Occupation

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2006-03-06 09:05pm

I have no problems with the transporter, mostly because I have no problems viewing Star Trek as fantasy. There's gods, ghosts, demons, myths, epics, and bad poetry from Data.

I wonder if this transporter objection ever came up with TOS. The transporter isn't genocide. Go look up the United Nations defintion of genocide. The reason why genocide is so limited is because exterminating whole peoples because of their race is such a henious crime that it deserves special recognition. People are not being selected on the criteria of their race and being exterminated. Why don't Jewish activist groups object to Star Trek? Because obviously, it's not genocide

.

It might be mass murder, but nobody is being forced into a transporter. And you choose to be in Starfleet. It's closer to mass suicide.

There's also the whole idea that the "soul" exists in Star Trek. Evidence has been provided in numerous PST threads. There is even a VOY episode whose name escapes me when Chakotay's soul goes around possessing people and fighting it out with another soul.

Once the "heisenburg compensators" came in, that kind of ruined it for me. Wasn't it Roddenberry himself that said nobody ever walks around explaining how their car works? But just because a bit of technobabble comes it, or B&B says Star Trek is "good science" doesn't mean all the evidence for ghosts, souls, etc., goes away.

Brian

Noble Ire · Post by **Noble Ire** » 2006-03-06 10:04pm

Darth Wong wrote:Can any of the people dismissing the transporter=killing argument offer anything less idiotic than an Appeal to Incredulity fallacy by way of support?

I will not deny it; the method by which transportation is described as operating (ie, the "dematerialization" of an object, and reassembly elsewhere, essentially the replication of an identical lifeform from its old, dead components) invariably leads to the conclusion that the subject dies in the process.

However, I am arguing that while the respective governments of each of the major ST civilizations, especially the UFP, may be morally at fault for allowing this to occur, in virtually every observed case, transportation is implemented willingly on sapient beings. Certainly, you could argue that they have all been brainwashed by their respective socieities into not considering the prospect that each time they do so, they are dying and being cloned anew, and you would be justified. However, I personally simply do not feel this compares in the slightest to the wanton geno and xenocide commited by the Galactic Empire. The devestation of Caamas, the destruction of Alderaan, the hive-bombing of the Firrerro, the enslavement and subsequent slaughter of unnamed and unnumber species on the Outer Rim; all of these were acts of mass murder forced upon the victims, completely without moral grounding.

When a being in the ST universe steps into a transporter, they do so willingly, completedly assured that the being that emerges on the other side, barring the all to common mishap, will be indeed the same. In many ways, they get what they expect; the"clone" has all of their memories, their personality, the very structure of their bodies. For all intent and purpose, it is the same being. Now, if you believe in an immortal soul, the matter becomes far more questionable, but since the residents of the UFP at least seem to have largely abandoned such ideals, the problem never comes up.

"Genocide" it may be, but it does not compare with the Empire's legacy.

Doctor Doom · Post by **Doctor Doom** » 2006-03-06 10:39pm

However if you put it to an objective third party (not fed citizens) I suspect they'd see it as genocide

I see, so you are saying that the Federation uses transporter technology for the "systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political or ethnic group?" That's interesting. I didn't realize that the Federation had this massive conspiracy to gather every national, racial, political, and ethnic group they dislike and use them to staff their military vessels, when in reality they are killing them off. Brilliant.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-03-06 10:42pm

brianeyci wrote:Go look up the United Nations defintion of genocide.

It says:

UN Convention on Genocide wrote:The convention defines genocide as any act committed with the idea of destroying in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.

So yes, by that definition, the transporter cannot be genocide unless you believe that a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group is destroyed when it is transported. That is subject to debate, but the creation of a copy would probably be used to argue that they are not "destroyed" in a lasting sense.

