A classic debate: Is a transporter a suicide machine?

[sinister42]

Is the Star Trek transporter a murder and cloning machine? How do I know that the "me" that gets reconstructed at the end of the beam is the same "me" that went into it? Do I go into the machine, get deconstructed, die, and then a clone of me is created? How can we be sure that the transporter beam also transports our consciousness? What is consciousness? How would anyone ever know the answer?

 

[HareBrain]

If it doesn't transport matter itself, but creates a clone from scratch, then it must be a suicide machine, as the end result would be the same as creating a copy and leaving the original intact (in which case "awareness" must reside in the original).

It's the same argument as storing the memories etc to upload into a future body. The future body will believe it is the continuation of the original, but the original's conscious awareness perishes.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Is the Star Trek transporter a murder and cloning machine?

Yes, as it's described in the series.
SF writers in 1940s saw the difference between a transposer and a transmitter and the stupidity of the ST idea.

 

[reiver33]

It conducts a destructive analysis of the subject and transmits the pattern to the destination station. It doesn't even pretend to convert matter to energy, transfer the energy, and reconstitute...

You wouldn't get me in one of those damn things, no-siree bob!

 

[SilentRoamer]

It's the same argument as storing the memories etc to upload into a future body. The future body will believe it is the continuation of the original, but the original's conscious awareness perishes.

I don't think that memories exist independantly of the neurons and physical structure they are embeded in. It seems a common misconception in a lot of scifi - that conscious identity exists as a seperate manifestation of the physical structure of the brain - or more often that even if the two are combined now they are in fact seperable in some way.

Personally I don't think any conscious identity exists outside of the physical structure, your physical brain is part of what makes you, you.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

It seems a common misconception in a lot of scifi

Perhaps an assumption. We don't know how brains work, we don't know what identity and sentience or intelligence is exactly, though we think we recognise it when we see it. We can't make a copy of of a brain either and see if it thinks it's the same person.

I'm sceptical that EVEN if our identity is purely and completely encoded in our brain that there would ever be a way to store a copy of that in a computer or storage device. It will be interesting too if a head transplant is ever successful, (it sounds feasible) but it won't answer any of the philosophical questions about "self", "identity" etc.

 

[HareBrain]

I don't think that memories exist independantly of the neurons and physical structure they are embeded in. It seems a common misconception in a lot of scifi - that conscious identity exists as a seperate manifestation of the physical structure of the brain - or more often that even if the two are combined now they are in fact seperable in some way.

Personally I don't think any conscious identity exists outside of the physical structure, your physical brain is part of what makes you, you.

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not. But on the assumption that you're not -- say you were able to store your memories and brain patterns etc digitally, and then load them into a new brain, whilst you (the original) were still alive and conscious, would you be aware of being in two places at once? One assumes not. And then let's say the original, you, were killed, would you then suddenly become aware of residing in the new brain? Again, one assumes not. The memories might (given advanced enough technology) be capable of being transmitted, but the feeling of "you" -- the observer -- resides with the original physical brain, and can't be transferred. If it could, then it could also be copied, which means you could then be aware of being in several places at once.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

And then let's say the original, you, were killed, would you then suddenly become aware of residing in the new brain? Again, one assumes not.

I'd agree. If it worked at all (which I'm sceptical of) it would be two different people with same memories and nearly identical personalities that diverge quickly with time?

Clones are not actually identical.

Identical twins are actually not identical, but just very similar. I think I read they don't share finger prints? Nor would clones.

 

[SilentRoamer]

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not. But on the assumption that you're not -- say you were able to store your memories and brain patterns etc digitally, and then load them into a new brain, whilst you (the original) were still alive and conscious, would you be aware of being in two places at once? One assumes not. And then let's say the original, you, were killed, would you then suddenly become aware of residing in the new brain? Again, one assumes not. The memories might (given advanced enough technology) be capable of being transmitted, but the feeling of "you" -- the observer -- resides with the original physical brain, and can't be transferred. If it could, then it could also be copied, which means you could then be aware of being in several places at once.

I don't suppose I'm agreeing or disagreeing with you really it was kind of a tangent and a talking point I don't think memories and the brains physical structure are seperate entities. Your physical brain structure, its neurons and pathways and electrical field are what makes you you, you can't externalise those memories as they are formed by the whole. If we could create a perfect copy of ourselves then that would be another us - seperate and distinct but until the point of creation the exact same person. However at the point of creation when they know they have been created they cease to become "us" - their neural pathways change and they are no longer "you".

Two copies of Windows on the exact same hardware isn't the same thing - we're the natural version of that only when we create copies of ourselves it's not illegal and it's a lot more fun.

I suppose if the technology were advanced enough some sort of external storage device might be possible, Peter Hamilton has the idea of clones with memory inserts so people inhabit more than one body of themselves at any time and have a sort of dual consciousness as one and all of the inhabited bodies - he plays a lot with memory/clone/relife tech. But I think you would need to replicate the exact physical structure of the brain whose memories you want to copy to be able to store any contextually correct memory - which I think would end up bringing moral issues.

Inhabiting muliple bodies at once would be odd - slightly different concept to the Hive Mind, Hamilton has to skirt what it would feel like, it's like asking what it would feel like to be a bat and "see" in sonar or an octupus with 8 appendages.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Inhabiting muliple bodies at once would be odd

We seem only able to have one stream of consciousness. Can you read a book with one eye, watch TV with other and make intelligible conversation? People can do simultaneous tasks only if they are well practised at them (like knit and watch TV or talk, or talk and drive). For example when driving if you encounter the unexpected you drop the conversation or wouldn't remember what is on the radio.
In my "fantasy" stories I hypothesise that the Fey folk can split their consciousness, and thus cope with shape changing to be a flock of birds. Or project "Glamour" using magic at same time as normal activities.

