RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,223
Posts: 5,405,485
Members: 24,764
Currently online: 451
Newest member: beakel001

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Time’s Orphan
By: Michelle on Aug 30

September-October Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Aug 29

Lee Passes
By: T'Bonz on Aug 29

Trek Merchandise Sale
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek #39 Villain Revealed
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Trek Big Bang Figures
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek Seekers Cover Art
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Fan Film Axanar Kickstarter Success
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Two New Starship Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Trek Actor Wins Emmy
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26


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 > Welcome to the Trek BBS! > General Trek Discussion

General Trek Discussion Trek TV and cinema subjects not related to any specific series or movie.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 3 2010, 06:07 PM   #46
Forbin
Admiral
 
Forbin's Avatar
 
Location: I said out, dammit!
Re: When a person is beamed up it's not the same person

DevilEyes wrote: View Post
Forbin wrote: View Post
Yes, but from the beamee's own perspective (in the "destroyed" argument), he's just plain DEAD. The new person created at the other end may have continuity of consciousness, but it's no longer the original consciousness, it's a recreation. It's a whole new person.

So in this scenario, you're committing suicide when you beam. You cease to exist. Done. Kaput. Finito.
I think you've completely missed the meaning of the "continuity of consciousness".
Maybe I'm interpreting it differently - what I'm postulating is that the person who emerges from the transporter is a brand new-created person who has a copy of your consciousness, which then continues on from that point. This may give the impression of a continuity of consciousness to the copied person and to outside observers. But the person who stepped into the transporter isn't going to know anything about that because they died. They're GONE, baby!

The copy who steps out is NOT the same person, but a copy with a new consciousness.

As the person stepping into the damn thing, it's your final act - your life is just plain over!
Forbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2010, 06:20 PM   #47
A beaker full of death
Vice Admiral
 
A beaker full of death's Avatar
 
Re: When a person is beamed up it's not the same person

ReadyAndWilling wrote: View Post
This has been bugging me for a long time. I mean when you get beamed up basically you die and a copy of you is made?

I mean that person is gone, just because there is an exact copy doing exactly what the old you would have done doesn't mean you are still a conscious functioning being, you cease to exist. It isn't you if you are just re-assembled using different matter.
Oy. This again.

It's damn silly, seeing as how it's fantasy tech. Not even sci fi, pure fantasy. As such, since it's intended by the writers that it be the same person, it is.
__________________
"shall not be infringed" is naturally open to infringements of all kinds, because shut up and think of the children.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/...#ixzz2ImW0V3GV
A beaker full of death is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2010, 06:24 PM   #48
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: When a person is beamed up it's not the same person

A beaker full of death wrote: View Post
Oy. This again.

It's damn silly, seeing as how it's fantasy tech. Not even sci fi, pure fantasy. As such, since it's intended by the writers that it be the same person, it is.
Well, no, it is scifi. Because as of now, beaming might be possible. Maybe not on a large scale as beaming a human being, because the amount of information and energy needed is enormous, but it's not impossible.
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3 2010, 10:54 PM   #49
DevilEyes
Rear Admiral
 
DevilEyes's Avatar
 
Location: basking in the warmth of the Fire Caves
View DevilEyes's Twitter Profile
Re: When a person is beamed up it's not the same person

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
DevilEyes wrote: View Post
C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
Obviously, you don't.

Actually, I won't because they don't have the same personality and memories.
Neither do the clones.
Then why did you bring it up? I know I never said anything about clones or twins having the same personality and memories. You brought that up, not me.


Because identical twins, just like CLONES, are not the same people, they do not have the same memories and consciousness, they are DIFFERENT people, only GENETICALLY identical. Get it? Two copies of Riker are something completely different.

What part don't you understand?!?!

In other words, you really know you've barked up the wrong tree and so you want to say over and over again I don't know what a clone is to save face.


In its simplest definition, a clone is simply an identical person or object. Sure, you can go on and write a ten-page essay on clones, but in the end it means a copy, and that's the definition that I used.
Um... no.

It's the WRONG definition.

Go and learn the meanings of the things you're discussing, before you start discussing it.


Now I know you're arguing just for the sake of arguing...


C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
But I think you and DevilEyes are both taking my usage of the word "cloning" earlier a bit too literally since we're still talking about the creation of an identical-looking person.
We are using it to mean what it actually means. If you mean something else by it, don't use the wrong word for it.
It wasn't the wrong word if it meant making a copy from an original.

Anything else is just being nitpicky over semantics.
(original) (cloned)
Except that it doesn't mean that.

I'm very close to putting you on ignore. What is your problem? First you're using words whose meanings you don't know, then you just can't admit that you're wrong?


Forbin wrote: View Post
DevilEyes wrote: View Post
Forbin wrote: View Post
Yes, but from the beamee's own perspective (in the "destroyed" argument), he's just plain DEAD. The new person created at the other end may have continuity of consciousness, but it's no longer the original consciousness, it's a recreation. It's a whole new person.

