Thread: The problem with teleportation...

Let's assume that a teleportation device exists that scans the position and state of every particle in your body (with a sufficient degree of precision), while you reside in location A. Then it sends that information to a human printing machine that recreates you in location B.

Now the guy that operates the teleportation device informs you: "I'm sorry, but this process requires me to terminate your life now so we don't have two of you running around. Don't worry it's quite painless and your organs go to people who need them."

Are you happy, unhappy or perhaps indifferent about the situation you have put yourself in and why?

I'm not sure whether a teleportation device is a scientific possibility or not, but I'm happy to hear theories and arguments about that as well.

I can see one error in this hypothetical situation. Even if you 'terminate' a person to recreate them, their organs are still in someone else, so a part of that person is still running around. A teleportation device should theoretically be able to dissemble your structure and reassemble it.

If what you are suggesting then it is cloning a person to recreate them, is it not? If that is the case then I would disagree with what your guy suggests.

I agree with RJC - is it a teleportation device you are postulating, or a cloning device ?
In the case of the former there is only ever one copy of the thing being teleported.
Unfortunately such a device is like to be physically impossible.

Let's assume it is a device like in Star Trek, where your body is disassembled and reassembled somewhere else, i.e. Where only the information travels the distance. That would mean that you effectively die every time you are teleported. The new copy might have all of of the original's parts and memories, but it would still be a copy. Instant teleportation is impossible, since entanglement doesn't allow the transmission of information, so teleportation would have to be limited by the speed of light.

So the question is, as the OP asked, would you be ok with it? We already have an analogue in what happens when we sleep. We are not conscious during sleep and would not know it if we were copied during our sleep and the original destroyed. I don't think I'd be happy with it. From my own perspective I would lose consciousness and never egain it, even though the copy would swear it is me (which it would be imo).

How would it be different than waking up every morning....or perhaps being revived after falling through ice...or numerous other situations where we loose and then regain consciousness.

Let's assume that a teleportation device exists that scans the position and state of every particle in your body

I think most likely there is two possibilities:
1)Humans have non-material (or at least something that doesn`t consist of usual atoms) carrier of conciousness.Usually people call it a ``soul``.You would not be able to replicate the same soul in two different carriers.Either your soul will be transfered to new body and live there or it will go to ``heaven`` (or ``underworld``).And new copy will have a new soul or have none.
2)Structure of human conciousness (brain) should be never distructed.Once it is distructed a personality dies and every copy of it (even unbelievably precise copy) will be a new personality with new conciousness.In one word there is element of irreversibilty.Once brain structure is distructed there is no way to recreate old personality.There is similar examples in physics world.For example quantum cryptography is based on it.Once you intercepted quantum data it can`t already ever be an old data.

Also there is an interesting question how much could we change personality without destroying it.Defently all human body (with exception of brain) could be replaced without destroying conciousness.Some part of brain perhaps too.For example there is parts of brain which are not responsible for any personality features.Some of them just regulate body functions.But even some memories or logical conceptions which exist in human brain may be not as important.Therefore there might be some ``core`` personality which is not extremely expanded in information sense of word.For example if we want to ``code`` it.If human personality is no mere then certain combination of atoms in the space than we do not need to copy precisely each atom in a body.We need just to copy ``core personality``.But what is that and how it looks like I guess is a great mistery.

Originally Posted by Stanley514

I think most likely there is two possibilities:
1)Humans have non-material (or at least something that doesn`t consist of usual atoms) carrier of conciousness.Usually people call it a ``soul``.You would not be able to replicate the same soul in two different carriers.Either your soul will be transfered to new body and live there or it will go to ``heaven`` (or ``underworld``).And new copy will have a new soul or have none.
2)Structure of human conciousness (brain) should be never distructed.Once it is distructed a personality dies and every copy of it (even unbelievably precise copy) will be a new personality with new conciousness.In one word there is element of irreversibilty.Once brain structure is distructed there is no way to recreate old personality.There is similar examples in physics world.For example quantum cryptography is based on it.Once you intercepted quantum data it can`t already ever be an old data.

I absolutely cannot get myself to accept either of these possibilities.

Edit: I mean I'd love to believe in possibility nr2, but to me it just doesn't seem plausible that a process like evolution could create something so unbelievably complex. Especially considering how every human life begins from a fairly simple organism. I'll admit, that's a very unscientific way of thinking and I can't make any solid argument against your theory, but I'm hoping that someone else perhaps could?

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

How would it be different than waking up every morning....or perhaps being revived after falling through ice...or numerous other situations where we loose and then regain consciousness.

