Version as in 'I don't get to go on living, but another version of me does'. I don't give a frick about my clone, if you tell me I'm going to die so my clone can live, my survival instincts are going to kick in.
Philosophy is essentially about pretending to be stupid about nebulous existential/hypothetical/metaphysical concepts so you can appear smarter than you actually are.
Fact is, you use a transporter, your life is going to end and you should be afraid of using one in the Star Trek universe. >but but
No. You die.
You clearly don't even understand the story of the Ship of Theseus. In that story, each component of the ship is replaced one at a time as repairs and maintenance become required. Years later, not a single original part remains on the ship, and the question is whether you can still consider it the same ship. In the transporter problem, it's more like if the Ship of Theseus pulled into port and then an identical ship was built from scratch right next to it and then afterward the original ship was burned down. In that situation, it's very clear that the second ship is not the first.
canonically doesn't. interpretation from people who haven't watched it.
>The original version of you is destroyed, and a new version is made.
You're wrong, because there's an episode where the show breaks down how teleportation works and how the person being transported perceives it. They made this episode because this conversation was very active even while the show was running - in fact, I'd go so far as to say the character of Reginald Barclay was made entirely to express beliefs held by the fans, so the producers can explain it.
What happens to somebody in teleportation is that they fade out into a weird fuzzy CGI dimension and then fade into wherever they were sent. Barclay, a man who was terrified of teleportation doing the exact thing you're arguing, went into the teleporter and remained so lucid and "fine" with teleportation that he could reach out, while teleporting, and snatch something that was in there with him.
>How the frick did Barclay even get into Starfleet?
He should have never gotten into Starfleet, he doesn't have any particularly notable qualities beyond being "good" at his job. As anon said, he was a character they introduced to parrot fan questions and thereby get "official" answers. Also because everyone in the show is hyper-competent so having someone who's kind of a wreck adds nuance.
Barclay was supposed to be a critique of Star Trek fanboys. Not the normal ones who understand it’s a TV sho to be enjoyed in moderation. The obsessive fanatics who would rather live in a fantasyland (Holodeck) than the real world. Neon Genesis Evangelion did this concept better a few years later but that’s for another thread/
"He" probably got into Starfleet by capitalizing on their own equivalent of DEI and is most likely a FtM trans-this would explain all the behavioral issues he has
Oh noooooooooooooooooooooo!
Being transgayhomopedomurdercriminalgenderqueer is TOTALLY NORMAL AND ACCEPTABLE! Just the same as everyone else! Equal!!! EQUAL!!!!!
Now pander to me because I'm better!
he was fine before he was stationed on the enterprise, working someplace where he was consistently the smartest person in the room and left to his own devices. then on the enterprise he felt a bit anxious at being among equals or people who were actually smarter than him. So he tried to get over that anxiety by self-medicating with the holodeck, which had the opposite effect, worsening his anxiety, and caused him to become addicted to the holodeck
It’s just an illusion. The memories are transferred to the clone at the instant of disintegration so it seems like they are continuous. You’re very stupid to not grasp this.
[...]
[...]
[...] >casually and unambiguously proves that transporters kill you
Everything else is propaganda.
They saved the data in a holosuite. Not some homosexual bullshit matter stream or whatever nonsense they fed you at the academy. Data. that's it.
The purported "continual" consciousness of the thing now referred to as Barclay is not inconsistent with death via transporter.
Taking the shuttle, enjoy getting atomized idiots
[...]
[...]
[...] >casually and unambiguously proves that transporters kill you
Everything else is propaganda.
They saved the data in a holosuite. Not some homosexual bullshit matter stream or whatever nonsense they fed you at the academy. Data. that's it.
The purported "continual" consciousness of the thing now referred to as Barclay is not inconsistent with death via transporter.
Taking the shuttle, enjoy getting atomized idiots
there was always a pattern buffer. the pattern buffer does not contradict the idea it isn't a copy/duplicate/murder machine.
its a fictional technology and you're applying your very limited understanding of real world physics to it.
>its a fictional technology and you're applying your very limited understanding of real world physics to it.
