Occupation

[nightmare]

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?

I wasn't trying to score any point at all, I'm trying to explain facts to you.

Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: brain death
Function: noun
:final cessation of activity in the central nervous system especially as indicated by a flat electroencephalogram for a predetermined length of time

By definition, when someone recovers, he or she wasn't brain dead beause it is a permanent condition. You don't seem to understand what I'm saying here. Jesus or pixie dust is irrelevant.

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.

The point was that an original, cannot be replaced by a copy, no matter how perfect. You die, you are dead. Identical copy of you runing around? Nice, but it's not you.

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'

And here I thought I wouldn't need to bullshit around just to cover the basics. Of course it's not perfectly identical. Nothing ever is. Even you don't have perfectly identical DNA as you once had. The difference is however extremely small and irrelevant for your function. Now, that we're past that crap... here's what I see as the core of the argument.

You seem to believe that if an individual is perectly copied, it doesn't matter that the original died, because neither the copy nor people around it can discern any difference from the original.

But the original is still very much dead. It's a matter of perspective; from ther perspective of the original, it's dead. Of course, a dead person can't experience this. But it is still gone. Just because no one notices it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[NecronLord]

I wasn't trying to score any point at all, I'm trying to explain facts to you.

Merriam-Webster:

By definition, when someone recovers, he or she wasn't brain dead beause it is a permanent condition. You don't seem to understand what I'm saying here. Jesus or pixie dust is irrelevant.

Oh fuck off. The declaration of brain death can be made, and then a corpse can hypothetically spring up alive after the declaration is made. Death is by definition an irreversible state. Are you suggesting that the fictional characters Q or Jesus are unable to reverse it? You're being a grabasstic little shitstain pedant who's bitching and whinging. In reality - death is permanant. Black holes don't have cracks, and mystical energy fields really are hokum. But we're not talking about reality, we're talking about fictional universes, where death - brain or otherwise - is a reversible condition.

The point was that an original, cannot be replaced by a copy, no matter how perfect.

That's a retarded point. You saying I can't replace my CD drive with a perfect copy?

You die, you are dead. Identical copy of you runing around? Nice, but it's not you.

And the point, which you miss, is that identity is not the same as continuity. My identity, that-which-is-me, is quite easily recreated in the trekverse.

And here I thought I wouldn't need to bullshit around just to cover the basics. Of course it's not perfectly identical. Nothing ever is. Even you don't have perfectly identical DNA as you once had. The difference is however extremely small and irrelevant for your function.

*Chuckles again* Oh, that's good. I would ask you to walk up to someone with cancer and tell them that the mutability of their DNA is irrelevant to their function, but I would rather not have someone annoyed by you in that manner.

Now, that we're past that crap... here's what I see as the core of the argument.

You seem to believe that if an individual is perectly copied, it doesn't matter that the original died,

No. Why should it? Death is bad because it is the irreversible destruction of self-awareness. When that self-awareness is immediately recreated, why is it a bad thing?

because neither the copy nor people around it can discern any difference from the original.

No, it's because the person who has died has been recreated.

But the original is still very much dead. It's a matter of perspective; from ther perspective of the original, it's dead. Of course, a dead person can't experience this. But it is still gone. Just because no one notices it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Yes. The original is dead. What's bad about that death though? How is that death in any way to be avoided? Death followed by immediate ressurection cannot be called a bad process, because something equally 'good' has happened as well as the 'bad' death.

[nightmare]

Oh fuck off. The declaration of brain death can be made, and then a corpse can hypothetically spring up alive after the declaration is made. Death is by definition an irreversible state. Are you suggesting that the fictional characters Q or Jesus are unable to reverse it? You're being a grabasstic little shitstain pedant who's bitching and whinging. In reality - death is permanant. Black holes don't have cracks, and mystical energy fields really are hokum. But we're not talking about reality, we're talking about fictional universes, where death - brain or otherwise - is a reversible condition.

What I was trying to convey, was that your definition was wrong from start and you would need to rephrase the question. You don't like it, fine.

That's a retarded point. You saying I can't replace my CD drive with a perfect copy?

Sigh. No, of course the function is the same, or even better. But it's still not the original, which lies on the scrap heap or something.

And the point, which you miss, is that identity is not the same as continuity. My identity, that-which-is-me, is quite easily recreated in the trekverse.

Ah, here we finally have the crux of the matter. Your identity is easily restored, as far as your copy knows, and as far as everyone else can tell. It doesn't change the fact that the orginal you is gone, however. If you think everything's perfectly fine since no one can tell that you're actually dead, okay.

