771485

>wikipedia

Depends on how you define things like die and consciousness.

If we had the technology it would only be natural that we would have to redefine our existing ideas.

>>1771458
I find it fascinating that we're able to live experiences, and then store it somewhere as a physical information. Still I'd be concerned before teleporting someone.

Time and continuity is an illusion. Essentially, you can say your molecules are being dismantled and put back together every moment since only "position" of molecules in spacetime accounts for consciousness. Like how a picture alone is still but flipping through an image book might show movement? Each individual picture is still just a picture.

>>1771485
That shows different areas of the brain that are used in memory storage. It doesn't imply that all our memories are stored in physical form.

>>1771495
>only "position" of molecules in spacetime accounts for consciousness.
lol -- utter bullshit

>>1771497
If you're going to argue that memories are stored as Spiritual/Magic/Non-physical energy, you could start with providing any, whatsoever decent evidence for the existance of any form of nonphysical entities in the whole universe. Because as far as i know there is no such thing. Saying memories are the one and only exception is just as retarded as saying a Goverment Employed Wizard summoned the moon-lander from the Rocketry Plane just because you can't build one yourself.

>>1771497

The references in the article put the matter beyond reasonable doubt.

Or will you hold to your position until every last neuron is brought in for questioning?

>>1771504
Dark matter

checkmate.gif

Amazing how supposed science folks react negatively to questions. You could just answer it and provide a link to back what you're saying. Instead you choose to make your affirmations and cuss who is asking. Only 1 link provided, and still came with an aggressive remark ("Drown in it").

Mental age is serious low here, even when the subject is science.

Stay classy con/sci/ous.

>>1771498

So, what else is there? Please specify.

The bullshit not that consciousness is a property of the physical. The bullshit is the idea that continuity of consciousness is illusory and can be described by an analogy with a series of still pictures. The brain has trillions of connections all firing simultaneously and in parallel, so the analogy of a series of pictures makes no sense.

Besides, we still have the problem of the copy being able function autonomously of me even if the original is not killed by the teleporter.

>>1771497
Memories are connections between perceptual systems that are the result of physical changes in the structure of the neocortex. They are mediated by long term potentiation (LTP). There is consensus and abundant scientific evidence for this from multiple sources. There's no need for metaphysical concepts such as non-physical forms of memory because frankly, that would be superfluous.

Electrical synapses are copied too? If not, how would this impact the copy?

>>1771516
> 1 link
True, but that's still a 1-0 victory over a wuss who didn't lift a finger to help himself or his position.
You are responsible for your own education. We are not.

>>1771388
You can reason that it would be possible quite easily.
If I construct an atom-exact replica of any existing object as it functions at any given moment in time, the replica will function like the object, yes?
No matter how complex the object is, the replica will function exactly like the object because it is exactly the same.
So why not the human mind? It's only an electrochemical process housed in an organic computer.

>>1771524
You seem legit, so may I ask about "personality"? I've seen kids at young age showing so different personalities, it makes me wonder, is it a physical thing too?

>>1771528
WTF?
oh course?

ARE YOU A 12 YEAR OLD?
GTFO!

>>1771528
Don't sit there wondering...tell us what you've read about it. You've been give a link already.

>>1771528
of course

>>1771524
We know of mechanisms for storage of sense-based memory. It's not superfluous to say "this might not be the only kind of memory and the only kind of storage."

>>1771534
>>1771535
Holy shit, I thought scientists were curious people. But it seems they're hostile to questions. I'm only questioning because I don't know the answer, so I can't provide link either.

>>1771538
It IS superfluous in the absence of evidence prompting the construction of such a proposal.

If you have any evidence...post it.

>>1771528
Why wouldn't it be? Personality has even got a major heritable component and brain damage can lead to dramatic personality changes.

>>1771538
>It's not superfluous to say "this might not be the only kind of memory and the only kind of storage."
Yes it is, because there is nothing that would suggest that this is the case. We have no reason to think it's anything but physical.

>>1771541
Scieentist get mad when you ask dumb ass retarded questions. Serioulsy are you a 12 year old with down syndome? Why the fuck are you so stupid? Your parents should be jailed for not teaching enought shit about life

>>1771504
>>1771517
Consciousness is the evidence that more exists than the physical. Physical interactions, as we currently model them, are insufficient to explain consciousness, subjective awareness, qualia. It is at least insufficient for me. If it is sufficient for you, then enjoy your simplified model.

>>1771525
seems no one have an off-the-shelf answer to this

>>1771541
Most people here would be laymen with a respect for the scientific principle. Unlike you who would prefer to indulge in reality detached speculation and belief in paranormal phenomena.

Now tell me, what purpose does it serve science or mankind to belive, with no evidence whatsoever, that memory is nonphysical(and thus inherently impossible to measure with physical instuments)? Give me any benefits whatsoever.

