RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,238
Posts: 5,348,129
Members: 24,611
Currently online: 533
Newest member: fxks323

TrekToday headlines

Insight Editions Announces Three Trek Books For 2015
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

To Be Takei Review by Spencer Blohm
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Mulgrew: Playing Red
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Hallmark 2015 Trek Ornaments
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Funko Mini Spock
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23

IDW Publishing Comic Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23

A Baby For Saldana
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23

Klingon Beer Arrives In The US
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22

Star Trek: Prelude To Axanar
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22

Abrams Announces Star Wars: Force For Change Sweepstakes
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22


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 > Entertainment & Interests > Science and Technology

Science and Technology "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known." - Carl Sagan.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 6 2013, 02:01 AM   #16
Data's Cat
Lieutenant
 
Data's Cat's Avatar
 
Location: Texas
Re: Star Trek Transporter - not practical!

Deckerd wrote: View Post
A clone is not the same as the original. In other words even if you had a machine that could make a facsimile of a body after destroying the original, the facsimile would be a different person because cloning does not replicate a personality. The simple reason for this is that every personality is unique.
I've read that when animals are cloned in the laboratory, their personalities are different. People who have a beloved pet cloned are not getting the same animal.
__________________
Just call me Spot.
Data's Cat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 6 2013, 10:43 AM   #17
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Star Trek Transporter - not practical!

Noname Given wrote: View Post
^^^
And that's my issue - the particular 'conscious awareness' that is me would effectively cease to exist at the transmission point - (IE 'I' would for all intents and purposes be dead.) The copy at the reception point (assuming everything went well) would be a new 'conscious awareness' and would retain all my experiences/memories; and live on from that point (until he decided to teleport again); but again my original 'conscious awareness' will have ceased to exist.
But you don't know if any of that is indeed the case. We have no idea was consciousness is. So we can't say what happens to it. And we will never be able to determine it because no one who was beamed can tell you if he's real or a copy.
__________________
lol
l
/\
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 6 2013, 07:56 PM   #18
DarthTom
Fleet Admiral
 
DarthTom's Avatar
 
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Re: Star Trek Transporter - not practical!

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
But you don't know if any of that is indeed the case. We have no idea was consciousness is. So we can't say what happens to it. And we will never be able to determine it because no one who was beamed can tell you if he's real or a copy.
As an aside, Trek tries to play both sides of the fence on this. In Enterprise the creator of the transporter strongly denies the process is cloning.

However, several episodes in TNG especially lead us to believe it is hybrid cloning because a duplicate Riker is created and they able to age and de-age people using the device to solve plot problems.

Also remember in TOS Kirk's 'essence," is reassembled from essentially nothing.

As I said earlier - if transporting is ever possible it's cloning. I don't think many people would be interested in the process for ease of travel.
DarthTom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 6 2013, 09:57 PM   #19
Captain Kathryn
Commodore
 
Captain Kathryn's Avatar
 
Location: In Star Trek / Doctor Who fantasy land aka New Jersey
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Captain Kathryn
Re: Star Trek Transporter - not practical!

I heard some kids from a college (I forget which one) transported a single photon about 140 km.
__________________
Assimilate more Janeway...among other stuff! Captain Kathryn's Tumblr
Captain Kathryn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 7 2013, 07:36 PM   #20
PurpleBuddha
Rear Admiral
 
PurpleBuddha's Avatar
 
Re: Star Trek Transporter - not practical!

Even if copied in the exact state, its still a copy. If this could be done without destroying the original, the concept would be more clear. What materializes 'over there' is a copy of you. I might shake his hand but wouldn't volunteer to be killed knowing that my copy will live on.
__________________
We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate.

-Ronald Reagan
PurpleBuddha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 7 2013, 10:14 PM   #21
YellowSubmarine
Commodore
 
YellowSubmarine's Avatar
 
Re: Star Trek Transporter - not practical!

Unless supernatural properties of the soul exist, I don't see how the other you will be anything other than you yourself.
__________________
R.I.P. Cadet James T. Kirk (-1651)
YellowSubmarine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 8 2013, 12:11 AM   #22
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Star Trek Transporter - not practical!