Normally I would agree with you. I would just chalk it up to some autistic nerd way overthinking the rubber science in a fictional TV show. But the writers! The writers keep leaning into the most horrifying implications of the technology by constantly using it for drama. Here’s a episode where Riker accidentally gets copied (because it killed Riker and accidentally made two new copies instead of one)! Here’s an episode where it copies Picard wrong and now he’s a boy (because it killed Picard and accidentally messed up his copy)! Here’s an episode where McCoy or Barkley is afraid to go into the transporter (because it kills you)! Hell in Enterprise they explicitly say there was a moral panic and riots when the transporter was introduced to the public (because it kills everyone who uses it). If the writers don’t want us to overthink it maybe they shouldn’t keep strongly implying that the transporter kills you.
1 week ago
Anonymous
And there's episodes where Sherlock Holmes is made more intelligent than any human and given enough sentience to recognize his fiction and SOLVES that!
But they kill him, so, PHEW!
Problem solved!
And there's an episode where two beings are combined into one and live several days coming to terms with their new existence... and accept their new selves!
But the rest of the crew doesn't agree, killing him, so, PHEW!
Problem solved!
Or how the Emergency Medical Hologram eventually gets so many new memories it is officially regarded as its own existence (even getting a future-technology piece that lets him move ad lib!) and he becomes granted his own identification!
But the man he's based on hates him doesn't agree of this outcome so it's NOT him! PHEW!
Problem... solved? Was there a problem? What about Riker? Umm...
Grandma Rose is morally justified for loving her not-husband and throwing away her stolen gift!
Define "version". Define "destroyed". You are using words without much regard for their meaning. This is basic Ship of Theseus highschool philosophy.
I'm not the guy you're arguing with and I don't particularly care about the philosophical implications of science fiction magic technology, but your argument style is insufferable and you are insufferable. If your first thought is "muh ad hominem" then you further prove it. Nothing you day, do, or think will ever make you likeable. Eat shit and die.
canonically doesn't. interpretation from people who haven't watched it.
Define "version". Define "destroyed". You are using words without much regard for their meaning. This is basic Ship of Theseus highschool philosophy.
it doesn't kill you but the transporter operators will sometimes secretly replace a single molecule in your body with one from a troony because that then makes you part troony and that it is funny to them
>casually and unambiguously proves that transporters kill you
Everything else is propaganda.
They saved the data in a holosuite. Not some homosexual bullshit matter stream or whatever nonsense they fed you at the academy. Data. that's it.
The purported "continual" consciousness of the thing now referred to as Barclay is not inconsistent with death via transporter.
Taking the shuttle, enjoy getting atomized idiots
Think outside of the box here though, look at it in reality. If there is individual consciousness, even across identical twins, then individual identity would exist in any new flesh. So a clone and it's nervous system would inherently have its own 'soul' meaning its own self and unique identity, the same way twins do. Come ON you guys use your OWN BRAIN instead of HIDING behind these fricking IDEAS YOU WERE TOLD AND DONT EVEN TRUST. LOOK AT IT OBJECTIVELY
Show me the soul copy in the replicator, and is a copy it’s original? Why don’t I just copy you and rape and murder the original if you like it so much
it doesn't kill you but the transporter operators will sometimes secretly replace a single molecule in your body with one from a troony because that then makes you part troony and that it is funny to them
Imagine having one value be off by one digit and coming back as an abomination. Like your head is embedded in your abdominal cavity and your feet and hands have switched. Or there’s a glitch in the transporter yourself and you come back as The Fly.
But what if you imagine having one value be off by one digit and coming back as a gorgeous masterpiece? Your balding head is completely rejuvenated, thick with hair, now. Or there's a glitch and all the Javascript knowledge that took Brenden Eich his college years to create is perfectly implanted into your memories... instantly?
given trill naming conventions if that anon said an army of daxes didnt he imply with that he wants several of the worms working his dick not the humanoid hosts
Yes. It's happened accidentally several times throughout multiple series. Riker and Boingler both have living clones in Starfleet with their own careers, off the top of my head.
can it be modified so as to make copies without killing the original? making it a cloning machine?
would it be illegal to make 10 clones of counselor troy?
this was because of some kind of accident, the data/matter stream was replicated somehow because some space shit, it bounced back and each side materialized the same individual
I can't remember the specifics right away
There was some kind of storm or some shit causing an interference
Yeah, they had to double up on the transporter beam (or whatever) to get Riker up through the interference. One reflected off it and bounced back down, one made it through. Wah-lah, 2 Rikers.
