Re: Transports in New Trek (novelization)

[Hyperspace05]

Re: Transports in New Trek

So let me get this straight, you wonder onto the transporter pad knowing that you will die but go anyway? It makes a copy of you, sure... with all the same memories, etc, but YOU die. In other words, if I transported for the first time today, then I die, my conscience ceases to exist. Sure there is another me around, but my soul or spirit or whatever is gone. That is just dumb to me. No one would agree to do that and it is just a lame idea altogether IMHO.

Who says you have a "soul"??? (Or "spirit" for that matter)

No matter if the original atoms are transported, or just their information - the transported takes you apart, molecule by molecule, atom by atom. You are dead. You do not exist at that point.

But at the other end you are reassembled. Reanimated. You live again. All molecules are put back in the same place - you do not experience the "gap" of existence at all.

We can debate for along time whether or not souls really exist (I personally do not think so) - but the evidence seems to be rather absolute that in the Star Trek fictional universe(s), there is no such thing as a "soul".

Or did Riker's "soul" get split in half?

 

[Falconfire]

There you go. How about explaining the conversation that continued to take place -- before, during and after transport in TWoK.

Nick Meyers not understanding how transporters work. OR----
the conversation is interrupted at the point cohesion is lost and then resumed when put back together. The "transporter effect" (sound & visual) just lasts longer on these transporters, maybe a prototype decon scan that became standard by TNG.

Or, it doesn't kill either them or Barclay. The no-kill scenario works for all examples; the kill scenario doesn't.

Except Trek keeps at least some basis though smaller by every series in fact.

And the facts are it is utterly impossible to "beam" you without killing you in the proses. Unlike Warp which is very much theoretical, we have actually "beamed" stuff.

 

[Jeri]

We have not beamed "stuff"; we haven't done so much as a piece of celery. They think they beamed a particle.

 

[Augustus]

Re: Transports in New Trek

So let me get this straight, you wonder onto the transporter pad knowing that you will die but go anyway? It makes a copy of you, sure... with all the same memories, etc, but YOU die. In other words, if I transported for the first time today, then I die, my conscience ceases to exist. Sure there is another me around, but my soul or spirit or whatever is gone. That is just dumb to me. No one would agree to do that and it is just a lame idea altogether IMHO.

Who says you have a "soul"??? (Or "spirit" for that matter)

No matter if the original atoms are transported, or just their information - the transported takes you apart, molecule by molecule, atom by atom. You are dead. You do not exist at that point.

But at the other end you are reassembled. Reanimated. You live again. All molecules are put back in the same place - you do not experience the "gap" of existence at all.

We can debate for along time whether or not souls really exist (I personally do not think so) - but the evidence seems to be rather absolute that in the Star Trek fictional universe(s), there is no such thing as a "soul".

Or did Riker's "soul" get split in half?

Regardless of the existence of a soul, my original point is that the idea of I get beamed, I die, and another me walks around is lame. Because I DIED. So yeah there is another me exactly the same wandering around, but the original birth me, yeah, he is dead.

That whole idea is ridiculous to me. Maybe the science of the transporter itself is just ridiculous. But if it actually did kill you and make a copy no one would use it, because the conscience or self awareness of the human that walks onto the pad would be gone.

 

[The Badger]

Er... for some reason I have a memory of when Kirk+Spock met Zephram Cochrane and he was terrified of the idea of the transporter because even if a copy of him materialized at the other end, he himself would die, and Kirk assured him this was not the case, it really was 'you' that was being transported- your molecules.

Did this happen or am I crazy?

This is from the (non-canon) novel 'Federation'. Zephram Cochrane is beamed onto the Enterprise, and is horrified, thinking that the real Cochrane died in the process and that he is just a copy.

The transporter operator explains that all his atoms have been physically moved via quantum tunnelling. He is the same person he was before.

 

[Sovay]

And the facts are it is utterly impossible to "beam" you without killing you in the proses. Unlike Warp which is very much theoretical, we have actually "beamed" stuff.

I think "stuff" best describes things with mass. We haven't managed to actually beam an atom or anything like that, but we have beamed photon states about 600m.
I don't know, it doesn't seem that useful, and it may or may not lead to something more useful. Unless we can get to the point where we can actually teleport objects, and that WOULD work the "bad" way (things being scanned, destroyed/killed, and reassembled.)
Has anyone read the Diamond Age? That had a pretty cool method of matter assemblage in it that seems like it'd be more useful.

 

[Hyperspace05]

I just find it amazing that so many Star Trek fans have taken (and continue to take) the transporter for granted without realizing the philosophical implications of such a device. Truly staggering.

But perhaps it really shows how very little Science Fiction there really is in Star Trek. And by that I mean stories that examine the implications of transporter technology. Because most of you seem to take the technology at no less face value than a magical device in a fantasy book.

 

[SalvorHardin]

I just find it amazing that so many Star Trek fans have taken (and continue to take) the transporter for granted without realizing the philosophical implications of such a device. Truly staggering.

I've been seeing conversations on the internet about these implications of the transporter for years and years.
It's not at all a new topic of discussion.

