Would you use a teleporter?

[AW111]

The animal turned inside out.

And then it exploded.

[SpudLink]

AW111 said:

The animalpig lizard turned inside out.

And then it exploded.

Fixed that for you.

[SpudLink]

mac96 said:

PositronicRay said:

I probably would, but as I'm not an early adopter and a bit risk avrese unlikely.

Surely this is the right answer. If teleportation were invented tomorrow, I suspect there would be few takers next week, but if it were established technology, users would not worry about how it worked. Just like flying- most passengers have no idea why an aircraft stays up, or how a helicopter can fly with no obvious wings- they just accept that these things work and use them for their convenience.

Exactly. Speed and convenience would quickly outweigh fear of accidents. Or philosophical concerns about the "death" of the body that was disintegrated at your previous location.

[SpudLink]

frisbee said:

How do I know I'm the same person I am when I wake up that I was before I went to sleep?

Is sleep any different from a teleporter? Does a consciousness only exist while it's unbroken?

You're asking for a definition of consciousness. I can't help you with that.

I have no doubt that the version of me that wakes up in the morning is more or less the version that went to sleep. At least as much as I think I am the same person at the end of the day as I was when I started the day, barring a few negligible changes. I would have equally little concern over whether the consciousness at the other end of the teleporter is the same.
But it's a question worthy of debate.

[Mr Whippy]

SpudLink said:

mac96 said:

PositronicRay said:

I probably would, but as I'm not an early adopter and a bit risk avrese unlikely.

Surely this is the right answer. If teleportation were invented tomorrow, I suspect there would be few takers next week, but if it were established technology, users would not worry about how it worked. Just like flying- most passengers have no idea why an aircraft stays up, or how a helicopter can fly with no obvious wings- they just accept that these things work and use them for their convenience.

Exactly. Speed and convenience would quickly outweigh fear of accidents. Or philosophical concerns about the "death" of the body that was disintegrated at your previous location.

In the case of duplicate/destroy, one person actually does die though.

I’m not sure I could live with the idea that this was only seen as a good idea by all the survivors telling me it’s ace, while all the dead people are, err, unable to voice their views.

[SpudLink]

Mr Whippy said:

In the case of duplicate/destroy, one person actually does die though.

I’m not sure I could live with the idea that this was only seen as a good idea by all the survivors telling me it’s ace, while all the dead people are, err, unable to voice their views.

Hmm. So the discussion has moved from whether I am ok with my old self being disintegrated, to whether other people are ok with me letting my old self be disintegrated.
If I sign a document saying I fully understand I am sacrificing myself so that a duplicate can carry on my life in a new location, would that be acceptable?

[deckster]

SpudLink said:

Mr Whippy said:

In the case of duplicate/destroy, one person actually does die though.

I’m not sure I could live with the idea that this was only seen as a good idea by all the survivors telling me it’s ace, while all the dead people are, err, unable to voice their views.

Hmm. So the discussion has moved from whether I am ok with my old self being disintegrated, to whether other people are ok with me letting my old self be disintegrated.
If I sign a document saying I fully understand I am sacrificing myself so that a duplicate can carry on my life in a new location, would that be acceptable?

You miss the point. If the only evidence we have that teleportation is great - and that it doesn't matter that the original is destroyed - comes from the copies, we are missing half the picture. I mean, let's postulate wildly and say that we actually happens is that the original isn't destroyed, but instead enters some as-yet unknown quantum state where they are held for an indeterminate amount of time in a state of extreme pain. Let's call it "hell" for short. But we don't know this, because all we see is the copy which says "yeah, it's all fine". Without input from the original person, now in hell, we aren't making a decision from a point of complete knowledge.

[SpudLink]

deckster said:

SpudLink said:

Mr Whippy said:

In the case of duplicate/destroy, one person actually does die though.

I’m not sure I could live with the idea that this was only seen as a good idea by all the survivors telling me it’s ace, while all the dead people are, err, unable to voice their views.

Hmm. So the discussion has moved from whether I am ok with my old self being disintegrated, to whether other people are ok with me letting my old self be disintegrated.
If I sign a document saying I fully understand I am sacrificing myself so that a duplicate can carry on my life in a new location, would that be acceptable?

