>>1200322
That wouldn't be teleporting. That would be very quick cloning, and no you wouldn't be yourself, youd be dead, but your clone would be existing instead. Enjoy not living.

If it is vacating your soul and consciousness into a new shell, I would have serious concerns about going to hell because of the Devil's tool.

It's not much different than the idea of the transporter in startrek, having all your atoms ripped apart, then put back together somewhere else. Ultimately, what make you, you is not the atoms in your body, but the order of the atoms.

So in startrek, they die too, then are recreated elsewhere, exact same principle, but your moving information instead of atoms.

>>1200331
This. YOU die in this kind of process

>>1200318
w Ｗ ｗ . ａ Ｎ Ｏ n T Ａ L ｋ . S ｅ hajddudgbo opd sbbt qtlrkw igabli v eoxhgwnptkhy

That movie was fucking crazy man.

>>1200321

ｗ W Ｗ . ａ Ｎ O N Ｔ ａ l K . s Ｅ gtmz dg jansoag ata qv ypp w iuuecxb pwqiuyqe

>>1200331
>>1200342
>>1200347
>>1200357
>implying you have a soul

Way to give away the ending to an awesome movie.

It would be you from other's point of view, but you would stop to exist.

OP here,
personally, I would use it, but really, I'm not sure, its a scary principle. But really, it would be the exact same thing if the teleporter worked like in star trek, in both cases you die, and in both cases you are recreated somewhere else.

>>1200347
No, they moved they broke them up, moved them quickly, and rearranged them in them back in the ship. They weren't destoryed, and then a clone took their place.

>exact copy of you somewhere else

Wouldn't be exact, because the location would be different.

DYOHOHO.

>>1200347
i always though this, i couldnt work out if they were supposed to move all of the persons atoms through stuff (dont ask me how) and then reassemble them or they reassembled all the neccesesary atoms that they needed in the right order where they are transporting to. i think its because they had supposedly found that matter and energy are interchangeble (hence replicators) and they turned you into energy and back again

>>1200387
OH YOU

>>1200331
the particles that make up your body now are different ones than 10 years ago

have fun being dead...right?

>>1200389
Hence when they said, energize me.

>No, they moved they broke them up, moved them quickly, and rearranged them in them back in the ship. They weren't destoryed, and then a clone took their place

If you take something into pieces, such that it exsist as individual atoms, it is DEAD! it is not living by any sense, it is up the the machine to recreate life again, the idea that you are your atoms are who you are is silly, your body is constantly disgardeing old material and making new.

>>1200392
Your brain cells are the same.

>>1200400
you wish
atoms change places motherfucker, and atoms get replaced
sure, brain cells don't get replaced but the atoms they consist of do

>>1200399
Shit like this changes the meaning of life huh? Does that mean that the machine can take anyones atoms and make a copy of someone? My point is that they are taking your atoms and remaking you, not using other elements and remaking you, not the same as OP's thing.

>>1200400
no ALL of your atoms in your body are replaced within 10 years. the shortest example being red blood cells and the longest being your bones (i think)

>>1200407
Someone failed microbiology...

>>1200414
Samefag. My whole point is that OP's thing is not Star Treks method. With OP's tech, the definition of humans would be so askewed, because of the multiple copies that are able to be made, without the consent of the person.

I suppose in the end, if a technology that could create anything even as complex as a living being just pop into existance, the ethical issue of using it to teleport by destroying the original would be at the bottom of the list of ethical concerns.

>>1200400

Actually even brain cells change over time. That's how memory works. Your brain today is not your brain yesterday. If you made a 1:1 copy of a brain, and watched both from the time of the copy, they would very likely not still be 1:1 similarity even a week later. But both would still be that person.

CREEPY AIN'T IT

>>1200387

They're qualitative identical, idiot.

>>1200466
So you mean that humans are made up of interchangable parts like a goddamn car?

-_- I don't think you quite get it OP, you don't die and get recreated somewhere else, you die......straight up thats the end. Some clone of you lives the rest of your potential life out while you're dead.

I would use it. Wouldn't be any different from anything else.
I'm constantly dying, a continuous life is an illusion.

The person I was 10 years agoe is dead, the people writing this post are dead and you're all constantly dying.

>>1200466
Brain cells changing over time and flat out DYING and having a copy of yourself created are different things

>>1200493
Difference is that someone else would be living your life. You would not be living.

Why can't they make me younger each time I use it?

Immortality

>-_- I don't think you quite get it OP, you don't die and get recreated somewhere else, you die......straight up thats the end. Some clone of you lives the rest of your potential life out while you're dead.

I understand that, but like I said originally, its about your perspective, say you've already gone through the machine 1000 times, well from personal experience, you know it works feels and is in practice exactly the same as a teleporter, so each time you go in, you can just tell yourself, I've already been through this 1000 times, I know from personal experience that I will still be alive. AND YOU WILL BE RIGHT.

>>1200501
the me tomorrow is living my tomorrow life while I'm dead and there's nothing I can do about it

>>1200480

I don't know about interchangeable...the immune system can be both anal-retentive and capricious about what implanted or replaced tissue it feels like rejecting, even if it's your own tissue.

I do think this thought experiment does show that we are all a little bit religious, I consider myself a complete atheist, and as such I should not be afraid to use the machine, yet, I still know its going to destroy my original, and It will ultimately scare me, the only way to get over it would be to keep using the machine until you got used to it.

FYI, the concept for star trek teleporters was not that they would transport the atoms themselves, but information about the atoms. the body would be rematerialized at the destination and be composed of different atoms.

so, far an infinitesimal fraction of time, you don't exist in material form.

OP's machine would be teleportation. We are defines by data, not mass.

Also when you step into it you'd experience being teleported, you wouldn't experience dying anymore than you would sitting at you computer provided the destruction process is perfect.

If we're talking quamtum teleportation, the data of the original automatically gets scrambled by the very process so using that to power the machine if the "original" wasn't destroyed it would much less the original then to recreated one.

It depends. Do you then take on the POV of the clone?

>FYI, the concept for star trek teleporters was not that they would transport the atoms themselves, but information about the atoms. the body would be rematerialized at the destination and be composed of different atoms.

ooo SEE! exactly the same as in startrek, If lieutenant gay beard is man enough to use the teleporter, well I sure as hell aint gonna back down.

>It depends. Do you then take on the POV of the clone?

Depends on if your religious or not. If you consider human beings as being just an extremely complex machine, then in effect, yes, you and your clone are the same person.

Would I still live ? I mean even if I get re-created piece by piece, will I still be me and not just me with another life ?

>>1200514
Well there is a valid reason to dislike the thought man.

It destroys you, not your body, actually YOU, your consciousness would cease to be and be copied into the new body.

