this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2023
176 points (95.4% liked)

Asklemmy

43959 readers
1377 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

You know those sci-fi teleporters like in Star Trek where you disappear from one location then instantaneously reappear in another location? Do you trust that they are safe to use?

To fully understand my question, you need to understand the safety concerns regarding teleporters as explained in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQHBAdShgYI

spoilerI wouldn't, because the person that reappears aint me, its a fucking clone. Teleporters are murder machines. Star Trek is a silent massacre!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] penguin@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The general idea is a teleporter rips you apart and the atoms go to the destination to be reassembled in the previous state.

Whether or not it kills you is speculation. Arguably you're pretty dead if you're ripped apart atom by atom, and then a clone is assembled using the same parts.

But I don't think it's answerable if the recreated "you" is a clone or not until people can figure out what the mind even is.

[โ€“] MonkderZweite@feddit.ch 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Death is a state in which your biological functions cease. So no, it doesn't kill you, since you function properly after.

[โ€“] penguin@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is it me functioning or is it a clone?

[โ€“] MonkderZweite@feddit.ch 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

How does it matter, with the exact same memories?

[โ€“] penguin@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So you'd be fine with a scientist creating a perfect clone of you, and then killing you, letting the clone take your place?

If it had the same memories.

[โ€“] MonkderZweite@feddit.ch 0 points 1 year ago

Yes. Since i would still be alive and have no memories of being killed. There's no distinguishion between a perfect clone and me. Sorry if you don't like a "you" only being memories.

[โ€“] superkret@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It doesn't matter to anyone but you, since the clone is indistinguishable from you, but you're still dead.

[โ€“] MonkderZweite@feddit.ch 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Only the killed body is dead. The clone is "you" too.

[โ€“] superkret@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's what the debate is about, and there's no way to know if "you" travel to the new body or get killed with the old.

[โ€“] MonkderZweite@feddit.ch 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Then let me tell you that Consciousness is based on memory. Memory copied => "you" copied, debate done.

[โ€“] superkret@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thank you for finally solving one of humanities oldest philosophical questions.

[โ€“] MonkderZweite@feddit.ch 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thank modern neuroscience for that.

[โ€“] superkret@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

I wouldn't bet my life on studies done by scientists. And I am one.

[โ€“] penguin@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Consciousness is not based on memory or else computers would be considered conscious.

And if according to what you're saying, a clone with all of your memories would mean you have two points of view. I could take your clone into a different room and you'd be able to tell me what they see. But it obviously wouldn't work like that because your own sense of self would still be locked in your head and the clone would get its own sense of self, albeit one with the same memories.

[โ€“] MonkderZweite@feddit.ch 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Consciousness is not based on memory or else computers would be considered conscious.

What i meant is, memory plays a key role.

Consciousness is, simplified, a set of self-feeding loops over input and memory, with emotions and attention (Amygdala) as regulatory mechanism.

And what we consider as consciosness only exists because of short-term memory snd our vast mental capabilities. Arguably, every higher animal has a sort of consciousness, just far more limitted. And maybe a more limited set of regulators (memories), because of our societal nature.

would mean you have two points of view.

No, the input is not shared between two beings, even if there are two of the same.

and the clone would get its own sense of self, albeit one with the same memories.

Exactly. But because he has the same body, same memories and same feelings, he is you. Which would change with time if the original you is not deconstructed, because the "you" of today is not the "you" of yesterday because of memories, genexpression, yadda yadda.

[โ€“] penguin@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago

There is no reason what you describe should give rise to consciousness rather than a biological artificial intelligence. The sense of self, the perspective that feels like me peering out through my eyes, is not explained by anything you said.

A copy of me does not equal me because we'd both have separate senses of self. Having copied memories does nothing to affect that.