Yes, simply because "cloning" is the wrong word for it.
It's like saying "running" when you mean "flying".
And we are not - at least I'm not - talking about the creation of an identical looking person, but about the creation of an identical person.
When a person is beamed up it's not the same person
- Thread starter ReadyAndWilling
- Start date
Yes, simply because "cloning" is the wrong word for it.
It's like saying "running" when you mean "flying".
And we are not - at least I'm not - talking about the creation of an identical looking person, but about the creation of an identical person.
Neither do the clones.
In other words, you really have no idea what a clone is.
Just as identical twins do.
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.
Cloning is a type of asexual reproduction - the process of artificially creating another individual with the same DNA structure (as opposed to the conception of identical twins, which happens naturally). The other individual definitely does not have the same memories or personality or the continuity of consciousness and is not the same person. They may not even be physically identical to begin with, due to possible errors in the cloning process.
I wouldn't call it the "wrong word"--at worst, perhaps a colloquialism for the reproduction of an identical person.
=original dude =reproduced dude Funny you should say that. I have used the word "flying" in reference to some people running though: "He flew right outta here"
I think the majority of people do think of clones more as identical looking persons rather than being 100% identicial to the subatomic level, although there are different types of cloning that fit both categories.
Last edited:
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.
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.
Now I know you're arguing just for the sake of arguing...
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)Actually no. The transporter techology in Star Trek doesn't destroy the original. You are the same person after transport as you were before transport. Now whether that is actually possible in the real world is very ifffy.
The statements below are from a website(I can't remember where, I'll try to find it) that seemed to have a good grasp on this.
________________________________________________
"68 "How does the transporter work?" (Transporters - Star Trek)
While there is no absolute canonical answer, we can piece one together
from various clues, that fits nearly everything seen on-screen, and in
the TNG Tech Manual.
We have some evidence of the inner workings of transporters, but not
much. They employ Heisenberg compensators, pattern buffers, phase
transition coils, Biofilters, matter streams, confinement beams, and
matter-energy converters, and phased matter. As for what they do, we
know that you are conscious during transport (Star Trek II: The Wrath
of Khan, "Realm of Fear" [TNG]), but can also be held in stasis ("Day
of the Dove" [TOS], "Relics" [TNG]). Further, while in transport, you
appear whole to yourself.
I hypothesize that the Annular Confinement Beam first locks onto, then
disassembles the subject into phased matter, via the phase transition
coils, causing it to take on a very energy-like state somewhat akin to
plasma, called phased matter. The matter stream is then fed into the
pattern buffer, piped through wave-guide conduits to one of the beam
emitters on the hull of the starship, and then relayed to a point on
the ground where the ACB reconstructs the subject."
The statements below are from a website(I can't remember where, I'll try to find it) that seemed to have a good grasp on this.
________________________________________________
"68 "How does the transporter work?" (Transporters - Star Trek)
While there is no absolute canonical answer, we can piece one together
from various clues, that fits nearly everything seen on-screen, and in
the TNG Tech Manual.
We have some evidence of the inner workings of transporters, but not
much. They employ Heisenberg compensators, pattern buffers, phase
transition coils, Biofilters, matter streams, confinement beams, and
matter-energy converters, and phased matter. As for what they do, we
know that you are conscious during transport (Star Trek II: The Wrath
of Khan, "Realm of Fear" [TNG]), but can also be held in stasis ("Day
of the Dove" [TOS], "Relics" [TNG]). Further, while in transport, you
appear whole to yourself.
I hypothesize that the Annular Confinement Beam first locks onto, then
disassembles the subject into phased matter, via the phase transition
coils, causing it to take on a very energy-like state somewhat akin to
plasma, called phased matter. The matter stream is then fed into the
pattern buffer, piped through wave-guide conduits to one of the beam
emitters on the hull of the starship, and then relayed to a point on
the ground where the ACB reconstructs the subject."
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!
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.
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?!?!
Um... no.
It's the WRONG definition.
Go and learn the meanings of the things you're discussing, before you start discussing it.
Except that it doesn't mean that.It wasn't the wrong word if it meant making a copy from an original.
Anything else is just being nitpicky over semantics.
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?
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.
You're being nitpicky.
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.
Apparently a lot more than you did since you utterly failed to understand that I simply meant the creation of a copy.What part don't you understand?!?!
Truth hurts, doesn't it?
Um...yes.
No, it's the most simplest BASIC definition. A clone is a copy. It can't get more simpler than that.
You need to go and make more friends because there's no way anyone else would be arguing over something so trivial as this.
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.
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.Except that it doesn't mean that.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.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.
It wasn't the wrong word if it meant making a copy from an original.
Anything else is just being nitpicky over semantics.
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.
I'm just not anal.
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.
Last edited:
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:
Pot... kettle...
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.
Don't think so, since I don't go around nitpicking over semantics.
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:
Pot... kettle...
Whatever...
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.
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?
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!?
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.
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.
Similar threads