>>1200548

That's not what I asked.

Will I see through the clones eyes, or will 'somebody else' see through the clones eyes?

I'm not sure how to explain this.

W Ｗ w . ａ n ｏ ｎ t Ａ ｌ K . s Ｅ kigqab rz l bglibokwkncrzvswy luyd y xsavpcg rikz hq

>Would I still live ?

The idea is, no and yes, you ask the clone how they feel, they will tell you that they teleported. It will still be YOU. From your perspective, you've teleported, and theres no way to tell that you didn't.

>Will I see through the clones eyes, or will 'somebody else' see through the clones eyes?

I know what your getting at, and your assuming that you have an immortal soul when you call yourself "you".

If you don't believe in immortal souls, then this machine shouldn't scare you.

>>1200505
But you can only go through it once.

And you die during it as your atoms are broken away from each other.

>>1200567
Yes, you'd keep your consciousness... I think

>>1200535
>you wouldn't experience dying

hmm, but what if you did? people who are conscious and attentive at the moment of death often experience some very weird shit far from ordinary experience. rapid recall, time dilation, hallucinations, etc.

if we accept that this happens, and not get caught up in neurological mechanisms (which there obviously are), we can suppose that every time you get teleported you have a near-death experience as your atoms are decomposed.

this assumes it would work like star trek and take a second or two, rather than being near-instantaneous and too small for human temporal frames of references.

anyone here read the Stephen King short story "The Jaunt"?

>>1200587
So I would still be able to live and see through my own eyes in the new body ? Not that guy but I had a similar question.

The idea is the machine is a cloneing device, not a teleporter.

Such that with miner tweaking of the machines programming, it would create a copy without destroying the original, then thered be two identical yous, both claiming to be "you".

But this thought experiment, is assuming that the machine is programmed to perfectly destroy the original painlessly and instantaneously.

>>1200609
So like in the movie, the main character made a remark that he is scared about he being the actual one drowning/dying when the cloning was complete, he was confused basically and scared. So if we insta clone ourselves then through what viewpoitn would we see the world ?

>>1200609

so that means the the star trek teleporter is really more of a cloning device too. it just destroys the original every time.

>>1200603
perfect destruction means I cease to be almost instantly, no time for any experience.

This would obviously be imperative or the machine would be inhumane

>>1200618

The idea is that it is irrelevant. It's like asking the question, "when i go to bed, I wake up the next day, how is it I am still me? Why am I not in a different body?"

We are just self aware machines, nothing more, If you are willing to go through the machine, then you are a true atheist, if not, then you have some kind of minor conception of a soul.

>>1200618
Both, come on it's not hard to understand..

What is (for want of a better word) your soul? Like who you are how you think? Is it not just chemicals in your brain, and if so an exact copy would have the same personality as you :S

So I will experience the thoughts of the clone, will see through the clones eyes and all that?

Fuck it, why not then. I just want to keep living and not die and experience the death.

By the way, teleporting once every 6 months = immortality.

>>1200656
>then you are a true atheist
this thread has shown /sci/ true colors. It's full pseudo-intellectuals and believers of magic.

>So I will experience the thoughts of the clone, will see through the clones eyes and all that?

People keep saying this stuff, it's implying an immortal soul, YOU will be DIE, but YOU will also STILL EXIST.

>>1200656
If you are willing to go through the machine, you are willing to die.

Because that is what happens when you're destroyed and your clone is created on the other side.

i used to think this sort of thinking was interesting and trippy. now it feels schizophrenic.

the hindus and buddhists have been asking these sorts of questions about consciousness for thousands of years. even if they've figured it out, it doesn't change anything.

who the fuck knows. stfu and live your life. sex is so much better than this mental masturbation.

>>1200656
>Implying that the belief in an innate quality that only living humans possess instantly means you are religious
>Implying you're not a cunt.

Is this idea from a movie? I would like to see it

>Is this idea from a movie? I would like to see it

its actually the surprise twist in a movie, so I've kind of ruined it for you, the movie is called The Prestige.

I thought the concept was awesome, but the movie spends a lot of time being all dark and angry and annoying.
Theres another twist in the movie too, that I haven't revealed tho :P so i only half ruined the movie. Go watch it.

>>1200656
I don't think that I have a soul in a spiritual sense but I am scared shitless of the though about going through the machine, and never waking up, even though the me that would continue to exist would inherit my personality, memories etc.
>>1200662
So no matter which one of the clones die, you would still have a viewpoint of one ? But when both are alive, whose viewpoint would you have then ? I guess I can imagine the viewpoints switching so rapidly from one another that you basically have both, and when one dies, you are the ones that kept standing...? Would that be how it worked ?

>So no matter which one of the clones die, you would still have a viewpoint of one ?

Like I said, the only way to be able to cope with a machine like this, would be to use it a bunch. Eventually you will learn from experience that it never actually kills you and you actually end up on the other side. And the more you use it, the less scary it will be.

>>1200318

Ｗ w Ｗ . ａ ｎ ｏ ｎ T Ａ L K . ｓ E lvl rlan fodbugw tuwcz ukag w pokl lq

Of course, the idea of learning from experience that the machine always works, wouldn't kinda fail if the machine didn't kill you in a human way. Which is the point of the movie, which is a hell of a lot scary.

>>1200692

I've not mentioned anything about a soul, you cunt. Right now, I'm looking at my keyboard and screen through my eyes. My next-door neighbour is probably watching TV, but I can't see through her eyes.

Is the clone me or my neighbour?

>>1200771

Yeah but when you say "I" you mean, the original, and when you say experience through the eyes of the "clone" you mean, well, the clone, the only way for the original to see through the eyes of the clone would be if it transported an immortal soul somehow.

>>1200753
But what if it doesn't immediatly destroy the original you, and both yous exist ?

>But what if it doesn't immediatly destroy the original you, and both yous exist ?

Thats the next step, would you use the machine to clone yourself for a day, then at the end of the day, have both you and your clone step back in the machine, and have it instantly kill one of you at random? (painlessly and instantly of course)

>>1200656
>>1200618

>If you are willing to go through the machine, then you are a true atheist, if not, then you have some kind of minor conception of a soul.
Lolwut? I am an atheist an I know, that such transportation would stop my current chain og thoughts and self-consciouness. There will be no magical POV change or soul transfer.
That's why I wouldn't use it.

>There will be no magical POV change or soul transfer.

That means you think there needs to be a soul transfer, which means you are not an atheist.

>>1200320
W w W . Ａ Ｎ ｏ ｎ Ｔ A L k . Ｓ Ｅ gs es pnwvr om wbe qvjlyi fiunk eoh s

>>1200817

No dipshit, it means I don't want to die.

