Would you use teleporter technology if it existed? Why or Why not?
You know those sci-fi teleporters like in Star Trek where you disappear from one location then instantaneously reappear in another location? Do you trust that they are safe to use?
Assuming we're talking about our reality, this device is getting made by a corporation who will release it as soon as the potential profit exceeds the cost from its non-zero error rate.
No, I'm not getting into some Musk 2.0's shoddy body disintegrator.
I always assume this is asking me as if I was in one of the examples universes like Star Trek. I 100% would never get in Musk's Teslaporter, but in a world where it's as widespread as airplanes and trains? Would use, wouldn't be murder.
Instant cloning opens up many interesting possibilities:
Dying of old age while having some unpaid loans on your account? Don't worry, per your loan contract you signed, your creditor can "revive" you using the cloning tech so you can continue working and paying your debt.
Do you have an illness that's very expensive to treat? Just die and pass everything to your clone.
There might be some black market cloners so you can create an illegal clone to do unpleasant stuff (e.g. working, cleaning house, etc) while you're relaxing at home. Once the illegal clone finished their task, they can just die and disintegrate wherever. The disposable clone don't have to know that they are a disposable clone or they'll revolt and reports you for human right violation. You can wake up in the morning, go to work, then went home only to find your original self chilling in the couch while your body starts disintegrating. "oh shit, I'm the clone..."
This question all comes down to your opinion of what makes a person a person, whether that means we have something greater than the collection of our atoms, or whether we are simply the emergent outcome of the complex arrangement of atoms. If you subscribe to the former then you also need to believe that this machine is somehow capable of either transporting/transplanting that "soul" for lack of a better expression. Where if you subscribe to the latter than this is most certainly a suicide cloning machine.
I personally subscribe to the idea that consciousness is an emergent property of complexity. Given a sufficiently large enough series of inputs you can observe new and unexpected outputs that appear to be on higher orders of complexity than their inputs. This response is an example of that, from electrons flowing through transistors we end up with operating systems, hardware IO, web browsers, networking protocols, ASCII standards, font rendering, etc. All of that complexity emerges from a massive amount of on/off switches arranged in patterns over time.
Following this chain of reasoning I believe that making an exact duplicate of me down to the state of each atom is no different than that entity being me, however as a conscious being with human ethics and morals I put value in the singularity of my existence, and so a plurality of Zetaphor is something I find undesirable as it fundamentally challenges my perception of what it means to be myself.
So assuming the entity leaving the transporter is me, there's two ways to approach the way a machine like this could operate:
It reads my state in its entirety and then destroys (or encodes for transport) that state
Or it's creating the new instance of me bit by bit as it reads my current state
That means one of two things, either there is a brief moment of time where two identical copies of me are in the universe, or there is a period of time where zero complete copies of me exist in the universe. So either I stopped existing momentarily and then was recreated from scratch (death and clone birth), or I existed in two places at once and then died in one (cloning and suicide).
Your original copy would die. Your life as you know it would end the moment you teleport.
Sure on the other end a replica would come out, presumably with all your memories etc intact, but it would not be you, you would not experience it. It would go on living your life, thinking it was you, everyone around it treating it like it was you, and presumably doing all the same things you would have done.
Except it is not you. Your experience ended at the teleporter. And many fools would never realize this, because the dead aren’t around to tell us.
If there's no break in consciousness, then there would be no death. I was simply encoded as bits of data and then decoded, a process that I would be conscious of and experience in some way, I assume. If when I get off the transporter at point B with a 1:1 memory of the experience like walking from one room to the next, in no way did I die.
You are changing the question to "is a perfect replica of a person considered the same person or not?". That is not the question.
What you experience by using a teleporter is you enter a room, and then you die. End of story. There being another replica of you somewhere does not change that you died. For an outsider they may argue whether or not you died, whether or not the replica is you, and so on. But from the perspective of someone who enters the teleportation room, it's over. Dead.
There's a Ship of Theseus aspect to Star Trek's transporters in particular that I find interesting. In that there is an actual matter stream sent to your destination. But ultimately I couldn't be sure that the me I am now would come out the other side - and I probably wouldn't.
