RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,953
Posts: 5,390,955
Members: 24,722
Currently online: 532
Newest member: Jadakiss

TrekToday headlines

Forbes Cast In Powers
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

Dorn To Voice Firefly Character
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

No ALS Ice Bucket For Saldana
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

Free Star Trek Trexels Game
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

New Trek-themed Bobble Heads
By: T'Bonz on Aug 21

IDW Publishing November Trek Comic
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Pegg/Wright Trilogy In The Works
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Star Trek: The Compendium Rebate Details
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Gold Key Archives Volume 2
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Takei Documentary Wins Award
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek TV Series > The Next Generation

The Next Generation All Good Things come to an end...but not here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 26 2013, 11:47 AM   #16
polyharmonic
Lieutenant
 
Re: "Second Chances" and its disturbing implications

Push The Button wrote: View Post
I have always understood the process as matter being converted to energy, then back to matter at the destination point. If it is your own original atoms being reassembled in another place, it isn't a copy of you, it is you.

If, on the other hand, the transporter is merely sending your "blueprint" somewhere, and you are being recreated out of the atoms on-hand at the destination point, that would be making a copy of you.
So in the case of Will and Tom Riker, how does one square this "original atoms" theory then?

Clearly it is not possible for both Will and Tom Riker to both come from the "original atoms" of the original Riker pre-transporter accident. One of the two or even both of them are created from "new" atoms as it were.

Last edited by polyharmonic; August 26 2013 at 11:57 AM.
polyharmonic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2013, 11:56 AM   #17
polyharmonic
Lieutenant
 
Re: "Second Chances" and its disturbing implications

T'Girl wrote: View Post
If you take a starfish and either cut or rip it in half, the two halves will regrow a entire starfish, complete with any physical abnormalities the orginal starfish possessed. Identical in DNA too.
Okay but suppose fully sentient beings could regrow themselves like starfish, it might still be clear that one of the two "regrown" beings was actually a new duplicate being with a new consciousness while the other is a continuation of the "original" consciousness.

Consider this:
A person is sliced in half "horizontally" around the waist into two parts. The upper half person continues to function mentally and continues to maintain his consciousness. Meanwhile the lower half part, since not yet having a head/brain, is now unconscious. But it regrows the entire upper half including his head and brain. Let's say this head and brain regrew to contain all the memories of the original pre-sliced person. Well in this example clearly the upper half regrown person is the original while the lower half person is a duplicate.

Of course if you sliced the person "vertically" in half from the head downward, it becomes somewhat more difficult to determine which half is the original. This is even more so if cutting in half vertically makes BOTH halves lose their consciousness and both halves then regain consciousness at a later time once fully regenerated into whole persons. In THIS case, it is certainly a possibility then that the ORIGINAL consciousness has died and two NEW consciousness but inheriting the memories of the original have been created!

Last edited by polyharmonic; August 26 2013 at 01:24 PM.
polyharmonic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2013, 03:52 PM   #18
DonIago
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Burlington, VT, USA
View DonIago's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to DonIago Send a message via AIM to DonIago Send a message via Yahoo to DonIago
Re: "Second Chances" and its disturbing implications

I don't really understand why people get hung up on the whole "the transporter kills you" thing.

However the transporter does what it does, the end product appears to be identical to the original in all respects. I suppose there might be some metaphysical concerns ("Where did my soul go?") but aside from that, on a practical level it seems like a difference that makes no difference.
__________________
--DonIago
It was the best of Trek, it was the worst of Trek...
"If I lean over, I leave myself open to wedgies, wet willies, or even the dreaded Rear Admiral!"
DonIago is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2013, 04:10 PM   #19
Nine of Four
Commander
 
Nine of Four's Avatar
 
Location: On a Borg Cube in the Delta Quadrant
Re: "Second Chances" and its disturbing implications

A similar incident occurred in TOS Episode 5, "The Enemy Within", when a transporter accident caused Kirk to Split in two, one good, one evil. In that story, Kirk was successfully rebonded with his duplicate.