So in this scenario, you're committing suicide when you beam. You cease to exist. Done. Kaput. Finito.
I think you've completely missed the meaning of the "continuity of consciousness".
Maybe I'm interpreting it differently - what I'm postulating is that the person who emerges from the transporter is a brand new-created person who has a copy of your consciousness, which then continues on from that point. This may give the impression of a continuity of consciousness to the copied person and to outside observers. But the person who stepped into the transporter isn't going to know anything about that because they died. They're GONE, baby!

The copy who steps out is NOT the same person, but a copy with a new consciousness.

As the person stepping into the damn thing, it's your final act - your life is just plain over!
That doesn't make sense. If the person who stepped into the transporter has died, where the hell did the person who stepped out out it come from? Unless you believe that the transporter is a god who can create life. If you died (i.e. your consciousness stopped to exist) when you stepped into the transporter, whatever emerged on the other side could only be your dead body, not another person. And even if the transporter gave life to a new being, it wouldn't have the continuity of your consciousness and your memories, if you had died. A transporter can't create a consciousness where there wasn't one.
__________________
Treason, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

my Buffy/Angel rewatch
DevilEyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 4 2010, 02:11 AM   #50
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: When a person is beamed up it's not the same person

DevilEyes wrote: View Post
C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
DevilEyes wrote: View Post
Neither do the clones.
Then why did you bring it up? I know I never said anything about clones or twins having the same personality and memories. You brought that up, not me.


Because identical twins, just like CLONES, are not the same people, they do not have the same memories and consciousness, they are DIFFERENT people, only GENETICALLY identical. Get it? Two copies of Riker are something completely different.
You're being nitpicky.
What part don't you understand?!?!
Apparently a lot more than you did since you utterly failed to understand that I simply meant the creation of a copy.
In other words, you really know you've barked up the wrong tree and so you want to say over and over again I don't know what a clone is to save face.
Truth hurts, doesn't it?
In its simplest definition, a clone is simply an identical person or object. Sure, you can go on and write a ten-page essay on clones, but in the end it means a copy, and that's the definition that I used.
Um... no.
Um...yes.
It's the WRONG definition.
No, it's the most simplest BASIC definition. A clone is a copy. It can't get more simpler than that.
Go and learn the meanings of the things you're discussing, before you start discussing it.
You need to go and make more friends because there's no way anyone else would be arguing over something so trivial as this.
Now I know you're arguing just for the sake of arguing...
Is the truth. You must be getting dizzy rolling your eyes like that. The fact you're continuing to argue with me over this only confirms you just want to nitpick over something that's really pointless to argue over.
C.E. Evans wrote:
But I think you and DevilEyes are both taking my usage of the word "cloning" earlier a bit too literally since we're still talking about the creation of an identical-looking person.
We are using it to mean what it actually means. If you mean something else by it, don't use the wrong word for it.
It wasn't the wrong word if it meant making a copy from an original.

Anything else is just being nitpicky over semantics.
(original) (cloned)
Except that it doesn't mean that.
Oh, yes it does. As I said, a clone is a copy. You can argue till the cows come home over what kind of copy it is, but it still is a copy.

I'm very close to putting you on ignore.
Put me on ignore, dang it! Means nothing to me if you do or don't. If anything, it'll make posting more peaceful for me.
What is your problem?
I'm just not anal.
First you're using words whose meanings you don't know, then you just can't admit that you're wrong?
Because I'm not wrong, because I used the word appropriately in the context that I meant it to--the creation of a copy. You're the one trying to be some sort of grammar/thought police or something.

EDIT: You're not going to win this, so you might as well put me on ignore since I won't stop using the term cloning to describe the creation of a copy.
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."

Last edited by C.E. Evans; May 4 2010 at 02:46 AM.
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 4 2010, 03:06 AM   #51
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: When a person is beamed up it's not the same person

Any chance that future posts will be less buried in semantics? Because, y'know, that would be nice...(looks hopeful)
__________________
--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 May 4 2010, 03:19 AM   #52
DevilEyes
Rear Admiral
 
DevilEyes's Avatar
 
Location: basking in the warmth of the Fire Caves
View DevilEyes's Twitter Profile
Re: When a person is beamed up it's not the same person

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
...


I won't put you on ignore only because you're so unintentionally hilarious. Every post of yours is such a perfect example of irony, it is enjoyable in its own ludicrous way.

I particularly love this:

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
You need to go and make more friends because there's no way anyone else would be arguing over something so trivial as this.


Pot... kettle...

DonIago wrote: View Post
Any chance that future posts will be less buried in semantics? Because, y'know, that would be nice...(looks hopeful)
Unfortunately, probably not, because we are, you know, using language... and meanings of words are kinda important when you're doing that.

Or, we could just disregard semantics completely! It would be more fun!

Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. Logic is a little tweeting bird chirping in meadow. Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers that smell bad.
__________________
Treason, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

my Buffy/Angel rewatch
DevilEyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 4 2010, 03:19 AM   #53
xortex
Commodore
 
Location: Staten Island, NY
Re: When a person is beamed up it's not the same person

What is consciousness based on and what is it?
xortex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 4 2010, 03:23 AM   #54
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: When a person is beamed up it's not the same person

DevilEyes wrote: View Post
C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
...


