Personal Identity & Star Trek

Your conscious throughout the teleportation process, you never "die", the episode with Barclay dealing transporter phobia established this. Fucking plebs need to watch more star trek before asking questions about the transporter.

>Your conscious throughout the teleportation process
Your consciousness is maintained*

>You're conscious throughout

It wouldn't matter even if you weren't conscious throughout. Unless you believe self is "preserved" when you're kept awake at the dentist's with local anesthetics but "you die" during surgery with general anesthesia.

>Also, in a society where those "teleporters" existed and became commonly used, would it be morally permissible to demand of public officials such as politicians and police officers to use them to conduct their work more efficiently?
>Would it be morally obligatory for them to use them?
If it wasn't "you" the popped out, and using the machine would thereby amount to killing you in the process, then I still think that this is a burden that some people would have to take.

We demand of policemen to endanger themselves in the process of their work all the time. This even moreso applies to soldiers: We literally expect them to be ready to die for us.

Identity is a literal spook, I don'tget how many people still don't realize how the "I" is a temporary phenomenon and can be annhitilated easily, even via non-physical means

Pretry sure that this technology is against Christianity as it destroys the body permanently. It's suicide, so Orthodox Christians and any heretic worth their salt wouldn't use it.

There might be a meaningful difference that death is only a possibility for policemen and soldiers, though, while the teleporter would guarantee it.

I'm not sure how people think about sending soldiers/policemen on suicide missions.

^^^This. I'm glad a lot of people aren't falling for that mind trap in this thread, but a lot of time these things end up with everyone insisting it wouldn't be the "real you" because [magic thing that makes you "you" ordinarily] isn't there in a "mere copy."

Even if an original person was kept alive and a copy was made of him at that moment so both existed concurrently, it wouldn't mean the copied mind was more or less valid as a "self." The first person's mind wouldn't teleport into the second one's mind e.g. the first one wouldn't feel pain if the second one burnt his hand on a hot pocket later. But the trick is that never happened before the copying took place either. "You" from five minutes ago doesn't feel it if "you" burn your hand on a hot pocket now either. What makes those states of mind appear tied together is the similar memory information. It's a retrospective "I now must've been him in the past because... " narrative thing, not a feed-forward literal self continuity thing.

People need to make more crops of this artist. They're hilarious.

>clone yourself
>shoot clone
>"ouch!"
Reductonism is not new or original.

Probably not. My thinking on the nature of consciousness is strictly material, which means if the material structure of the brain is disrupted I either change or cease by necessity. Conscious thought is just an illusion on top of a material basis, not much different from the graphical user interface of an operating system or the internal universe of a video game.

what happens if you go in holding an animal or something, would the teleport happen normally or would something terrible happen?

>"ouch"

What are you trying to suggest? That because the first person didn't feel the pain of the copied person that means the copied person is less the self then the original person? That's wrong because the original person five minutes ago wouldn't feel pain if the original person now were shot either.

There never was continuity of self to begin with. Spook.

>or something,
You're going in with "something" either way: you're clothed, and full of bacteria and other microscopic organisms on your skin.

so you're saying that the teleportation wouldn't have a complication, and by something I mean't something like one of the aliens from alien.

>it sends you through subspace, it doesn't rearrange your atoms, the only thing that changes is time
Sounds like a boring copout. The idea of an unnoticed mass homicide is far more entertaining.

>There never was continuity of self to begin with. Spook.
Lay off the research chems

youtube.com/watch?v=NH-8L1iZq20

The closest thing to continuity of self is the similarity of memory content different versions of a brain support over time and the storytelling each version does to itself about how the past versions and itself are the same. There isn't an actual physical process that magically ties each moment of brain activity to the next.

The constant shifting of neurotransmitters throughout your brain that persist even after you fall asleep are very much physical.

>Which misses the point that there isn't anything a copy could lack to fall short of being an authentic "you" if its material is arranged in exactly the same way as the source body's material.
A person isn't just the sum of a body's material, though.