You miss the point. If the only evidence we have that teleportation is great - and that it doesn't matter that the original is destroyed - comes from the copies, we are missing half the picture. I mean, let's postulate wildly and say that we actually happens is that the original isn't destroyed, but instead enters some as-yet unknown quantum state where they are held for an indeterminate amount of time in a state of extreme pain. Let's call it "hell" for short. But we don't know this, because all we see is the copy which says "yeah, it's all fine". Without input from the original person, now in hell, we aren't making a decision from a point of complete knowledge.

The type of teleporter described by the OP was one where your original body is killed, and a new one is assembled at the new location. Not transported anywhere. In which case there is nothing left to experience this hellish nightmare.

If we consider a teleporter that actually transfers you physically in some way, then the previous arguments about killing your old body don't apply. If your body is being transferred by some method from location A to B, then why would there be a version left behind in an interdimensional netherworld?

I realise we are talking about speculative sci-fi, but a machine which assembles a new version of you at the destination point while transferring the old you into 'hell' for eternity doesn't make sense. Are we talking about somewhere where the human body remains alive, and therefore able to suffer? Or a disembodied consciousness?

[deckster]

SpudLink said:

The type of teleporter described by the OP was one where your original body is killed, and a new one is assembled at the new location. Not transported anywhere. In which case there is nothing left to experience this hellish nightmare.

If we consider a teleporter that actually transfers you physically in some way, then the previous arguments about killing your old body don't apply. If your body is being transferred by some method from location A to B, then why would there be a version left behind in an interdimensional netherworld?

I realise we are talking about speculative sci-fi, but a machine which assembles a new version of you at the destination point while transferring the old you into 'hell' for eternity doesn't make sense. Are we talking about somewhere where the human body remains alive, and therefore able to suffer? Or a disembodied consciousness?

None of it has to make sense and as you say it's purely speculative.

I was simply continuing the point, with an example, of why saying "it's all fine" when we only have half the data is potentially a bad idea.

[SpudLink]

deckster said:

None of it has to make sense and as you say it's purely speculative.

I was simply continuing the point, with an example, of why saying "it's all fine" when we only have half the data is potentially a bad idea.

If I thought there was a possibility that I would be trapped in eternal hell while a new me arrived at the intended destination, then no, I would not use a teleporter.

[RizzoTheRat]

SpudLink said:

If I sign a document saying I fully understand I am sacrificing myself so that a duplicate can carry on my life in a new location, would that be acceptable?

Depends how the contract is worded. Decksters point is you're viewing it purely from the point of the duplicate who's off living a happy life else where. The issue is what happens to the "sacrificed" original. Are you destroyed in the process of making the copy? Are you led away to be executed afterwards? Do you become slave labour for the teleporters owners for the rest of your life?

[SpudLink]

Going back to the original question, my answer is a qualified ‘yes’. As I understand it my old body is disintegrated in an instant painless way, at the same moment a new version materialises at the destination. In this case I accept the version of me that walks into the teleporter is walking to his death, so that an identical version can continue where I left off. So I am not sacrificing a different version of me, I am the one paying the price. The new me will be the beneficiary. It was not a selfish decision on his part to kill me so he could avoid a few hours flying economy class.
If I have any reasonable doubt that my departure will be painless and instant, then the answer is no.

However, thanks to the various nightmare fuel scenarios that have been presented, I can see why less than half people voting have said ‘yes’.

[A500leroy]

Does this include reverse time travel?

[Mr Whippy]

SpudLink said:

Going back to the original question, my answer is a qualified ‘yes’. As I understand it my old body is disintegrated in an instant painless way, at the same moment a new version materialises at the destination. In this case I accept the version of me that walks into the teleporter is walking to his death, so that an identical version can continue where I left off. So I am not sacrificing a different version of me, I am the one paying the price. The new me will be the beneficiary. It was not a selfish decision on his part to kill me so he could avoid a few hours flying economy class.
If I have any reasonable doubt that my departure will be painless and instant, then the answer is no.

However, thanks to the various nightmare fuel scenarios that have been presented, I can see why less than half people voting have said ‘yes’.

So where is the advantage to you for instant death?

A new you goes on, but that’s only beneficial to the new year and your friends/family/employer.

The old you, the you making the decision, may as well have just been put to death in your sleep.


It’s a little like a considerate form of suicide.

[SpudLink]

Mr Whippy said:

So where is the advantage to you for instant death?

