Hi everyone,

Could anyone please help me with this question?

The transporter on the Starship Voyager malfunctions. It beams an atom for atom duplicate of you down to the planet, but doesn't destroy the original! Which is the real you? why?

I think the real you, is the me left on the ship. But i'm not sure of the why...

Help please?

I guess it depends on whether you think an atom for atom duplication is enough to reproduce the "real you". If it is, then both copies are the real you, although their experiences will quickly diverge from the moment the second copy appears. If not, then you have to decide what characteristics the "real you" has which might distinguish it from a mere copy.

The real u will still be the one on the ship! Ur mind is still comes from the body on the ship. U are looking at a replica of ur body being made but when it is made, u don't just suddenly jump into it!

What if what really happens when they transport you is that the machine rips through a dimensional barrier and grabs a 'you' from another dimension leaving it uninhabited by 'you'.

Wtf? :D

The real u will still be the one on the ship! Ur mind is still comes from the body on the ship. U are looking at a replica of ur body being made but when it is made, u don't just suddenly jump into it!

Would it hurt you so much to type out "you"? It's only two more letters than your inane internet shorthand. Please, for the sake of maintaining appearances of intelligent discussion on this site, could you at lest put yourself into a position where one might believe you were capable of passing a high school English 101 class?

I hit the edit button just now, feeling that perhaps my comment was a little too harsh, or at least out of place. But looking over the quoted post again, I'm filled once more with the feeling that I am justified in my actions. Seriously now, if you're going to come and try to participate in a community who's members communicate entirely with the written word, then you should at least put the effort into being proficient enough with that you're capable of writing in entire words and sentences.

Alright, upon reading my post through once more and giving myself a moment to breath, I suppose that I should have just made another thread on this subject in the free thoughts section, and then linked to the offending post, so maybe I'll go off and do just that. Then again, maybe I'm over reacting? Is this even the right thread to become outraged over the level of discourse? I really need to work on my priorities. Net speak just happens to be a real pet peeve of mine.

Mystech:

Seriously now, if you're going to come and try to participate in a community who's members communicate entirely with the written word, then you should at least put the effort into being proficient enough with that you're capable of writing in entire words and sentences.

The first rule of pedantry is to be correct yourself. Otherwise, you tend to look a bit silly. ;)

Would it hurt you so much to type out "you"? It's only two more letters than your inane internet shorthand. Please, for the sake of maintaining appearances of intelligent discussion on this site, could you at lest put yourself into a position where one might believe you were capable of passing a high school English 101 class?

I hit the edit button just now, feeling that perhaps my comment was a little too harsh, or at least out of place. But looking over the quoted post again, I'm filled once more with the feeling that I am justified in my actions. Seriously now, if you're going to come and try to participate in a community who's members communicate entirely with the written word, then you should at least put the effort into being proficient enough with that you're capable of writing in entire words and sentences.

Alright, upon reading my post through once more and giving myself a moment to breath, I suppose that I should have just made another thread on this subject in the free thoughts section, and then linked to the offending post, so maybe I'll go off and do just that. Then again, maybe I'm over reacting? Is this even the right thread to become outraged over the level of discourse? I really need to work on my priorities. Net speak just happens to be a real pet peeve of mine.

To be honest, as James has pointed out, everyone has their own style of writing and I am NOT going to change my style. I can tell u that now. If u don't like it then don't read my posts but I am telling u (as hopefully the last person) that there's no point in posting a post like this again because I am NOT going to change it.

I really don't think it is too hard to read and I sincerely hope u don't think I am doing this because I can't spell "you" or that i haven't passed my English exams. I believe u are saying this because my post has unintentionally hurt u or made u emotional in some way so I am not going to scream back at u! (Rosa taught me a lesson in anger management :D )

LoL!!!! I wuz Pwnz0red! Srry Guyz Im Just not 1337 e-nough 4 Ur skillz, forgive me, k? Plz,thnks!

Its only the "u" I do, nothing else. I think you're confusing me with that guy that everyone laid into a while back coz he was writing the way u wrote above. I am not him BTW :D

thanks james......and everyone else too?

Hi everyone,

Could anyone please help me with this question?

The transporter on the Starship Voyager malfunctions. It beams an atom for atom duplicate of you down to the planet, but doesn't destroy the original! Which is the real you? why?

I think the real you, is the me left on the ship. But i'm not sure of the why...

Help please?If a replica of you were made atom for atom, then there would be no physical significanse of which one were "you".

So who would you sense to be?