I have the same concern about uploading my brain to a computer. Even if it's a perfect copy it's still a copy. And that's before you factor in for other things like, I am not just my brain I am also the hormones that affect my brain.
Your hormones make you weak! Let go of your mortal shell and live in the sweet embrace of 1s and 0s. None of those pesky shades of gray. Everything in it's own happy 'float'ing bucket.
We'll even throw in a RNG if you ever want to get the thrill of hormones.
I totally respect the way you approached it. I would totally use either, but I value myself very little and value being able to get somewhere that has alcohol quickly to dull the things I feel very much.
I totally respect the way you approached it. I would totally use either, but I value myself very little and value being able to get somewhere that has alcohol quickly to dull the things I feel very much.
I'd duplicate myself more than once, and at least once so I could fuck myself.
I'd tweak the transporter to adjust my body as I went through it. Best weight-loss, gym routine, plastic surgery, dick-enhancement pill ever, all in one.
I would be the reason such devices would be strictly regulated by people with ethics. "Is it murder if you kill your clone?" "Who cares, energize and last one stabbed wins!"
How would you deal with yourself after you fuck yourself?!
Do you want a really creepy twin with much less resources than you to walk around the world? Would you wanna kill that person? No one would notice surely.
Similar matter is dealt with in the book Dark Matter.
I don't buy the idea that disintegrating my molecules and reconstructing new ones is tantamount to murder or suicide.
If all I experience is being one place one moment and another place the next, then it's me. It's isn't some fucking clone, it's me. You're just being turned into some other form (energy, if we're using Star Trek rules) and then being turned back.
I'm pretty sure that at 26, I'm already a completely different person than the baby I was born as, literally. My cells have all died and been replaced. The horror. ./s
I don’t buy the idea that disintegrating my molecules and reconstructing new ones is tantamount to murder or suicide.
I definitely don't think teleportation in science fiction is meant to be killing the person using it and making a clone of them. Like unless a story is specifically about that, I don't think any given sci-fi author is trying to set up some sinister background plot where everyone is unknowingly killing themselves all the time.
But I do still have to wonder if that's how it would end up working out in real life. Sure all our cells have died and been replaced since we were born, but that typically doesn't happen with all your cells at the same time lol. imo it's probably less about cells and more about like... Consciousness or "the soul" or whatever, I don't know. Whatever it is, I accept that teleporters in fiction have some way to store and transport it, whether it's stated in the narrative or not. But in real life I have no idea how we'd be able to tell if such a thing could even work.
In real life, I think we'd probably glean some insights to the soul in the development process. Like say, if one of the first human test subjects goes through it, only to have their personality irrevocably changed, and no one can identify any external reasons why, then that would warrant further research before billions of humans start using it and it becomes an actual problem.
I think part of my "resistance" to this question is that by default, I'm approaching it from the assumption that I'm living in some hypothetical world where a teleporter is as common and everyday as a car or train, and extrapolating from there, so a lot of the hypotheticals don't exist for me because I'm imagining public use. "What if someone puts the version of you that didn't teleport in their basement" well then they would have to coerce me out of the presumably public location for teleports between cities or wherever, because if I step on a pad expecting to be halfway across the globe in two seconds and instead I'm still in the same room, I'm not gonna leave until it's explained to me what went wrong and I'm given assurances for future service and compensation for the failure that already happened.
"oh well what if it only created copies of you" well then it probably wouldn't supplant any existing forms of transportation :), and of course then I wouldn't use it to get around.
If all I experience is being one place one moment and another place the next, then it’s me
If I make an exact molecular copy of you and set that copy free into the world thinking it had just successfully transported, but then I take the original you that entered the transporter and lock them up in a basement somewhere, how is that any different? From the perspective of the conscious being that came out the other end their continuity is uninterrupted. They will think they are the only version of themselves to have ever existed and that they simply moved from one place to another, as opposed to being a duplicate of the original entity, and that the original entity may be dead or in this case locked in a basement.
Now I want to see a dystopian fiction where the original instances of a person are taken away and used as slave labor while the clones come out the other side thinking they're the only copy.