 

[Green Shirt]

Re: Transports in New Trek

There was an episode of Enterprise that set the record straight ("Daedalus" in Season 4). It featured the man who invented the transporter talking about this apparently common misconception about transporters, laughing and saying there wasn't an ounce of truth to it. The transporter does indeed just convert you to energy, transport you, and then reconstitute you -- the original you, not some sort of duplicate. So there you go.

He could have been lying.

 

[Jeri]

I'm seeing a pattern here: if the death advocates encounter a scene that contradicts their position, then the scene is incorrect.

 

[Photoman15]

Re: Transports in New Trek

So let me get this straight, you wonder onto the transporter pad knowing that you will die but go anyway? It makes a copy of you, sure... with all the same memories, etc, but YOU die. In other words, if I transported for the first time today, then I die, my conscience ceases to exist. Sure there is another me around, but my soul or spirit or whatever is gone. That is just dumb to me. No one would agree to do that and it is just a lame idea altogether IMHO.

Who says you have a "soul"??? (Or "spirit" for that matter)

No matter if the original atoms are transported, or just their information - the transported takes you apart, molecule by molecule, atom by atom. You are dead. You do not exist at that point.

But at the other end you are reassembled. Reanimated. You live again. All molecules are put back in the same place - you do not experience the "gap" of existence at all.

We can debate for along time whether or not souls really exist (I personally do not think so) - but the evidence seems to be rather absolute that in the Star Trek fictional universe(s), there is no such thing as a "soul".

Or did Riker's "soul" get split in half?

Regardless of the existence of a soul, my original point is that the idea of I get beamed, I die, and another me walks around is lame. Because I DIED. So yeah there is another me exactly the same wandering around, but the original birth me, yeah, he is dead.

That whole idea is ridiculous to me. Maybe the science of the transporter itself is just ridiculous. But if it actually did kill you and make a copy no one would use it, because the conscience or self awareness of the human that walks onto the pad would be gone.

Human conscience and self-awareness is a thought process. If every atom were reassembled in the exact places and quantum states, the "copy" at the other end would have the same conscience and self-awareness. Long term memory are permanently etched into the brain, short term memory is active chemical reactions. A quantum level scan and reproduction would duplicate everything. Conscience and self-awareness are not magical things. They are chemistry.

 

[Alrik]

I'm seeing a pattern here: if the death advocates encounter a scene that contradicts their position, then the scene is incorrect.

That seems to pretty much sum it up. Another case happened in The Schizoid Man, TNG Season 2. The Away Team has to make a near Warp, long range transport. They are warned that it will be a little different than usual. When they get to Graves World, Troi says, "For a moment, I could have sworn that I was in that wall". Worf says, "For a moment, you were".

An earlier poster made reference to most not paying attention to the fact that this is SCIENCE fiction. Ok, I get that. But all arguments are being made from the stand point of today's science. Who are we to say that some ground breaking discoveries won't be made in the next couple of centuries that will make it possible to transport without the 'kill' factor?

Look at it this way. Two hundred years ago, manned flight, not to mention space travel, was nothing more than a dream. We have no idea how far we will progress in the next two hundred years, or how simplistic the science of today will seem.

 

[Talosian]

As long as the transporter involves the atomic disassembling of the human body, it constitutes death, period. This is irrespective of whether a duplicate materializes at the end of transport or not. The only way around this would be if the transporter operated instead via a faster-than-light portal like an Iconian gateway or Borg transwarp conduit.

 

[Creedence]

Wow, lots of people here really know their Trek. Nice reference to the non-canon novel Federation, by the way. Nice read.

I think perhaps we may consider the fact that treknology evolves and that includes transporters. In TOS, Kirk et al have to remain relatively still as they await transport and they remain immobile until reconstitution is complete. It doesn't matter that 1960's FX are responsible for this. The truth is that transporters worked like that. In All Good Things... Riker's Enterprise-and-a-half beams the entire crew compliment off of the Pasteur in a few seconds.

Kirk's away team conversing mid matter stream and Barclay's unfortunate experiences prove that transporters work differently than they did in TOS. They share some features, such as the unwitting creation of Thomas Riker or splitting Kirk into two people.

I understand that this is, after all, fanstasy and do not lie awake at night wondering what the hell. Transporters are dubious but necessary to the story. They offer a fast way to move characters from one scene to another. That doesn't mean that my character would ever use one.

Getting back to the wording in the Star Trek novelization that duplicates are created in the transporter: I am also content to chalk that up to the whole alternate reality story. Many things overlap in unviverses it seems - Kirk and crew almost always man the Enterprise, whether good or evil. Transporters exist in each realm but perhaps don't emply the same execution.

In any event, I think all the protracted debate in this thread has determined that transporters, by their very means of operation, kill the person using it. Whether by straight transport or duplication, you cease you exist. The former could perhaps be akin to dying on the operating table while the latter wipes you out and creates a doppelganger in your stead.

 

[Augustus]

Re: Transports in New Trek

Who says you have a "soul"??? (Or "spirit" for that matter)

No matter if the original atoms are transported, or just their information - the transported takes you apart, molecule by molecule, atom by atom. You are dead. You do not exist at that point.

