Occupation

SWvST: the subject of the main site.

Moderator: Vympel

Post Reply
User avatar
PayBack
Padawan Learner
Posts: 473
Joined: 2005-10-19 10:28pm
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Post by PayBack »

NecronLord wrote: If, for example, I could take a cyanide pill, go through a goa'uld sarcophagus, and wake up significantly richer, I'd do it.
Oh my fucking god... it's because in the transporter scenario YOU DON'T FUCKING WAKE UP!!!

I think this board gets carried away with flaming people, but for fucks sake this is frustrating... how the hell is it so hard to understand you don't ever fucking wake up? SOMEONE ELSE WAKES UP! Someone else lives your life.. they only think they've woken up because they have your memories.. you die.. you never ever ever wake up, ever, period.
Image
User avatar
Darth Servo
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 8805
Joined: 2002-10-10 06:12pm
Location: Satellite of Love

Post by Darth Servo »

NecronLord wrote:So what? Why shouldn't I consent to making an exact copy of me?
Its not the copying that people are objecting to. Its the sacrificing yourself to do it.
If, for example, I could take a cyanide pill, go through a goa'uld sarcophagus, and wake up significantly richer, I'd do it. It may not be me, but it contains an exact copy of the entity-that-is-me, so why is a death something to be concerned about? C(b) will pick up C(a)'s life exactly where C(a) left off, and it will be, in every detail, identical to C(a). C(b) is C(a) born anew. It is not C(a), but it is indistinguishable from C(a), even to itself, so what's the problem? It's not like being transported induces personality change or loss of memory.
The problem is you are NOT C(b). You are C(a) which has ceased to exist.
You keep going on about 'it is not you' but I'm not seeing why that actually matters in the slightest.
Suppose you had an identical twin. Suppose you win the lottery tomorrow. Suppose said twin says "give me the money because after all, I am a copy of you". Do you do it?
Death is fearsome because it is the end but when your mind is preserved at the moment of death, and given another chance, death is no longer a scary concept to me. It may as well not be death, because an instance of me would continue anyway.
Except your mind is NOT preserved in this case. A COPY of it is. That copy is NOT the same being as the original anymore than an identical twin is.
"everytime a person is born the Earth weighs just a little more."--DMJ on StarTrek.com
"You see now you are using your thinking and that is not a good thing!" DMJay on StarTrek.com

"Watching Sarli argue with Vympel, Stas, Schatten and the others is as bizarre as the idea of the 40-year-old Virgin telling Hugh Hefner that Hef knows nothing about pussy, and that he is the expert."--Elfdart
User avatar
Noble Ire
The Arbiter
Posts: 5938
Joined: 2005-04-30 12:03am
Location: Beyond the Outer Rim

Post by Noble Ire »

PayBack wrote:
NecronLord wrote: If, for example, I could take a cyanide pill, go through a goa'uld sarcophagus, and wake up significantly richer, I'd do it.
Oh my fucking god... it's because in the transporter scenario YOU DON'T FUCKING WAKE UP!!!

I think this board gets carried away with flaming people, but for fucks sake this is frustrating... how the hell is it so hard to understand you don't ever fucking wake up? SOMEONE ELSE WAKES UP! Someone else lives your life.. they only think they've woken up because they have your memories.. you die.. you never ever ever wake up, ever, period.
So, I'm assuming, since you've screamed this line at least half a dozen times, no of the arguements against you are are going to convince you otherwise? Fine; to me, this part of the debate comes down to what a person views as "self". I think of self as a person who has exactly the same brain as I, down to the last insignifcant memory. Such a being is produced from a transporter, from the components of the old. Thus, I continue living. You seem to have some different defininition. Fine.
The Rift
Stanislav Petrov- The man who saved the world
Hugh Thompson Jr.- A True American Hero
"In the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." - President Barack Obama
"May fortune favor you, for your goals are the goals of the world." - Ancient Chall valediction
User avatar
PayBack
Padawan Learner
Posts: 473
Joined: 2005-10-19 10:28pm
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Post by PayBack »

Noble Ire wrote:
PayBack wrote:
NecronLord wrote: If, for example, I could take a cyanide pill, go through a goa'uld sarcophagus, and wake up significantly richer, I'd do it.
Oh my fucking god... it's because in the transporter scenario YOU DON'T FUCKING WAKE UP!!!