If I make 100 exact molecular copies of you and lock them up in my emerald mine to slave away for the rest of their lives, but then I take the original you and give you $10 and send you on your way, how is that any different? You know you are the original and nothing can change that, so YOU you have nothing to fear, right?
If I walk to the teleport pad, expecting to blink from Point A to Point B, but instead I experience a blink from Point A to Point A, I'm the kind of person who'd need to be physically coerced, threatened, or tricked into captivity, because I'd immediately hop off the pad like "uh why am I still here I'm supposed to be in Berlin, I'm not leaving until you refund my transport cost or get me to Berlin". If I'm not conscious, then I'm the victim of criminal action, not the teleporter.
Likewise, the version of me that just experienced a normal teleport would live their life as they would have anyways.
Both of us would be me. Then, as our experiences diverged from the point of duplication, we'd become different people (See: Thomas, the duplicate of William Riker in Star Trek. The only reason Thomas and not Will is considered the copy is because of audience perspective, but empathizing with each of them makes one see how both are Will Riker at the start of the episode). This all of course, assumes we don't discover something like the popular conception of souls during the early trials. But I don't believe there's anything about a "soul" that can't be tied to the sum of one's lived experience, which would be copied too.
I would consider a clone to be more expansive of who it could include besides copies of myself as I am now - it would also be someone grown from the literal same embryo as me who'd lived a completely different life with even a different name.
Alright, but now instead of disintegrating and reconstructing, consider if a similar machine just duplicated your body atom for atom. Is that "you", or a clone?
Let's assume the machine works one of two ways. It either destroys the original as it's read into the machine and reconstructing on the other end, or it's not destroying the original and simply reading and copying simultaneously.
In the first case there are zero complete copies of you in existence as you're undergoing a phase of removing information from place and reconstructing it in another, I'd call that death and cloning.
In the second case there are two identical copies of you in existence until they destroy the original, I'd call that a clone.
A clone. As far as I know, there's nothing in our established understanding of the world to suggest that merely copying the physical materials of my atoms would reproduce my memories and personality.
If you were a Federation citizen living on any of the core worlds (earth, vulcan, andoria, and tellar prime) I think you'd be okay. It's not like it's something you have in the home anyways - we don't get much civilian life in Star trek but it's implied that you just physically go to the transport pad you want to use and use it.
I am with Bob Johansson (Bobbyverse) on this one. Star trek is utterly inconsistent with how transporters work. They only ever play up when it's convenient for the plot line, but the rest of the time they're totally fine and no one worries about it.
Transporters are supposed to move the atoms by converting them into energy, moving that energy through subspace, and then converting them back to atoms on the other side, the only energy in the system is the energy that was created when the atoms were converted, so it shouldn't be possible to create a transporter clone, no matter how many "confinement beams" you have, as where would it's atoms come from?
That annihilation shit that Star Trek does? Hell no.
I'd also take a method that's between the two. If it could split me up and send those very same atoms across the void to other side where they're recombobulated I'd be fine with that, too. Assuming it's not painful.
Edit: My sister: "What if it's the most painful experience ever, but the machine deletes that memory?"
Star Trek Transporters don't annihilate you. According to all the stuff from Star Trek it literally disassembles you, moves your particles through space in a matter stream held in a containment field, and reassembles you at the new location.
So the Ship of Theseus question doesn't actually apply, your physical material is the same before and after. The question is if disassembly constitutes dying, and if the reassembled you at the new location is a resurrected you, or if disassembly isn't dying, then it is in fact just a form of transport.
Off topic, but I read a book or short story once that was similar to your edit.
It followed a character who lived on a planet with a toxic atmosphere. At the end of every day, everyone would get into a personal chamber that took a complete copy of them, destroyed their body, then rebuilt it and added the memories back the next morning.
I can't remember if it was specified or implied, but the gist of it was that the machine ripped the body apart to the molecular level while the person was conscious, but the snapshot was taken before that, so no one remembered the pain.
Quantum entanglement would mean that while it reads your initial state and encodes the new state there are two copies of you in existence, that is cloning, then the initial state dies. Unless the process of reading that state is destructive, then you just die and are cloned.