>>1771541
We are hostile because you are trampling the Scientific Method with idle navel gazing. If you have a theory...tell us also what prompted that theory.

>>1771544
There are well-studied cases of conscious experience that appears to be independent of brain function (see NDE research), which suggest otherwise.

>>1771545
2/10

>>1771546
We can explain consciousness from a neurobiological perspective as well. In visual perception at least it's mediated by recurrent processing.

http://pissaro.soc.huji.ac.il/~leon/mivnim/pdfs/lamme.pdf

>>1771549
Most people here are laymen who look to science like a religion and scientists as priests and materialism as a dogma. Actual scientists don't do that. Actual scientists tend to have a humility of intellect that precludes such dogmatism, and tend to remain non-committal on things that are outside their current realm of observation.

>>1771556
There is no good neurobiological explanation for consciousness. Ultimately you have to move from atoms to something subjective. It doesn't work with our current physics.

>>1771551
I've never heard of this research which doesn't bode well for it. I've been doing neuroscientific research for quite a while. Could you provide a link to some publications?

>>1771560
Do you think global warming is true as according to the CRU/Mann/Jones/Hockeystick scenario?

>>1771565
How can you say that when you are ignorant on the subject? You didn't even read the article I linked to.

>>1771546

Your Strawman argument:-
Of course these models have yet to catch up.
But by knocking down this strawman you hope we'd let you make the leap to discounting the principle behind the models (biological materiality).
Well...we're not...surprised?

>>1771566
>I've never heard of this research which doesn't bode well for it.
Think quite a bit of yourself, don't you?
>I've been doing neuroscientific research for quite a while. Could you provide a link to some publications?
Sure, knock yourself out...
http://www.iands.org/pubs/jnds/

>>1771571
It seems to be a visual processing, which really isn't the point. I'll read it later -- I obviously can't give you a critique of the paper right now.

So according to you guys someone could live forever by just replicating his/her body as a younger version of themselves every so often?

>>1771574
>http://www.iands.org/pubs/jnds/
That's not a PubMed registered journal which means it's not up to the standards of proper scientific scrutiny.

>>1771572
Really? You're somehow going to prevent me from making my own intellectual leaps? I'd like to see this.

>>1771579
It's not just on visual processing, it's on visual consciousness. There's a whole body of literature on this, and vision obviously isn't the only modality that's been investigated.

>>1771583
That's a peer-reviewed journal. If you're going to ignore studies that are inconvenient to your own models, there's no point talking to you.

>>1771590
So the paper you're using as evidence that consciousness is explained materially starts out by saying "The question is still far beyond our reach"...

>>1771591
If you expect anyone to pay for that shit only to be able to have a /sci/-internet argument with you then you're severely retarded, how about you torrent that shit for anyone interested.

Also, if you can only find about something in fringe publications and none in mainstream, then that's a big red fucking warning light flashing.

>>1771591
Peer-reviewed in the most literal meaning of words. If the journal only published proper scientific studies it would be PubMed registered. It is not, which means it's run by pseudo-scientist, who send manuscript to other pseudo-scientists for review. There are bloody good reasons for why we have journal registration.

I'm not ignoring this research because it doesn't fit the accepted model but because it's lousy research. Base your views on rigorous scientific investigation, not on pseudoscience. I'm still open to read articles from PubMed, so I'd be happy to read them if you have any.

>>1771574
"The essential problem is that a large portion of the scientific community, including most research psychologists, regards parapsychology as a pseudoscience, due largely to its failure to move beyond null results in the way science usually does. Ordinarily, when experimental evidence fails repeatedly to support a hypothesis, that hypothesis is abandoned. Within parapsychology, however, more than a century of experimentation has failed even to conclusively demonstrate the mere existence of paranormal phenomenon, yet parapsychologists continue to pursue that elusive goal."

>>1771597
This paper was a seminal paper. It's the first of many and since it's publication many have followed.

As a squishy human, I think it's not unreasonable to find the idea of having to be destroyed every time I want to go somewhere a little unreasonable. I prefer the idea of bending space to bring two points closer together.

>>1771549
>Most people here would be laymen with a respect for the scientific principle.
Well I didn't know about memory being physical, that's why I asked in the first place, but the answers were so aggressive I thought they were you typical 15 yo Nietzsche reader, so I didn't gave it much credit.

>Unlike you who would prefer to indulge in reality detached speculation and belief in paranormal phenomena.
See, I was just asking cause I didn't know. Isn't this the principle of asking? Now from that you deducted the "truth" that I believe in paranormal. I believe in scientific proof, reproduction of experiments, and such. I was asking because I didn't know. Your assumption that I am mystic is just a theory you'll never be able to validate.

>Now tell me, what purpose does it serve science or mankind to belive, with no evidence whatsoever, that memory is nonphysical(and thus inherently impossible to measure with physical instuments)? Give me any benefits whatsoever.
I do NOT believe in "nonphysical" memory yet, but I'm open to proofs whatever they are. From what I've read here there are conclusions based on accidents and lack of brain mass, but I'm not ready to believe it just because 4chan says so.