I think this board gets carried away with flaming people, but for fucks sake this is frustrating... how the hell is it so hard to understand you don't ever fucking wake up? SOMEONE ELSE WAKES UP! Someone else lives your life.. they only think they've woken up because they have your memories.. you die.. you never ever ever wake up, ever, period.
So, I'm assuming, since you've screamed this line at least half a dozen times, no of the arguments against you are are going to convince you otherwise? Fine; to me, this part of the debate comes down to what a person views as "self". I think of self as a person who has exactly the same brain as I, down to the last insignifcant memory. Such a being is produced from a transporter, from the components of the old. Thus, I continue living. You seem to have some different defininition. Fine.
No, it's because none of the arguments against me make sense. You seem to think some magical force survives and wakes up at the other end. You don't seem to realise everything goes black when you're destroyed and that's the end of it.

I keep screaming the same things a half dozen times because if you actually comprehended what I meant you'd agree :P (ok that last bit is a bit tongue in cheek.. but only a little... I honestly think it's more an inability for you to understand, or my inability to communicate, rather than a difference of definitions).
Image
User avatar
Noble Ire
The Arbiter
Posts: 5938
Joined: 2005-04-30 12:03am
Location: Beyond the Outer Rim

Post by Noble Ire »

No, it's because none of the arguments against me make sense. You seem to think some magical force survives and wakes up at the other end. You don't seem to realise everything goes black when you're destroyed and that's the end of it.

I keep screaming the same things a half dozen times because if you actually comprehended what I meant you'd agree (ok that last bit is a bit tongue in cheek.. but only a little... I honestly think it's more an inability for you to understand, or my inability to communicate, rather than a difference of definitions).
I honestly do not know what clear way I can explain my viewpoint. I understand what you are saying: if I were to step into a transporter, my every atom would be ripped away and shot away, killing me instantly...


...oh, shit. Wait. Yeah, my point kinda falls flat when I actually try to imagine it. Damn, conceeded.

I still don't think transporters are as bad as Imperial genocide, though. :P
The Rift
Stanislav Petrov- The man who saved the world
Hugh Thompson Jr.- A True American Hero
"In the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." - President Barack Obama
"May fortune favor you, for your goals are the goals of the world." - Ancient Chall valediction
User avatar
PayBack
Padawan Learner
Posts: 473
Joined: 2005-10-19 10:28pm
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Post by PayBack »

lol why am I not convinced by your concession? :D

No... and I'm sure if you read back you'll see I agreed with that.
Image
User avatar
brianeyci
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 9815
Joined: 2004-09-26 05:36pm
Location: Toronto, Ontario

Post by brianeyci »

Why not Payback, because you're still going on with this transporters = genocide point that I debunked a few pages ago?

Transporters at their worst are murder in isolated cases, mass insanity or mass suicide at their best. If you choose not to look at it at all but just as a magical plot device that gets people places, then they're not immoral at all. But they're definitely not genocide.

Brian
User avatar
Stark
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 36169
Joined: 2002-07-03 09:56pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Post by Stark »

I don't think NL is disagreeing with anyone. He agrees that a transporter results in the death of the original. He has somehow rationalised this, however, in that he doesn't mind so long as some fascimile continues to exist. I'm not even sure he'd argue continuity of experience, since he freely admits the orginal is destroyed. Thus, he seems to be merely saying he doesn't mind, not that it isn't irrevocable destruction.

Oh and Payback, sorry bout the misunderstanding before.

I see transporters as odious simply because of their ubiquity: I would never use one myself, but the Federation doesn't 'lose' people, it simply destroys versions in inconvienient places. That's pretty bad.
User avatar
PayBack
Padawan Learner
Posts: 473
Joined: 2005-10-19 10:28pm
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Post by PayBack »

brianeyci wrote:Why not Payback, because you're still going on with this transporters = genocide point that I debunked a few pages ago?

Transporters at their worst are murder in isolated cases, mass insanity or mass suicide at their best. If you choose not to look at it at all but just as a magical plot device that gets people places, then they're not immoral at all. But they're definitely not genocide.