The method between the two you suggested also means you die momentarily and then are recreated. For the period of time it takes to encode your atoms into a method of transport and then reassemble them at your destination, you no longer exist in complete form.
The cute thing about quantum entanglement is that it provably CANNOT create a clone of you. It is conveniently called no-cloning theorem. It can either move your exact quantum state from a collection of particles in one place onto a collection in another, or it can create imperfect clones of you, but in no situation can it create an exact quantum clone of you in addition to the original.
But I still exist and am not quantumly annihilated.
And afaik about entanglement, it would just clone me on the other side leaving another copy of me at the start. At least, that's how it reads when describing the difference between entanglement and how Star Trek works.
Nope, I have a hard enough time thinking about my consciousness being "the same person" even after sleeping. No way am I getting taken apart and cloned by choice.
Arthur C. Clarke covered it in his first published story.
I don’t travel by wire! You see, I helped invent the thing!
Everything that makes you -you- is contained in the physicality of your brain. Even fairly small changes in your brain will create large shifts in cognition and personality. So anything that replicates your body and brain, down to the last atom, is going to be creating -you-. As far as you are concerned, nothing happened; you ceased to be in one place, and immediately sprang into existence in another.
Consciousness IS continuity. If you are disentigrated and a perfect clone pops up somewhere to replace you... you died. Your current stream of consciousness ended and a perfect copy replaced you.
As far as all external observers are concerned it's still you. But from your own perspective? Well you won't have one anymore, you'll be dead.
...But the -me- that just popped into existence isn't going to perceive a gap in continuity at all. It may be a new -me-, but it has all the memories and experiences that -I- had just prior to being disintegrated. From the perspective of the new -me- there's no change at all.
Are you the same person as the person that went to sleep last night? How would you know that you weren't replaced by a clone with precisely the same memories and experiences? Or a clone that thinks that it has the same memories and experiences? I can remember last night, but can I prove that my memories are accurate?
Every atom in your brain gets replaced every four five years anyway so clearly it's the position and structure of the atoms that's important rather than the atoms themselves. So obviously there is no point worrying about it because it happens anyway, and you're clearly fine.
The individual atoms probably get replaced far more often. And I think that, depending on how you look at -you-, the -you- of a year ago isn't the same -you- as who you are now; the change is just so gradual that you don't notice.
Making an assessment on that requires a whole lot more context.
We trust in car safety because of regulation, established supposed Brand trustworthyness, and widespread use.
If teleporters had the same, and in terms of use at least significant precedent, there's no reason most people would use them. Traveling convenience would be a great upside.
if you translocated Theseus' ship, is it still the same ship? what if you extracted the data from the transport buffer to reassemble the original in its original location?
No, I don't see any possible solution to continuity of consciousness. See Walk like a Dinosaur to understand the implications, but basically you would need to destroy the original and duplicate it from scratch.
If there is such a thing as a soul, it would likely be impossible to duplicate, but even if not, you would have to destroy the original.
I get the disintegration qualms. But slap some TNG-era biofilters on that baby and filter out heavy metal accumulations, budding cancer cells, chest congestion, etc., and I'd be first in line.
I don't understand everybody worrying about whether their consciousness moves with us. We literally don't even know what it is, we have no provable theory or idea of what it is.
As far as I can tell, your consciousness is something your brain does, not something that exists external to your body, otherwise that's basically believing in spirits.
I definitely wouldn't use the disintegration/reintegration type. If it worked some other way, like through mini-wormholes or something, sure I would use it.
Do I trust that an ephemeral pseudoscience concept of "teleporter technology" is safe to use...? No...? On what basis would anyone make that judgement.
Doesn't Star Trek's transporter solution involve converting your atomic structure to Energy, beaming that energy to another place, and reconstitution your body using the same atoms? If so, that's not really dying anymore. Just re-arranging your original atoms.
Star Trek calls that "matter stream" energy your "pattern". Pattern sounds a lot like Information. Data. Which is very easy to transmit and duplicate. Data can also be lost or corrupted.
So it's as if they convert all your atoms to a file, then FTP your file to somewhere else where the technology turns your pattern back into matter.
"You" can't exist as just data, so at that point you're already dead. I think...