A new you goes on, but that’s only beneficial to the new year and your friends/family/employer.

The old you, the you making the decision, may as well have just been put to death in your sleep.


It’s a little like a considerate form of suicide.

Because, although I am technically being killed and replaced, the experience will be 'me' arriving at the other end of the teleporter with only the memory of having walked into the teleporter looking forward to arriving at my destination.

If we are talking about a teleporter that leaves this old version of me suffering in some way, then it's a very different argument. But my understanding of the OP was it's an instantaneous process at both ends.

Let's say I was offered a medical procedure where I would go to sleep, then wake up in a new younger, fitter, better looking version of myself. While I was asleep they copied (not transferred) my consciousness then disposed of the old body. Then every 15 years they repeated the process. To anyone not involved in the process I would seem to have discovered the secret of eternal youth. But I would have to accept that technically I will die during the procedure, and that's the end of it.

It seems I am more open to the idea that a copy of my consciousness in a new body is just as much 'me' as the version that's in this body now. So I don't have a problem disposing of this body and continuing my consciousness elsewhere.

[thegreenhell]

That would appear to only hold true if your consciousness is merely a function of having the right neural connections connected in the right way, and simply reproducing those connections reproduces 'you'. The new version has all the same physical attributes and memories, right?

Now suppose that somebody makes a new machine using the same technology as the teleporter, but instead of zapping you and making a new you in a different location it simply scans you, but then still makes the new copy of you as well. You, the version of you who walked into the machine, is still fully alive in the same physical body. So who is the new person? They have all your memories, thoughts and feelings up to the point that you walked into the machine. but they aren't you, can't be you, because you are still you. You are still looking through your old eyes. The new person is just that. They are somebody else. Not you.

[SpudLink]

thegreenhell said:

That would appear to only hold true if your consciousness is merely a function of having the right neural connections connected in the right way, and simply reproducing those connections reproduces 'you'. The new version has all the same physical attributes and memories, right?

Now suppose that somebody makes a new machine using the same technology as the teleporter, but instead of zapping you and making a new you in a different location it simply scans you, but then still makes the new copy of you as well. You, the version of you who walked into the machine, is still fully alive in the same physical body. So who is the new person? They have all your memories, thoughts and feelings up to the point that you walked into the machine. but they aren't you, can't be you, because you are still you. You are still looking through your old eyes. The new person is just that. They are somebody else. Not you.

That is a very good point. Here's what I said earlier...

SpudLink said:

E63eeeeee... said:

Surely a completely identical copy of you *is* you.

If you created a dozen identical versions of you, and shuffled them around, so nobody, including all the yous, knew which was the original, which one would be you?

Each has their own consciousness, which at the moment they are created is identical. Each has equal right to think of themselves as ‘me’.
If I were to emerge at the other end of the teleporter standing next to another ‘me’ because of a malfunction, I can’t begin to know how I would feel. I would know I am ‘me’. But not sure I’d be able stick to my argument and accept the guy I’m standing next to is also ‘me’. But that would be an emotional reaction to a situation no human being has ever faced.

If I woke up and knew the old 'me' had been neatly disposed of, I would have no doubt 'I' am 'me'. But if I was standing face to face with an identical version of me, that's more difficult.

As soon as there are two of 'me', each becomes a separate individual. Every moment after that we would diverge, so no longer identical. In the same way that I have changed to some extent since I woke up this morning.

However an instantaneous disposal of the original as the replacement is created is not the same as having a duplicate. There is only one version of my consciousness. Me.

There may be a bit of cognitive dissonance in my argument. It might take a better mind than mine to resolve.

[Mr Whippy]

This is the general storyline of the Arnie film “The 6th Day” iirc.


This comes down to the unknown. And the whole reason this is one of those fun questions that can’t be truly answered.


The new you almost certainly wakes up and thinks they’re you. Fine. 100% agree.

But the old you dies. “You” die.

But once you’ve done it once, you’re fine. Because you realise “you’re” always the winner.

Even in The Prestige he keeps killing himself and doesn’t care because he’s the survivor… and a tiny part of him knows he dies, but he’s never the one who has died IYSWIM, so is happy to keep making that terrible choice… possibly thinking deep down that it’s ‘him’ that made it through, and maybe the ‘new’ him dies, or something…