Transporter Death in other Sci-Fi

[Lord Zentei]

Whether they are valid in themselves or not is irrelevant. If you want to respond to an argument you need to actually go through it refuting the points. Essentially ignoring the details of the argument and presenting a counter argument which is against the overall position of the original argument is not a constructive way to debate the issue. Would you not agree? No one has actually gone through the original argument point by point to show where the disagree, they have just presented their own counter arguments to the position.

Unless their points make yours irrelevant.

Why can they not be seperate entities with the same conciousness? If conciousness is a property of the mind, and the mind is defined in terms of processing information, why cannot the same conciousness be present in two individuals?

Each Riker was aware only of himself, not the other Riker.

4.) Whilst their experiences will diverge from this point, this will not instantly make them different conciousnesses. The reason being is that a specific conciousness clearly does not require an exact pattern of matter. Otherwise our own conciousness would be changing every second. Our conciousness would in effect be dying every second. Divergence may eventually occur, but it must clearly take a fair amount of time.

Non sequitur.

What exactly is it you feel is non sequitur here?[/quote]

Your claims that "a conciousness does not require specific matter" => "identical copies are the same conciousness" is a non-sequitur.

[petesampras]

Well, holy fuck are you stupid. The brain is a physical body made up of matter. That does not mean that the mind is an actual property of the matter itself. It is a property of the organisation and patterns that matter forms and the information it can then process. This cannot, by any rational person, be interpreted to mean I am saying the mind is a mystical force independant of the physical body. A computer programs function is not a property of the matter in the computer, that doesn't mean it is mystical.

Semantical nonsense. Without a physical machine to read the information and make use of it the program may as well not exist. You can beam a program through the air to another machine, but if there's no machine to read it then it simply scatters into nothingness.

Again you are arguing against strawman like an idiot. Obviously the mind, or a program, needs to be implemented out of matter. That does not mean that the properties of the mind depend upon the properties of the matter used. Provided the matter is arranged in such a form as to process information in the correct way, the mind or program will function correctly. Replace carbon atoms in a brain with different carbon atoms in the same structure and the brain will behave identically. Therefore, the mind is not dependant on the exact matter used. Why is it so difficult for you to get a simple concept thought your thick skull?

A program that's ran on different hardware will function differently or not at all,

Utter bullshit. A program is perfectly capable of functioning identically on different hardware. Your knowledge of computing is appalling.

and hey, guess what, when you put a program onto a harddrive you change the layout of 1s and 0s on that drive in order to get that program to run. Much like how someone's personality is dependent on the layout of neurons.

Layout of neurons = patterns of matter. Which is exactly what I am saying forms the mind and conciousness. Fucking moron.

Now, come up with a quote of mine which actually supports you view I am claiming the mind is some mystical entity or concede.

I was illustrating that your claims require introducing terminology that isn't supported by existing evidence dumbass. Not saying you claimed it was a mystical entity.

Your exact statement....

'Your entire premise rests on the concept that the mind is somehow mystically independent of a physical body dumbass'

Lying piece-of-shit

Strawman. The brain's unique neural structure, and consequent functions, is a result of the arrangements of the matter in the brain. It does not depend on the exact matter used. If you replace the atoms of the brain with different atoms in the same unique neural structure you have done nothing to change the brains information processing and hence the mind. Therefore the exact atoms used are unimportant, since they don't effect the functioning of the mind in any measurable way.

I suggest you pay more attention to your own arguments before accusing someone else of strawmanning, dipshit. I never said it was dependent on specific matter, merely the configuration/structure. Replacing atoms != lobotomies.

So why in the fuck did you start arguing against me, you total and utter moron? My argument which you originally responded to said...

"1.) The mind and therefore conciousness is considered, in cognitive science, not to be an actual property of matter, but one of patterns of matter and the information processing tasks these patterns peform. "

You truly are a fucking imbecile.

[General Zod]

Again you are arguing against strawman like an idiot. Obviously the mind, or a program, needs to be implemented out of matter. That does not mean that the properties of the mind depend upon the properties of the matter used. Provided the matter is arranged in such a form as to process information in the correct way, the mind or program will function correctly. Replace carbon atoms in a brain with different carbon atoms in the same structure and the brain will behave identically. Therefore, the mind is not dependant on the exact matter used. Why is it so difficult for you to get a simple concept thought your thick skull?

Again I'm not talking about the materials it's made of, I'm talking about the physical configuration.

Utter bullshit. A program is perfectly capable of functioning identically on different hardware. Your knowledge of computing is appalling.

So a program designed for Windows will run just fine on a Mac or a Cellphone? Yeah, right.

Layout of neurons = patterns of matter. Which is exactly what I am saying forms the mind and conciousness. Fucking moron.