Brian
No. I haven't made that point since then.. If you actually read my posts you'll see my hang up was always with transportation = end of experience of life. Yes it should have been Transporters = mass murder, not genocide.. but that detail didn't really concern me in the slightest. Nice try though :P
Image
User avatar
PayBack
Padawan Learner
Posts: 473
Joined: 2005-10-19 10:28pm
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Post by PayBack »

Oh and brianeyci... the reason I wasn't convinced was it came out of nowhere and seemed too easy.

Stark.. no problem, it happens.

I only go so worked up about the whole thing because I've had the argument before, face to face with people, and it's bloody frustrating they don't see what seems obvious to me... the reason I registered here (apart from being a huge SW fan) was because I saw posts from ppl who understood, and that was quite refreshing.
Image
User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 27384
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Post by NecronLord »

PayBack wrote:Oh my fucking god... it's because in the transporter scenario YOU DON'T FUCKING WAKE UP!!!
You don't 'fucking' wake up from the sarcophagus. It makes a copy with your memories out of your corpse. Exactly what the transporter does.
I think this board gets carried away with flaming people, but for fucks sake this is frustrating... how the hell is it so hard to understand you don't ever fucking wake up? SOMEONE ELSE WAKES UP! Someone else lives your life.. they only think they've woken up because they have your memories.. you die.. you never ever ever wake up, ever, period.
So what? It's Captain Picard/My/Spock/Redshirt's life, if they want to sacrifice it to create a copy of them in a more convinient location, what's your problem with that? The copy is just as 'good' as they were, and contains their mind in exacting detail.
No, it's because none of the arguments against me make sense. You seem to think some magical force survives and wakes up at the other end.
As a matter of fact it does. There is empirical evidence for there being souls in Star Trek, and these are transferred by the transporter apparatus.
You don't seem to realise everything goes black when you're destroyed and that's the end of it.
So? An exact copy is made. It then gets to live in your place.
I keep screaming the same things a half dozen times because if you actually comprehended what I meant you'd agree :P
No, I, certainly, comprehend what you're saying in exact detail, but honestly, as long as a perfect recreation of me exists, all that is me, my mind, still exists. It may not be the same iteration as me, but it is an exact recreation, it is exactly as though I had stepped out of a space-fold onto the transporter pad.
(ok that last bit is a bit tongue in cheek.. but only a little... I honestly think it's more an inability for you to understand, or my inability to communicate, rather than a difference of definitions).
No. We consider the self, to be the mind, its memories, etc. As long as that is preserved, the self keeps running.
Last edited by NecronLord on 2006-03-09 07:25am, edited 1 time in total.
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth
User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 27384
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Post by NecronLord »

Stark wrote:I don't think NL is disagreeing with anyone. He agrees that a transporter results in the death of the original. He has somehow rationalised this, however, in that he doesn't mind so long as some fascimile continues to exist. I'm not even sure he'd argue continuity of experience, since he freely admits the orginal is destroyed. Thus, he seems to be merely saying he doesn't mind, not that it isn't irrevocable destruction.
Quite. It is Captain Picard's body. He clearly defines his self (mystical soul bullshit aside) as the sum of his experiences. As long as an exact facsimile of him is created, what's he got to fear from death? It's like Culture Warships fearlessly going into battle when they know that their mindstates will be ressurected in a new ship if they die. Further, as it is Captain Picard's existance, he is the one who should be allowed to decide what happens to it. He is obviously (as I am) quite unconcerned that a copy of him gets to live - he considers that copy, as it is everything he is, to be his successor, and is evidently comfortable with that - because that copy will have everything that makes him Captain Picard.

Coming at this from another direction, death is bad, ∴ creating life is good. If one kills Captain Picard, that is bad. If one creates Captain Picard, that is good. As the Captain Picard you have created is indistinguishable from the one you have killed, the good in creating him balances it.