PurpleBuddha wrote: View Post
Even if copied in the exact state, its still a copy. If this could be done without destroying the original, the concept would be more clear. What materializes 'over there' is a copy of you. I might shake his hand but wouldn't volunteer to be killed knowing that my copy will live on.
There's the point where religion and philosophy enter the room. IF there is a soul, IF there is a god, then your consciousness will survive the process and transfer from A to B. I don't think god would allow humans to kill themselves and copy their souls at the same time. That would be pretty inflationary.
__________________
lol
l
/\
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 8 2013, 06:23 PM   #23
Psion
Commodore
 
Psion's Avatar
 
Location: Lat: 40.1630936 Lon: -75.1183777
View Psion's Twitter Profile
Re: Star Trek Transporter - not practical!

PurpleBuddha wrote: View Post
Even if copied in the exact state, its still a copy. If this could be done without destroying the original, the concept would be more clear. What materializes 'over there' is a copy of you. I might shake his hand but wouldn't volunteer to be killed knowing that my copy will live on.
Okay ... how about this: Your little boy or girl are trapped in a high-rise apartment building that is on fire and about to collapse. There is no way to rescue them.

But there is a duplicating transporter available. It kills the subject relatively painlessly, but creates an exact copy that will remember everything you've taught her and she'll even call you "daddy".

Do you beam her up and "rescue" her?
__________________
Twinkies are back. I knew they couldn't stay away from me for long.
Psion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 8 2013, 07:36 PM   #24
DarthTom
Fleet Admiral
 
DarthTom's Avatar
 
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Re: Star Trek Transporter - not practical!

Psion wrote: View Post
Do you beam her up and "rescue" her?
The rhetorical answer to that question is of course, yes. However, such a device would also theortically be able to de-age people using their DNA and create a younger clone And end result of that is immortality for those to have access to it.
DarthTom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 8 2013, 08:56 PM   #25
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Star Trek Transporter - not practical!

DarthTom wrote: View Post
Psion wrote: View Post
Do you beam her up and "rescue" her?
The rhetorical answer to that question is of course, yes. However, such a device would also theortically be able to de-age people using their DNA and create a younger clone And end result of that is immortality for those to have access to it.
Immortality only if you have infinite energy resources.
__________________
lol
l
/\
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 8 2013, 09:07 PM   #26
PurpleBuddha
Rear Admiral
 
PurpleBuddha's Avatar
 
Re: Star Trek Transporter - not practical!

Psion wrote: View Post
PurpleBuddha wrote: View Post
Even if copied in the exact state, its still a copy. If this could be done without destroying the original, the concept would be more clear. What materializes 'over there' is a copy of you. I might shake his hand but wouldn't volunteer to be killed knowing that my copy will live on.
Okay ... how about this: Your little boy or girl are trapped in a high-rise apartment building that is on fire and about to collapse. There is no way to rescue them.

But there is a duplicating transporter available. It kills the subject relatively painlessly, but creates an exact copy that will remember everything you've taught her and she'll even call you "daddy".

Do you beam her up and "rescue" her?
Yes, I would make a copy of my kids if they were about to die and the technology existed.

Anyway, why does destroying the original make this concept difficult for some? If you did it without destroying the original, then you could have a conversation with your copy and know that if you died at that very moment you would no longer be conscious even though your copy is standing right next to you.
__________________
We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate.

-Ronald Reagan
PurpleBuddha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 9 2013, 04:45 AM   #27
Data's Cat
Lieutenant
 
Data's Cat's Avatar
 
Location: Texas
Re: Star Trek Transporter - not practical!

This topic is getting a little creepy.
__________________
Just call me Spot.
Data's Cat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 12 2013, 10:31 PM   #28
Gary Honis
Cadet
 
Location: PA
Re: Star Trek Transporter - not practical!

Data's Cat wrote: View Post
This topic is getting a little creepy.
No need to be creepy; a transporter can be loads of fun. I recently built one for my grandkids to play with and have instructions for building your own transporter HERE.

Gary
Gary Honis 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 11:14 AM.

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