teleportation

[chim]

what if you were in a coma for 7 years and all your cells died off and were replaced by new cells over that 7 year period which is how long it takes for all your cells to be replaced

 

is it still you?

 

Yes because braincells don't renew themselves

[Braintree]

A copy is only a copy.

[lala]

we wont ever know.

 

even if we try it, we wont actually know.

 

 

'are you still lala?'

 

'yes'

 

'how do you know or are you just acting on lala's memories and instincts'

 

'i dont know'

 

'exactly'

[Guest analogue wings]

change it so the original gets destroyed 2 days later instead of instantly

 

now which one is "still you"?

 

 

[lala]

and anyway, i thought matter cant be destroyed, only changed. so unless the particles were made back up in exactly the same way, it can never be you. copies are definately not.

 

and we'll still never know for sure due to what i just outlined in previous post.

 

 

 

edit* and id like to take this oppurtunity to remind us all how amazing it is that matter is here in the first place.

[Guest analogue wings]

start spelling definitely right and maybe we can be friends

 

wheres the ambiguity in the 2 days later scenario? the one that hasnt walked out the other end of the teleporter on mars or whatever hasnt changed at all, so is obviously still you

 

no one said anything about any matter being destroyed. you dont have to destroy any matter to un-make a person pretty good.

[lala]

start spelling definitely right and maybe we can be friends

 

wheres the ambiguity in the 2 days later scenario? the one that hasnt walked out the other end of the teleporter on mars or whatever hasnt changed at all, so is obviously still you

 

no one said anything about any matter being destroyed. you dont have to destroy any matter to un-make a person pretty good.

 

remind me a few times and maybe ill consider it.

 

 

 

its a copy if the original particles are still in place A.

 

 

 

if its matter being moved, then thats the most likely route to being 'youish'. but we can never prove it, much in the same way i can never prove you arent all just a figment of my imagination.

[Guest analogue wings]

please dont retreat into subjectivism. greenpeace and peta have enough members already.

[Dementia]

change it so the original gets destroyed 2 days later instead of instantly

 

now which one is "still you"?

 

It depends on the perspective from which the question was originally understood. The original being, asked the question, "Are you, you?" would surely remark that he was in fact himself. However, after being destroyed, how could he then testify as to whether or not he was himself? If the copy is then asked the same question, it stands to reason that yes, he would reply, "I am me." How could either the original or the replicant accept that the other was a part of himself when they are not connected in any way. Are you suggesting a sort of redundant brain-array that is shared telepathically? This should be fairly simple to grasp.

[lala]

 

 

 

do you not agree then, if the original particles are still in place A, that that one is you, and the man in place B is just a copy?

[lala]

as to telepathy, i was just looking into that, maybe we would have to come up with a new word for 99.9% you. and very interesting if a soul transfer was experienced.

 

 

[Guest analogue wings]

How could either the original or the replicant accept that the other was a part of himself when they are not connected in any way. Are you suggesting a sort of redundant brain-array that is shared telepathically? This should be fairly simple to grasp.

 

??

 

why are you refuting really bizarre claims that no one in the thread has actually made?

 

and, no, coming right of out left field like that, your last two sentences are NOT fairly simple to grasp.

[Dementia]

do you not agree then, if the original particles are still in place A, that that one is you, and the man in place B is just a copy?

 

If you are asking me, the original, "are you, you?" then yes, I am myself. The man in "place B" cannot be me as he is now subject to his own environment, as he experiences it, and can no longer draw on the set of data that are my experiences. The man in "place B" is himself.

[Guest analogue wings]

since we all agree that the copy is not me, why is "yes" winning the poll?

 

that puzzles me more than quantum entanglement right now

[lala]

do you not agree then, if the original particles are still in place A, that that one is you, and the man in place B is just a copy?

 

If you are asking me, the original, "are you, you?" then yes, I am myself. The man in "place B" cannot be me as he is now subject to his own environment, as he experiences it, and can no longer draw on the set of data that are my experiences. The man in "place B" is himself.

no, i was asking A.W.  i agree with you. my brain doesnt come up with any other conclusions.

 

 

edit* he agrees too. cool. i was getting worried then, because A.W seems clever, can spell definitlye alright, and uses words like refute.

[Blir]

what if you were in a coma for 7 years and all your cells died off and were replaced by new cells over that 7 year period which is how long it takes for all your cells to be replaced

 

is it still you?

 

Can I test it and get back to you?

[Guest boo]

change it so the original gets destroyed 2 days later instead of instantly

 

now which one is "still you"?

in that case the copy is someone else.

[Guest boo]

the only way for the copy to still be you is if original you no longer experiences anything as soon as the copy experiences something, that makes the copy a continuation of you, so he is you, rather than just a copy.

[Guest countchocula]

What if you took a shit in the teleporter and sent that? Is it still your shit on the other end?

[lala]

What if you took a shit in the teleporter and sent that? Is it still your shit on the other end?

 

 

only if you're there to hear it go plop.

[Guest analogue wings]

the only way for the copy to still be you is if original you no longer experiences anything as soon as the copy experiences something, that makes the copy a continuation of you, so he is you, rather than just a copy.

 

i put it to you that the 2 days after scenario and the instantly scenario are actually the same scenario

 

change 2 days to 2 hours - copy is not you

 

2 hours to 2 minutes - copy is not you

 

2 minutes to 2 seconds - copy is not you

 

2 seconds to 2 nanoseconds - copy is not you

 

etc.

[Guest boo]

yes, i know that's what you think and that you consider it fact.

 

so what do you think about the original me not experiencing anything as soon as the copy is created? why don't you see why i think that means it's a linear continuation of me and therefore me?

[Guest analogue wings]

yes, i know that's what you think and that you consider it fact.

 

so what do you think about the original me not experiencing anything as soon as the copy is created? why don't you see why i think that means it's a linear continuation of me and therefore me?

 

because the copy is something going on at the other end of the teleporter and not really anything to do with what is happening to me, so why even factor it in to a consideration of whether not experiencing anything anymore makes me dead?

 

in both the teleport scenarios, you have one thing ending and a new, different thing beginning

 

you seem to be saying the original scenario is more like something moves instead of ending. i'm not saying this isnt the case, i'm just saying theres no evidence for it right now. why would conciousness "move" when we accept that everything else gets obliterated?

[Guest boo]

that depends on what you think consciousness is, i suppose, like Autopilot was sayingt

[kcinsu]

it's a copy.

 

the copy would think of itself as you... but you'd be dead.

 

Jesus christ people, this issue was addressed in BSG like a month ago. Starbuck was an angel.