But at the other end you are reassembled. Reanimated. You live again. All molecules are put back in the same place - you do not experience the "gap" of existence at all.

We can debate for along time whether or not souls really exist (I personally do not think so) - but the evidence seems to be rather absolute that in the Star Trek fictional universe(s), there is no such thing as a "soul".

Or did Riker's "soul" get split in half?

Regardless of the existence of a soul, my original point is that the idea of I get beamed, I die, and another me walks around is lame. Because I DIED. So yeah there is another me exactly the same wandering around, but the original birth me, yeah, he is dead.

That whole idea is ridiculous to me. Maybe the science of the transporter itself is just ridiculous. But if it actually did kill you and make a copy no one would use it, because the conscience or self awareness of the human that walks onto the pad would be gone.

Human conscience and self-awareness is a thought process. If every atom were reassembled in the exact places and quantum states, the "copy" at the other end would have the same conscience and self-awareness. Long term memory are permanently etched into the brain, short term memory is active chemical reactions. A quantum level scan and reproduction would duplicate everything. Conscience and self-awareness are not magical things. They are chemistry.

Oh my, is my point not clear here? Ok soul, spirit, conscience, memory, whatever. But what I am saying here is that people are advocating that transporters kill the original. So if you PHOTOMAN were beamed somewhere, this you would die. Why would you be ok with that? Why would anyone be ok with that???
I ask this to demonstrate the absurdity of the transporters killing you in Star Trek and making a copy. No one would be ok with this as the average starfleet crew member's life expectancy would be a few days at best.

 

[The Badger]

This does bring up other philosophical questions.

In one episode of Voyager, Neelix was killed. He was later resurrected with Borg nanoprobes.

Question: Is the Neelix walking around after this episode the same Neelix as before? Or is he just a copy?

What about the various Harry Kim deaths?

Non Trek question: In Red Dwarf, there is a Stasis technology that totally freezes time for any one within the field. For the duration, all processes, be they biological, chemical or atomic, are suspended utterly. Is the person leaving stasis the same as the person who entered?

 

[Creedence]

Re: Transports in New Trek

Oh my, is my point not clear here? Ok soul, spirit, conscience, memory, whatever. But what I am saying here is that people are advocating that transporters kill the original. So if you PHOTOMAN were beamed somewhere, this you would die. Why would you be ok with that? Why would anyone be ok with that???
I ask this to demonstrate the absurdity of the transporters killing you in Star Trek and making a copy. No one would be ok with this as the average starfleet crew member's life expectancy would be a few days at best.

Maybe some of us are assuming facts not in evidence. If Star Trek has taught us anything, it's that the future of humanity is amazingly secular. Klingons and Bajorans have religion coming out the wazoo, but humans never speak of a higher authority. It may be that starfleet officers make its candidates sign a waiver that they can't object with transporters on religious grounds.

If, as I suspect, the overwhelming majority of starfleet officers don't believe in the hereafter, they wouldn't have the same moral qualms that a faithful person would. If your double had your DNA, thoughts, and memories, what does it matter?

~Just stoking the fire.

 

[Talosian]

Transporter technology is problematic for similar reasons as downloading your consciousness into a computer. In both instances, an identical sentience continues to exist; yet at the same time, your sense of continous existence ends irrespective of that.

Please note that there's no religious issue here: for the sake of argument, we can all agree on a materialist, monist position in which the soul is discounted as either irrelevant or nonexistant.

 

[Creedence]

Please note that there's no religious issue here: for the sake of argument, we can all agree on a materialist, monist position in which the soul is discounted as either irrelevant or nonexistant.

Clearly.

For transporters to be so widely used and accepted, the concept of "soul" has been consigned to oblivion in Trek.

What I think is also very likely is that Starfleet has a wall of propaganda that purports the inherent safety of transporter technology.

 

[Augustus]

Re: Transports in New Trek

Maybe some of us are assuming facts not in evidence. If Star Trek has taught us anything, it's that the future of humanity is amazingly secular. Klingons and Bajorans have religion coming out the wazoo, but humans never speak of a higher authority. It may be that starfleet officers make its candidates sign a waiver that they can't object with transporters on religious grounds.

If, as I suspect, the overwhelming majority of starfleet officers don't believe in the hereafter, they wouldn't have the same moral qualms that a faithful person would. If your double had your DNA, thoughts, and memories, what does it matter?

~Just stoking the fire.

I agree with Talosian
This has nothing to do with religion. I used the word soul but that is beside the point.
The point is whether you are secular or religious or whatever, you wouldn't be ok with transporter copies of you, however authentic, living your life, because, oh yeah, you died in transport.

Based on the show and the movies, there are really only two possibilities here.
1) Transporters kill you and it is the greatest conspiracy in the galaxy since everyone in the show states otherwise.
2) The transporter does what the show says it does and transports the actual person in some currently not understandable way.

Man I am a nerd, here I am debating technology that doesn't exist about a 40 year old TV show....