Then I fail to see why you're arguing that the mind is not dependent on the physical body it's contained in.

Your exact statement....

'Your entire premise rests on the concept that the mind is somehow mystically independent of a physical body dumbass'

Lying piece-of-shit

Either the mind relies on the physical body it's in to work or it doesn't. There is no in between.

So why in the fuck did you start arguing against me, you total and utter moron? My argument which you originally responded to said...

"1.) The mind and therefore conciousness is considered, in cognitive science, not to be an actual property of matter, but one of patterns of matter and the information processing tasks these patterns peform. "

You truly are a fucking imbecile.

See the bold. Explain how the fuck the patterns of matter are not in fact a property of said matter.

[Teleros]

I disagree. The story 'Moby Dick' can appear in more than one book simultaneously. The exact matter used is different, but the story is the same. It is meaningless to refer to one of the books as being 'the real mckoy' and one being a 'knock off'.

Consider the story "Moby Dick" as the information your consciousness holds, and the books as the actual consciousness. If I burn one book, the other is not affected, ergo they are not the same consciousness, although the information is.

I would make the claim that the conciousness is the same - since conciousness, like stories, is dependant on information processing and patterns of matter - it is not a property of the matter itself.

If they shared the same consciousness they'd be aware of what the other was doing, surely? Or one would duplicate the actions of the other (which would be hilarious, but hey). You're confusing "consciousness" with "information" - the latter can exist in as many clones of Picard or whoever as you want, the former is unique to every conscious individual because they don't share a hive mind. Think of the consciousness as the ego - it may (up to the moment when experiences begin to differ) be exactly the same as another one, but that does not mean it is the other one, in the same way that two identical books are not the same thing.

1.) The mind and therefore conciousness is considered, in cognitive science, not to be an actual property of matter, but one of patterns of matter and the information processing tasks these patterns peform.

In much the same way a CPU's speed is a property of its "pattern" - ie its construction, I assume you mean.

2.) If point 1. holds, then the actual matter used is irrelevant to the conciousness. It only matters that the matter is in the appropriate configurations to process information in the same way.

Assuming by "the actual matter" you mean it is the same element, say, as the original (iron is no substitute for silicon in a CPU, to use the above example).

3.) If point 2. holds, then a perfect copy of an individual must have the same conciousness.

No: a perfect copy of an individual must have a perfect copy of the copied individual's consciousness, up until the point where differences in experiences cause them to diverge (see below).

4.) Whilst their experiences will diverge from this point, this will not instantly make them different conciousnesses.

Yes it does: they were just perfect copies at the time the scan was performed. Else you have to try and justify the idea that we have some sort of latent hive mind capability or something that is shared between all our clones. This is I think what some of the others have meant by "mind mystically independent of the body", and I can see why they are arriving at this conclusion based on what has been said: reading this thread I have understood your argument as being that the minds, if identical, are linked (or even just a single one in 2+ bodies) somehow, although I doubt you mean it quite that way.

Otherwise our own conciousness would be changing every second. Our conciousness would in effect be dying every second.

Well our consciousness is changing continually as time passes whilst we're conscious (and possible unconscious), but change does not mean death - that would be like saying you "destroy" a sandwich when you take a bite from it - of course you don't, you merely change it (in this case, take a mouthful from it). Or that when I "change" this website by posting this message, I am in fact "destroying" it - new information is merely inserted into the existing website / consciousness.

Divergence may eventually occur, but it must clearly take a fair amount of time.

The consciousness will cease to be identical as soon as at least one of them absorbs new information (ie the person sees something). Given that it is occuring from that individuals' unique point of view, this will by default be different to every other clone's point of view (and thus the information they absorb). Heck it could happen as soon as the clones regain consciousness from the teleportation and think something. I suspect though that you're talking about something more noticeable to other people, which of course depends on the situation etc.

The two Rikers are different individuals at the moment of the creation of the second Riker. The two Rikers were simultaneously aware, yet seperate entities from the get go.

Exactly.

A knockoff is still a knockoff, even if it is a PERFECT duplication it's still just a knockoff and not the original.

Exactly - especially when you start going into the ethics of perfectly cloning people as they do with Star Trek teleporters. Heck even the ethics of cloning non-living objects can be a problem: what if I clone a famous painting by teleporter and sell it, but advertise the fact that it isn't the original? I doubt anyone would pay the original's price, even though it's physically identical, because we're like that.

[petesampras]

I'm going to present the original argument, which you responded to but ignored the content of, again. If you can answer the actual points made, then do so. Ignoring my argument and presenting your own argument is not answering an argument, by the way.

1.) The mind and therefore conciousness is considered, in cognitive science, not to be an actual property of matter, but one of patterns of matter and the information processing tasks these patterns peform.