*Chuckles again* Oh, that's good. I would ask you to walk up to someone with cancer and tell them that the mutability of their DNA is irrelevant to their function, but I would rather not have someone annoyed by you in that manner.

Strawman which has no bearing on the argument. Now you are being the pedantic one, but it's not good if I am? That's usually called being a hypocrite. I'm not trying to insult you, even though that's considered nothing here... 'scoring a victory' isn't important to me.

No. Why should it? Death is bad because it is the irreversible destruction of self-awareness. When that self-awareness is immediately recreated, why is it a bad thing?

You are immediately recreated, in the eyes of the copy, and everyone else. Except the original you. Which means you are not recreated. It's really like the Trek parallell universes, where everything seems perfectly fine, except you have left your original timeline behind you, still in shambles.

No, it's because the person who has died has been recreated.

See above.

Yes. The original is dead. What's bad about that death though? How is that death in any way to be avoided? Death followed by immediate ressurection cannot be called a bad process, because something equally 'good' has happened as well as the 'bad' death.

If death was unavoidable, and you had an identical (in every manner practical) copy made of you, it may be a good thing. I wouldn't say that with certainty; it may be better to let the dead lie rather than obsess with them, and attempt to recreate them. People who do this today are generally considered mentally ill. But the situation today isn't perfectly applicable to Trek transporters, so let's leave that aside for now.

Since your friends would generally benefit from having you around, it is a good thing from their perspective that they still have a perfect copy of you. It's also a good thing in the eyes of your copy, since it is alive and well. What about the original you then? Suppose that the matter which consitutes your body isn't transferred, only the information is, and replicated onspot at the target destination while the matter which constitutes your original body is desintegrated (which, by the way, I think is how Mike Wong describes it, without double-checking).

Now, let's say you have a funky "Riker" incident, in which desintegration does not take place, but you still died from it. End result - your corpse, and your copy running around live and well. Is your corpse insignificant to you?

[nightmare]

I seem to have some problem with my quotes for the past three posts (though it fixed itself automagically, or possibly by mod). Apologies.

[NecronLord]

You are immediately recreated, in the eyes of the copy, and everyone else.

And obviously, the consenting and informed subject who has been transporterd.

Except the original you.

Unless of course, you happen to define your identity as your personality, knowledge, aspirations, etcetera, in which case it can be inherited. Which is the point.

If death was unavoidable, and you had an identical (in every manner practical) copy made of you, it may be a good thing. I wouldn't say that with certainty; it may be better to let the dead lie rather than obsess with them, and attempt to recreate them.

Again, you're missing my point, which is that a person's idenity is not just what meat medium they happen to be stored in. It is their personality. This is recreated - and equally valid - in the transporter duplicate.

Since your friends would generally benefit from having you around, it is a good thing from their perspective that they still have a perfect copy of you. It's also a good thing in the eyes of your copy, since it is alive and well. What about the original you then? Suppose that the matter which consitutes your body isn't transferred, only the information is,

Which is of course, a seperate machine. Though I see nothing morally wrong with mind transfer, either.

and replicated onspot at the target destination while the matter which constitutes your original body is desintegrated (which, by the way, I think is how Mike Wong describes it, without double-checking).

Now, let's say you have a funky "Riker" incident, in which desintegration does not take place, but you still died from it. End result - your corpse, and your copy running around live and well. Is your corpse insignificant to you?

You mean, would I be put out if the transporter left a corpse behind? No. I'd want the corpse put on ice so I could take replacement organs from it. Hell, that'd be great - it'd solve most of Trek's medical problems (broken spines and so on).

[Xess]

I see NL's point, that a person's memories and experiences make up the person, and I agree with that. That said I still can't see why anyone would go through the transporter.

I don't care if the copy is exactly like me in every way right down the memories. While the copy would continue living my/his life and think nothing was wrong, my original conscience is ended and experiences nothing again.

And I want to enjoy my life, not have a copy of me enjoy it after I was disentegrated. The convenience of a transporter isn't worth it.

[NecronLord]

I see NL's point, that a person's memories and experiences make up the person, and I agree with that. That said I still can't see why anyone would go through the transporter.

I don't care if the copy is exactly like me in every way right down the memories. While the copy would continue living my/his life and think nothing was wrong, my original conscience is ended and experiences nothing again.

And I want to enjoy my life, not have a copy of me enjoy it after I was disentegrated. The convenience of a transporter isn't worth it.