>>1200801
Lets say you do this, then no matter which one dies you would still live and have a viewpoint of the one remaining, correct ?

>>1200790

Right, so you don't have a POV change. You just die and someone who looks exactly like you starts walking about.

It's transportation from the POV of somebody else, because your memory and thoughts are cloned as well, so you can say 'yes, I did X before going in', but it's not for you yourself.

Note: you, not You. Everything has a 'You'.

>>1200771
The clone is your neighbor. You aren't transporting your conscienous, you are replicating it. I

>>1200322

Chinese copies are shit, I'd rather go with the original, thank you.

>No dipshit, it means I don't want to die.

You'll still be alive, somewhere else.

>>1200804
>POV change
there'd be a perceived POV change for the clone.

>>1200844

Therefore I would refuse to go into the machine.

>>1200837
dude, wft is wrong with you? You clearly don't know what "you" means so stop using that word

>>1200852
>implying one conscience is better than another despite both being completely the same.

>>1200849

You wouldn't be alive, your perfect clone would be alive.

Yes. If the pattern of electrical activitity I identify as me is exactly reproduced somewhere else then "I" persist. A map which exactly reproduces it's referent IS the original. It happens all the time only so slowly that nobody freaks out about it. Consciousness is an emergent property of brain, it's like the frosting on a cake. A reward from the brain for carting our bodies around and shoveling food in our mouths. (gross oversimplification, but hey).

>>1200849
OP doesn't understand the idea of being you. You never said you would be reconstructed, you said you would be destoryed. For this theory of yours, we need to know more abou how the device works.

OP out, i gotta go.

Anyways, ultimately I would totally use the machine. It would be sweet to be able to"teleport"

However, I would consider it unethical to force anyone to use it, I think people should have the right to choose not to.

Later jerkz!

>>1200872
>perfect clone
try figuring out what this means, soulfag

>>1200871

I don't give a shit about consciousness, I want to pilot the body. I wouldn't be able to pilot the clone, so I wouldn't do it.

>>1200318
w Ｗ Ｗ . Ａ n ｏ Ｎ T a l K . Ｓ e ghx igljrbwmyfotebtzkgxwtvyy fpms mc ivu

>>1200492
Yes, your train of thoughts would stop, but then start again, after being recreated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdxucpPq6Lc

>>1200885
ofcourse you would; the you in the clone.

See, you're saying "you" can only exist at one place, ie you're a religious fucking nut.

Stop ruining kids education already.

>>1200885
yes you WOULD be able to pilot the clone. Since you and the clone are the EXACT same.

>>1200885
"consciousness" is the ability to "pilot" your body.

>>1200873
So if two exactly identical electrical brain activitities would be going on at the same time, and then onfe of the two dies at random, would it matter which one dies ?

>>1200904
No, you wouldn't. If you believe this then, you must believe in reincarnation. Don't answer immediately, but think about it.

Waaait guys. GUYS.
So if you clone yourself like 100 times. You would exist a hundret times. You would split your personality int o100 pieces, all exactly the same. You would pilot 100 "yous" simultaneously
Awesome.

>>1200903

>you're saying "you" can only exist at one place

That's exactly what I'm saying. It's not me, it's just a copy of me.

If we picture my body as a car and myself as my mind, and I stopped the car, somebody cloned me and then started driving it away, I'd technically be driving the car according to anyone who sees me, but I'd still be experiencing the me that had his fucking car stolen by a clone and is now stood on the side of a road.

>>1200904
But what if ''you'' and the clone would be alive at the same fucking time ? So ''you'' would basically pilote 2 bodies at the same time

>>1200920
Well, yes. Then I guess I believe in reincarnation.

10/10 Bravo, OP.
An atheist or, important part here, ANYONE WHO *DOESN'T* BELIEVE IN A SOUL/SPIRIT would NOT want to use your shitty-assed teleportation device.
Face it: Your method specifically and logically indicates that one (a person) would die upon using the device. Now, as an actual a-theist (it really should be hyphenated; it would clear up confusion about what atheism is) I know that my personal consciousness is specifically that: mine.
A clone's consciousness would NOT be mine. My personal consciousness would cease to exist PERMANENTLY, THEREFORE I WOULD *NEVER* BE ABLE TO EXPERIENCE WHAT THE CLONE HAD.
So as you further tickity-tacked away fruitlessly at your keyboard - if both you and the clone were on the machine and it randomly picked who to kill, then whatever it picked to kill would be dead.

You are not your clone. You are you, and that's all you are. Maybe in the future if we come up with technology that can create a hard "burnt" copy of specific signals in your brain that make you YOU, maybe THEN technology like that is feasible.

Until then, it would just be killing. You would die. You wouldn't be your clone.

To SUGGEST THAT YOU WOULD EXPERIENCE YOUR CLONE'S EXPERIENCES WOULD BE TO ACTUALLY SAY YOU *DO* BELIEVE IN A SOUL!


That's why I love your trolling attempt. You effectively took a defining characteristic of an a-theist and flipped it to somehow then define a spiritual person.

Get it through your head: a spiritual person would walk through your fucked-up deathtrap; not an atheist.

But again, 10/10 because you even got me slightly ticked enough to write this up. However, I'm not doing this for your pleasure, but for mine in seeing you squirm while your disillusionment crumbles around you.

Have a nice day :)

>>1200910
Proof that you wouldn't be you is cloning. The clone IS YOU, and people have made clones. If the clone was YOU, BOTH of you would do the same thing at the same time. But different stimuli and such, make this impossible.

>>1200920
you're missing the point and you're spewing more religious nonsense.. geez

>>1200939
Yes, you would. except "you" changes due to experience and the one you would experience different things as the other you. So they start both as you, but then become slightly different people.

people honestly believe if you make a clone, you suddenly jump in control of their body? what the shit.
when an organism asexually reproduces are you implying they control every single offspring? by that logic, the very first bacteria has control over every single bacteria that resulted from his binary fission.

>>1200943
>I know that my personal consciousness is specifically that: mine.
wrong, didn't read the rest of your post. Is it any better?

>>1200943
Holy fuck I agree 100%. A christfag would use it.

>>1200943
How do you know that?
I think you would not feel the difference, you would wake up as the clone with all the memories your original had.

>>1200962
you best be trolling faggot. The whole point is that the copy is perfect, PERFFECT.

Every little detail about the person, including any thought in progress would be copied

>>1200962
HURP DERP, WE ARE ALL THE SAME PERSON. EVERY FUCKING SINGLE BODY IN THE UNIVERSE DERP.

>>1200962
No you dont get it. not you jump into that body and control it, but a exact same copy of your consciousness controls the clone. And this consciousness thinks it IS you.