When the Grand Admiral Pitta kills people, he abducts them from their homes and cuts them open, sans anastetics in massive numbers. He does nothing to offset this bad, except cackle with glee and scream 'how about that alien scum.'
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth
Vyraeth
Padawan Learner
Posts: 155
Joined: 2005-06-23 01:34am

Post by Vyraeth »

Why doesn't anyone view transporting as a conversion? I.E. Your body is de-materialized, but your mind is converted into energy and transferred across a long distance -- a new body (exactly the same as your old is constructed), and your mind is re-translated and inserted into the new body.

In effect, there is no copy of your mind, it's a translation of your brain into a signal that's re-translated and ransferred to a new body and brain on the other side.

In that case, you only lose your body (and you get a completely identical one on the other side).

Some of you will no doubt bring up Will Riker, or Captain Kirk, as they both had transporter incidents, but these are easily explained by simply stating that transporters (for whatever reason) keep imprints of people's minds and body structure, and some malfunction caused the transporter to reproduce this exact copy.

Now of course, I could grossly misunderstand how the writers of Star Trek have said transporters work, but to my own defense, I did some digging through google.com and I couldn't find a single explanation of their technical process. If there is one, I'll take my flaming like a man.

At any extent, I believe this resolves the entire "dispute" (put in quotations for a reason), as there is no copying process involved. Your mind is converted from matter to energy and re-converted back to matter.
User avatar
Stark
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 36169
Joined: 2002-07-03 09:56pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Post by Stark »

You don't seem to understand. If your body is 'converted to energy', that's death. The same thing happens when your body is struck by antimatter, after all. The screen goes black and you know no more. NL doesn't have a problem with this, since an identical copy is created... I, however, would not deliberately compass my own destruction, regardless of the army of clones you could build.
User avatar
brianeyci
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 9815
Joined: 2004-09-26 05:36pm
Location: Toronto, Ontario

Post by brianeyci »

Ah, the good old energy being brainbug.

Oh well, at least it's not just a Trek phenomenon. B5 had mankind evolving into an energy being, and TOS too. I don't like it because it seems to suggest mankind has some kind of manifest destiny--it's humancentric, and in a galaxy full of alien beings like in science fiction, humans shouldn't be special. Not to mention it suggests association between the colloquial meaning of evolution to heading towards a goal, and evolution in science :wanker:.

Brian
User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 27384
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Post by NecronLord »

B5 is easily excusable, given that it not only happened to the other races too, but the first set of glowy beings had been working towards that goal all along.
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth
User avatar
PayBack
Padawan Learner
Posts: 473
Joined: 2005-10-19 10:28pm
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Post by PayBack »

NecronLord wrote:
PayBack wrote:Oh my fucking god... it's because in the transporter scenario YOU DON'T FUCKING WAKE UP!!!
You don't 'fucking' wake up from the sarcophagus. It makes a copy with your memories out of your corpse. Exactly what the transporter does.
I think this board gets carried away with flaming people, but for fucks sake this is frustrating... how the hell is it so hard to understand you don't ever fucking wake up? SOMEONE ELSE WAKES UP! Someone else lives your life.. they only think they've woken up because they have your memories.. you die.. you never ever ever wake up, ever, period.
So what? It's Captain Picard/My/Spock/Redshirt's life, if they want to sacrifice it to create a copy of them in a more convinient location, what's your problem with that? The copy is just as 'good' as they were, and contains their mind in exacting detail.
No, it's because none of the arguments against me make sense. You seem to think some magical force survives and wakes up at the other end.
As a matter of fact it does. There is empirical evidence for there being souls in Star Trek, and these are transferred by the transporter apparatus.
You don't seem to realise everything goes black when you're destroyed and that's the end of it.
So? An exact copy is made. It then gets to live in your place.
I keep screaming the same things a half dozen times because if you actually comprehended what I meant you'd agree :P
No, I, certainly, comprehend what you're saying in exact detail, but honestly, as long as a perfect recreation of me exists, all that is me, my mind, still exists. It may not be the same iteration as me, but it is an exact recreation, it is exactly as though I had stepped out of a space-fold onto the transporter pad.
(ok that last bit is a bit tongue in cheek.. but only a little... I honestly think it's more an inability for you to understand, or my inability to communicate, rather than a difference of definitions).
No. We consider the self, to be the mind, its memories, etc. As long as that is preserved, the self keeps running.
Ok fine that leaves me with two questions. You say it's their life.. so question one is.. do you think they've overcome the fear of death. and if they truly understood that they never experience life again once they're dematerialised, they'd get in? Or do you think they haven't truly thought it through?
And two, would you get in?