There are episodes where your pattern is stuck in the pattern buffer. You're only information being stored at that point.
Like, if you're resuscitated using a defibrillator, then by all accounts, your heart stopped for a moment there. Without intervention from a machine that at one point in history didn't exist, tou were indistinguishable from a corpse. So, a teleporter would just be the same but taken to an extremely abstract degree - you are dead, but your body exists in a state and within range from a machine that can resuscitate that body, so no doctor can yet declare you dead.
Let’s put it this way: if you stepped into a teleporter, the last think you’d ever experience is being disassembled. Doesn’t matter if it hurts or whatever. It just goes black. You die. You,
YOU, will never see the other side. You won’t be the one to come out; it’s a clone of you.
Even if it is the very same atoms, the very same dendrites and synapses, reassembled perfectly.
Your clone will think it’s you and it will go “oh wow, it DOES work”. It’ll know your mother.
It’ll bang your wife. It has your degree in Computer Science or whatever. And it even has all your experiences up to and including the moment the teleporter turned on.
But it’s not you. You blinked out of existence, your experience ended. You ended the self, and a new self was born at the other end, endowed with everything that encapsulated you previously.
Correct. The thought experiment where it's like "ooh but what if it disintegrated you and 3d printed a copy of yo-" like that's not what a fucking teleporter is. You've just made some other science fiction device that I wouldn't use, I'd use the teleporter.
Oh, hell yeah. Plus it's canon that it can heal some diseases.
Now, WRT the continuity of consciousness... hell, I lose that every night, and whenever I get major surgery. Heck, I've transported innumerable times if teleporting a break in continuity of thought plus a change in location. I passed out once from heat stroke and woke up in an infirmary.
Do you consider your brain going in to sleep mode, providing you with filler content that you largely forget, and then waking you back again later to be the same as being vaporised in your original location?
... and recreated, at the atomic level somewhere else? Yes.
Full-body anaethesia is a better example. It isn't sleep; your body is essentially dead, and machines are performing your normally autonomous functions for you.
Depends on how the teleportation worked and also how our consciousness worked. I’m not against the idea of creating exact copies of myself who, from their point of view, are indistinguishable from the me they were copied from. I am, however, against the idea of deleting the original me, which from my point of view would be indistinguishable from death,
Transferring consciousness is different from copying consciousness, even if the copy is flawless.
This is the same answer as the question of uploading our consciousness to a computer.
To my limited understanding, the us that exists is just a network of neural connections. If you could somehow copy that network exactly, you could conceivably create a complete personality copy of an individual, but that’s not the same thing as moving their consciousness.
If it existed, was proven safe, and was widely available enough for anyone to use, then of course.
The auto and airline industries would collapse, reducing pollution and global warming.
The biggest downside I can think of offhand is that everyone could vacation wherever they like, and that would quickly overcrowd and ruin all the nice places.
What if it's "proven safe" in the same way that surgery under general anaesthetic is safe - nobody remembers feeling pain. Nobody (mostly) reports pain after waking up. But what if it's torture and you just don't remember it afterwards.
Teleporter is kinda the same, but no one coming out of the other end remembers dying because in their memory they didn't.
People would also be able to commute to their jobs from any distance, which would probably cause people to spread out instead of all gathering in big cities.
We've seen someone's POV going through a transporter. From your own perspective you would just see some glowy shit and appear at your destination. Of course, I would make an army of myself with another me in the transport buffer tweaked to retain the pattern for a long time. But instant transportation is invaluable.
Yeah, and there are people that refuse to fly because they're afraid of crashes, but still ride motorcycles without wearing helmets. A character refusing to use a transporter just indicates that the person in question isn't reacting rationally. Likewise, irregular malfunctions don't mean that it's not still safer than other means.
"How many Transporter accidents have there been in the last tens years, Reg? Two... three? What about the millions of people who transport every day without a problem" - Geordi - TNG Realm of Fear S6E2
Imagine you have a device that transmits your brain signals into another body so that you can control 2 bodies at once. Clearly you are one self that is controlling two bodies. Clearly destroying either one of these bodies wouldn't really kill you (so long as your brain is fine) you'd just continue existing in the other body.