There are immaterial properties such as legal claims, too.

Constant shifting of neurotransmitters doesn't magically confer continuity of self. You're acting like there needs to be arbitrary movement maintained at all times or else the identity stops counting, which is a pretty silly / superstitious concept.

The idea that the continuous survival/integrity of your physical body is important is literally just the manifestation of the basic animal survival instinct in the context of a sapient mind.

Tuvix was a good episode

>Constant shifting of neurotransmitters doesn't magically confer continuity of self.
But they do. Your entire concept of self stems from them and goes away when they are tampered with. You're making some weird argument about consciousness having no basis in the physical when it's very clear it does.

I never said a person is the sum of material. Totally different from that, I was talking about the *arrangement* of material for one thing, and using examples that explicitly involved material that was completely different to boot. And for another thing, I wasn't saying anything counted as "self;" I was denying that anything genuinely counts as "self."

>You're making some weird argument about consciousness having no basis in the physical

I'm definitely not doing that at all. You're now conflating "consciousness" with "continuity of self." You don't have very clear ideas about what you're trying to discuss.

>I was talking about the *arrangement* of material for one thing,
Oh, I see, sorry.

Nope.

I haven't slept for 3 days. Fuck the guy waking up, I'm doing the most out of the time I'm me.

There's no real distinction. You're being dumb.

"Consciousness" and "continuity of self" aren't even close to the same thing.

You're an idiot if you think "consciousness" and "continuity of self" are the same. The former is a far more abstract concept while the latter has a clearer physical manifestation and that's just a basic difference. There are a lot more.

>the copy is the same as the genuine article
To a third party observer.
Are you retarded or something? The point is that you have ceased to exist. You were atomized. It's irrelevant if a 200% flawless copy has taken your place. You died.

Other way around. It's not that continuity of self traveled to the copy. It's that it was never there in the original to begin with.

^This essentially.

Christ you fucks are so silly, protip every one hates the guy that regurgitates bullshit that they don't actually believe deep down. Continuity of self exists and you're just a chucklefuck fedora Lord!

You can tell it's right in part by how ridiculously emotional anons like you get when you're forced to start thinking about it.

>I-IT EXISTS BECAUSE IT JUST DOES FUCK YOU

Ad hominem, sir, the discussion ends here.

>you're resisting the idea therefore you actually think it's true

>there was never an original
Nonsense. If that were the case there would be no pattern to copy.
I'm talking about conciousness. Once you get atomized your conciousness is terminated.

>You can tell it's right in part by how ridiculously emotional anons like you get when you're forced to start thinking about it.
That actually only both indicates:
1.) How cogent the reasoning appears.
2.) How important the issue is to a poster.

It isn't necessarily only one or the other.

Solely for the purpose of discussion, if you subscribe to the view that continuity of self is dependent on consciousness and not substance, can the argument not be made in this scenario that though the substance is changing, the individual's consciousness remains the same and so it's still the same person even though it is a duplicate in terms of substance.

The original You would die and a new one would be created. The new one would have all the memories of the past one, and wouldn't realize that it is not the original.

muh metaphysics

You're conflating "consciousness" with "continuity of self." Nobody's denying that the pattern of consciousness exists and is copied. What I'm denying is that there's some magic "you" module that's maintained from moment to moment before the copying takes place but is "missing" in the copied version. Every moment is its own version to begin with. The brain comes up with stories about the past and those stories are the basis for behaving as though "you" at age three and "you" today are the same "self."

There is not any way possible to come up with some extra "self-transportation" process that would make a copy more "you" than it already is. Destroying the original body wouldn't make it more "you." Keeping "neurotransmitters moving" wouldn't make it more "you" either. These are all ridiculous attempts to try to make an entirely abstract concept (the self) seem like a literal physical process.

Retard allert.