I won't put you on ignore only because you're so unintentionally hilarious. Every post of yours is such a perfect example of irony, it is enjoyable in its own ludicrous way.

I particularly love this:

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
You need to go and make more friends because there's no way anyone else would be arguing over something so trivial as this.


Pot... kettle...
Don't think so, since I don't go around nitpicking over semantics.


Whatever...
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 4 2010, 03:42 AM   #55
Alidar Jarok
Everything in moderation but moderation
 
Alidar Jarok's Avatar
 
Location: Norfolk, VA
Re: When a person is beamed up it's not the same person

Both of you knock it off. You stopped discussing the topic several posts ago and you stopped adding something knew to the topic at least a page and a half ago. There are other people who might want to actually participate this topic. Take your feud to PM or put each other on ignore or stop replying to each other if you don't plan on being on topic and civil.
__________________
When on Romulus, Do as the Romulans
Alidar Jarok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 4 2010, 04:09 AM   #56
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: When a person is beamed up it's not the same person

DevilEyes wrote: View Post
Two copies of Riker are something completely different.
If it is a actual matter stream of "your" physical substance that is moved from one place to another, then where did the extra mass come from in the re-materialization of the double Kirk and the double Riker?

I weigh about 125 pounds, if the transporter re-materializes double T'Girls, does each weigh in at 62½ pounds? And if both T'Girls are full weigh, where does the extra mass come from? In the case of Riker does the replicator step in to supplement?
T'Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 4 2010, 01:08 PM   #57
Forbin
Admiral
 
Forbin's Avatar
 
Location: I said out, dammit!
Re: When a person is beamed up it's not the same person

DevilEyes wrote: View Post

Forbin wrote: View Post
DevilEyes wrote: View Post
I think you've completely missed the meaning of the "continuity of consciousness".
Maybe I'm interpreting it differently - what I'm postulating is that the person who emerges from the transporter is a brand new-created person who has a copy of your consciousness, which then continues on from that point. This may give the impression of a continuity of consciousness to the copied person and to outside observers. But the person who stepped into the transporter isn't going to know anything about that because they died. They're GONE, baby!

The copy who steps out is NOT the same person, but a copy with a new consciousness.

As the person stepping into the damn thing, it's your final act - your life is just plain over!
That doesn't make sense. If the person who stepped into the transporter has died, where the hell did the person who stepped out out it come from? Unless you believe that the transporter is a god who can create life. If you died (i.e. your consciousness stopped to exist) when you stepped into the transporter, whatever emerged on the other side could only be your dead body, not another person. And even if the transporter gave life to a new being, it wouldn't have the continuity of your consciousness and your memories, if you had died. A transporter can't create a consciousness where there wasn't one.
I'm not saying it creates a consciousness, I'm saying (what if) it makes a digital copy of both your consciousness and your body, and in the process destroys the original. Something like lost wax casting - a mold is made from a wax sculpture, but the wax has to be melted out to use the mold, thus destroying the original. A copy made from the mold is no longer the original, it only looks like it.

Or to use a digital information analogy, say the consciousness is an MP3 file. The transporter reads the consciousness, downloads a copy of the file into a buffer, then transmits a copy into the beamed copy of the person. When the transporter cycles and clears the buffer, all the digital info is lost. The copy of the consciousness carries on in the recreated/beamed body of the person, but the original person/consciousness is gone. Dead.

I don't know WHAT you'd call the resulting being then. Zombie? Golum? Ghost? That's the philosophical question before us - is the "soul" transferred, copied, or destroyed? Is a digital copy of a personality the same as the original? Is this the same person or just a poor shadow? Is Starfleet populated by the undead!?
Forbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 4 2010, 09:33 PM   #58
DevilEyes
Rear Admiral
 
DevilEyes's Avatar
 
Location: basking in the warmth of the Fire Caves
View DevilEyes's Twitter Profile
Re: When a person is beamed up it's not the same person

^ <Occam's razor>If it makes a "copy" of your consciousness, I'd say the resulting person is you. A very alive you.</Occam's razor>
__________________
Treason, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

my Buffy/Angel rewatch
DevilEyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 4 2010, 10:24 PM   #59
Navaros
Commodore
 
Re: When a person is beamed up it's not the same person

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
For all intents and purposes, a person does technically die or is vaporized whenever their body is converted (or molecularly partially decoupled) into a compressed energy beam.

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
Heck, it's even been said onscreen more than once that a transporter is a matter/energy conversion device.
It certainly is never said on-screen that transporter people 'die,' as you are claiming.

It seems like you and others are conflating real science with fictional science on the Trek shows and using that conflation as a reason to justify the 'death/new person' theory. However, one cannot legitimately conflate real science with fictional science. And the show in no way supports the idea that a transported person dies and then a new person is created.

What is presented on the show is that the same one person is transported, end of story.
Navaros is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 4 2010, 10:28 PM   #60
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: When a person is beamed up it's not the same person

On-screen is was even proven that people do not die during beaming. Barclay is conscious and able to move throughout the entire process in one episode.
JarodRussell 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 09:05 AM.

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