Given that brains store information chemically, and thought patterns are formed by the linkages of these memories and logic, the very second stored input differs in either case, you have a different conciousness. Dipshit. Ways of thinking are not concrete, they change over time as people change. Your staunch denial of this fact is maddening.

The point you are responding to here is stating that ... "The mind and therefore conciousness is considered, in cognitive science, not to be an actual property of matter, but one of patterns of matter and the information processing tasks these patterns peform."

How is the fact that the mind changes over time and that changes in the brain cause changes in conciousness a refutation of this? Explain exactly how you think this information refutes this specific point. You are arguing against a point with completely irrelevant information. To refute a specific point, you have to refute that point, not write a bunch of stuff connected to the general topic being discussed.

2.) If point 1. holds, then the actual matter used is irrelevant to the conciousness. It only matters that the matter is in the appropriate configurations to process information in the same way.

This falls apart when you can create a copy without destroying the original. Once this fact enters the equation, any time you destroy the original, you are destroying a conciousness that in itself is physically seperate: there is no magical link connecting the two. While for a split second mid-transport (which is effectively akin to stasis) the two are identical, once the transport is over, things continue and change.
[/quote]

This point you are arguing against here is that the exact matter used is unimportant. The fact that the two copies will diverge in different environments is utterly irrelevant to this point. Conciousness not being dependant on the exact matter used has nothing to do with there being any magical link connecting the two. You are arguing against points with utterly irrelevant counter arguments.

3.) If point 2. holds, then a perfect copy of an individual must have the same conciousness.

For all of a split second, perhaps. After that, AS I POINTED OUT BEFORE BUT YOU IGNORED, things change.

This is covered in point 4.

4.) Whilst their experiences will diverge from this point, this will not instantly make them different conciousnesses. The reason being is that a specific conciousness clearly does not require an exact pattern of matter. Otherwise our own conciousness would be changing every second. Our conciousness would in effect be dying every second. Divergence may eventually occur, but it must clearly take a fair amount of time.

You're an idiot. There's no other explanation for this argument. Change someone's brain chemistry, even a bit, and they will become a slightly different person. Change it a lot, and you won't have the same person at all. Chemistry, in case you're not clear, is all about this thing called matter and specific arrangements and patterns of it.

Sure, I have never suggested otherwise. However, the fact that you change someones brain chemistry, even a bit, changes them as a person slightly does not mean they have a different conciousness. Otherwise, you have a different conciousness every single second.

The conciousness is not shared, it is specific to the two beings involved. As individual changes occur to each individual, how they react and act will change. Your argument tries to completely ignore the effects of nurture. If you had bothered actually, you know, reading my posts, you might have noticed that I've covered this already. Remember identical twins? Same DNA, different people, different conciousness for each person.

I never claimed that they won't eventually become different people due to different experiences, for fucks sake. I claimed that the small difference, immediatly after copying will not instantly make them different people. It will take months, maybe years, until they will diverge to the point where you can reasonably say they have different minds. Is it reasonable to say that you have a different mind from the mind you had yesterday?

To go back to your book and glass analogies, if you break my glass, then buy me a new one, I might not be overly concerned, since the new glass is effectively the same as the old glass, but it doesn't change the fact that you destroyed the old glass. Furthermore, that you destroyed the old glass doesn't change if you use pieces from the old glass to make the new one.

You contest that destroying one conciousness doesn't matter, so long as you replace it with one that's virtually identical. I find the very concept of destroying a conciousness in the first place reprehensible, as do most sensible people. You go further to say that when you make a replica, the replica is going to remain exactly the same, even though, in the case of this debate, we know this to be false given that we are debating what happened in the show.

Of course it won't remain exactly the same! But, then, neither would it remain exactly the same if you didn't destroy and copy it. So therefore the fact that the copy doesn't remain exactly the same is not relevant to the original verus copy argument. Both will change from the point in time when the copy was made.

And even without the show's events utterly trashing your position, there's still the simple matter of identical twins not having the same conciousness, which according to your argument, they should, since their DNA will build their brains in identical ways, assuming similar nutrition et. al.

Identical twins are not perfect copies of each other, they will have different sets of experiences and much randomness effects development. If you clone someone, that IS a perfect copy. It will diverge, but that divergence happens gradually. And if you see gradual divergence from your original conciousness as a form of death - then you must conclude that whatever constitutes your conciousness will be dead in 5-10 years from now. The key point is that the fact that divergence occurs cannot be used as an argument that the copy doesn't have the same conciousness as the original, unless you are also willing to conclude that the original, which will diverge from its present state as well, will also lose this conciousness.