As long as there are memories of "you" and you choose to identify with them "you" are alive, yes, "you" are a product of your brain and nothing else, so your probablem is a "non problem", in short you're asking a "non question"

As long as your memories remain "you" exist, of course there are different layers to the ego but you get the point, the ego is a temporary phenomenon like everything else

would you enter a star trek teleport if the disintegration caused you unbearable excruciating pain but the clone made after wouldn't have any memory of it?

Doesn't this machine realize an eternal life?
You only have to scan yourself when you are healthy. After your death, they create your body based on the scan data.

"You" are entirely based in the physical integrity of your brain and it's neurotransmitters. "You", your consciousness, and the continuity all exist because your brain exists. No more brain no more you.

>he thinks consciousness has anything to do with neurons

TOP

KEKEN

Wrong. "You" is an abstract fiction, not a physical process. It has the same sort of existence numbers and language do. You're doing the equivalent of trying to find the number 5 physically as some part of the 5 fingers on your hand. It doesn't exist like that.

Your neurotransmitters aren't "you." The patterns OF your neurotransmitters aren't "you" either. Consciousness is the software to the hardware of the brain. Neither the software nor the hardware is what continuity of self is. They're totally different topics.

Just because you aren't conscious doesn't mean others can't be.

That's wrong. Move on from brain mind duality. "You" are entirely rooted in observable physical processes and in the coming decades the brain will become much less of a spoopy black box than it used to be.

sometimes I really don't feel like I'm the "yesterday's" me, or sometimes even the "this morning's" me, in the afternoon. Sometimes memories of just a couple hours ago feel so fake

>physical processes
>observable

choose one

No, you're misunderstanding. I'm not arguing for mind / brain duality. I'm saying "self" isn't a real, physical thing at all, it's an abstract fiction. You're never going to find "self" by learning more about the physical processes of the brain any more than you're going to find the number 5 inside your hand by learning more about the biology of it. You're confusing abstract fictions with physical things.

you probably need to seek out professional help user

>"self" isn't a real

keep telling yourself that

>self isn't self-evident

I don't know lad it's a rare occasion. Feels quite alienating when it happens tho. Good thing I'm usually too dumb to care or think about it :)

The self is totally rooted in a physical reality. The self can be disrupted by tampering with the physical parts that construct it. Drugs and alcohol intoxication are proof of this. Your whole worldview is pure bunk.

>I can see all the Colleges and the Libraries but where's the University?

^Literally the mistake being made here. Try reading some Gilbert Ryle and then come back. You don't understand what abstractions are yet.

You too:

Just because maths work don't mean numbers exist in physical reality either. Category mistake.

You can't see the university? Wow, I feel sorry for you.

Must feel bad not having a distinct conscious phenomenon. Oh wait I forgot, """you""" don't feel anything. Because you are a clock.

"You" is an abstract concept like numbers, not an actual thing you can look at under a microscope.

Abstract concepts can be very useful without being physical things. I get paid money to write programs in terms of abstract objects that have no real physical existence. I like money a lot too, but I wouldn't mistake money as a physical thing either. There are lots of useful abstract fictions like those.

Everything in a program has a physical reality via transistors in an on or off state in a solid state hard drive get out crazy chucklefuck.

/trek/ what are you doing here? you're supposed to be on /tv/

>The teleporters in Star Trek work by scanning you, then disintegrating you, and then (or meanwhile?) creating a being based on the scan using completely different materia elsewhere.
no, they don't
they turn matter into energy, send it where it's going, and then turn the energy back into matter

Programs aren't the same as what the machine does. A class you write isn't a thing a machine does, it's an abstract object you use to get an idea you understand in terms of the language to work on the machine through the use of a compiler that mediates between the two. If the two were simply the same thing, you wouldn't need a language to begin with.

Right. It scans the location of every subatomic particles in your body, transmits the information to another place and then makes a new you a la the food replicator

So is that information "you" or did you get dissolved into paste to prevent there from being two copies running around?

well pretty much every other sci-fi universe either does what you're describing or never goes to the trouble of denying it, so you can have your hypothetical in one of those

That is neither here nor there and is akin to saying the spoken word has no real physical existence despite their entire purpose is to vibrate your tongue in such a way to propagate certain sound waves. Everything has a physical basis including the programs you write which are stored in a very physical reality who go on to manipulate electrical impulses.