I can't say how it would be different and that's exactly my problem.

In my scenario "you" are conscious in two different locations simultaneously (which is why we'd consider it cloning), so you wouldn't "regain" consciousness in the traditional sense at least.

However, on a quantum level I don't see the difference between these two:

1. Cloning way of teleporting: scanning, transporting data, rebuilding and (optionally) destroyng the original.

2. Moving physical atoms way of teleporting: picking up each atom from your (perhaps frozen) body, transporting the matter, then rebuilding in another location.

Both of these would lead to the same outcome on a molecular level. I mean the atoms in my body obviously don't have my name marked on them.

So my conclusion is, that we would know, that we won't regain consciousness, but that it shouldn't matter to us (precisely like you said). We will "die", but it's nothing to worry about. We should be perfectly happy with letting our clone take over our lives. The clone will love my wife and take care of my children just like I would myself.

Does anyone else think like this?

I suppose I'm having a hard time understanding how consciousness can function in a world where the laws of physics won't allow free will to exist. Can we then say that consciousness doesn't really exist?

Edit: I mean I'd love to believe in possibility nr2, but to me it just doesn't seem plausible that a process like evolution could create something so unbelievably complex. Especially considering how every human life begins from a fairly simple organism. I'll admit, that's a very unscientific way of thinking and I can't make any solid argument against your theory

One of the arguments against purely mechanistis point of view is in your own question.If human personality is no more than purely mecanical combination of atoms than we are able to copy humans and recreating an old personality.But what if we create two copies simultaneously instead of one?In which one your former conciousness will reside?If those two your copies may not be even aware of each other existance,defenetly it cannot reside in each of them.Common sense tells you that conciousness cannot multiply.Therefore there should be principle which make it imposssible.Either human have a discrete ``soul`` or there is some quantum cryptography in work...

Originally Posted by Stanley514

One of the arguments against purely mechanistis point of view is in your own question.If human personality is no more than purely mecanical combination of atoms than we are able to copy humans and recreating an old personality.But what if we create two copies simultaneously instead of one?In which one your former conciousness will reside?If those two your copies may not be even aware of each other existance,defenetly it cannot reside in each of them.Common sense tells you that conciousness cannot multiply.Therefore there should be principle which make it imposssible.Either human have a discrete ``soul`` or there is some quantum cryptography in work...

I'd say that my assumption of consciousness being electro-mechanistic in nature leads to the conclusion that it can (in theory) multiply. I suppose the fact that brain death is generally considered irreversible would be an argument in favor of your views, but at least cryogenicists (claim to) believe that a dead brain might be possible to revive in the future.

I'd say that my assumption of consciousness being electro-mechanistic in nature leads to the conclusion that it can (in theory) multiply.

Is this not against a common sense?Conciousness exist only as individual and descrete.It cannot reside simultaneously in two creatures who not even aware of each other existance.

Is this not against a common sense?Conciousness exist only as individual and descrete.It cannot reside simultaneously in two creatures who not even aware of each other existance

I don't follow your common sense? Why must it exist as only an individual? If you can copy a computer program, why not consciousness? If you have two exact copies of the same body, why wouldn't they have the same consciousness? There is no scientific basis for such a thing as a soul by the way.

why wouldn't they have the same consciousness?

The same conciousness assume the same fealings and absense of individual will.

The same conciousness assume the same fealings and absense of individual will

So? Even if free will exists, why couldn't two bodies both have the same feelings and free will?

I see no reason that you couldn't teleport a persons consciousness, if it is within the laws of your machine. Think of it as a TV or radio, basically altering the form from one state to another then reversing the process at the other end. Apart from propagation problems it seems a logical idea.

Don't think of it as destroying the original and creating a clone. If you are able to rip apart a person and reassemble them in another place by the transference of that persons atomic information alone, then you have a high tech television.

Originally Posted by RJC

Don't think of it as destroying the original and creating a clone.

That's just the only part of teleportation that I find interesting, because in a way it seems to indicate how "lifeless" and robotic we actually are. That's assuming cloning the consciousness is a theoretical possibility.

Originally Posted by imawobot

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

How would it be different than waking up every morning....or perhaps being revived after falling through ice...or numerous other situations where we loose and then regain consciousness.

I can't say how it would be different and that's exactly my problem.

In my scenario "you" are conscious in two different locations simultaneously (which is why we'd consider it cloning), so you wouldn't "regain" consciousness in the traditional sense at least.

However, on a quantum level I don't see the difference between these two:

1. Cloning way of teleporting: scanning, transporting data, rebuilding and (optionally) destroyng the original.

2. Moving physical atoms way of teleporting: picking up each atom from your (perhaps frozen) body, transporting the matter, then rebuilding in another location.