>>1200960
That is how I imagined it.
>>1200950
The thing is the machine creates, exact replicas, exactly the same brain waves etc even if it will scientifically never be possible

>>1200990
Well the thing is that everyone came from the same thing in the entire universe. Because of this, there is theoretically 3 copies of you. One left, one right one forward, one backwards. You are one of those directions.

>>1200480
>So you mean that humans are made up of interchangable parts like a goddamn car?

actually, yes.

Modern science has proved that the sum of a person's identity is in their brain.

That's the ONLY unique, unreplacable part of a human.

If stem cell research continues, we'll be able to perform head transplants and use stem cells to repair the severed spinal cord.

>>1200990

You're not your clone. If you and your perfect clone met up, you couldn't say 'Hey, I'm going to lift his arm now' and then it would happen, because it's TWO different consciousnesses operating at the same time. Just because they're the same as each other is irrelevant.

>>1200982
no a christfag would think the soul died with the original, like you do.

stop samefagging your own post

>>1201026
Yes you are right, but since the old you is killed, the other you will never have the chance to meet the old you.
So it will continue to be the exact copy of "you". It is YOU.

You would be dead faggot. There would be a copy of you, but the consciousness you experience would. You're fucking dead. PEOPLE DIE WHEN YOU KILL THEM.

Techinically, if two yous that went through the same exact stimuli and lived in the exact same location, then yes, you would be in essense, piloting two bodies at once, until something breaks the connection of course. This type of theory, proves that people are actually linked because of types of brain waves/activity. This could explain "telekinesis"

>>1201026
holy fuck you're stupid..

>>1201039
>People die when you kill them
Great anime line dude.

>>1201033

He wasn't me. I wrote that.

To the person saying I'm wrong about my consciousness being only my own:

Prove otherwise. It's a logical assumption to say that you are just you.

Maybe if you actually knew anything about science before coming to this board you wouldn't embarrass yourself.

>>1201044
OH STOP THAT SHIT!

Seriously am I the only one here who thinks that this would work?

It is not that your consciousness is transfered to the clone, but the clone is the exact copy of you and it's first thoughts will be: It really worked! I am still me. I know everything from my childhood and my trai nof thoughts didn't stop!

So it will be you!!!!

>>1201058
BUT ITS SCIENCE

>>1201044
I agree except for the last bullshit sentence, what has this to do with telekinesis?

>>1201051
Nah, you are the stupid one. You don't understand the simple definitions of words. I'll break down the definition of every word in the OP's post dictionary.com and prove to you that you are the idiot.

>>1201057
oh listen. Try and define yourself without using any part of the brain....
You can't obviously.
If you make an exact copy of the brain there's no original and no clone they're both equally you, this is the whole point.

atheist realize that we can be describes wholy by our physical properties, christfags think there's something immaterial the the clone wont have.

>>1201066
My bad, I cursed as soon as I hit submit, I meant telepathy derp.

You would be dead. The consciousness you experience would be terminated.

>>1201073
>The conscious that you experience would be terminated
yeah..

>>1201060

But only you (your unique and irreplaceable brain) makes up you.

Think of your body like this: Your brain is you and your body is your brain's tool. The tools can be replaced, modified, but you, the CPU if you will, will be gone.

Our brains really are just uniquely wired CPUs, so just like a CPU, yes you can have 2 copies of it. But the first CPU is destroyed and can NO LONGER CONTROL OR SEND SIGNALS TO ANYTHING THE OTHER CPU IS.

Get it yet? We're machines, just like anything else. A unique copy is a fucking unique freakin' copy goddamnit.

>>1201057
No, stop insulting people because they disagree with you.

We cant prove if one of us is right. But why do you think you are just you?
You could, theoretically, wake up one day and dont notice a difference, till someone tells you you were cloned in your sleep and your old you has been killed.

>>1201060
It would be a copy of you. You would be dead. This isn't difficult.

>>1201037

It doesn't matter what it thinks. People think they've talked to angels. If you go and look down the street and watch someone walking by, your clone will be that to the you I'm talking about. No control, just someone who thinks they're you.

Sam from Moon. The ones we follow are not Sam.

>>1201072
my clone can't be the same person for more than a quanta second. If you had any clue about what this discusion is about you'd reralize this.

So you're point about meeting yourself is completely beside the point.

But you read a dictionary all you want.

>>1201090
copies of you ARE you.. Get out soulfag

>>1200656
>If you are willing to go through the machine, then you are a true atheist, if not, then you have some kind of minor conception of a soul.

I'd be willing to do it, in the name of science, but I'd still worry if my sense of "self" would remain.

It's impossible to test something like this from the outside.

When I go to sleep, I waked up as myself because very little has changed.
When you "teleport" by destruction and reconstruction, a LOT has happened.

I believe that humans are self aware machines, but I worry that the sense of "self" would be lost, and the thing created would be me, but only from every perspective except my own.

But it wouldn't matter, because I'd cease to exist.
So, what the hell? Into the breach, dear friends.

>>1201094
>DISREGARD FACTS
>I'M RIGHT

I'M THE REAL TOM LINCOLN!

>>1201073

Yes I agree and that's why I think you or whoever wrote that isn't knowledgeable enough.

My point wasn't about that. My point is that the physical identity (which is all you are) will be gone. Yes, your clone will be you exactly to a T, but a copy is a copy.

Read my post I just wrote about CPUs being comparable to brains. Should clear up where I'm coming from.

>>1201087
Yeah. You would be you. The you you are would be is a clone of another person. You would not be that other person. The machine kills you.

I'm a christfag and I do believe that the train of thought would continue with the clone, so I would still be me. I find it pathetic how atheists think that us christfags can't into science.

>>1201101
It doesn't have anything to do with souls you dumb ass. You can't be this fucking stupid. The machine kills you.

>>1201101
OF FUCKING COURSE CLONES ARE ME! But do I live my life through my clone? HELL NO.

>>1201086
yea I get it, but the other CPU (the clone) is the exact copy and he will contunie to send the signals the first CPU (you) wanted to send.

What is the thing that makes you you?
Your brain. And if there is an exact copy of your brain, you exist twice. Of course you dont experience anythign your clone experiences, but you both would think YOU are the original.
I cant put it into words any better, also English isnt my first language.

I so want such a device to exist. I would try it!

>>1201125
You would be dead. The other you would be you but not you. You are dead. You die. Enjoy not going to heaven either.

>>1201087

My apologies, but he pissed me off with a comment like that which is CLEARLY TRYING TO TROLL by trying to bait me (and it worked, damnit).


Now as for what you said, the HUGE HUGE FUCKING HUUUUUUUUUGE difference here is that when you sleep YOUR BRAIN DOESN'T EVER TURN OFF.

When you *die* though your brain DOES COMPLETELY TURN OFF. Zero activity, that's it. Kaput.