[Teleros]

I claimed that the small difference, immediatly after copying will not instantly make them different people. It will take months, maybe years, until they will diverge to the point where you can reasonably say they have different minds.

I would say that they are different people, albeit maybe not noticeably different.

The key point is that the fact that divergence occurs cannot be used as an argument that the copy doesn't have the same conciousness as the original

I think this debate is just a case of misunderstanding. As I see it, pete considers "consciousness" to be the information held within the brain (including neural pathways etc), whereas most others consider that to be information or somesuch, and the consciousness to be the ego or individual mind. If so, this argument is really a matter of semantics and "what do you define consciousness as?" .

[petesampras]

Again you are arguing against strawman like an idiot. Obviously the mind, or a program, needs to be implemented out of matter. That does not mean that the properties of the mind depend upon the properties of the matter used. Provided the matter is arranged in such a form as to process information in the correct way, the mind or program will function correctly. Replace carbon atoms in a brain with different carbon atoms in the same structure and the brain will behave identically. Therefore, the mind is not dependant on the exact matter used. Why is it so difficult for you to get a simple concept thought your thick skull?

Again I'm not talking about the materials it's made of, I'm talking about the physical configuration.

Which is also, exactly what I am arguing and have been since the begining.

Utter bullshit. A program is perfectly capable of functioning identically on different hardware. Your knowledge of computing is appalling.

So a program designed for Windows will run just fine on a Mac or a Cellphone? Yeah, right.

[/quote]
This is truly stupid. I said a program is capable of functioning on different hardware, I didn't say a program could function on any fucking hardware. A program designed to work for windows will run on a variety of different pcs with different hardware. You disagree with this?
[/quote]

Layout of neurons = patterns of matter. Which is exactly what I am saying forms the mind and conciousness. Fucking moron.

Then I fail to see why you're arguing that the mind is not dependent on the physical body it's contained in.
[/quote]

I'm saying it's not dependant on the exact matter used. For fucks sake.

Your exact statement....

'Your entire premise rests on the concept that the mind is somehow mystically independent of a physical body dumbass'

Lying piece-of-shit

Either the mind relies on the physical body it's in to work or it doesn't. There is no in between.

Of course the mind relies on the physical body. It just doesn't matter the exact matter used. One carbon atom works as well as another.

So why in the fuck did you start arguing against me, you total and utter moron? My argument which you originally responded to said...

"1.) The mind and therefore conciousness is considered, in cognitive science, not to be an actual property of matter, but one of patterns of matter and the information processing tasks these patterns peform. "

You truly are a fucking imbecile.

See the bold. Explain how the fuck the patterns of matter are not in fact a property of said matter.

Sure. A bunch of carbon atoms arranged in a ring. That ring is a pattern. If you replace one of those atoms with another carbon atom, have you changed the pattern in any way? I'd say that you haven't, thus the pattern does not depend on properties of the exact matter used, but of their configuration.

[petesampras]

I claimed that the small difference, immediatly after copying will not instantly make them different people. It will take months, maybe years, until they will diverge to the point where you can reasonably say they have different minds.

I would say that they are different people, albeit maybe not noticeably different.

The key point is that the fact that divergence occurs cannot be used as an argument that the copy doesn't have the same conciousness as the original

I think this debate is just a case of misunderstanding. As I see it, pete considers "consciousness" to be the information held within the brain (including neural pathways etc),

Exactly what I would define it as.

whereas most others consider that to be information or somesuch, and the consciousness to be the ego or individual mind.

Well, I'm not sure such a thing exists. At least, what evidence is there for it. The brain is a machine processing information. I don't see what else there is?

If so, this argument is really a matter of semantics and "what do you define consciousness as?" .

Of course, that is probably the main issue here - and in any debate about these issues.

[General Zod]

Which is also, exactly what I am arguing and have been since the begining.

Then perhaps you should use more accurate terminology.

This is truly stupid. I said a program is capable of functioning on different hardware, I didn't say a program could function on any fucking hardware. A program designed to work for windows will run on a variety of different pcs with different hardware. You disagree with this?

It will not function in the same way however. If you put in a different processor you will get lessened or greater performance even if all the other hardware is the same. Hence, it will function differently (changing the specs) or not at all (trying to run a windows program on a cell phone).

Of course the mind relies on the physical body. It just doesn't matter the exact matter used. One carbon atom works as well as another.

Then why are you consistently insisting that the mind is merely a property of the brain, as if it is somehow not dependent on it?

Sure. A bunch of carbon atoms arranged in a ring. That ring is a pattern. If you replace one of those atoms with another carbon atom, have you changed the pattern in any way? I'd say that you haven't, thus the pattern does not depend on properties of the exact matter used, but of their configuration.