Now let's say we copy your brain exactly and put it in the other body, and then a device that synchronizes your memories and experiences. body 1 would act exactly like body 2 in every circumstance. I don't see the difference between the first scenario and the second, you are one self, distributed across 2 brains and 2 bodies. If you killed one of the bodies, no one would die, it would be more akin to losing a limb.
Now let's remove the synchronizer, for the first instant it's identical to scenario 2, but over time the 2 selves would diverge and become separate people.
so as long as we kill off the old self immediately before or at the same time as the new body comes online then I don't see it as a murder machine like you describe.
however, if we have the tech to copy the body perfectly, who is to say we can't improve the body as teleport them, make the new body stronger or disease proof. And if we do that, who's to say we couldn't make small changes to the thoughts or memories, make you more docile or forget injustices. That seems pretty risky to me.
Anyone remember that Outer Limits episode about this? They thought the teleporter malfunctioned, but it really just failed to destroy the source "copy" of the girl at the point of origin. Since she also appeared at destination, the station operator had to flush the original out of the airlock.
I don't understand everybody worrying about whether their consciousness moves with us. We literally don't even know what it is, we have no provable theory or idea of what it is.
As far as I can tell, your consciousness is something your brain does, not something that exists external to your body, otherwise that's basically believing in spirits.
Okay so in most cases, teleportation is instantaneous. But if you tamper with the disassembler, now can "teleport" yourself to a new location while the old you is still there. Now there's 2 bodies that look like you. So which one is you. Does your consciousness shift into the new body or stay with the old one? Or does your conciousness control both bodies?
Seeing as this is all theoretical then surely the answer is just to invent it so that moves the original you instead of copying it? What is consciousness?
I've always had a hard time understanding what's so bad about the person who arrives being a clone, never saw the downside. Yes, I 'd definitely use it. One of the biggest hurdles in my everyday life is the "going there". When I was still working, the one thing I always complained about and what ruined my every morning was having to go there and return after. If I'd had the option to instantly teleport to work, I would have loved every day because I loved my work and I wanted to be there. Now that I'm disabled, I regularly have to cancel stuff like doctor's appointments last minute because my chronic exhaustion is acting up and I physically can't move my body there.
(If teleporting isn't available, I'd settle for a ship's computer core as a PDA)
Because you’d be dead and your clone lives on. Your consciousness ceases to exist, you will not experience anything your clone will experience. Unless they know how to teleport consciousness it will be a copy of you.
Depends on what we define as "consciousness". If it's just what my brain does, it doesn't cease to exist at all because it's rebuild in the clone. If it's a soul, I don't know, that's above my paygrade.
I'm assuming it's painless and that my clone would have my memories. That's still "me". "I" am the sum of the structures in my brain and what my brain does with it.
A clone would not be you. From your point of view you are simply killed by the teleporter, your consciousness isn't teleported, it is copied just like your body.
Well, if the technology actually existed, it would solve that whole "soul" question.
We would know pretty quickly if we transported humans and they came out the other side as soulless aberrations because their original just got killed.
So yeah, I would 100% use it after it first proved once and for all that the sum of our consciousness really is all the synapses and signals and grey matter in our heads. Because if so then what does it matter if your original matter has been erased and then recreated. Your clone is just as much you as you are you at that point.
I'm assuming that if your soul really is "you" then a soulless clone of you that is identical to you down to every atom, but had no soul, would be bad.
I don't know if that means your soulless clone would just be an instinct driven animal, or maybe just an evil version of you that immediately grows a goatee. I don't know what function your soul actually performs. But at some point, maybe not immediately, a bunch of soulless clones walking around would be noticed.
This is how I feel about lab grown meat. I'm sure it's probably fine, but I don't want to be one of the first to try it out. I'll give it a couple of years and see how the first adopters get on lol.
How would we ever know for sure if the copy was really you or not? What question could we ask that only your objective self would know, but the sum collection of cells would not?
Cars don't rip you apart molecularly, unless you get into a crash. A teleporter will rip you apart every time. This isn't a discussion of the "safety" of teleporters, it's a discussion of what consciousness is.