The reason why genocide is so limited is because exterminating whole peoples because of their race is such a henious crime that it deserves special recognition. People are not being selected on the criteria of their race and being exterminated. Why don't Jewish activist groups object to Star Trek? Because obviously, it's not genocide

Such a retarded and fallacious argument, and you started off on the right foot too.

It might be mass murder, but nobody is being forced into a transporter. And you choose to be in Starfleet. It's closer to mass suicide.

People have been transported against their will or without their knowledge by the Federation before.

There's also the whole idea that the "soul" exists in Star Trek. Evidence has been provided in numerous PST threads. There is even a VOY episode whose name escapes me when Chakotay's soul goes around possessing people and fighting it out with another soul.

I always hated that shit, to be honest. Fucking spirit possession in a self-declared science fiction show. Urgh ...

PayBack · Post by **PayBack** » 2006-03-06 11:02pm

Just for the record I wasn't arguing that they are worse, just mentioning what they are guilty of... one shot from the DS probably killed more people than the Feds have... however I'm not sure about this comment..

"When a being in the ST universe steps into a transporter, they do so willingly, completedly assured that the being that emerges on the other side, barring the all to common mishap, will be indeed the same. In many ways, they get what they expect"

Because they don't get what they expect.. they don't get anything.. once they're disintegrated they cease to experience life. (I'm not trying to be pedantic, so I hope it's not how I'm coming across, it's just I look at it from my point of view and one of the reasons I fear death is cos of all the things I'd miss out on.. and having a clone experience them in my place is no consolation

).

Sorry, is this bordering on a hijack?

Noble Ire · Post by **Noble Ire** » 2006-03-06 11:10pm

Because they don't get what they expect.. they don't get anything.. once they're disintegrated they cease to experience life. (I'm not trying to be pedantic, so I hope it's not how I'm coming across, it's just I look at it from my point of view and one of the reasons I fear death is cos of all the things I'd miss out on.. and having a clone experience them in my place is no consolation ).

This point, all comes down to your theological beliefs, spiritual life, or worldview in general. Personally, I believe that my "soul" is not some intangible thing that hovers over my body, or cannot be defined. My "soul" is my conciousness, the compelation of all my memories and experiences, easily noted in the physical world (my brain, essentially). If I were to step into a transporter, true, my body would be annihilated, and I would die. However, in that same instant, another being, one that possess my thought patterns and memories down to the last neuron, is born. It is, in escense, me. I have gained a different (in principle) body, but my mind is intact, or at least the part of it that makes it matter.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-03-06 11:14pm

Noble Ire wrote:This point, all comes down to your theological beliefs, spiritual life, or worldview in general. Personally, I believe that my "soul" is not some intangible thing that hovers over my body, or cannot be defined. My "soul" is my conciousness, the compelation of all my memories and experiences, easily noted in the physical world (my brain, essentially). If I were to step into a transporter, true, my body would be annihilated, and I would die. However, in that same instant, another being, one that possess my thought patterns and memories down to the last neuron, is born. It is, in escense, me. I have gained a different (in principle) body, but my mind is intact, or at least the part of it that makes it matter.

So what if I produced a device that could produce a copy of you without destroying your body in the process? Now there's two of you, standing there looking at each other.

Now, suppose I send the copy on a trip to Florida, then I imprison you and point a gun at your head. Would you say "go ahead and shoot, I'm not really dead as long as my copy survives?" Or would you be rather upset at the prospect of getting shot in the head?

PayBack · Post by **PayBack** » 2006-03-06 11:21pm

Ah, well that's where we differ. The way I see it, once I step into the transporter and am disintergrated, that's the end of it for me. The end of everything. I don't experience appearing at the other end.. my copy does.. I don't carry on living my life.. my copy does.

Imagine if they copy appeared first, and walked off, then they say, ok, now we disintergrate you, wouldn't you say, "what the fuck? Fuck off!" ??

I don't see how you see yourself as gaining a different body.. because it's not only a different body, it's a different brain and thus mind too.. it's not you.. you're dead. The COPY continues experiencing life.. not you.