As an aside here, I will admit I don't tend to argue this keeping in mind the trek soul transfer bit.. if there was a definitive "thing" that made me, me and this thing was not destroyed but carried over to the copy, I wouldn't have such a problem with it.
Image
User avatar
PayBack
Padawan Learner
Posts: 473
Joined: 2005-10-19 10:28pm
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Post by PayBack »

EDIT.. and by the way, I mentioned the never waking up bit in relation to waking up in the sarcophagus, as that is what NL was using as a comparision.. not waking up was my whole point.

However, I'm not 100% certain it makes a copy with your memories out of your corpse. Exactly what the transporter does. Where does this come from? Wouldn't it just heal the brain and thus restore your memories that way??
Image
User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 27384
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Post by NecronLord »

PayBack wrote:Ok fine that leaves me with two questions. You say it's their life.. so question one is.. do you think they've overcome the fear of death.
Temporary death, in the transporter? Yes.
and if they truly understood that they never experience life again once they're dematerialised, they'd get in?
Soul aside, an absolutely idenitcal copy will be created, with everything that is important about them. What's the problem there?
Or do you think they haven't truly thought it through?
And two, would you get in?
Not without good reason. But that's because I don't trust their technology to do it right. I'd be much more willing to put my faith in say, dalek transmat technology, or a stargate.
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth
User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 27384
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Post by NecronLord »

PayBack wrote:Where does this come from? Wouldn't it just heal the brain and thus restore your memories that way??
Yes. It makes a new functioning body out of a dead corpse, just like a transporter, and sets it going again. The transporter is just much more invasive (though it has less side effects)
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth
User avatar
brianeyci
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 9815
Joined: 2004-09-26 05:36pm
Location: Toronto, Ontario

Post by brianeyci »

NecronLord wrote:B5 is easily excusable, given that it not only happened to the other races too, but the first set of glowy beings had been working towards that goal all along.
Well if you dig hard enough you could find an excuse for Trek with the Progenitors. Excuse being the keyword, since evolution doesn't have anything to do with achieving an ultimate goal and they depict it as such.

I don't like the idea of humans becoming Vorlons in B5. Let's leave it at that :P.

Brian
User avatar
nightmare
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1539
Joined: 2002-07-26 11:07am
Location: Here. Sometimes there.

Post by nightmare »

NecronLord wrote: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?
Brain death is a permanent condition, NL. If someone is revived, it wasn't brain death.
NecronLord wrote:Why is 'continuity of existance' important, when a totally accurate facisimile is created?
Why is the original Star Wars films worth a fortune, when I have a perfectly good copy nowhere near the value? Because it's not the same. If the Mona Lisa is destroyed, her image will still live on in a vast number of legitimate copies varying from painted to electronic. But they don't have anywhere near the original value. There's only one, unique, you, and you cannot be replaced, by anything, anywhere, anytime. Why is this so hard to understand?

I'll try to explain the value of continuity of existance some more. On the average, every cell in your body is replaced every seven years, faster when you are a kid. The you who now exists is not the same person as you when you where, say, 5. In fact, the two of you have almost nothing in common besides identical DNA. Nonetheless both are you. Not the same you, but still you, while your identical twin is not you. Simple physical facts, easy to understand. Part of the water in your body was probably once part of say, Caesar. Does that mean that Ceasar still lives in you? Of course not. By your previous definition of interrupted continuity regarding Trek medical stasis, I would die every time I go to sleep, which is patently absurd.
Star Trek vs. Star Wars, Extralife style.
User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 27384
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Post by NecronLord »

nightmare wrote:Brain death is a permanent condition, NL. If someone is revived, it wasn't brain death.
'some means' = 'Q's Pixie Dust.' Next.
Why is the original Star Wars films worth a fortune, when I have a perfectly good copy nowhere near the value? Because it's not the same. If the Mona Lisa is destroyed, her image will still live on in a vast number of legitimate copies varying from painted to electronic. But they don't have anywhere near the original value. There's only one, unique, you, and you cannot be replaced, by anything, anywhere, anytime. Why is this so hard to understand?
Original versions of art are considered more valuable than prints because they are irreplaceable. They are valuable because they are the version the artist created, or have collector's value, in the case of the film reel.