Here we go. I believe that Riker #2 renames himself and goes back to Starfleet. Then later assumes Original Riker's identity to betray Starfleet at a later time.
It has, however, been like a decade since my last rewatch.
Yes. It's happened accidentally several times throughout multiple series. Riker and Boingler both have living clones in Starfleet with their own careers, off the top of my head.
>Thomas Riker
Honestly such bullshit he had to change his name. Will should have changed his name. He's the copy, and the other guy got the short end of the stick
You just described a situation with two different people. The extra person doesn't factor into it.
If I blow my brains out, I cease to be. the continuity of experience is broken.
Star Trek characters are so alien. They literally have no sense of self, willingly walking to their death just to save a few bucks on gas. "Hmmm I could drive to my destination or kill myself and let my copy take over". And this was someone's idea of utopia, creepy shit.
converts matter to energy, beams it to a new location and reassembles the matter. It is no different than walking across a room. Accidents that create duplicates are caused by additional energy added to the matter stream but the orignal is still the orignal.
It doesn't. Your consciousness is a direct result of one exact configuration of matter. If the transporter can recreate that exact configuration of matter, including your memories, then your consciousness will live on and you will never have even noticed that your first body got destroyed.
The only way this is not true is if your consciousness is some immaterial element independent of your body.
>>*kills you and makes a copy*
ultimately irrelevant, since the amount of time is so small, that your temporary annihilation, and identical replacement repopulating the space, reconciles the "problem".
And ruminating on the "problem" will ultimately amount to nothing tangible, as in: You "proving" "you" are not the metaphysical *you*.
And this isn't even bringing up other aspects like >he thinks being "born" means new energy is spontaneously affected into the universe
lmao
>kills you and makes a copy >ultimately irrelevant, since the amount of time is so small, that your temporary annihilation
I killed you and then made a copy of you just now. It's one of my powers. But trust me! You're completely the same as you were before! NOTHING different!
What exactly is your very obtuse point here?
Your silly non-sequitur strawmans are not coherent.
1 week ago
Anonymous
You seem to be missing any sort of wrongdoing or philosophical brainstorming in the sense of >teleportation = END
You're either being willfully ignorant or dismissively forgiving.
You're either "refusing to acknowledge" or "agreeing to the Terms & Conditions."
1 week ago
Anonymous
In the theoretical future of Star Trek, it would be implied that a machine would be objective and free of egotistical bias.
A malevolent transporter is a concept for an episode, not the more likely reality you're implying
1 week ago
Anonymous
Good thing its a fictional story with zero function in REAL life!
...or is it?
Do you get to decide? If you answer me, are you deciding for yourself, or for me?
For such an existential topic, DEATH seems pretty poignant...
>he thinks consciousness is a special energy
Its just a continuous chemical process bro. If you copy paste the same chemical structure somewhere else, there no magical transfer.
What would that change? People are confused about the process that converts a person into a transmittable energy form. It's not destructive, like converting grape juice into wine is not destructive.
Yeah!
28-year-old (You) is IDENTICAL to 18-year-old (You)!
You don't notice ANY difference!
Same as 78-year-old (You)! And 8-year-old (You)! Nothing's changed!
Same! Equal!
In this context, a teleporter or whatever machine should be able to enumerate the history of your atoms, and merely re-image you to that point in time by the offset of years.
You are still the correct version of you.
De-aging you with the mind of now would break the reflective property of the proof of your image, because of a different mind, and the new You would be a lump of mass in some variable (and probably agonizing) state.
Think a picture who's digital bits are randomly scrambled
Yeah! Think like you do!
Don't think any other way!
Same!
Just like right now! It'd be the BEST THING EVER if we thought EXACTLY THE SAME, right? We'd be copies! We are copies, Anon! You and me!
Same!
1 week ago
Anonymous
Acting like a court jester throwing a childish tantrum of passive aggression only makes me take you less seriously.