If we take it down to a cellular level, then all your cells have been replaced a number of times, so "you" aren't in the physical. Therefor you would still be in Starship Voyager, cause "you" is "you".

Teleporting has been achieved (with photons, not yet with atoms). It was shown that as soon as the replica was made the original disappeared itself.

This may show that all things have a uniqueness and there can't be two of the same.

But how do this relate to you and your body? Would the original naturally disappear? Just like you moving from one point to another, there isn't a copy made of you for each step you take. Maybe if a copy of all levels of matter were made of you, then the original would disappear. But if a copy were just made by materials and constructing a similiar cell that you had, and arrange them into similiar patterns that you had. Then the original wouldn't disappear. Since it isn't the original matter that is replicated, it's the pattern it forms, using other matter. But if "the same" matter is used, then the original would disappear, cause "the same" now exists in another place.

Simple answer.

The transpoter would not in its design make a copy. You would be speaking of a replicator by context. So it is an unfounded thought.

Simple answer.

The transpoter would not in its design make a copy. You would be speaking of a replicator by context. So it is an unfounded thought.But you understand what he meant. Just think "replicator" instead of "transporter" and the thought isn't unfounded anymore. Do you have any answer?

If existence is soulless the duplicate will have a conscience and awareness just like you and feel like you, the only difference being the knowledge by memory that it is indeed a duplicate of you.

Any distinction appliable would be through a part of you that isn't duplicatable by the replicator, e.g. a soul.

(Note: I do not personally believe in a soul.)

Or maybe there is something physical that cannot be duplicated, perhaps something subatomic, some kind of "registration mark" more ancient and basic than DNA - something on which the replicator cannot pick up.

These are all but speculations, but for all practical purposes (as we generally see them given our current level of technological (and mayhaps spiritual) prowess) the duplicate you is as much you as yourself disregarding timespan of existence.

What you really need to contemplate is what crimes yous (pardon the italian pun) could get away with legally before laws concerning duplicates are instated.

Yes. Machines can not create life. It would be a lifeless lump on the planet. You would be you.

Lets say that we progressed toward replicating life forms and a perfect match could be made. Can cellular decay be replicated, no. Could memory be duplicated, possible. But the awareness of self is singular so it would be new to it's self with your memories but no residue exsists to replicate when it comes to self awareness.

Yes. Machines can not create life. It would be a lifeless lump on the planet. You would be you.

This to me is a typical dogmatic conviction that life is something more-than-energy/matter; that life is some intangible, sacred "spark" and beyond our grasp of manipulation. All I can say is that science is proving you and your ilk more and more wrong, step by step of scientific power. Already we understand the predispositions for the origins of life, and producing such environment. Genes, DNA are virtually ours to control as we will.

To view and answer your statement more simply; man is himself a machine and is quite capable of creating life - ask your mom and dad.

Lets say that we progressed toward replicating life forms and a perfect match could be made. Can cellular decay be replicated, no. Could memory be duplicated, possible. But the awareness of self is singular so it would be new to it's self with your memories but no residue exsists to replicate when it comes to self awareness.

Please prove that cellular decay cannot be duplicated.

Memory is "merely" a patterning of certain parts of the brain, much like the memory of a computer is binary settings, so duplicating memory should in theory prove little more complicated than duplicating a hard disk.

Awareness of self is singular to each being, yes, but the duplicate, having the exact same memories as the original up to its actual creation, will be as convinced of its own conscious awareness of being you as the original you, the only difference, as mentioned before, being the awareness of being the duplicate.

Lets say that we progressed toward replicating life forms and a perfect match could be made. Can cellular decay be replicated, no. Could memory be duplicated, possible. But the awareness of self is singular so it would be new to it's self with your memories but no residue exsists to replicate when it comes to self awareness.What is the difference between you being here or you being there?

If our awareness follow us wherever we go, then there shouldn't be any difference. You would share the awareness of the replica.

It would be like you moving from one place to another.

If the awareness of yourself is in the physical then we have the same situation. The awareness would follow the physical and you would be at two places at once. There wouldn't be any reason why you would feel aware only in the original and not in the replica.

If we say that you died and a copy of you were stored in a computer. Then we arranged the particles so they would match you perfectly.

If that would be done. Would you be brought back to life?

If not, why?

I see what you mean that awareness is singular. There is only one awareness of you.

But then, could there be that each awareness is singular?

You and I are then only different by awareness.

Could that be the equivalent of soul?