With the transporter technology, a person is not irreplaceable. There is no difference whatsoever between the first iteration of them and a post-transporter version. This leaves sentiment (as it already is with some forms of art) as the only reason for added value of an original. If a replicator was used to make three identical Mona Lisas, and they were jumbled up with the original, would the original become any less of a 'masterpiece?'

In much the same way, when a transporter creates an exact copy of a human's mind, (and invests it with their 'spirit'), does it not have their identity in full? Is the Picard that steps off a transporter pad any less Picard than the one that was beamed up?
I'll try to explain the value of continuity of existance some more.
This should be good.
On the average, every cell in your body is replaced every seven years, faster when you are a kid. The you who now exists is not the same person as you when you where, say, 5. In fact, the two of you have almost nothing in common besides identical DNA.
*Chuckles* Would you like me to explain what your foolish little mistake (actually, there's a few, but anyway) is there, or can you find it from re-reading?

And FYI, there is very little cell replacement in the brain after it reaches maturity. Cell replacement happens at radically different rates in different tissues. The lining of the small intestine, for example, being among the fastest, wheras, without
Nonetheless both are you. Not the same you, but still you, while your identical twin is not you. Simple physical facts,
Which I evidently know better than you do, but go on.
easy to understand. Part of the water in your body was probably once part of say, Caesar. Does that mean that Ceasar still lives in you? Of course not. By your previous definition of interrupted continuity regarding Trek medical stasis, I would die every time I go to sleep, which is patently absurd.
Last edited by NecronLord on 2006-03-10 01:37pm, edited 1 time in total.
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth
User avatar
nightmare
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1539
Joined: 2002-07-26 11:07am
Location: Here. Sometimes there.

Post by nightmare »

NecronLord wrote:'some means' = 'Q's Pixie Dust.' Next.
What are you talking about? Brain death is defined as a permanent condition. You can have near-death experiences, but that's not the same thing. Brain death, you are dead, end of story. You do know what 'definition' means, right?
NecronLord wrote:Original versions of art are considered more valuable than prints because they are irreplaceable.
NecronLord wrote:With the transporter technology, a person is not irreplaceable.
With computer technology, art is also not irreplaceable. I have several games on my computer, 100% as functional as the original, and indistinugisheable from them.
NecronLord wrote:
*Chuckles* Would you like me to explain what your foolish little mistake (actually, there's a few, but anyway) is there, or can you find it from re-reading?[/quote]

Please do, since as far as I know, I'm 100% correct and verifiably so.
Star Trek vs. Star Wars, Extralife style.
User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 27384
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Post by NecronLord »

nightmare wrote:What are you talking about? Brain death is defined as a permanent condition.
The objective of defining 'brain death' is 'irreversible loss' there are however, medical criteria that medicine uses to define when this occurs usually EEG, blood flow or clinical testing - hypothetical clarketech blows that out of the water. Shall we stick with 'Jesus did it' and be happy, or will you keep on trying to store a tangenital point on this?
With computer technology, art is also not irreplaceable.
The original is not dupilcated in full. If computer technology thus far allowed the recreation of the original down to the cracks in the paint and each atom, you'd have a point - with federation computer technology (replicators) the original can indeed be duplicated in full.
I have several games on my computer, 100% as functional as the original, and indistinugisheable from them.
And you'll note that increased value of a first edition of a computer game or some such is purely sentimental, it cannot be defined.
Please do, since as far as I know, I'm 100% correct and verifiably so.
First off, you don't have 'the same DNA' - when a cell divides by mitosis, its DNA is divided equally (ideally) between both daughter cells and made up to double helixes again after the fact. Sure it contains most of the same data, but you'd better get ready to start biting bullets if you count that as 'identical' to the past self.
Second, DNA is not replicated perfectly, at all. Aside from mutations, look up telemores. Every division essentially causes bits at the end of the chromosomes to 'disappear'
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth
Post Reply