How easily can you do two unrelated tasks, you have no experience of, with both hands at same time, while conversing on something complicated?

 

[Parson]

Identical twins are actually not identical, but just very similar. I think I read they don't share finger prints? Nor would clones.

Do Identical Twins Have Identical Fingerprints?

Indeed they don't, or at least there hasn't been any record of it. Finger prints are influenced by stresses in the womb.? Who knew?

 

[Dave]

I'd agree. If it worked at all (which I'm sceptical of) it would be two different people with same memories and nearly identical personalities that diverge quickly with time?

Clones are not actually identical.

Identical twins are actually not identical, but just very similar. I think I read they don't share finger prints? Nor would clones.

Star Trek TNG addressed this problem with the ongoing arc story of William and Tom Riker. One was a duplicate made by a transporter accident in error and they had both experienced a different previous 10 years. These different experiences made them completely different people. I would say that if the writers of Star Trek believe this themselves then you have your answer already.

The book "The Physics of Star Trek" has a whole chapter on the Transporter and how it could not work, while the book "The Metaphysics of Star Trek" discusses this subject of whether the original person still exists. (yes, I do own both of these and also "The Biology of Star Trek" and several dealing with "Dr Who" and other SF Universes too.)

I'd just like to ask two further questions to complicate matters:

If someone has lost their memories through dementia, are they still the same person?
Our bodies replace atoms everyday - we eat and breath, we shed skin and hair, urinate and defecate - after about 10 years we are mostly made of different atoms - are we still the same person?

 

[SilentRoamer]

We seem only able to have one stream of consciousness. Can you read a book with one eye, watch TV with other and make intelligible conversation? People can do simultaneous tasks only if they are well practised at them (like knit and watch TV or talk, or talk and drive). For example when driving if you encounter the unexpected you drop the conversation or wouldn't remember what is on the radio.
In my "fantasy" stories I hypothesise that the Fey folk can split their consciousness, and thus cope with shape changing to be a flock of birds. Or project "Glamour" using magic at same time as normal activities.

How easily can you do two unrelated tasks, you have no experience of, with both hands at same time, while conversing on something complicated?

This is true but if you had multiple bodies you would have multiple consciousness and therefore no single stream of consciousness. The Fey folk sound interesting.

On a similar note there is a species briefly touched upon in Olaf Stapledons Star Maker (literally a few paragraphs) that talks about an alien species with a longer temporal present - so what we experience as "now" is actually a longer perceivable time for them. I found that concept and trying to envisage it very interesting.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

If someone has lost their memories through dementia, are they still the same person?
Our bodies replace atoms everyday - we eat and breath, we shed skin and hair, urinate and defecate - after about 10 years we are mostly made of different atoms - are we still the same person?

Yes we are.
Oddly too, which raises serious questions as to how or where memory is stored, recent research suggests lost memories due to dementia or brian damage can be recovered.

Memory is very strange. It's not a recording. You can really "remember" things that never happened. You don't remember accurately nor everything. The idea that eventually some sort of brain interface could replay memories like video tape is fantasy.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

This is true but if you had multiple bodies you would have multiple consciousness and therefore no single stream of consciousness.

Well, we can't know if that's true, but I'd make it true in SF&F otherwise the ability would be pointless? Or someone could invent it in SF and discover that they can't use it due to only one consciousness.

 

[SilentRoamer]

The idea that eventually some sort of brain interface could replay memories like video tape is fantasy.

No necessarily - as Clarke said "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".

Don't get me wrong I am always sceptical of everything but I think dictating restrictions on future technologies is innacurate.

It could be quite possible that humans create Quantum computers that work at a nano scale level capable of recreating entire brain structures in something the size of a pint which then uses Quantum Storage methods to encode contextual memories. All of this is obviously technobabble but who knows what we can achieve given sufficient technology.

I actually agree with you that it will never happen - even that it can't happen, it's just difficult to rule out. Much like I don't believe (given even the most advanced technologies and resources available) that humans will ever be capable of any Galactic scale civilisation with spaceship that break causality - (FTL I'm looking at you).

 

[Ray McCarthy]

it's just difficult to rule out. Much like I don't believe <insert subject>

We should never stop dreaming and telling stories. Those on the coalface of Mathematics, science and technology should always have an open mind too.

 

[SilentRoamer]

We should never stop dreaming and telling stories. Those on the coalface of Mathematics, science and technology should always have an open mind too.

I couldn't agree more. I just find it hard not to kneejerk when I overhear or am involved in conversations where people are adamant that one day we will rule the stars.

I think Space travel ends up being like waiting for Fusion - we will always be X amount of years away.

I think intergalactic civilisations (at least human ones) are a pip dream, but we can dream right!

 

[Vince W]

I think Richard Morgan's solution in Altered Carbon is more feasible than transporter technology. That is if you hold that memories can be as easily overwritten as a hard drive.

I'd agree. If it worked at all (which I'm sceptical of) it would be two different people with same memories and nearly identical personalities that diverge quickly with time?

Clones are not actually identical.

Identical twins are actually not identical, but just very similar. I think I read they don't share finger prints? Nor would clones.

Clones are like priest's socks.

 

[Glitch]

Have you seen "The Prestige" or read the book by the same name? It touches on this subject.