PayBack · Post by **PayBack** » 2006-03-06 11:21pm

Sorry I should have quoted.. I was replying to Noble Ire

Noble Ire · Post by **Noble Ire** » 2006-03-06 11:23pm

So what if I produced a device that could produce a copy of you without destroying your body in the process? Now there's two of you, standing there looking at each other.

That would be a bit awkward, and it does have some small precendent in the technology.

Now, suppose I send the copy on a trip to Florida, then I imprison you and point a gun at your head. Would you say "go ahead and shoot, I'm not really dead as long as my copy survives?" Or would you be rather upset at the prospect of getting shot in the head?

I would be rather upset, I think. The creation of the second "me" would certainly create problems, more than I can probably imagine, but if it even survives for an instant, its (in my view) "soul" is different from mine. It, me, deserves to live as much as I do, but we would be different entities.

PayBack · Post by **PayBack** » 2006-03-06 11:28pm

I think it would be easier if we completely ignore "souls" because they confuse the issue and aren't relevant. I don't think I would continue if my brain is disintergrated and the matter used to create a duplicate. If I had a soul it would be off to heaven (yeah right) regardless.. but the question is whether or not I continue to experience life.

Noble Ire · Post by **Noble Ire** » 2006-03-06 11:29pm

Imagine if they copy appeared first, and walked off, then they say, ok, now we disintergrate you, wouldn't you say, "what the fuck? Fuck off!" ??

Normally, in transport, one entity is destroyed before another is born, thus eliminating this quandry (IMO). However, in cases where such a thing did occur, I would refer you to my above post; both are different, and deserve existance.

I don't see how you see yourself as gaining a different body.. because it's not only a different body, it's a different brain and thus mind too.. it's not you.. you're dead. The COPY continues experiencing life.. not you.

As you say, we differ on that point. If my mind exists intact, even if it is made of new material, it is still mine.

PayBack · Post by **PayBack** » 2006-03-06 11:36pm

Noble Ire wrote: Normally, in transport, one entity is destroyed before another is born, thus eliminating this quandry (IMO). However, in cases where such a thing did occur, I would refer you to my above post; both are different, and deserve existance.

So you're saying when the destruction takes place has a bearing on the right to existence?

Noble Ire wrote:
As you say, we differ on that point. If my mind exists intact, even if it is made of new material, it is still mine.

I'm sorry but that makes no sense to me.. are you saying if 100 copies of your brain are made, they're all you? You experience life through all of them? I don't see how you can't understand your existence (and experience of life) ends with your destruction.. the fact a copy is made after your death doesn't bring you back to life.

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2006-03-06 11:45pm

Payback wrote:I think it would be easier if we completely ignore "souls" because they confuse the issue and aren't relevant. I don't think I would continue if my brain is disintergrated and the matter used to create a duplicate. If I had a soul it would be off to heaven (yeah right) regardless.. but the question is whether or not I continue to experience life.

Why should we ignore them? Because you don't like them? Soul is relevant, because of the Picard energy. Yes there are problems like the Riker clone, but there's also Tuvix that nobody can explain, and transporters if they worked by cloning should have a pad on the other end anyway. Remember Star Trek II? Why should the katra be exclusive to Vulcans, when the progenitors seeded life across the galaxy and Vulcans and Humans can interbreed.

The idea is that the body is a husk without a soul, and transport transfers the soul from one husk to another. Bullshit you say--but there is spirits and ghosts and souls, just dressed up in technobabble. Dr. Crusher's ghost lover ring a bell?

Darth Wong wrote:Such a retarded and fallacious argument, and you started off on the right foot too.

Yes, my Jewish angle was really fallacious, just because Jewish activist groups don't protest Star Trek doesn't mean there isn't genocide in it. But my original point about transporting not being genocide I assume everybody accepts.

People have been transported against their will or without their knowledge by the Federation before.