>>1771608
Ignore anyone who isn't willing to give a proper answer. There are no stupid questions.

>>1771600
That is a mainstream publication. Do you have access to the Rhizome Project? Find the book "Consciousness After Life" in the neurology folder. (yes, I know it's no neurology, I'm not the one who put it there) I'm reading the visual consciousness article. I suggest you read something of the serious studies on NDE's if you want to have the information necessary to fully consider questions of consciousness.

>>1771610
Two of my friends are college professors. They both tell me there are indeed stupid questions.

>>1771616
>That is a mainstream publication.
It's not though, it's pseudoscience.

>>1771619
Meh, maybe there are. That doesn't mean that even stupid questions deserve an answer though.

>>1771619
This. Just because one can produce a grammatically correct question doesn't mean that it's even meaningful to even contemplate an answer for it.

>>1771605
I believe you that it was seminal. I'm just pointing out that so far it doesn't seem to back up your argument.

>>1771620
LOL. And what makes it pseudoscience, exactly?

>>1771626
Would you like me to link you to some more papers on the subject?

>>1771627
The fact that it's not PubMed registered... Did you even read my previous post [>>1771601] ?

>>1771601
>If the journal only published proper scientific studies it would be PubMed registered. It is not, which means it's run by pseudo-scientist

Anything that is not in PubMed is pseudoscience? That is laughably absurd.

>>1771645
Any journal that concerns medical, biological or psychological research is registered there. It's not absurd at all... It's a way to filter out the non-sense. You hadn't even heard of PubMed before I mentioned it had you?

>>1771550
my theory is, the brain is too complex to assume memory and personalities would be the same if we copied it atom by atom... the behavioral observation of patients lacking brain mass and such are a good indication, but given the complexity of the brain I wouldn't be sappy to press the copy button and expect 100% success... for example, would the state of electrical synapses be mirrored as well? is there any risk of losing information if the copy process is longer than a certain amount of time?

>>1771556
>"Outstanding Questions: Why would recurrent processing give rise to conscious experience? This so-called ‘hard problem’ [1] is difficult to answer at this point."
So your paper makes my point exactly. There is no good reason we know why any neurological or other physical process should give rise to consciousness.

>>1771661
>my theory is, the brain is too complex to assume memory and personalities would be the same if we copied it atom by atom
that's a hypothesis, not a theory

>the behavioral observation of patients lacking brain mass and such are a good indication
People who have less brain mass or certain brain areas missing often lost the tissue very, very early in life. During infancy the brain is plastic and can compensate for loss of tissue. Later in life this plasticity is gradually lost and bilateral bisection of the hippocampi will always result in disastrous effects on memory.

>>1771654
I use PubMed all the time. As great as it is to have a free source, not all useful or important scientific papers are in PubMed.

>>1771677
That's not the point of the paper, that's the issue the author addresses with his research...

>>1771661
surely if ALL the properties of ALL the particles and their components are copied perfectly, their location, orientation, vectors, all that, down to the last electron, and all set in motion at the same moment in time, the resulting copy would function exactly like the original, surely.

Anything less would result in deviation from the model.

>>1771683
>just read the wiki page
The papers aren't free... only the abstracts....

>>1771693
not enough SURELY

thread got interesting at the end, stay classy /sci/

>>1771546

Bullshit. The fact that we cannot fully explain consciousness at present does NOT prove that there is something more than the physical.

Besides, even if there were some ethereal "spirit substance" which can account for consciousness, what proof do you have that it cannot simply be manipulated like any other matter?

You're just shifting the problem from substance we mostly know and understand to another substance we don't, the dilemma in the OP does not go away because of it.

Here's a video on the matter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2upDm-xFqMo

Holy shit, everyone has been pussyfooting around the main question:

WHAT DO YOU EXPERIENCE WHEN YOU ENTER THE TELEPORT?

Everyone with a fucking brain can agree that the copy will think he is you. THATS NOT THE QUESTION.

WHAT DO YOU EXPERIENCE AS YOU ENTER THE PORTAL?

hey OP read i, robot
this happens and they explain it beautifully

>>1771765
death

buy a book on epistemology before coming to sci

I figured out how we can teleport without dieing.

When you first get teleported the teleporter keeps the origanl you in a suspended animation state. A copy of you is then made at another teleporter and you go do your shit. Then you teleport back to the first teleporter which updates your original body with the memories of the copy you. The copy is destroyed and you wake up from suspended animation thinking you've made the trip but you really haven't.

If I was going to teleport, I'd rather have some sort of dimensional portal I could step through and be there, rather than be disassembled.

"NO DISASSEMBLE. JOHNNY FIVE IS ALIVE"

>mfw 215 posts