Both of these would lead to the same outcome on a molecular level. I mean the atoms in my body obviously don't have my name marked on them.

So my conclusion is, that we would know, that we won't regain consciousness, but that it shouldn't matter to us (precisely like you said). We will "die", but it's nothing to worry about. We should be perfectly happy with letting our clone take over our lives. The clone will love my wife and take care of my children just like I would myself.

Does anyone else think like this?

I suppose I'm having a hard time understanding how consciousness can function in a world where the laws of physics won't allow free will to exist. Can we then say that consciousness doesn't really exist?

I personally see it that way too.. quantum level you are essentially making a clone of yourself, though the original is "destroyed". But yes, what about the human consciousness or spirit for those taking the religious slant.. its a very interesting topic.

I think that it would be like sand. When you move sand from a beach the sides cave in. I think that moving a person would leave a hole where that person was, and the sides would cave in. If the sides caved in in space time I think it would be quite destructive.

None of us has any real idea of how big the universe is. We have numbers, but we don't realy know what they mean as it's simply too big. The very science that is affirmed to prohibit the existence of free will provides us the theory, wich most scientists believe in, of the existence of many universes other than this. Given how little do we know, you truly believe we have enough information on how the universe works to say free will is impossible? Even though we experience it daily? Even though neurosciences are still so recent and so far from understanding how either the brain or the mind work? [hr] All that being said, as a psychology student i can affirm that except in some special circunstances, nobody would realy be okay with having their original body destroyed, because that would be a too great offense to his/her narcisism. Most people are narcisists, in higher or lower degrees of it, no matter - we are narcisists, for one reason or another. Narcisism isn't rational, as most feelings can't be controlled by reason. I believe we all have lived enough to understand this. It is possible for one to desintegrate his narcisism, but that would not only mean but also consist in breaking his bonds to the image he has of himself, wich by excelence is breaking his bonds to his very self. Not only is it psychologicaly painfull, as it's an agression to what the narcisist subject cherishs so much, it's also an act of self destruction, as the subject believes and understands that as the destruction of himself - fear would come in place. Put a dagger on your wrists and you'll find out you can't realy kill yourself. Of course, some people would do it despite their narcisisms, but if they came out on the other side exactly the way they went in, they would suffer severly and most likely would need years of psychanalysis.

I think I would want a way of transporting my consciousness first, like maybe down loading into a computer then sending it on to the recieving computer through some quantum entanglement communications device, that way when the new copy of my body is made my consciousness could be down loaded straight into it.

I use to think I would be killed by a Star Trek teleportion and someone thats identical and thinks hes me would be created. I now think I am the information configuration and interaction, but would nonetheless avoid being disintegrated because the idea scares this particular information configuration I perceive as myself. I would however use a teleportation device if it was the only way to save my life while saying to myself "wtf, hello to the new me and say goodbye to the old me when you realize your on the other side, here it goes...".

Maybe I should start having a mini funeral for my bear's hair cells when I shave.



An alternate way of posing the OP would be:
~ You're in a star trek future on the USS Lexington badly damaged in an encounter with an hostile race, you step in the transporter and say to the crewman "ok ensign, energize". Then you appear and see the same crewman. He says "sorry sir, you have successively materialized on the planet's surface, but hrr, there was failure caused by a quantum fluctuation in the flux capacitor, which cause a duplication to be created here. You can just stay on the transporter pad while I recalibrate the array, we'll have you disintegrated in moments, just stay there and it'll all be fixed" ~ (wounldnt you step off and say 'hey wait a minute'?)

Originally Posted by icewendigo

An alternate way of posing the OP would be:
~ You're in a star trek future on the USS Lexington badly damaged in an encounter with an hostile race, you step in the transporter and say to the crewman "ok ensign, energize". Then you appear and see the same crewman. He says "sorry sir, you have successively materialized on the planet's surface, but hrr, there was failure caused by a quantum fluctuation in the flux capacitor, which cause a duplication to be created here. You can just stay on the transporter pad while I recalibrate the array, we'll have you disintegrated in moments, just stay there and it'll all be fixed" ~ (wounldnt you step off and say 'hey wait a minute'?)

This seems to me like the perfect opportunity for a last attempt to save the Lexington. Besides, after succeeding, I could then have a ceremonial disintegration with a medal around my neck. Only the question would probably arise: which instance of me should be disintegrated (if any)?