>"You" is an abstract concept like numbers

to """you""" maybe

You don't get to speak for me because you simply cannot know if I do or do not have a "soul" or at the least, additional physical traits beyond the power of our current science to detect enabling conscious action.

Also numbers are more real than particles.

>abstract objects that have no real physical existence

Honestly just think about this. If it were the case that "abstracts" had absolutely zero basis in reality you wouldn't be able to conceive of them, much less talk about them as particulars.

"physical" is a spook

point to something that doesn't exist, I'll wait.

>That is neither here nor there

It's the exact thing we're arguing about, it's very much here and there.

>akin to saying the spoken word has no real physical existence despite their entire purpose is to vibrate your tongue in such a way to propagate certain sound waves

Language has no real physical existence. Sound waves have real physical existence. It's important not to confuse the two. One is an abstract object, the other is an actual thing.

>Everything has a physical basis

There's a big difference between the abstract fiction a program is and the actual physical things a machine does. If you were to discount this as not important, you'd be stuck in a world without programming where you have to directly conduct the machine's behavior. I think you're greatly underestimating how huge a difference that world and our world with programming have between them. You can look into assembly (has a one to one mapping with the machine code, unlike with abstract languages) if you want to see how awful it would be to have to work in terms of the machine instead of in terms of abstract language constructs.

You dumb fuck, you dumb disgusting ego centered fuck, "you" IS a mental concept, of course it couldn't eist without a physical support, also please, GO AHEAD and define what a soul id, the ego is an illusion.

>You don't get to speak for me because you simply cannot know if I do or do not have a "soul"

You can't know if I can't know. That's where that particular logic train crashes.

>Honestly just think about this. If it were the case that "abstracts" had absolutely zero basis in reality

I never said abstracts have no basis in reality. I said abstract objects aren't physical objects.

You dumb fuck, you dumb disgusting ego centered fuck, "you" IS a mental concept, of course it couldn't exist without a physical support, also please, GO AHEAD and define what a soul is, the ego is an illusion.

Language has its entire basis in human biology and is completely physical in origin, and operates within the confines of the physical. Every class you instantiate in your intro to C++ class has a physical location in the computers memory. You are making a distinction where there is none.

>mental concepts aren't real

next you'll be telling me that our eyes aren't real, therefore mirrors aren't.

why u mad tho?

>You can't know if I can't know.

you got me there m8, though desu you can't know I can't now if you can't know.

No, they are an ABSTRACTION, you dumb fuck, useful, but not existent

*k* now

>abstractions don't exist

then how can they have the property of being useful?

You can pick up a rock or an apple and show it to me. You can't do the same for the concept of an adjective.

>You are making a distinction where there is none.

The distinction is a programmer can know everything about the abstract objects of his program and nothing about the physical actions a machine takes. That's the whole point of why programming languages and compilers exist. There is an actual one to one mapped thing for working with machines and it isn't programming languages like C++. It's assembly. They're not the same thing. You can't write assembly and have it work without knowing how the machine works. One works with abstract objects, the other works with the actual machine.

They are but do not EXIST, study philosophy, THEN you can debate.

Are you trying to be a parody of something? Maybe try having an argument instead.

you can show me the image of an apple, not the apple itself. Unless you're telling me that the image of the apple is all there really is to it.

>x does not exist
>x is heavy, useful, red, etc

what? How does this happen?

Define what identity is to you, go ahead, I will destroy your argument, define what "you" iss to you, what defines the identity fo a person, and I will prove to you that it is finite and bound to change and therefore prove the not existence of a soul

>what? How does this happen?

He's not being serious. He's shitposting parody arguments of ideas that offend him because he's angry he can't come up with a real argument.

>define what "you" is

I am you.

what are the qualities of a "self"?