Yet if you add gold atoms instead of the carbon atoms, you do in fact make a slight change to the pattern. Replace enough of it with gold atoms and you make an even bigger change. So it's still dependent on the matter used. Now, take the gold atoms and lay them out in the shape of a cross inside the ring, and you get yet another pattern inside the pattern. If you replace the gold atoms with, say, iron atoms, you have the same pattern but only an imbecile would try and argue it's still the same thing. You can argue that the patterns of the ring haven't changed, but the object itself in fact has. Same thing with someone's mind and their brain makeup.

[Teleros]

Well, I'm not sure such a thing exists. At least, what evidence is there for it. The brain is a machine processing information. I don't see what else there is?

i) Yes it is a machine, but as the clones don't share the same atoms in all their brains, the brains can be said to be individual or unique.
ii) As humans, our brains use the information they receive to create a conscious mind, ie the ego or part of the brain that lets us experience reality in "real time" for want of better description (and I don't want to hear about what reality or "real time" is ).
iii) I think it is this bit that most people are thinking of when they say "consciousness", rather than your definition.

[Hotfoot]

The point you are responding to here is stating that ... "The mind and therefore conciousness is considered, in cognitive science, not to be an actual property of matter, but one of patterns of matter and the information processing tasks these patterns peform."

How is the fact that the mind changes over time and that changes in the brain cause changes in conciousness a refutation of this? Explain exactly how you think this information refutes this specific point. You are arguing against a point with completely irrelevant information. To refute a specific point, you have to refute that point, not write a bunch of stuff connected to the general topic being discussed.

Wow, you're just a gigantic retard in a human suit, aren't you? The second the transport is done, the two individuals recieve different input, store it differently, come to different conclusions, etc. More precisely, that you have physically denied one being the ability to further process information by destroying it means you have killed the original.

This point you are arguing against here is that the exact matter used is unimportant. The fact that the two copies will diverge in different environments is utterly irrelevant to this point. Conciousness not being dependant on the exact matter used has nothing to do with there being any magical link connecting the two. You are arguing against points with utterly irrelevant counter arguments.

It's not two copies, you stupid little cumstained shitrag. One is a copy and one is the original. I'm saying that your point is irrelevant because regardless if the copy is exact even with different matter, it doesn't change the fact that you're destroying the original, and in the process, killing a sentient being. You are arguing that it doesn't matter if the copy is good enough.

Sure, I have never suggested otherwise. However, the fact that you change someones brain chemistry, even a bit, changes them as a person slightly does not mean they have a different conciousness. Otherwise, you have a different conciousness every single second.

You're a fucking moron. Your conciousness changes every single second, and at best the only way we can measure it is though a rough approximation that deals with a lot of vague statements. The differences from second to second might not be huge, but they're still there, no matter how much you want to wish it were otherwise. You, however, seem to think that until there is a big enough change, there is no change, which is retarded. Which is it? Does the makeup of a brain change over time or doesn't it? ANSWER.

I never claimed that they won't eventually become different people due to different experiences, for fucks sake. I claimed that the small difference, immediatly after copying will not instantly make them different people. It will take months, maybe years, until they will diverge to the point where you can reasonably say they have different minds. Is it reasonable to say that you have a different mind from the mind you had yesterday?

Yes. It. Is. Fuck all you're a moron.

Of course it won't remain exactly the same! But, then, neither would it remain exactly the same if you didn't destroy and copy it. So therefore the fact that the copy doesn't remain exactly the same is not relevant to the original verus copy argument. Both will change from the point in time when the copy was made.

And this is the flaw in your argument. You accept that they change, but then argue that they don't. Which is it? Answer the question.

Identical twins are not perfect copies of each other, they will have different sets of experiences and much randomness effects development. If you clone someone, that IS a perfect copy. It will diverge, but that divergence happens gradually. And if you see gradual divergence from your original conciousness as a form of death - then you must conclude that whatever constitutes your conciousness will be dead in 5-10 years from now. The key point is that the fact that divergence occurs cannot be used as an argument that the copy doesn't have the same conciousness as the original, unless you are also willing to conclude that the original, which will diverge from its present state as well, will also lose this conciousness.

They are perfect as of the moment of fertilization, you stupid shit. They're just about as perfect the moment they're born. The only fucking factor here is time. You can't get it through your head that ANY period of time creates differences. You seem to think it has to take years, when that is simply not the case. You've been evading the point for several posts now, bitching and moaning and whinging and lying. Get your fucking philosophy major head out of your ass and get with the program.

[Lord Zentei]

Exactly what I would define it as.

Only that was very obviously not what was meant in the OP.

whereas most others consider that to be information or somesuch, and the consciousness to be the ego or individual mind.