I'm sure Starfleet has laws for that kind of shi* though.

wouldn't you step off and say "hey, wait a minute"

..............
anecdotal musing
Long ago anf far away, I once had an uncle Fred(we called him 'Fritz') who talked to himself.
His brother Elmer was ragging on him one day about "talking to yourself" and, Fritz replied
"When I talk to myself, Elmer, I am guaranteed and intelligent and sympathetic audience, what a pity that I can not say the same when I talk to you."

2 of me, chatting amiably away? we'd both know what either of us was gonna say, then,
what would be the point? really?
maybe we could take turns remembering really important things, or showing up at social functions---make a dozen of anyone. and maybe they could run for congress, several dozen , and they could "kiss every baby in the county"
but
who would win?

Why do every single one of you think that teleportation needs to actually move matter, from one location, trough a data stream, into another location. Haven't anyone of you proposed a virtual reality simulator, in which you control a drone on the other side, which may or may not look like you, but conciously would be identical. Then it's a lot more ethical right? nothing gets destroyed, plus if you die on the other side, you don't actually die.

or
parallel universes
step into the quantum transporter
and step back into this universe at your prefered location
.......
"Step lively now."
"We wouldn't want to leave part of you behind!?

so much for space?
how about time?

Originally Posted by Zwolver

Why do every single one of you think that teleportation needs to actually move matter, from one location, trough a data stream, into another location. Haven't anyone of you proposed a virtual reality simulator, in which you control a drone on the other side, which may or may not look like you, but conciously would be identical. Then it's a lot more ethical right? nothing gets destroyed, plus if you die on the other side, you don't actually die.

Well, in order for something to teleport, one needs to be ported from one location to another. Remotely controlling a drone is certainly an ethically superior avenue. It isn't teleporting, however.


EDIT: Well crap. I didn't realize that I had become a necromancer.

I'm pretty sure Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle prevents it from being possible to make an asbsolutely perfect copy of anything (because it's impossible to make a perfect measurement of the original). So, you and your other self would still be different people, if only very very slightly different.

Even if it were possible, the moment your alternate self begins to experience different things from you, it would become different from you by that means.

I think the OP is talking about this film: "The Prestige" with Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale

http://www.imdb.com/find?q=the+prestige&s=all

Originally Posted by kojax

I'm pretty sure Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle prevents it from being possible to make an asbsolutely perfect copy of anything (because it's impossible to make a perfect measurement of the original). So, you and your other self would still be different people, if only very very slightly different.

Even if it were possible, the moment your alternate self begins to experience different things from you, it would become different from you by that means.

I think the OP is talking about this film: "The Prestige" with Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale

IMDb Search

I haven't seen the Prestige, but now I REALLY want to see it (no spoilers please).

I'm not that interested in teleporting or cloning as such, instead I want to understand how human consciousness works (among other things) and I thought a discussion around these subjects could lead to new ideas and discoveries, which I think it already has to some extent.

The uncertainty principle only states that we can't produce a perfect clone, it doesn't state that a perfect clone couldn't exist, right? So as long as we are only considering the implications of having a clone around and not actually trying to create a cloning device, the uncertainty principle shouldn't be relevant?

The uncertainty principle only states that we can't produce a perfect clone

If you are about idea to resurrect an old personality then absolutely perfect clone may not be needed.
For example if few cells in your brain will die, does it mean that old you will die?I mean that very small
changes in brain cells may not signify death of personality.

funny I have some ideas on alternative telportation devices.

1. Somehow move the person faster than light. That way nobody would see and them move ergo it would be instantanious, but it could be very messy, I havent worked out all the kinks yet.

2. This consept is a little deeper and cosmic, If I exist, and the planets exist, then technically the universe must exist also. At a point all things must have not existed, ok I cant prove that or explain it very well but I do understand with my limited use of human language. Now please picture if you will a piece of string before the universe and pre creation but instead of calling it string call it a measurement of realitivity, like distance and time, because obviously string cant exist if the very foundation of creation has not yet begun, it would be impossible and not exist. However distance and time take no distance or time to travel when they do not exist. AHH I bet you see where Im going with this

If I could stop the universe from existing in just one location mabey I could send them through the hole I made. Sort of like sinister dark and deadly transportation. It would almost definately be fatal, possibly disgusting it might even be something astonishing. Thats just interesting enough for there to be way to many volunteers, do it man.

3. Philosophical teleportation. Time travel back to when you wanted to teleport to, walk there. Call up your other self and ask him to shoot himself with included teleportation gun as to avoid the butterfly effect. If he doesnt go back again in time and shoot him and ask the other guy that was you to go back in time and keep doing it until you really badly want to teleport enough to commit suicide, and eventually you will. Instantaneous Travel.