-
Nine of Four is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2013, 04:59 PM   #20
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: "Second Chances" and its disturbing implications

In that story, he supposedly needed to be rebonded. Not because one half was "good" (that is, wussy and indecisive) and one was "evil" (that is, impulsive and selfish), and not because these faults seemed to be deepening with time, but because the splitting was having consequences on the physique of both the duplicates, meaning both would die soon.

In "Second Chances", the two Rikers were neither mentally nor physically deteriorating, and if where were any changes in mental or physical capacity originally, those were too slight to be observed.

But there might be legal issues there, or moral ones not yet written into law. Tuvix was an opposite case, a viable and stable merger of two people, and there existed an obligation to restore the two people, as per 24th century morals and perhaps laws as well. Possibly such morals stem from the same thing as the 24th century deep hatred towards cloning or other duplication. Nevertheless, nobody suggests merging the two Rikers... Say, averaging their minds (the necessary transfer technologies are known to exist in other Trek episodes) and killing one of the bodies.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2013, 06:29 PM   #21
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: "Second Chances" and its disturbing implications

Various episodes indicate that it's you being sent from place to place, and that you remain aware during transport. In Doomsday machine, when the transport took an unusually lengthly period of time, as soon as Scotty finished materializing he commented that he was aware that the transport was "wrong."

T'Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2013, 06:40 PM   #22
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: "Second Chances" and its disturbing implications

Plus, the very means by which "transporting" is achieved in the show necessarily means that people can move while being beamed. After all, they always arrive in a slightly different pose from that they held when leaving. (Well, not in "Mark of Gideon" where Shatner doesn't have to physically move in order to get from starting set to finishing set, but apart from that...)

That a set of atoms arriving is "the same" as the set of atoms that departed is a complex issue of physics and existentialism, and not something we could ever decide on "common sense" alone. Identity becomes extremely vague at the small end of the scale, and it has e.g. been argued that there only exists one electron in the entire universe, because there could never be an identical pair (the Pauli exclusion principle in action) and thus any "other" electron could just be the one doing something different... For all we know, the atoms that left as Will Riker were the very same that arrived as two Will Rikers - there just were two of each at arrival, but still the very same.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2013, 06:48 PM   #23
DonIago
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Burlington, VT, USA
View DonIago's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to DonIago Send a message via AIM to DonIago Send a message via Yahoo to DonIago
Re: "Second Chances" and its disturbing implications

Timo wrote: View Post
But there might be legal issues there, or moral ones not yet written into law. Tuvix was an opposite case, a viable and stable merger of two people, and there existed an obligation to restore the two people, as per 24th century morals and perhaps laws as well. Possibly such morals stem from the same thing as the 24th century deep hatred towards cloning or other duplication. Nevertheless, nobody suggests merging the two Rikers... Say, averaging their minds (the necessary transfer technologies are known to exist in other Trek episodes) and killing one of the bodies.

Timo Saloniemi
This seems a bit unlikely to me given that the EMH flat-out refused to perform the procedure to split Tuvix. If there was such a legal obligation why would he object?

I also think it may not have been a case of 24th century morals so much as the morals of the only people who were around to weigh in with an opinion. Or even a mix of Janeway's morals and Starfleet training/protocol, i.e. "You do what the Captain says."
__________________
--DonIago
It was the best of Trek, it was the worst of Trek...
"If I lean over, I leave myself open to wedgies, wet willies, or even the dreaded Rear Admiral!"
DonIago is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2013, 06:56 PM   #24
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: "Second Chances" and its disturbing implications

Curiously, everybody aboard the E-D seems to agree on the clones-must-die thing: they are either passionate about it or let it slide, and opposition doesn't exist.

Perhaps the EMH is opposed to splitting Tuvix because it features old-fashioned expertise (from McCoy's days at least, and perhaps older still) and the programmers forgot to remove old-fashioned judgement?

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2013, 06:58 PM   #25
DonIago
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Burlington, VT, USA
View DonIago's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to DonIago Send a message via AIM to DonIago Send a message via Yahoo to DonIago
Re: "Second Chances" and its disturbing implications

I'm reasonably sure that the EMH refused to perform the procedure because of the Hippocratic Oath, and I thought that was clearly portrayed, but I could be mistaken.