Drop the insincerity, take a breath, and articulate your objections like an adult.
1 week ago
Anonymous
My objection is your unwillingness to claim any falsity or any sort of tangent from "truth" on the very specific, explicit concept from fiction!
Even this very same fictional world has MANY, DIFFERENT iterations where the "truth" doesn't always happen. (You) do not maintain.
But, rather than acknowledge it; you stray. Or run away. Or insult. It's not fair to confront hypocrisy! Truth is defined, but you're selecting which definition and ignoring others!
Are you accepting of murder as justified? Or unjustified?
Are you accepting transport maintains murder, but it's justified? Or unjustified?
Are you accepting transport changing ANYTHING but that's justified? Or unjustified?
If I took transporter and everything about me remained the same... but I'm younger! Is that justified? Unjustified?
Hypotheticals exist, Anon! Especially if discussing fiction.
1 week ago
Anonymous
>Hypotheticals exist >tfw I still don't know how would I had felt if I didn't have breakfast this morning
80iq bros.....................
1 week ago
Anonymous
Yeah!
That copy is identical to me!
Except my lack of breakfast... or a single hair follicle? Or a few years younger???
1 week ago
Anonymous
>My objection is your unwillingness to claim any falsity or any sort of tangent from "truth" on the very specific, explicit concept from fiction!
We are specifically talking about the transporters. With the transporters they have to be able to
1. Identify a specific set of atoms and their subsequent states
2. Categorize them into unique entities
3. Break them down
4. Rematerialize them exactly to a new location
Thus, a transporter has to reason about OBJECTIVELY, many things, else it will kill,mangle, or not do its job and get junked.
A malevolent feature of subjective bias, is out of scope of the engineering and software, subsequently, it is mathematically INVALID to deviate.A transporter of such capacity will not make it onto a starship. And any tinkering on-board will be detected abruptly.
1 week ago
Anonymous
Even you are acknowledging what the transporter does. Look at your step 3! >3. Break them down
You said "break," you didn't say "create." You didn't say "copy." You didn't say "generate." You used a term we, in English, know as a negative term that de-constructs. It is not a positive word associated with perfection.
And yet... you claim a transporter is perfect! No harm is being done! It meets the standards required to be on a ship and be used by living beings!
Your not changing arguments or presenting evidence or discussing philosophy with me, you're stating what you know! And I'm telling you a different perspective, one that doesn't agree a transporter's feasibility! The example used is "improvement." Taking a transporter's "perfection" for granted, and agreeing with you that it's completely tangible and coherent and right to use a transporter... what if it improved you upon destination? Something YOU wanted to improve? What if the transport made was BETTER than the original, and it's because YOU wanted it to be?
Acceptable?
1 week ago
Anonymous
English is complicated anon, "break them down" is not necessarily a negative term. It would depend on the context it is used, and in the case the context would be equivalent to "separate them into individual parts"..which is not a negative term.
1 week ago
Anonymous
In order to operate correctly, and soundly, a transporter would have to derive and validate proofs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof
In a proof, you cannot deviate without breaking soundness.
1 + 1 == 2 == 1 + 1
The above is known as "reflective" which asserts the "soundness" of the proof.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_principle
https://www-sop.inria.fr/members/Yves.Bertot/coqart-chapter16.pdf
The transporter would have to follow this idea.
1. Figure out the left side of the proof (What the target is)
2. What it resolves to
3. Assert that the right side teleported successfully and is reflective of the target's original
If they (the atoms) are reflective, the transportation is successful.
Here's an exercise for you:
1. How would you be able to insert subjective tampering into the proof, WITHOUT breaking soundness?
1 week ago
Anonymous
Hard to answer your fictional questions with realistic answers... Luckily, there are SEVERAL Star Trek episodes that do that FOR ME!
Done!
Now, was transporting always "wrong" or was it wrong "only during those unique events?" Making it "right" in all other monitored events?
Or, maybe it was never wrong? It was ALWAYS right, even in those unique events that operated outside your soundness?
It stops becoming a question of plausibility, and it starts becoming a question of reason. For humans, it even become morality! A philosophical discussion!
You keep running away from that discussion, though!! You only want to hear about how transportation is perfect, none of the philosophical nuance it results in!