Well, in my opinion, the inhabitants of the UFP have just 'gotten beyond' such sentiment, and consider the convinience of the transporter worth the somewhat philosophically challenging discontinuity it creates. It is also my belief, that contrary to some people's claims, this is nowhere near comparable to the Galactic Empire's various mass murders.

[Solauren]

Great more transporter kill/not kill.

I would point out we've seen people alive and kicking inside transporter beams before...

Lt. Barkley and Rogar Danar come to mind.

[Xess]

Well, in my opinion, the inhabitants of the UFP have just 'gotten beyond' such sentiment, and consider the convinience of the transporter worth the somewhat philosophically challenging discontinuity it creates.

So it would seem. Good thing I don't live in the UFP then. :p

It is also my belief, that contrary to some people's claims, this is nowhere near comparable to the Galactic Empire's various mass murders.

I agree with that. If people step onto the pad willingly it's no worse than someone voluntarily shooting themselves and surviving.

If the UFP used transportes en masse to disentigrate entire species and not put them back together then it would be comparable.

[Noble Ire]

If the UFP used transportes en masse to disentigrate entire species and not put them back together then it would be comparable.

Obviously. That's like saying that if the Federtaion enacted a GO24 (lesser scale BDZ, essentially) on a planet of unoffending primatives, it would be comparable. Of course, I know of no occasion where it Starfleet did such a thing (although you could argue some applications of the prime directive are comparable; ie letting an entire species die from a astreiod impact, etc).

[Stark]

Great more transporter kill/not kill.

I would point out we've seen people alive and kicking inside transporter beams before...

Lt. Barkley and Rogar Danar come to mind.

This is irrelevant. We've also had people transported mid-action or while walking. In absolutely no way is this relevant to the complete destruction of teleported individuals. We're not all hive-mind good-of-the-many types like NecronLord.

[nightmare]

Unless of course, you happen to define your identity as your personality, knowledge, aspirations, etcetera, in which case it can be inherited. Which is the point.

It's a silly definition. Like in Darth Wong's example, suppose we make a perfect copy of you, and flash-imprint it with your memory and personality. This copy is now just as good as you, and by your definition, is you. So you shouldn't have any objections if I pull the trigger on you, while your copy may live merrily on. After all, that's what people transporting do; die willingly and let a copy do their job. It's completely irrelevant if you get killed after being duplicated, as long as the copy is perfect. What you have duplicated is your identity, not yourself. Timing of the action is irrelevant.

Even worse, if a telepath screw with your mind so that your personality is altered, you are as good as dead with this definition. Or let's say that transported matter actually degrade a little every time, just like replicators, so you don't get a perfect copy. Very close to it, but not quite. After a few thousand transports, is it there anything left of you?

Hell, by this kind of logic, Jim Jones suicide cult never commited anything wrong. After all, the members killed themselves willingly, and firmly believed in that they would be recreated and live on a distant paradise planet., and we can't disprove that it really happened. Very much like taking a transporter to Risa.

Again, you're missing my point, which is that a person's idenity is not just what meat medium they happen to be stored in. It is their personality. This is recreated - and equally valid - in the transporter duplicate.

Alright, we'll copy your mind, memories, personality, everything. Then we imprint it into a chimpanzee. After all, the medium doesn't matter, right? So we can now kill the original you off with the good feeling of knowing that you now not only can do everything you used to do before, you have been well improved in strength, climbing ability and a good deal many more things. By your logic, that should even be preferable over keeping the original you around.

Which is of course, a seperate machine. Though I see nothing morally wrong with mind transfer, either.

I suppose that you mean that the mind is a seperate entity from the body somehow. Otherwise it would be just a matter of duplicating the electrical patterns in your brain. It's true that there is precedence for that in Trek, but how do you transfer a soul? Do souls just pop into existance every time a child in concieved? Does Thomas Riker have a soul, or is he a zombie? Why should Data have any rights, since a machine hardly can have a soul? Or, for that matter, a hologram? Huge can of worms, that. I'd rather leave it aside, there's just too many problems with mind transfer concept.

You mean, would I be put out if the transporter left a corpse behind? No. I'd want the corpse put on ice so I could take replacement organs from it. Hell, that'd be great - it'd solve most of Trek's medical problems (broken spines and so on).

Problem is, you don't get a say since you're the corpse.

[NecronLord]

It's a silly definition. Like in Darth Wong's example, suppose we make a perfect copy of you, and flash-imprint it with your memory and personality. This copy is now just as good as you, and by your definition, is you.