I can think of Gillian, and the others being special curcumstances where the ship's about to blow up and there's no choice, or they're transporting a bad guy who deserves to die like the Vidians who stole Neelix's lung. Looking at the transport phenomenon as a whole, it looks to be more mass insanity or mass suicide rather than murder. Murder in isolated cases, yes, if the soul idea is shit, but I have a hard time dismissing it when there are verifiable souls in Star Trek.

I always hated that shit, to be honest. Fucking spirit possession in a self-declared science fiction show. Urgh ...

So did I, but oh well. It's self-declared a hard science fiction show, but it's not.

Brian

Noble Ire · Post by **Noble Ire** » 2006-03-06 11:46pm

So you're saying when the destruction takes place has a bearing on the right to existence?

No. I'm saying that since both the destroyed and created being are virtually the same, they would likely both view the destruction of the former entity as a necessity for the method of convayence. In my view, only one ever really existed.

I'm sorry but that makes no sense to me.. are you saying if 100 copies of your brain are made, they're all you? You experience life through all of them? I don't see how you can't understand your existence (and experience of life) ends with your destruction.. the fact a copy is made after your death doesn't bring you back to life.

No. I am saying, quite simply, experiences make the man. If two of me were to exist, they would, simply by inhabiting different spacial areas, be different, their dissimilarities increasing from there on. I would be one of the differentiated outcomes; my mind would be intact. To me, that is vastly more important than the body. And if my mind continues to exist, my memories and feelings, so do I.

PayBack · Post by **PayBack** » 2006-03-06 11:55pm

brianeyci wrote:
Payback wrote:I think it would be easier if we completely ignore "souls" because they confuse the issue and aren't relevant. I don't think I would continue if my brain is disintergrated and the matter used to create a duplicate. If I had a soul it would be off to heaven (yeah right) regardless.. but the question is whether or not I continue to experience life.
Why should we ignore them? Because you don't like them? Soul is relevant, because of the Picard energy. Yes there are problems like the Riker clone, but there's also Tuvix that nobody can explain, and transporters if they worked by cloning should have a pad on the other end anyway. Remember Star Trek II? Why should the katra be exclusive to Vulcans, when the progenitors seeded life across the galaxy and Vulcans and Humans can interbreed.

The idea is that the body is a husk without a soul, and transport transfers the soul from one husk to another. Bullshit you say--but there is spirits and ghosts and souls, just dressed up in technobabble. Dr. Crusher's ghost lover ring a bell?

Ok yes, you're right from the in universe perspective of ST. Sorry my bad, I was looking at it from a real life perspective as IIRC they've successfully teleported electrons or something, and though getting to transporting people in my lifetime is highly improbable (if not impossible) the idea of people happily jumping in one without knowing that it won't be them coming out the other end, bothers me. As to the Soul (IRL) I think it's irrelevant as, if it exists, I'd have thought it'd go where ever it goes when you die as soon as your disintegrated, and your clone doesn't have one.

PayBack · Post by **PayBack** » 2006-03-07 12:02am

Noble Ire wrote: No. I am saying, quite simply, experiences make the man. If two of me were to exist, they would, simply by inhabiting different spacial areas, be different, their dissimilarities increasing from there on. I would be one of the differentiated outcomes; my mind would be intact. To me, that is vastly more important than the body. And if my mind continues to exist, my memories and feelings, so do I.

lol well I think we should drop this as we're going in circles.. because all I'm about to say is that your mind doesn't continue to exist.. of copy of it is made. A copy with your memories and feelings yes.. but a copy. The original you no longer experiences life.. You get in, get disintergrated (roll the credits cos your story is over). That is what Wong and I were trying to get accross with "kill you after the clone leaves bit". Not to question whch has a right to live, but to see if you fear death... because people don't understand they don't wake up on the other side.. a copy begins it's existance created from your remains.