How do you know YOU aren't the reflection in the mirror? Would it be wrong to stop looking?
1 week ago
Anonymous
Transporter functions are mathematical, there's certainly much more fertile ground for philosophizing, but not here.
Also, you surely aren't as well-read as you think you are, if you're still wrongly identifying moralization problems, or even still being stuck in the moralization/existentialist swamp to begin with.
Swim out anon, there's much better worlds beyond.
1 week ago
Anonymous
No! No, no, no! You've created this yourself!!
Here's a mathematically perfect question: the transport is everything YOU wanted it to be!! It's a PERFECT copy... just in a new location!
If I ask that transport "do they feel 'right?'," of course they'll answer "yes!"
If I ask (You) observing this fictional hypothetical of that transport if it is "right?," you'll answer "yes!"
If I ask myself observing this fictional hypothetical of a transport if it is "right?," and I answer "no!..." (You) have just INSTANTLY judged me as "wrong!" Anger and insults, you'll even pass judgment on me! IN FACT, absolutely everyone in the universe MUST AGREE the transport is perfect and right OR ELSE any single discrepancy from any single sentient being is WRONG and EVIL and DESERVES TO GO TO HELL!!!!!!!!!! Even if everyone else agrees that "no, the transport is not a perfect copy" in this fictional hypothetical, making (You) the outlier with your presumption... well who cares about that, right?
No matter what you try to claim, if you acknowledge a transporter's existence, you inherently acknowledge judgment and are required to define it for yourself. Transporting humans is correct! Transporting cows! Transporting gold! Replication is justified! Or not! All that ends up happening is your own willingness to engage with other perspectives. It stops being sciences, doesn't it? It almost seems religious!
1 week ago
Anonymous
I genuinely don't get why you're so stuck on this silly bad/good strawman and the "judgement" nonsense. Please be a more interesting shitposter, or i'm done humoring you.
1 week ago
Anonymous
>I genuinely don't get why
Clearly. You're completely unwilling to discuss philosophy from this fictional story; only discussing plausibility of fictional magic/science.
In fact, you're explicitly judging me, already, as "being worse" for daring you to retain OP's philosophical theme: >*kills you and makes a copy*
Your unwillingness is either fear or ignorance, in-my-opinion.
I love the idea of a transporter IMPROVING (YOU) if activated.
But... are (You) worse for actively choosing NOT to use it, by that point? You know you'll be better, improved, if you use it... but you actively choose not to! Are you worse for making such a decision? Or are you completely unharmed, perfect, and justified? Does that logic applies to others? Does it apply to your Thanksgiving dinner?
Strange how "kills" becomes an existential discussion beyond "Star Trek says so," huh?
1 week ago
Anonymous
The spooky music in the background always does it for me. Imagine a Jonathan Frakes power hour every night from 7-9 with TNG followed by fact or fiction. evening back in the day. Streaming took away this synergy.
1 week ago
Anonymous
I'm actually kinda disappointed Cinemaphile removed hyperlinking. I get the feeling people don't watch those webms since it'd require extra steps beyond clicking it.
Also, I always think about the Loch Ness monster when I see "Fact Or Fiction."
Also also, saved.
1 week ago
Anonymous
>Your unwillingness is either fear or ignorance, in-my-opinion.
No, it's because you're so far off the trail of topic with >But... are (You) worse for actively choosing NOT to use it, by that point?
Not even tangential to the thread, as you're talking about that one episode of the twilight zone
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_12_Looks_Just_Like_You
Which is a boring and trite "moral" "problem".
1 week ago
Anonymous
>Which is a boring and trite "moral" "problem".
And now you have answered. Transportation is "boring" and "trite" and any person who dares question it is a "moral problem." Thank you for your time.
1 week ago
Anonymous
In this instance, yes, transporters are boring because they have to function with perfect consistency and accuracy.
Inserting your incoherent head-canon/daydreaming is not an argument or interesting discussion.
They don't magically improve or mutate atoms, they just copy-paste them.
1 week ago
Anonymous
>they have to function with perfect consistency and accuracy.
There are multiple Star Trek episodes that prove that Star Trek transporters DON'T "have to" have perfect consistency and accuracy to function, though.