When you sleep, there's still blood keeping oxygen flowing to your brain, there's still activity, there's REM cycles, etc.

But when you're dead, the brain is physically and completely detached from a power source and ceases to function.

>>1201136

>Of course you dont experience anythign your clone experiences

Which is why I wouldn't do it. I like experiencing things.

>>1201136
Yes, you exist at the same time, twice so to speak. And no matter which one of you gets killed then, you would still have a POV and a train of thought.

Every idiot in this fucking thread, you know about GENETIC clones right? They are you in every sense of the word, that's why christfags don't like em. You and a clone can exist, but you won't be "the same person" because you will act differently due to the fact that you undergo unrepeatable stimuli. If they did go through the same stimuli, you still aren't the same person, but you would have the same thoughts and be "linked" yes. The fact that you can be "desynced" from eachother proves that you aren't the same person and have different consciousness, or a new conscious is created once stimuli stop matching. Magically appearing conscious doesn't make sense right? So yeah you died basically.

>>1201136

Just like >>1201154 said, that's the point.

This whole diatribe we've all gotten onto has never been about the ad hominem of whether a clone is you or not.

It's only ever been about the idea that you personally wouldn't get to experience what the clone would because YOU personally would be dead after using the machine.

Like I said w/ the CPUs, sure the second one can continue to function, but guess what: the two CPUs will *never* be attached using the OP's method so the two would never interact meaning the first would be dead and can't be turned on again.

>>1201154
What I mean is: your consciousness is still there. You dont experience anything the clone experiences, but neither does the clone experience anthing YOU experience.

Both are you. Both have thoughts and both think they are the original, no one knows who really IS the original, not even YOU.

>>1201177
No, read
>>1201178

>>1201173
Continued>
If you and your clone were the same person, then you would always be linked and always be able to send signals and messages to the other you, and it would be able to do the same thing. But since... wait this has never been tested has it. No one has actually created a clone, and documented how an intelligent being reacts with the clone, if they share the same thoughts, and can communicate telepathically. In this sense, clones would be like dolls, or puppets even. Shit sounds cash, but I don't want to sacrifice feeling so my clone can get somewhere instantly still.

>>1200320
ｗ W ｗ . a N Ｏ Ｎ t A L ｋ . ｓ e jmpwr d vg dczzrt w zcmceqbr scdn l jvj hp tlpzjb zoz

>>1201182

I'm referring to the OP's original idea about one of you dying.

Yeah, if both people are alive then I fully agree with you. Both would consider themselves the original and there would be no difference.

You still wouldn't get to experience life from your clone's eyes though as his eyes (and basically the whole unit) are unique a nanosecond after conception due to difference in stimuli.

So yeah, you're right, but that isn't what I was arguing about :(

prestige....good movie.

This is the same reason why I wouldn't want to upload myself to computer, but retain my organic brain: The chance of it only cloning ''me'', instead of moving ''me''.

Why would you want to die? I don't get it.

Somebody word it simply for me.

>>1201225
You die so your clone can get downtown.That's it.

First of all, this is a thought experiment, some people seem to be concerned with practical issues which are besides the point.

Anyway, here's my take.
Man steps into machine.

two "come out": one dies, one lives.

At the moment the machine copies him (we'll say that either the machine is instant or his conscience is "off", doesn't matter) the two are identical. They are not linked in any way, they definately two seperate beings. This is obviously the moment eveyone gets confused.

A christian would say that a true copy is impossible, even theoretically, so in their view, the man dies and a new man with the same everything is made. Let them have they're illusions while we teleport all over the universe.

Some atheists will say that and original and a clone is made. That is not the best way to describe them as they are considered "perfect" (a very important point) and so even though they are two seperete things they are the same "concept" the same existance. Here's why I think that. Think of time as a spatial dimension. All things exist in this 4d world. An apple would be a string of 3d apples extending into the forth dimension. Now if you put the apple into the machine it doesn't stop the 3d string of apples and start a new one. The string continues from the first string. This is easier to understand if we pretend the machine doesn't destroy the "original". Then the string of apples would enter the machine and split in two like a Y turning the single 4d object into 2 3d objects. By destroying one at the moment very they fork means that we simply get a straight line, as if we hadn't entered the machine. So with perfect timing the continuity of the 3d object is preserved.

>>1201200
Even if one of them dies, the other would think it is you and it would feel like you. You WOULD experience everything your clone experiences, but only that.

Well technically
you would be living,
just through your clones

they, presumably, would have the same memories and experiences as you
so you, the clone, would be no different from the original
and probably couldn't even tell if you were a clone or not.

So. In all practicality.
Clones=you
No different at all
If you were a clone you can't tell if you are clone or not.

So.
Maybe.

>>1201253
It isn't perfectly continued, there's a point when nothing exists. Enjoy being dead and not going to heaven.

>>1201253

>>1201258
The thing is that YOU WON'T BE LIVING. Your clones would be. Don't fucking twist things in your head. If you are a fucking atheist, think about facts, not beliefs.

You step into the chamber, it all ceases to exist. That is it, no more thought, no consciousness, it's just as if you put a shotgun to your head and pull the trigger.

Somewhere else a completely different person with what were your memories and a perfect copy of your consciousness appears.

The inherent "self" of the first person never makes the jump to the new one. If you stepped into the chamber for all practical purposes "you" have committed suicide.

>>1200322
ITT:Christfags that think they are athiest.
What does this mean you ask? People still go on about BELIEFS, when we are talking about hard facts. They BELIEVE that they would exist through the clone, THEY WANT TO BELIEVE, but facts say that your exact clone would be transported, and you would cease to exist.

>>1201265
this doesn't matter. If I dye and get revieved with cpr I'm still the same person. Death only matters if it's permanent

>>1201253
I have no idea what you are talking about.. what the fuck are strings... (yea I know of that theory, I just never read anythign about it) but I agree with you. I dont know how you come to the same conclusion as me, but it is the same.

>>1201292
>transported
only data is transported
also troll harder

>>1201300

Death is permanent. It's just that someone else who has the same memories and body is running around. It's not you.

>>1201307
Transported/teleported
Dif man?

>>1201274

I wouldn't. True.
Clones would.


Hm...

>>1200322
not teleportation, not answering

>>1201300

Hey you, read my post here >>1201144

Just like sleeping if you're undergoing CPR you're not really actually dead yet. Very damn close, but so long as a single bit of fresh blood/oxygen is pumping your brain, you're still technically alive.

The only things you can use to counter this would be hospital examples where people were pronounced technically "dead" but then were alive afterward. But even in those cases there's still obviously *something* somewhere that's still "alive."

>>1201317
if you die, and an alien civilization has the technology to look back in time and make an exact copy of you 10.000 years into the future, you would be revived. The you from the very moment they took the snapshot would be revived.