This to me is a typical dogmatic conviction that life is something more-than-energy/matter; that life is some intangible, sacred "spark" and beyond our grasp of manipulation. All I can say is that science is proving you and your ilk more and more wrong, step by step of scientific power. Already we understand the predispositions for the origins of life, and producing such environment. Genes, DNA are virtually ours to control as we will.

To view and answer your statement more simply; man is himself a machine and is quite capable of creating life - ask your mom and dad.



You seem to be very confused on several points. !. "Dogmatic" is alittle over the top. 2. I never implied "scared" 3. "ilk" is dogmatic 4. and what does any of what you just said have to do with the duplicate been a dual reality or not?

Please sounds like you have some intellectual growing to do.

Please prove that cellular decay cannot be duplicated.

Memory is "merely" a patterning of certain parts of the brain, much like the memory of a computer is binary settings, so duplicating memory should in theory prove little more complicated than duplicating a hard disk.

Awareness of self is singular to each being, yes, but the duplicate, having the exact same memories as the original up to its actual creation, will be as convinced of its own conscious awareness of being you as the original you, the only difference, as mentioned before, being the awareness of being the duplicate.

Can u reproduce a leg with a cut in it? No, the cell is unnaturally arranged and would not follow the manipulation in replicating. Now deformity is very differant. So be careful with your thoughts. Now, cloneing, mind you, is accomplished through the proproductive process which means at the start of cellurar division. I do not think it possible to replicate a cell in it exact point of cellular decay.

Concerning memory, if you read I stated that it was possible.

You loose site of his original question, would he be on the ship as himself? The answer is yes.

You seem to be very confused on several points. !. "Dogmatic" is alittle over the top. 2. I never implied "scared" 3. "ilk" is dogmatic 4. and what does any of what you just said have to do with the duplicate been a dual reality or not?

Please sounds like you have some intellectual growing to do.

1 (!). Stating that a machine cannot create life is exactly a statement of dogmatic nature.

2. Never said "scared"...did say "sacred" though.

3. "Ilk" means type or kind - how the hell did you ever get that to be dogmatic?

4. Never argued that, pro nor con - where did you come up with that?

"Please sounds like you have some intellectual growing to do"??....Guess I'll just ignore that cute little burp of your defence mechanism.

Can u reproduce a leg with a cut in it? No, the cell is unnaturally arranged and would not follow the manipulation in replicating. Now deformity is very differant. So be careful with your thoughts. Now, cloneing, mind you, is accomplished through the proproductive process which means at the start of cellurar division. I do not think it possible to replicate a cell in it exact point of cellular decay.

Concerning memory, if you read I stated that it was possible.

You loose site of his original question, would he be on the ship as himself? The answer is yes.

If the replicator did as stated in the original post, copy you atom for atom, then yes, the cut in the leg would follow and the cells will be copied at the exact state of decay in which they are.

And yes, you said "possibly" about memory duplication and I supported that possibility - does that offend you?

I havn't lost sight of the original question, but to clarify: They will both be equally convinced of their own "I", but naturally the one on the ship is the original and the one on the planet the duplicate, both of them knowing this. Depending on psyche and philosophy the duplicate could live on from there none the sadder with the knowledge he is a duplicate or he could evolve a healthy psychosis.

To better establish the validity of the original over the duplicate (if such unequivalence exists) one would have to conduct the replication when the original was unconscious and having the duplicate too be unconscious upon creation, then place them both next to eachother, wake them up and let a team of experts in all kind of relevant fields (psychologist, geneticist, molecular biologist, hypnotherapist and what have you), all whom are ignorant about which is which, try to discern who is who. They might try in vain forever.

What is the difference between you being here or you being there?

If our awareness follow us wherever we go, then there shouldn't be any difference. You would share the awareness of the replica.

It would be like you moving from one place to another.

No, it wouldn't. The replica would be aware of itself and u would still be aware of u. How on earth can u explain scientifically how a mind can be in 2 places at the same time?! Your mind comes from your brain :rolleyes:

No, it wouldn't. The replica would be aware of itself and u would still be aware of u. How on earth can u explain scientifically how a mind can be in 2 places at the same time?! Your mind comes from your brain :rolleyes:Let's take this to another level.

Let's say there are two of you, born at the same time (they are exactly the same down to a cellular level).

You are obviously only aware in yourself. But what is it that determines which one you would be aware in?

Are there some kind of selection process?

Or would you be aware in both at once?

Are you going to ignore the dilemma? I'm pretty sure that no one is born exactly the same at exactly the same time. But try not to get that in the way and answer as if it were possible.

My mind comes from my brain. Let's look at it as if that was true, then what is it that determines "my brain" and "my mind"?