Well, I'm not sure such a thing exists. At least, what evidence is there for it. The brain is a machine processing information. I don't see what else there is?

We observe two Rikers. They are different individuals. This is the evidence you require, and it has been presented repeadedly.

Had the transporter been functioning properly, it would have killed one of them -- unneccesarily, at that.

If so, this argument is really a matter of semantics and "what do you define consciousness as?" .

Of course, that is probably the main issue here - and in any debate about these issues.

No. The main issue in the OP was not this at all, even if it is an issue of your hijack.

[Teleros]

Speaking of hijacking, how about splitting this thread? The whole consciousness thing can probably go into OT or somewhere.

[petesampras]

Which is also, exactly what I am arguing and have been since the begining.

Then perhaps you should use more accurate terminology.

You will, of course, provide quotes to demonstrate my use of terminology being misleading.

This is truly stupid. I said a program is capable of functioning on different hardware, I didn't say a program could function on any fucking hardware. A program designed to work for windows will run on a variety of different pcs with different hardware. You disagree with this?

It will not function in the same way however. If you put in a different processor you will get lessened or greater performance even if all the other hardware is the same. Hence, it will function differently (changing the specs) or not at all (trying to run a windows program on a cell phone).

Run a spread sheet on a machine with an Intel chipset and on a roughly equivalent AMD chipset. They will be functionally identical, despite different hardware.

Of course the mind relies on the physical body. It just doesn't matter the exact matter used. One carbon atom works as well as another.

Then why are you consistently insisting that the mind is merely a property of the brain, as if it is somehow not dependent on it?

That isn't what I'm saying.

Sure. A bunch of carbon atoms arranged in a ring. That ring is a pattern. If you replace one of those atoms with another carbon atom, have you changed the pattern in any way? I'd say that you haven't, thus the pattern does not depend on properties of the exact matter used, but of their configuration.

Yet if you add gold atoms instead of the carbon atoms, you do in fact make a slight change to the pattern. Replace enough of it with gold atoms and you make an even bigger change. So it's still dependent on the matter used. Now, take the gold atoms and lay them out in the shape of a cross inside the ring, and you get yet another pattern inside the pattern. If you replace the gold atoms with, say, iron atoms, you have the same pattern but only an imbecile would try and argue it's still the same thing. You can argue that the patterns of the ring haven't changed, but the object itself in fact has. Same thing with someone's mind and their brain makeup.

Sure, but in the transporter argument, the same types of atoms will be used.

[Lord Zentei]

Speaking of hijacking, how about splitting this thread? The whole consciousness thing can probably go into OT or somewhere.

I really don't see the need for that. This hijack seems good only for dismissing or evading points pertenant to the real discussion, and as far as I can tell, no one but petesampras was really interested in it.

[General Zod]

You will, of course, provide quotes to demonstrate my use of terminology being misleading.

not to be an actual property of matter, but one of patterns of matter and the information processing tasks these patterns peform.

No explanation as to what distinguishes a "property" of matter from a "pattern" of matter. As the one is dependent on the other.

2.) If point 1. holds, then the actual matter used is irrelevant to the conciousness. It only matters that the matter is in the appropriate configurations to process information in the same way.

The matter used is irrelevant to the configurations? Huh?

Run a spread sheet on a machine with an Intel chipset and on a roughly equivalent AMD chipset. They will be functionally identical, despite different hardware.

And my point flies completely over your head. No big surprise there.

Sure, but in the transporter argument, the same types of atoms will be used.

Now replace "patterns" with "personalities" and "atoms" with "memories". See where I'm going with this? Or should I use words with fewer syllables?

[petesampras]

The point you are responding to here is stating that ... "The mind and therefore conciousness is considered, in cognitive science, not to be an actual property of matter, but one of patterns of matter and the information processing tasks these patterns peform."

How is the fact that the mind changes over time and that changes in the brain cause changes in conciousness a refutation of this? Explain exactly how you think this information refutes this specific point. You are arguing against a point with completely irrelevant information. To refute a specific point, you have to refute that point, not write a bunch of stuff connected to the general topic being discussed.

Wow, you're just a gigantic retard in a human suit, aren't you? The second the transport is done, the two individuals recieve different input, store it differently, come to different conclusions, etc. More precisely, that you have physically denied one being the ability to further process information by destroying it means you have killed the original.

Which has fuck all to do with "The mind and therefore conciousness is considered, in cognitive science, not to be an actual property of matter, but one of patterns of matter and the information processing tasks these patterns peform." Which is what you are responding to with that comment. I am not arguing about whether what you are saying is right or wrong, it is irelevant to the point you are responding to.