I don't really have an issue with the clones dying under the circumstances. Like I said, rape victims choosing to abort their unwanted kids before they've developed consciousness.
__________________
--DonIago
It was the best of Trek, it was the worst of Trek...
"If I lean over, I leave myself open to wedgies, wet willies, or even the dreaded Rear Admiral!"
DonIago is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2013, 09:25 PM   #26
polyharmonic
Lieutenant
 
Re: "Second Chances" and its disturbing implications

T'Girl wrote: View Post
Various episodes indicate that it's you being sent from place to place, and that you remain aware during transport. In Doomsday machine, when the transport took an unusually lengthly period of time, as soon as Scotty finished materializing he commented that he was aware that the transport was "wrong."


Yes I know this. However this isn't consistent from episode to episode. There are plenty of episodes where it is implied or stated that the transporter works more like a "scanner and printer" that scans and converts your matter into energy but while in that "energy state" you are unconscious until rematerialized.

For example in TNG "Relics" Scotty rigged the transporter to store his "pattern" and he was this way for DECADES. Wouldn't it be hell if he really was conscious all that time while in that "buffered state"? I think he would have become insane by the time he was rematerialized if he were in some conscious limbo state imprisoned in the buffer all those decades!

And again WRT "Second Chances", how exactly can both Rikers be the original consciousness? If we assume that you are conscious the whole time you are in the "energy state", then what happened when they split Riker's beam? It seems to be that when that happened (or some time afterwards) a new consciousness was formed. Now I can't say if it was Will rather than Tom but one of the two (or both!) could not be the continuing consciousness of the original Riker!
polyharmonic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2013, 09:29 PM   #27
DonIago
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Burlington, VT, USA
View DonIago's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to DonIago Send a message via AIM to DonIago Send a message via Yahoo to DonIago
Re: "Second Chances" and its disturbing implications

With Riker how would we know if they both only had half a consciousness?
__________________
--DonIago
It was the best of Trek, it was the worst of Trek...
"If I lean over, I leave myself open to wedgies, wet willies, or even the dreaded Rear Admiral!"
DonIago is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2013, 09:31 PM   #28
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: "Second Chances" and its disturbing implications

For example in TNG "Relics" Scotty rigged the transporter to store his "pattern" and he was this way for DECADES. Wouldn't it be hell if he really was conscious all that time while in that "buffered state"???
But it was an important plot point that Scotty did something truly exceptional there. This is not an example of how the transporter normally works at all.

And again WRT "Second Chances", how exactly can both Rikers be the original consciousness?
Why not? Something like that would be eminently copyable, erasable and whatnot. There'd be no more uniqueness to it than there's to a lump of meat when subjected to the transporter-duplicator.

So one becomes two. What possible reason would there be to claim that both cannot be continuation of the one?

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2013, 09:39 PM   #29
polyharmonic
Lieutenant
 
Re: "Second Chances" and its disturbing implications

Timo wrote: View Post
So one becomes two. What possible reason would there be to claim that both cannot be continuation of the one?

Timo Saloniemi
Someone mentioned that it would be similar to a starfish splitting into two new individuals and that each individual can be said to be the continuation of the original.

However I've explained my reasoning and even posed a thought experiment in Post 17 that demonstrates that when one becomes split into two, it makes sense that either one OR BOTH of the two are duplicates of the original. Clearly in my example, you can see how clearly only ONE of the two would be the true original continuation of the original consciousness while the other would clearly be a brand new duplicate consciousness.

Simply put there is no way I can see that BOTH Will and Tom are the continuation of the original consciousness. Either one is a duplicate or BOTH ARE (original now dead).
polyharmonic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2013, 09:55 PM   #30
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: "Second Chances" and its disturbing implications

I see no merit in the idea that "duplicate" is the antithesis of "continuation". The two concepts have nothing to do with each other: originals or duplicates or triplicates can all be continuations equally well, provided they don't exhibit a discontinuity of some sort. If the duplication process is perfect, then by definition there is no discontinuity: A is B1 but also B2. And we have no reason to think the duplication process would be imperfect.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:23 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.