Correct. It has my identity.

So you shouldn't have any objections if I pull the trigger on you,

False comparison. I would be rather more against the transporter if it killed the original in a potentially painful manner, and failed to preserve and transfer all their memories at the time of death - because at that point, C(a) and C(b) have diverged.

while your copy may live merrily on. After all, that's what people transporting do; die willingly and let a copy do their job. It's completely irrelevant if you get killed after being duplicated,

No it's not. Because C(a) and C(b) have diverged, therefore, C(b) is not a copy of C(a) at the time of death, as it would be in a transporter.

as long as the copy is perfect. What you have duplicated is your identity, not yourself. Timing of the action is irrelevant.

If C(b) does not contain all of C(a)'s mind at the time of death, it is not the same as the transporter process. Therefore, timing is relevant. I would have little problem, for example, with being shot a nanosecond after the copy was made. Slight annoyance at being shot a few seconds after, and serious malcontent if I was killed hours afterwards.

Even worse, if a telepath screw with your mind so that your personality is altered, you are as good as dead with this definition.

Yes. Telepathic invasion and alteration is a violation of a person. Just as much or more so than a mugging or rape.

Or let's say that transported matter actually degrade a little every time, just like replicators, so you don't get a perfect copy.

All your objections to the transporter hinge on changing how it works. I can make up object to medical care of the sick if I change how it works.

Very close to it, but not quite. After a few thousand transports, is it there anything left of you?

As I've said, I wouldn't use it for technical reasons (not trusting Federation technology). This is exactly the same. If it did work like that, I would be very reluctant to use such a device.

Hell, by this kind of logic, Jim Jones suicide cult never commited anything wrong.

There is a damn fine reason, in this country at least, that suicide is no longer a criminal offence. Efforts to kill yourself are generally seen as a symptom of mental illness, but it is no longer criminal.

After all, the members killed themselves willingly, and firmly believed in that they would be recreated and live on a distant paradise planet., and we can't disprove that it really happened.

We don't need to. We just need to point out there's no evidence of such. There is rock solid evidence (SoD) that transporters work. You don't seriously think I'd be calling it a good idea if we'd never seen anyone who was transported arrive, do you?

Very much like taking a transporter to Risa.

Alright, we'll copy your mind, memories, personality, everything. Then we imprint it into a chimpanzee. After all, the medium doesn't matter, right?

I would be annoyed if I was put in a housing that provided inferior quality of life. On the other hand, I would happily exchange my body to become (assuming I can work it) an advanced Culture Drone.

So we can now kill the original you off with the good feeling of knowing that you now not only can do everything you used to do before, you have been well improved in strength, climbing ability and a good deal many more things.

And socially crippled. Hell, I'm not sure if they can even vocalise human words. On the other hand, I wouldn't mind being uploaded into a body that was superior in all those things without drawbacks.

By your logic, that should even be preferable over keeping the original you around.

Correct. You find me a culture drone, necron lord (:lol:), genetically superior man, and the means to safely upload me into it, and I'll be very happy.

I suppose that you mean that the mind is a seperate entity from the body somehow.

With mind transfer technologies, that is a predicate, yes. It is not demonstratably true IRL.

Otherwise it would be just a matter of duplicating the electrical patterns in your brain. It's true that there is precedence for that in Trek, but how do you transfer a soul?

With a transporter.

Do souls just pop into existance every time a child in concieved? Does Thomas Riker have a soul, or is he a zombie? Why should Data have any rights, since a machine hardly can have a soul?

Do I look like the Voyager writer responsible for this can of worms?

Or, for that matter, a hologram? Huge can of worms, that. I'd rather leave it aside, there's just too many problems with mind transfer concept.

Only in the trek context. Abstracted - as I intended it - there is very little problem.

Problem is, you don't get a say since you're the corpse.

Problem is, my idenity, which is me, has been inherited by the duplicate. At the time of death, my thought patterns are preserved and put into a new body. The 'Me' still exists.

[SirNitram]

A few points I consider important to this..

The stuff about people being alive inside the Transporter is bunk. Relics proves without a doubt there is discontinuity of existance.

Lonely Among Us shows that, within Trek, souls exist in some form. This energy can be sensed by Troi, and moved by the Transporter. It is, simply put, the Sorcerer's Wand, the ultimate acheivement in sorcery: To grab the soul and move it.