This point you are arguing against here is that the exact matter used is unimportant. The fact that the two copies will diverge in different environments is utterly irrelevant to this point. Conciousness not being dependant on the exact matter used has nothing to do with there being any magical link connecting the two. You are arguing against points with utterly irrelevant counter arguments.

It's not two copies, you stupid little cumstained shitrag. One is a copy and one is the original. I'm saying that your point is irrelevant because regardless if the copy is exact even with different matter, it doesn't change the fact that you're destroying the original, and in the process, killing a sentient being. You are arguing that it doesn't matter if the copy is good enough.

Yes, I'd agree you are killing a sentient being. However, the conciousness of that sentient being will still exist since there were two copies at the time it was destroyed. You still aren't answering the question though. Does conciousness depend on the specific matter used. Yes or No, and if yes - why do you believe that.

Sure, I have never suggested otherwise. However, the fact that you change someones brain chemistry, even a bit, changes them as a person slightly does not mean they have a different conciousness. Otherwise, you have a different conciousness every single second.

You're a fucking moron. Your conciousness changes every single second, and at best the only way we can measure it is though a rough approximation that deals with a lot of vague statements. The differences from second to second might not be huge, but they're still there, no matter how much you want to wish it were otherwise. You, however, seem to think that until there is a big enough change, there is no change, which is retarded. Which is it? Does the makeup of a brain change over time or doesn't it? ANSWER.

It changes gradually. The mind and it's specific make up, is not a binary all or nothing thing. As time goes on and you experience new things you become increasingly less the person you were. The argument that you are different person becomes more and more meaningful. Silly to try an equate differences over years with differences over seconds in some general - you are a different person concept.

I never claimed that they won't eventually become different people due to different experiences, for fucks sake. I claimed that the small difference, immediatly after copying will not instantly make them different people. It will take months, maybe years, until they will diverge to the point where you can reasonably say they have different minds. Is it reasonable to say that you have a different mind from the mind you had yesterday?

Yes. It. Is. Fuck all you're a moron.

Since you haven't given any counter reasoning, this is just a difference of opinion. Your problem is in trying to equate small changes and big changes in some catch all mind has changed. I think that is silly, it's clearly a matter of degree hence arguments drawn from such changes will be matter of degrees too.

Of course it won't remain exactly the same! But, then, neither would it remain exactly the same if you didn't destroy and copy it. So therefore the fact that the copy doesn't remain exactly the same is not relevant to the original verus copy argument. Both will change from the point in time when the copy was made.

And this is the flaw in your argument. You accept that they change, but then argue that they don't. Which is it? Answer the question.

They change gradually, and become increasingly different. In the first few seconds/minutes/hours this change is very small - hence to a very high degree they are the same minds. After months/years this is far less the case. You are trying to view differences in minds as black and white, when clearly it is fuzzy.

Identical twins are not perfect copies of each other, they will have different sets of experiences and much randomness effects development. If you clone someone, that IS a perfect copy. It will diverge, but that divergence happens gradually. And if you see gradual divergence from your original conciousness as a form of death - then you must conclude that whatever constitutes your conciousness will be dead in 5-10 years from now. The key point is that the fact that divergence occurs cannot be used as an argument that the copy doesn't have the same conciousness as the original, unless you are also willing to conclude that the original, which will diverge from its present state as well, will also lose this conciousness.

They are perfect as of the moment of fertilization, you stupid shit. They're just about as perfect the moment they're born. The only fucking factor here is time. You can't get it through your head that ANY period of time creates differences. You seem to think it has to take years, when that is simply not the case. You've been evading the point for several posts now, bitching and moaning and whinging and lying. Get your fucking philosophy major head out of your ass and get with the program.

Is does takes months or years for differences to become meaningful. You don't meet someone after a few days, unless some huge event happens to them, and think that they are a different person now - do you?

I have not being evading any points. As for your claims that I have lied - I want exact proof of this. Accuse someone of lying and you should back it up.

[petesampras]

Speaking of hijacking, how about splitting this thread? The whole consciousness thing can probably go into OT or somewhere.

I really don't see the need for that. This hijack seems good only for dismissing or evading points pertenant to the real discussion, and as far as I can tell, no one but petesampras was really interested in it.

It wasn't my intention for this to turn into a multi-page debate, I was just objecting to an assumption made in the OP - which I didn't think was reasonable.

However, I'm happy to back out of this thread and let it get back to the original topic. I'll save these discussions for a thread directly about conciousness, transporters and multiple copies if one arises.

[Teleros]

Yes, I'd agree you are killing a sentient being. However, the conciousness of that sentient being will still exist since there were two copies at the time it was destroyed.

Yes under your definition remember . If someone cloned my via teleporter right now, I would be here, but the clone me would be there.