Noble Ire · Post by **Noble Ire** » 2006-03-07 12:20am

lol well I think we should drop this as we're going in circles.. because all I'm about to say is that your mind doesn't continue to exist.. of copy of it is made. A copy with your memories and feelings yes.. but a copy. The original you no longer experiences life.. You get in, get disintergrated (roll the credits cos your story is over). That is what Wong and I were trying to get accross with "kill you after the clone leaves bit". Not to question whch has a right to live, but to see if you fear death... because people don't understand they don't wake up on the other side.. a copy begins it's existance created from your remains.

To me, the distinction is purely acedemic.

But as you say, this is going in circles. I will not say my own view is more valid than yours; it simply what I believe, as you believe yours, undoubtedly.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-03-07 01:08am

Noble Ire wrote:
lol well I think we should drop this as we're going in circles.. because all I'm about to say is that your mind doesn't continue to exist.. of copy of it is made. A copy with your memories and feelings yes.. but a copy. The original you no longer experiences life.. You get in, get disintergrated (roll the credits cos your story is over). That is what Wong and I were trying to get accross with "kill you after the clone leaves bit". Not to question whch has a right to live, but to see if you fear death... because people don't understand they don't wake up on the other side.. a copy begins it's existance created from your remains.
To me, the distinction is purely acedemic.

But as you say, this is going in circles. I will not say my own view is more valid than yours; it simply what I believe, as you believe yours, undoubtedly.

Except that in your case, you contradicted yourself earlier by admitting that the copy was a separate and distinct being from yourself, as per my scenario.

Wyrm · Post by **Wyrm** » 2006-03-07 02:07am

Darth Wong wrote:Except that in your case, you contradicted yourself earlier by admitting that the copy was a separate and distinct being from yourself, as per my scenario.

Except that in your scenario, you've deliberately introduced an asymmetry into the situation. In sending Wyrm2 off to Florida and pointing a gun to my head in an interrogation room, we've already become different. Wyrm2 now has experiences of sunning himself on the beach and oogling all the sexy swimmer babes, while I'm stuck in a small interrogation room with a gun pointing at my head. Our physical dissimilarity can be easily demonstrated, as he comes back with a tan, and I've got post-traumatic stress disorder.

Now, suppose while you were off buying the tickets to Florida, Rebecca comes along and switches our pods without your knowledge. Then, instead of sending Wyrm2 off to Florida, you send the original me off to Florida to sun myself in the presence of sexy swimmer babes, while you threaten my copy. Does the situation change? No, because Wyrm2 would respond to the question exactly in the way I would. So, it seems that whoever actually gets sent off to Florida, the result of your experiment is the same. In what sense, then, are we distinct beings?

My answer would be "don't shoot", BTW, because no matter who the copy is, there's twice as much Wyrm!

Let's take this analogy one stage further. Suppose that when you're off buying the tickets, your children sneak into the Wonglab and disintegrate either my copy or the original me. Suppose after finding out what happen, they don't remember which one they zapped. How can you tell which one was destroyed?

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-03-07 02:14am

Reminds me of a Egan novel: they have the tech to scan a brain and simulate it, and this is done by many to have 'copies' do research etc that simple programs can't do. However, since you go in under anesthetic, you don't really know afterward if you're the real one or the copy. The copy is stuck in a virtual world and has access to the 'console' to conduct its activities, and in the story most copies 'suicide' within a few hours of realising they were the disposable, pausable, superfluous copy. Imagine a transporter accident where you remain on the pad but another you is on the surface collecting rocks and shit. How would you feel, when the shimmering starts, not knowing if when it stopped you'd be 'real', still on the pad, or the 'copy' on the surface that only exists until he's found the magnesite ore, then he's beamed up and essentially destroyed? How would you feel if you called for your beam up, and the crew told you there was an accident and you never left? Wouldn't you view the beamup in this case as death, since all they want is the rocks and they've already got you up there?

Regardless of 'soul' problems, I'd never use a transporter for this kind of reason. The situation could be the way Hollywood seems to think cloning works.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2006-03-07 07:45am

PayBack wrote:Mass Murder yes...