[brianeyci]

The problem with the Relics example is the data degredation. That really shouldn't happen unless Federation data storage sucks. Either that or they weren't storing data, but something biodegradable, and they were in stasis like in TNG Unnatural Selection.

Realm of Fear shows Barclay grabbing someone while in transport and it was a major plot point just like Relics. Barclay grabbed someone, and the person materialized with him in the same position as we saw him being grabbed. If we say there is nothing alive in the transporter, then we throw out the whole point of Realm of Fear, that Barclay wasn't hallucinating.

I've long given up trying to explain transporters, especially Tuvix. I'm happy calling it a Sorcerer's Wand, a plot device, or whatever.

Brian

[NecronLord]

That really shouldn't happen unless Federation data storage sucks.

Trust me when I say that it canes the main memory (RAM) of any computer we have, up one side and down the other. There's no evidence that the buffers are analogous to aux storage (hard drive) or connected to anything like that. In esscence, Scotty was fully intact (deletion of Kirk-dying memory aside ) when pulled out of the RAM of the Jenolan transporter after several decades. That's pretty damn shiny.

[Kamakazie Sith]

A few points I consider important to this..

The stuff about people being alive inside the Transporter is bunk. Relics proves without a doubt there is discontinuity of existance.

Lonely Among Us shows that, within Trek, souls exist in some form. This energy can be sensed by Troi, and moved by the Transporter. It is, simply put, the Sorcerer's Wand, the ultimate acheivement in sorcery: To grab the soul and move it.

Didn't Scotty modify the transporter so it would do that? If so, then that Scotty is nothing more than a clone of the original. However, that does not mean it applies to all transporters.

[brianeyci]

I sympathize with people who think being conscious while broken down molecule by molecule is retarded. Realm of Fear doesn't make any sense. But Trek's transporter's retarded. Jeff Goldblum's transporter's more realistic than Trek's transporter in that it has a pad on the other end. There's been so many strange transporter hijinks that I don't have a problem accepting that what Barclay saw wasn't a hallucination. Not only would he have to be hallucinating, but Worf and his security team would since they went in after the other crewmen. And the crewmen were visibly fatigued, leaning on the security as they came out. Starvation maybe? Dehydration? There's obviously at least part of the transportation process that's conscious.

Brian

[nightmare]

False comparison. I would be rather more against the transporter if it killed the original in a potentially painful manner, and failed to preserve and transfer all their memories at the time of death - because at that point, C(a) and C(b) have diverged.

Fine, use a painless death method then. As for timing, see below.

No it's not. Because C(a) and C(b) have diverged, therefore, C(b) is not a copy of C(a) at the time of death, as it would be in a transporter.

If C(b) does not contain all of C(a)'s mind at the time of death, it is not the same as the transporter process. Therefore, timing is relevant. I would have little problem, for example, with being shot a nanosecond after the copy was made. Slight annoyance at being shot a few seconds after, and serious malcontent if I was killed hours afterwards.

Who said we'd make you diverge? We can put you on stasis and kill you off years after copying. You could argue that your copy now is also different from your original, but it is essentially now a better version you, with more experience. And of course, it doesn't change that you were exactly alike at the time NL2 took over your position.

Yes. Telepathic invasion and alteration is a violation of a person. Just as much or more so than a mugging or rape.

But it isn't death. You could be altered back - and even if you can't be completely reversed, so that you still have bad memories of the event, it could simply be called "experience".

All your objections to the transporter hinge on changing how it works. I can make up object to medical care of the sick if I change how it works.

I'm not trying to change what we know of how transporters work - I'm trying to enlighten by altering perspective. It was just a thought experiment.

As I've said, I wouldn't use it for technical reasons (not trusting Federation technology). This is exactly the same. If it did work like that, I would be very reluctant to use such a device.

Fair enough.

There is a damn fine reason, in this country at least, that suicide is no longer a criminal offence. Efforts to kill yourself are generally seen as a symptom of mental illness, but it is no longer criminal.

Even when we are talking organized suicide?

We don't need to. We just need to point out there's no evidence of such. There is rock solid evidence (SoD) that transporters work. You don't seriously think I'd be calling it a good idea if we'd never seen anyone who was transported arrive, do you?

I don't know what you'd call it. That's one of the reasons we're having this discussion. So you would call it a similar event if there wasn't any physical evidence present for transporters? It makes me wonder how the concept was originally sold to the general public in the UFP.

Correct. You find me a culture drone, necron lord (Laughing), genetically superior man, and the means to safely upload me into it, and I'll be very happy.