>>1201300
Because of your incompetence with the human language, I'm sure that you don't understand your ignorance of this situation either. You do die yes, but you aren't revived, a CLONE is made. And clones have already been discussed, read the entire thread before you post again.

>>1201330
>hospital examples where people were pronounced technically "dead"
This is OBVIOUSLY what I'm talking about.. geez.
>in those cases there's still obviously *something* somewhere that's still "alive."
Ok soulfag. keep dreaming.

>>1201334

Yes because that's clearly what level of technology we're talking about. Sure, future tech being able to do this, but we're not talking about far in the future 10,000 years kind of tech.

But nice attempt at derailing.

>>1200322

They made a movie of this? Huh last i heard it was an episode of outer limits.

To answer your question it depends on the reward. If it is the only method of FTL travel then probably yes. If it is a quick way to circumnavigate the globe then no, I'll catch a plane, thanks.

>>1201355
you saying clone, but that's wrong man..
read >>1201253

>>1201357
We're talking about a perfect example, not a practical one. When or, even if, we can develop this technology is besides the point.

>>1201362
Once you undergo this process, the clone would have your name and everything yeah but people would no its not you. Youd still be a fucking hero, and so would the clones of that clone that would be continued to be made. However, have fun being dead and not going to heaven.

>>1201334
>he thinks aliens exist
laughing_girls.jpg

>>1201362
>>1201355
I like how these to posts are bashing someone for doing the very thing they themselves are doing.

>>1201390
0/10

>>1201371
You do realise that all of what that man was saying was random theory shit that can't be proven. Once again, we are talking about facts not, "I WANT TO BELIEVEEEEEE"

>>1201387
if you wanna troll why not go to /b/?

>>1201390

To the American Indians, europeans were aliens.

>>1201404
which facts? this is a thought experiment...

If you feel you have some facts that others are missing, do share them.

>>1201407
When you have a solid point, you get the ability to throw in jokes. It stops you from going crazy while listening to the christfags that are wannabe atheists.

>>1201407

>if you wanna troll why not go to /b/?

Fresh meat here /b/ is a troll clusterfuck

>>1201394

>I like how these to posts are bashing someone for doing the very thing they themselves are doing.

I want some of what you're smoking.

>>1201387

We all die, i will just live longer than you.

In the movie, the machine itself ONLY makes a perfect physical copy at another location. It doesn't kill.

The first time he freaked and shot clone-A. This makes it clear his consciousness is NOT transferred to the clone.

Then he set things up so that the non-clone drowns when the device is used. Since the consciousness is not transferred, he experiences death when he uses the device. Then the next night clone-B experiences death when it makes clone-C...and so on.

I would only use the machine if suicide is worthwhile to accomplish something which would otherwise fail. Perhaps to save others with the clone, or to make a clone to take care of my loved ones if I can't escape alive from the lab.

>>1201434
He went on a tangent about 3D and 4D shit, while there is proof that we can make clones NOW, in this day and age, and prove that they exist. We also know that the clones won't be "us", they aren't our consciousness, they have their own.

>>1201452

Only an utter idiot would think we're talking about genetic clones in this thread.

>>1201450
Ok here you fags go, proof that you wouldn't be the clone that is transferred. Go home now, oh wait.

>>1201464
>Only a
Oh my God, the irony. Genetic or not, same concept applies. Read >>1201450

I'd use it.

My clone would have the same memories as me, the same experiences, if it made an EXACT copy.

Sure it wouldn't be the same atoms that make up my body, but we cycle through most of the atoms that make us up quite regularly.

Who's to say that I'm not really the same person if my consciousness is able to remain in tact?

And fucking teleportation! Fuck yeah!

>>1201497
facepalm.jpg
>>1201450

you need to read the book the movie is based on. it explains it all there.

>>1201497
if it's not the same atoms then it's not an exact copy

>>1201480

Genetic clones are nothing like a perfect physical copy.

>>1201505

If Carbon atoms of a particular state function the same, then it would count. It would be like a bit for bit copy of a computer program.

>>1201497
Is right.

Why most people here think it would kill you?

I dont get it, this is /sci/, I thought you'd be intelligent enough to realise that you would continue to exist as the clone. Also your consciousness.

>>1201502
? troll?

>>1201509
>Implying that an exact copy can be made without your genes
Yeah, good luck scanning a human and finding every single trait that he possesses and the exact placement of every cell in his entire body, without it going through the process of growth and growing its own cells and being affected by the different environments.

>>1201524

We think it would kill you because if the machine did not destroy the original, it's hard to argue that the new copy is "you."

>>1201534

This is a THOUGHT EXPERIMENT, moron.

>>1201450
>The first time he freaked and shot clone-A. This makes it clear his consciousness is NOT transferred to the clone.
No, I think that he is the clone and that she shoots the original. He sets up the gun at the point where the clone comes out, the two have a wtf moment for a second, then the clone picks up the gun and shoots the original.

>>1200322
>If someone invented a way to tepoert people, but the way it worked was it simultaneously created an exact copy
>It created an exact copy
>Copy
>>1201524
I don't see why you can't read man, I mean you are on /sci/ thought I thought you would be smart.

>>1201559
THE THOUGHT EXPERIMENT IS THAT WOULD YOU KILL YOURSELF TO TELEPORT YOUR CLONE YOU MORON.

>>1201562
he shoots the original *

>>1201562

So a perfect copying machine would MOVE the original person to the new location and create the new person where the original was standing?

That's a tad far fetched!

>>1201569

THE THOUGHT EXPERIMENT IS "IS A CLONE THAT IS IDENTICAL IN EVERY WAY YOU?" MORON.

>>1201574
That's how it worked, you believing fag. Go by facts not beliefs.

>>1201579
IT'S A CLONE NOT YOU YOU MORON. CLONES DON'T TAKE YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS.

>>1201580

What, did the director commentary track declare it so? If not then you're imposing a less economical belief than I am. Occam's Razor etc.

Why posit a move+copy when a simple copy will do?

>>1201588
We are talking about what the machine does, not what we want it to do. It clearly says that you will no longer exist, but your clone will. If I could be teleported then hell yeah I would do it, but if its just a clone, and I don't exist anymore, fuck no.

>>1201450
actually, in the book AND movie, the clone was random, and indistinguishable from the original.

In fact, before he shoots the first "clone" the "clone" says "No wait! I'm the real-"

He also remarks on how every night, he never knew if he'd be the prestige, or the man in the tank.

>>1201597

You're trivializing the question by simply assuming the answer you want. The entire point of this thread is to question whether it REALLY IS teleportation of personal identity if a perfect copy is made elsewhere.