The fact it's consensual

Making it at worst, mass-assisted-suicide

is due only to their ignorance.

Far be it people of the future to be the ones who make us look ignorant...

If they seriously considered the fact that as soon as they get disintegrated, they will be dead, and cease to experience life...

And? As a matter of fact, they experience a remarkably continous sensation throughout the process.

I can't see how they'd get in there...

Because ultimately, all of what makes you, 'you' remains on either side of the transmat. Is 'continuity of existance' so important to you that you would, for example, refuse to be transported off the deck of a burning ship?

What about post-ST-IV Spock, was he still Spock, or should they have made him go pass his exams again, as he's just a copy?

Darth Crubus wrote:The very thought that disintegrating yourself and disrupting your continuity of existence is OKAY is just plain wrong in my book.

Question. Would you also refuse Star Trek medical-stasis? Because that also causes you to stop existing to all intents and purpouses, and makes you start existing again somewhere else. Do you really think 'continuity of existance' matters? It's approaching sophistry 'am I really still me.' What makes you, you? Unless you think it's some kind of soul that won't be transported, why won't the copy also be 'you?'

Further, even the bits that do suggest a soul, suggest that it is transported.

Again, for all of you, if a patient suffers brain death, and is then revived by some means, should they be dispossessed of all their property? After all, their continuity of existance has been interrupted, and therefore, the new person is not the same as the old one?

Why is 'continuity of existance' important, when a totally accurate facisimile is created?

What's more, as the transporter reassembles the same material in a different place, in the same configuration, it is still the same matter, in the same configuration. What there is, is a brief loss of concious perception. Just like you have every night when you go into non-REM sleep. Your continuity of existance is interrrupted every night. Do you wake up a different person? The transportee still exists, enroute, but is not concious. In otherwords, the transportee has become unconcious during the process and will (unless transported while unconcious) regain conciousness when he is reassembled.

Yes, reassembled. It uses the same atoms, remember.

The transporter process works like this:

The subject is locked onto.
The subject is disintegrated
The subject is then moved, while in a disintegrated state.
The subject is reintegrated exactly as he was before, but in a different location.

While there is a discontinuity perceived by the subject's mind, as it experiences nothing as it is atomised, this discontinuity is no different than a period of unconciousness.

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2006-03-07 12:18pm

Noble Ire wrote:When a being in the ST universe steps into a transporter, they do so willingly, completedly assured that the being that emerges on the other side, barring the all to common mishap, will be indeed the same. In many ways, they get what they expect; the"clone" has all of their memories, their personality, the very structure of their bodies. For all intent and purpose, it is the same being. Now, if you believe in an immortal soul, the matter becomes far more questionable, but since the residents of the UFP at least seem to have largely abandoned such ideals, the problem never comes up.

Despite the operating principles of the Transporter being explained, we(the viewers) have had people demonstarted being conscious during a transport.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-03-07 12:51pm

Wyrm wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Except that in your case, you contradicted yourself earlier by admitting that the copy was a separate and distinct being from yourself, as per my scenario.
Except that in your scenario, you've deliberately introduced an asymmetry into the situation. In sending Wyrm2 off to Florida and pointing a gun to my head in an interrogation room, we've already become different.

Totally irrelevant. Even if the two of you were kept together and subjected to the same experiences, you would still be distinct individuals.

ggs wrote:Despite the operating principles of the Transporter being explained, we(the viewers) have had people demonstarted being conscious during a transport.

No, you have people who perceived that they conscious during the transport. Remember: it is impossible by definition to perceive a discontinuity in your own consciousness.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2006-03-07 12:53pm

I don't see how being transported in inherently more disturbing than say, the Culture's general policy of mindstate-backup for reincarnation. It is of course, a literal reincarnation, as your soul, (which stupidly, exists) is reborn in the reassembled body.