Very peculiar concept. You could be uploaded into an android like Data (or let's go with the Drone, Data has some problems), but there wouldn't be anything left of you except duplicated (or maybe just simulated) electrical patterns, and this is acceptable to you? Not very spiritual of you

With a transporter.

Remains to be proven, IMHO.

Only in the trek context. Abstracted - as I intended it - there is very little problem.

That would mean accepting the premise of 'true soul' transportation. If such a thing was possible, I may not have any objections to transporting (depending on the details involved).

[NecronLord]

Who said we'd make you diverge? We can put you on stasis and kill you off years after copying.

Something do believe that I've previously indicated doesn't disturb me whatsoever. That said, keeping the stasis'd copy around for years seems rather impractical.

But it isn't death. You could be altered back - and even if you can't be completely reversed, so that you still have bad memories of the event, it could simply be called "experience".

Yers... That's why there are crimes other than murder. Rape and assult victims undergo "experience" after all.

I'm not trying to change what we know of how transporters work - I'm trying to enlighten by altering perspective. It was just a thought experiment.

The only thing is, I really do know the implications of my view.

Even when we are talking organized suicide?

Collective delusion is still delusion. I would have no problem with cults drinking the cool aid if there was solid evidence that they really were revived in paradise.

I don't know what you'd call it. That's one of the reasons we're having this discussion. So you would call it a similar event if there wasn't any physical evidence present for transporters?

Of course. If I had no evidence that there was rematerialisation, it would seem just as hideous as Emeniar Seven's disintegration stations.

It makes me wonder how the concept was originally sold to the general public in the UFP.

I suspect it was initially used as cargo transport only, but began to be used for humans when humans started being forced to choose between true death or transport. I believe an instance of this happened in Enterprise season one, actually.

Very peculiar concept. You could be uploaded into an android like Data (or let's go with the Drone, Data has some problems), but there wouldn't be anything left of you except duplicated (or maybe just simulated) electrical patterns, and this is acceptable to you? Not very spiritual of you

Indeed not. I'm an atheist.

Remains to be proven, IMHO.

There's certainly evidence curtesy of idiot-writers, that humans in Trek have intangible spirits.

[Batman]

a copy gets to experience life in your place.. and how the hell you think that's ok is beyond me.

Then I suggest seeing your eye doctor because Necron has for some time been trying to point out the blindingly obvious.
Who gives a shit if it's technically a copy when that copy is physically identical to me, has my memories, feels like I do, and even THINKS it's me?
As far as I'm concerned I'm still me. I still have all my body parts (the ones I had before transport anyway), I have all my memories, I have all my bad habits, as far as I'm concerned live goes on. Who cares if I'm technically a copy?

[Batman]

And if anybody wonders why I replied to a post made two pages ago, that's because I'm stupid. Feel free to trash this.

[PayBack]

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.

No.. again, permanent death.. with a copy springing to life immediately afterwards.

Soul aside, an absolutely identical copy will be created, with everything that is important about them. What's the problem there?

The problem there is that most people fear the idea that they'll never experience life again. Most people would find no comfort that a double is experiencing life in their place, and their future will be nothingness.

[PayBack]

a copy gets to experience life in your place.. and how the hell you think that's ok is beyond me.

Then I suggest seeing your eye doctor because Necron has for some time been trying to point out the blindingly obvious.
Who gives a shit if it's technically a copy when that copy is physically identical to me, has my memories, feels like I do, and even THINKS it's me?
As far as I'm concerned I'm still me. I still have all my body parts (the ones I had before transport anyway), I have all my memories, I have all my bad habits, as far as I'm concerned live goes on. Who cares if I'm technically a copy?

See my reply above. Some people fear death due to their desire to experience life. If you don't about dying then fine. In fact I don't see how the copy is even relevant considering you won't even know about it, you'll be dead. Copy or no copy, you're dead and cease to experience life.

I see you say thinks like "As far as I'm concerned I'm still me" well that's bullshit because as far as you're concerned... well nothing, you can't think, you're dead, you experience nothing. As far as the COPY is concerned you're alive, but you ceased to experience anything once the copy was made.

I also thought the difference between an interruption to your consciousness, and it's complete and permanent destruction and the creation of a copy was blindingly obvious too.. I guess not.

[PayBack]

And if anybody wonders why I replied to a post made two pages ago, that's because I'm stupid. Feel free to trash this.

Ah ok.. for a second there I thought it was some kind of vendetta.