>>1201584

EXCEPT YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS WAS ALSO CLONED YOU MORON

>>1201608
BUT YOU WON'T BE EXPERIENCING THAT CONSCIOUSNESS YOU MORON

>>1201608

Begging the question.

>>1201604
Yes, it is transporting your identity, but you experience that identity, your clone does.

>>1201622
But you don't*

do people in this thread really think that someone who has been perfectly "cloned" has control over both clones? how the fuck would two separate brains communicate at a distance like that? are they asserting that perfect "clones" are inherently telepathically linked? i don't see how anyone could seriously believe that

>>1201642
>>1201642
BUT THEY BELIEVE ;~;

>your
>youre
What the...? Did you try two different versions to see if you'd get one right? Because you didn't.

>>1201524
>>1201497

I agree. Of course you couldn't make a teleporter that would make a perfect replica of you down to the the exact position and velocity of every electron in your body, and the flavor of every quark. But this is a philosophical question.

Assuming the copy was an exact copy as OP stated, then everything that makes you you, your body, your memories and experiences, your consciousness, everything about you, would be present in the copy.

The copy is now you.

>>1201552

Raises a good point, if the machine did not destroy the original you, then you would have two people who's consciousness is immediately different. They would be pretty much the same, but not exactly the same.

However, if the original is destroyed (as is the case in OP's scenario), then there is no conflicting consciousness, simply a seamless continuation.

You would lose none of yourself, you would be the same. You may feel weird about it, but while others are feeling weird and chilling on Earth, you can feel a little weird and be riding flying space whales in another galaxy.

Space whales.

I would.

I think the root of the problem is that we don't know what will happen with one's conciousness or breaking it's continuity. For all intents and purposes my clone would be the same person as the one who stepped into the teleporter. Even if I would "die" but my new self would not have any recollection of the event, then that's no different from clinical death. I imagine it would feel like narcosis.

>>1201642
still with the trolls.. :(

>>1200407
The beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go into it, but the way those atoms are put together.

>>1201868
>>1201868
>>1201868

>>1201745
>>1201745
No, you wouldn't be that conscious.

The device creates a clone of you.
In the time between the clone being created and the original being destroyed, is the consciousness in the original aware of also controlling the second body? No?
Sorry bud. You died. Passing the game off to player two isn't the same as having an extra life.

>>1201674
No, you'd be dead and your clone would be thinking that there was no loss of consciousness.

>>1201891

No information was lost, the consciousness remained unaltered, you're system remains perfectly intact, albeit composed of different matter, but the system is still a perfect replica.

I think a lot of this has to do with whether or not you think you'd lose a soul (or something of the like). I don't believe I have a soul, if my body, my mind and everything about me was recreated perfectly with different building blocks of matter, I'd still be myself, as far as I'm concerned.

You could call me from Earth and be like "Yo dawg, you're actually dead, lol", and I'd be like "Stfu man, you're wrong and I have a space whale to ride".

>>1201884
You dont have to be aware of the second consciousness. Yes, you die, but you also live on, in the other body. And yes, you are AWARE of everything in the clone, your consciousness is split. One consciousness experiences death, while the other lives on, both being you.
There is no "real" you anymore. Both are you.

>>1201972
Finally someone who gets it.
Also fucking space whales, fuck yeah!

I can't figure out why so many people don't understand this. You would be dead. From the perspective of your clone, it would appear as if he just teleported, because your memory was replicated into him, but as for you, it's basically suicide.

>I think a lot of this has to do with whether or not you think you'd lose a soul (or something of the like).

It has nothing to do with that. If you were to create a clone of yourself, but you stayed alive, would YOU experience anything through your clone? Obviously not. What about if you were to create your clone, you both existed for a while, and then you got killed. Would you still experience conciousness through your clone? If you say no, then why would it be different just because the first body was instantly destroyed?

Teleport the mind not the body. The body is just a container.

>>1202040
You are wrong. You would live on. You live as the clone.
You say
>From the perspective of your clone, it would appear as if he just teleported, because your memory was replicated into him, but as for you, it's basically suicide.

That'S where you wrong. There is no "perspective of your clone". There is only your perspective. But now you have TWO not connected perspectives. One which dies within split seconds after the second one is created.
But both are you!

hell no i wouldn't go. i'll take the fucking bus thanks

Let say there are two systems

1. Transports all your atoms and reassembles them at the new spot
2. Create copy at new spot, destroys original

There would only be a difference if you KNEW which version you were using, in 2. the clone would know its a clone

But my answer to your question, no i would not use it, since my conciousness would end and exact copy would go on in my place, that is not the same as me continuing from the transporter spot, even though the clone would act exactly like me.

Heres a question

Star Trek transporter vs Asgard transporters, from watching the show, it look like the Star Trek one turns u into enter or a matter stream and transporters you, whereas the Asgard one seem to move the whole person very fast

which u choose?

>>1202080

I was waiting for this, and I can't say for sure that I disagree that both are you. You failed to answer my question though. Even if "Me1," and "Me2" are the same, there will still be a loss of conciousness if "Me1" dies. The conciousness between the two of them is not shared. So even if both are the same, they are both "me," that still doesn't change the fact that the person typing this right now is "Me1" and I would no longer experience conciousness if I were killed off. Sorry for the shitty terminology, it's hard for me to describe exactly what I'm thinking.

- teleport a tiny chunk of brain first (put it on life support)
- using a method of instant teleporting communication, link the tiny chunk of distant brain with your whole brain again.
- repeat till the whole brain is over there
- in one quick move remove the life support and teleport the body into exactly the right place, maybe use some nanomachines to stich it all back together

See, if you only remove a tiny piece at a time and then re-establish communication with that piece, yor stream of consciousness is never once interrupted, you wont die.

teleporting your entire body at once. is instant death with a clone of you created on the other end. anyone who doesn't understand this is a retard.

>>1202080

wrong, think of it like this, the transporter malfunctions and the original is not destroyed, there are now two of you. You do not share sensation, each of you is separate individual diverging from that point. Now some puts a gun to the originals head and blows out his brain, you are dead, and a exact copy WHO ISN'T YOU, continues to exist

1) modify the killing bit so it stops killing
2)teleport to next room
3) meet self
4)finally find out if it's masturbation or homosexuality to make out with yourself
5) repeat until army of me is built
6)subject myself to medical tests likely to kill me
7)???
8)nobel prize for numerous medical breakthroughs

>>1202122
Define consciousness =/

>>1202164

Being self-aware. The first version of me would no longer be self-aware if it was killed off, even if the second version lived on. I realize you could argue that they are both the same, so you're still self-aware, but when both are alive, there are two seperate self-aware brains that are not connected with each other.

So I don't understand where you're trying to go with this.