Does conciousness depend on the specific matter used. Yes or No, and if yes - why do you believe that.

Yes to the extent that the matter must have identical properties (ie you can't swap elements etc).

It changes gradually. The mind and it's specific make up, is not a binary all or nothing thing. As time goes on and you experience new things you become increasingly less the person you were. The argument that you are different person becomes more and more meaningful. Silly to try an equate differences over years with differences over seconds in some general - you are a different person concept.

My highlights. Yes the change is gradual, so the instant the change "starts" you are different - that said, it may not be readily noticeable, which is what you're trying to say.

They change gradually, and become increasingly different. In the first few seconds/minutes/hours this change is very small - hence to a very high degree they are identical. After months/years this is far less the case.

Edited for ease of understanding .

They are perfect as of the moment of fertilization, you stupid shit. They're just about as perfect the moment they're born.

At the moment of fertilisation there isn't a brain, and by the time they're born they've been conscious enough to have had different experiences within the womb. Again, it might not be readily noticeable, but nonetheless the point stands.

[Teleros]

It wasn't my intention for this to turn into a multi-page debate, I was just objecting to an assumption made in the OP - which I didn't think was reasonable.

However, I would say that you made the mistake of applying your own definition of consciousness to the OP - which then caused this whole fuss.

[Lord Zentei]

It wasn't my intention for this to turn into a multi-page debate, I was just objecting to an assumption made in the OP - which I didn't think was reasonable.

The assumption that a person that is beamed up is killed and replaced seems quite valid given the two Rikers incident (which was the OP's point). It was in this context that the term "conciousness" was used.

However, I'm happy to back out of this thread and let it get back to the original topic. I'll save these discussions for a thread directly about conciousness, transporters and multiple copies if one arises.

As far as I can see, the best one could hope to get out of such a discussion would be definitions of terms. What conclusions would emerge from the discussion of transporters would follow axiomatically.

As in "when a tree falls and no one is around, does it make any sound?" The correct answer is "define 'sound'" -- it is either the soundwaves carried in the air or the nerve impulses registered by a listener's brain, and with that you are answered. In other words, semantics wrangling.

[Hotfoot]

You lied when you said I and others werent responding to your points, to start. It's clear that you didn't even bother reading what I wrote before you started screaming it wasn't relevant.

Whether there is change or isn't change IS binary, you stupid little sack of shit. Now you're just bitching that it's "not enough". That there is change at all makes something unique. Get that through your fucking head.

The chemicals in my head are different from the ones I had yesterday. Their orders and configurations are different. I know things now that I didn't know then. I've made decisions based on that information. My mind changes every second I exist, and that change is more pronounced the longer that period of time is.

YOU, meanwhile, hem and haw that it's "Not enough". By what standards you fucking shit? I see any change as change, while you have some magical fucking watermark that is undefinable to anyone because it's a purely objective level that only exists because you want it to.

According to your logic, small differences = same. This is not true when you look at it objectively, and moreover it's hilarious that you don't extend the same logic to identical twins.

The entire process of the Federation transporter technology simply makes it a photocopy machine that arbitrarily destroys the original because it is expedient. The only reason that people don't seem to care much is that the act of transporting puts someone in stasis so that there can't be any changes mid-transport (the implications of that are immense, just so you know). However, it's the Federation's "One is Unique, two is...less so" mentality that helps them justify the absolute annihilation of the original in the process.

You've conceeded that killing the original is an unjustifiable act. Now you just need to understand, really understand, why that is. You need to understand that change, any change, even the slightest thing, is still CHANGE. That is what is key here. You can argue that the change doesn't matter that much until more time as passed, but it doesn't alter the fact that the basis for that greater change is the lesser changes that build up to it.

I'll say it again in smaller words so you can understand:
Even a small change makes something unique.

Now in bigger ones.
Even a small change makes something unique.

Is it getting through to you yet?

[Patrick Degan]

In Blake's 7, teleport was feasible only if the teleportee was wearing a bracelet with a focussing crystal (aquitar). Before then, all of Earth's attempts to produce a working teleport had failed ("Put a live creature in, take a dead creature out. Or in some cases, no creature at all" as Avon described the failulres once). On two occasions, persons were deliberately teleported into open space, which somehow caused them to explode.

[Stark]

Didn't Moloch show that you could use the teleport tech as a replicator? Or was it unrelated and I'm imagining things?

Since I think the B7 teleporters explicitly used 'reconstruction' that's transporter death too. So they killed Servalan after all.

[Nyrath]

In Blake's 7, teleport was feasible only if the teleportee was wearing a bracelet with a focussing crystal (aquitar)...On two occasions, persons were deliberately teleported into open space, which somehow caused them to explode.

Probably because the writer had watched the movie Outland.