Could I just as likely be in you as you in me? If it is the physical that determines it, then what is it that the physical determines?

Let's take this to another level.

Let's say there are two of you, born at the same time (they are exactly the same down to a cellular level).

There can't be "two of u". If two identical people are born at the same time then they are twins. They will have diffenet divergent histories from the moment they were born.

You are obviously only aware in yourself. But what is it that determines which one you would be aware in?

There is nothing that determines which one u are aware in. There are two seperate minds with two seperate brains.

Or would you be aware in both at once?

Again, explain that scientifically. the answer is NO!

Are you going to ignore the dilemma?

There's no dilemma

My mind comes from my brain. Let's look at it as if that was true, then what is it that determines "my brain" and "my mind"?

Genetics and the laws of physics!

Could I just as likely be in you as you in me?

U can never be in me.

If it is the physical that determines it, then what is it that the physical determines?

it

There can't be "two of u". If two identical people are born at the same time then they are twins. They will have diffenet divergent histories from the moment they were born.I mean identical, not just twins, but exactly cell-by-cell identical.

If they have divergent histories doesn't matter in this scenario. I'm not sure either if you had my memories, that I would look out from your eyes.

There is nothing that determines which one u are aware in. There are two seperate minds with two seperate brains.But I could just as likely have been aware in the other brain, if there is no physical difference.

Or?

Again, explain that scientifically. the answer is NO!It's the second option of two available.

If two identical persons (and I do mean identical) were born at exactly the same time, then either the awareness is shared between them or there is a selection process.

There's no dilemmaIgnoring the dilemma?



Genetics and the laws of physics!They are physically the same and genetically also.



U can never be in me.If we were born exactly the same time with exactly the same physical structure. Then there would be no difference that seperate us.

Is the difference in location?

Don't get me wrong, this isn't some kind of weird internet-hit-on-you.

itWhat is it?

I mean identical, not just twins, but exactly cell-by-cell identical.

Read the reply again. I also said identical :rolleyes:

If they have divergent histories doesn't matter in this scenario.

Course it does. If u are identical, then every difference u have and every way u think depends on your past experiences.

But I could just as likely have been aware in the other brain, if there is no physical difference.

Awareness comes from the brain. There's no such thing as soul k?! How can u be aware of 2 bodies that are in different rooms?

If two identical persons (and I do mean identical) were born at exactly the same time, then either the awareness is shared between them or there is a selection process.

How about taking a scientific stance. There are 2 awarenesses.

Ignoring the dilemma?

No dilemma


They are physically the same and genetically also.

I didn;t make it clear. What determines YOUR mind is your brain which comes depends on physics, genetics and history.

If we were born exactly the same time with exactly the same physical structure. Then there would be no difference that seperate us.

No. But it doesn't mean that u have awareness of the other person. " rocks can look identical but not be the same.

Is the difference in location?

That will be the biggest difference after a while with divergent histories.

What is it?

look:

If it is the physical that determines it, then what is it that the physical determines?

U have answered it yourself!

Read the reply again. I also said identical :rolleyes:Ok.

Course it does. If u are identical, then every difference u have and every way u think depends on your past experiences.Yes, true. But I'm not talking about the way I think, I'm talking about awareness. If I had your memories, would I suddenly be in your body then? (if we say memories can be transferred from one human to another).



Awareness comes from the brain. There's no such thing as soul k?! How can u be aware of 2 bodies that are in different rooms?I don't know how. But I don't know how I can be aware anyway either.

How about taking a scientific stance. There are 2 awarenesses.If there indeed are two awarenesses (remember, I haven't ruled that out) then why couldn't I have been aware in the other person instead and the other person been aware in me, if they are purely identical physically?

No dilemmaIgnoring the dilemma?

I didn;t make it clear. What determines YOUR mind is your brain which comes depends on physics, genetics and history.I'm not talking about how my mind operates, I'm talking about awareness. If two persons are exactly the same physically (and thus genetically) what it is that determines that one would be aware of himself instead of the other (and the other way around).

No. But it doesn't mean that u have awareness of the other person. " rocks can look identical but not be the same.So you say that allthough two things can be exactly indentical physically, there is still a unseen factor that tells us that they aren't "the same"?

Is this "unseen" factor that they exist in different positions?


That will be the biggest difference after a while with divergent histories.What is it in the location that suggest that I am in my body and not in yours. If we are purely identical.

Or is it so, that the "not being the same" doesn't depend on location?

look:Can you describe to me, what I am expected to see?

U have answered it yourself!But the question still stands.