>>1202122

Yeah, we pretty much agree then, but we have different perspectives on what the loss of the original body/consciousness would mean.

I understand you taking issue with the first consciousness ceasing to exist, and that translating to you as you know yourself being dead.

I simply differ in perspective, I'd be quite comfortable with my consciousness dying off and being instantly replaced with an exact replica. I know how the replica would react also, because it would simply continue to emulate my exact thoughts on the matter. And my thoughts are that I'm comfortable with the matter making up myself being annihilated, and new matter forming a new self with the same consciousness elsewhere.

I also agree that if the original were not destroyed, they would certainly NOT be the same person. They would share the same past, they would be almost the same people, but no longer would they be the same, as they both continue to exist and their consciousness is immediately altered in different ways. But in the example given -with the original consciousness being annihilated - this is not really a problem, as far as I'm concerned as long as there remains only one of me, and nothing about the makeup of my body/consciousness has changed, I would still call myself the same person.

>>1200319
ｗ W W . a Ｎ O ｎ t a ｌ K . ｓ E nd vm zluxa vpxkom tzudqrfy kak w vgsfkgxet

Relevance!

>>1202122
You are right, there is loss of consciousness if me1 dies after me2 is created. But only a few nano seconds or however long it takes to desintegrate you.
I think I know what you mean, of course me1 dies.
And of course me1 exxperiences death and his (your) last thought's may be "Fuck, I dont wanne die".
But you still exist as me2. And that is you.

I think your problem is that you dont want to lose consciousness. But in fact you dont lose it, you just think you lose it.

>>1202141
wrong. Thast exact copy is me. NOT me from 1 second before I die. BUT me from when I was cloned.

>>1202203

I realised I didn't word that so well.

Basically, I'll be standing in the teleporter, knowing I was going to be annihilated, and a replica of myself with same thoughts would appear elsewhere in the universe. I would know that the replica would identify itself as my current self, and be comfortable with that.

I'd be annihilated, and at the same time, my replica would be created, exactly the same as me. He would realise that he is me, and has just been teleported. He would be comfortable with the belief that he is still me, because he know he is exactly the same person, and his stream of consciousness has remained more or less unbroken. He would continue to act as I would, because he is me.

I know this, because Tyler knows this.

>>1202223
lold

>>1202228
i don't think this retard understands at all. that's fine. we'll need willing volunteers to test this shit and no one in their right mind is this stupid. i understand your logic, that this replacement you is still you and since the original you is dead you are now the replacement. but thats nonsense, you're the guy that died. the other you is a copy. from your perspective your perspective will cease and nothing will take its place. meanwhile a new perspective is created and thats your clone riding the space whale

>>1202267

You're both, as long as only one exists at the same time, you are both.

If two exist, you're similar but not the same.

One at a time, both.

Reread above posts if you need further clarification on why this is.

>>1202267
But where is the difference?
Who cares if I am dead or not when there is an exact copy of me?
I would come to you and say: You were wrong, I am still me.

>>1202292

Yeah, it's completely about how the individual who was transported perceives themself.

If they continue thinking they're the same person, they are biologically the same person and there's only one of them, it follows that they are the same person.

However if they identify themselves as a clone and not as the same person, that a serious adverse effect of the process, and it could be argued that they have changed slightly as a person since they no longer identify with their pre-teleportation self. Although technically they *would* be, their mind has been altered by the very process of being teleported.

>>1202292
ok consider it like this then since you seem to have some kind of mental block that prevents you from understanding something that contradicts your original beliefs.

remove teleportation from the equation. kill yourself. 20 years later create a clone with the same memories as the dude who died 20 years ago. where is your perspective? hmm?

your perspective isn't there. once you die how is your perspective supposed to shift to the clone? it doesn't shift over, your perception does not shift over. your perception ends. the new perception is a clone and not you, because you are dead and no longer capable of percieving.\

>>1202289

Still sounds like a dodge to me.

The idea that "it's one person as long as only one exists at any given time" is weak. Clone me, and I will still be me with a clone. Clone me and kill me, I'll be dead with a clone. If I take a book, make a copy of it, then burn the original, I'm left with an identical copy, but not the original book.

If human consciousness is purely an object, it is no more transferred than a copy of a printed book has the fact that one is the original transferred. That essential fact goes up in smoke with it when the original is burned.

Theist, atheist, it doesn't matter which you are; from any perspective, the machine is a death trap.

>>1202289
I feel like there is only one anon who thinks like me.

you seem to think that if you believe you didn't die you didn't. but that if you believe you died then you will have died. lol magic. you believe in magic.

>>1202329
this a thousand times this. if you are a true atheist as you claim then you are a soulless objsct no different then the book.

>>1202325
And there is where you are wrong. Of course it would be my perspective. I would be reincarnated.
Actually, there is no proof for that. Maybe I am wrong. Of course I know what you mean, I get you.
But it doesn't make any more sense than my theory.

>>1202335

Clone?

>>1202354
no it makes a lot more sense. your consciousness ends when you die. that makes sense.

your theory is that when you die your conciousness transfers to your copy. it doesnt transfer anywhere that doesn't make sense. why would your cosnciousness not end just because you have a copy? makes no fucking sense

>>1202352

So we are soulless. So what?

We are still awesome.

A single human is a colony of billions of little cells, each one made up of trillions of protein chains made by the nucleus, a self-replicating molecule. A naturally-ocurring nanorobot. If that's not SCIENCE and AWESOME enough, I don't know what is.

Or, as Carl Sagan put it, we are made of star stuff. We are the machinery of the Cosmos discovering itself.

Don't be so depressed >:3~ / Don't be a butthurt christfag

>>1202352

But a book is a poor analogy for such a complex organic system. It's our system that gives us our thoughts, our experience, our morals, our consciousness.

If the organic system is replicated, it's not the original. But it IS the same.

>>1202358

Maybe the machine malfunctioned.

>>1202354

Might wanna go spend some time thinking on this one, buddy.

>>1202346
I never said that and that is not what I think.

I dont think we will get any further.
We both have an idea and we cant convince one another.
But I liked that discussion. It is rare on /sci/. Good night.

>>1202376
i'm not a butthurt christfag. i'm atheist as fuck and fully aware of what sagan as said on the matter. my point was that when you copy and burn a book the burned book is gone and all you have is the copy. and the same is true with humans because we have no soul.

just because i said we have no soul doesn't mean i... fuck you're just a fucking moron

>>1202377

Exactly, just as the copy of the book is the same as the original, right? This book could contain text on morals, philosophy, instructions on how to do things, and it all could be perfectly copied.

But burn the original and all you have left is a copy. A perfect copy, but it's not the original, and no amount of mental acrobatics can make it so.

new 2 4chan
i rz noob