1 week ago
Anonymous
>technology can sometimes fail
Yes anon, that is the "reality" part of it all. When they stop working properly, very bad things happen, like with any technology.
1 week ago
Anonymous
>very bad things happen
Tuvix was a very bad thing???
Thomas Riker was a very bad thing??? Or was it Will???
Uh oh! You're acknowledging what you were claiming was impossible as being possible and passing judgment that ANY result MUST be wrong, then!
And yet, other perspectives disagree with you! And, it is quite easy to presume a circumstance where even the "failed" product believes itself to be BETTER than before and accepts himself for any differences! But rather than give him your acceptance of reality, you claim he's wrong and killing him is justified. Good work, captain Janeway!
1 week ago
Anonymous
see
Technology failing/malfunctioning or Star Trek writers being bad and breaking consistency for the sake of a concept doesn't invalidate the principle.
>Tuvix
Not a valid transport, writers being bad for the sake of a bad gimmick. >Thomas Riker was a very bad thing???
yeah, also again, bad writing.
1 week ago
Anonymous
How can you claim it was invalid when it functioned? >because the result wasn't a perfect identity swap from one location to another
As much as you try to insert "valid" or "sound" or "reflect" or "perfect" you cannot halt the FACT it OCCURRED. Now, you're tasked with existential, philosophical crisis. It's not scientific, anymore!
In one case, you can claim this abnormal event resulted in a flawed product, so the crisis is easily solved! After all, NO ONE "wants" any differences, right?
In another case, this abnormal event resulted in a BETTER product, so the crisis only increases! After all, who doesn't "want" to have improvements?
All that keeps happening is (You) are deciding what's best and that's-that!
1 week ago
Anonymous
Because two copies of the same thing can mimic eachother but aren’t the original, duh
1 week ago
Anonymous
People attempting to transport themselves over and over again until they RNG struck-by-lightning odds and mutate themselves to perfection is certainly an experiment, but not one i'd wager as productive use or consider interesting.
1 week ago
Anonymous
Isn't that just shiny hunting with DNA? Just soft resetting until the RNG pulls in your favor?
1 week ago
Anonymous
Lots of people have more than enough time to approve of that, after all. They outright want it! They want it now!!
1 week ago
Anonymous
William Boimler, on the other hand, is Star based.
1 week ago
Anonymous
>Inserting your incoherent head-canon/daydreaming is not an argument or interesting discussion.
He's not wrong, Anon. It's proven multiple times that transporters are not reflecting perfection, they're pasting pixels. It's proven in data banks of times it was used. It's proven when used to generate completely new creations without any location transport whatsoever. It's proven when time makes zero difference in construction, causing the transported creation to literally be less-aged than non-transported. Canonically, the generated product you claim is merely pasted is not the original. The original ceases to be.
1 week ago
Anonymous
Technology failing/malfunctioning or Star Trek writers being bad and breaking consistency for the sake of a concept doesn't invalidate the principle.
1 week ago
Anonymous
>doesn't invalidate the principle.
You're absolutely right! The principle of transportation use in the world of Star Trek can be INHERENTLY IMMORAL. Right from the start. Always was, always will be.
Or not.
Depends on your belief system.
Not science.
1 week ago
Anonymous
Those weren’t malfunctions moron, everything he said was when the transporter was working correctly
1 week ago
Anonymous
transporters do not clone by design, therefore it is literally a malfunction.
1 week ago
Anonymous
But they worked as designed when they cloned
1 week ago
Anonymous
Yes, again see
Technology failing/malfunctioning or Star Trek writers being bad and breaking consistency for the sake of a concept doesn't invalidate the principle.
subsection: >Star Trek writers being bad and breaking consistency for the sake of a concept
1 week ago
Anonymous
Meaning the transporters are lot logically sound and lack any consistently that denies they kill the user. Explain to me how this invalidates the idea that every time the transporter is used properly, if logic is applied consistently, that even in the good episodes the user isn’t killed and replicated. It holds better canon if they are
1 week ago
Anonymous
Transporters, as a concept are sound
1. They identify matter
2. They copy-paste it to a new location
Again, because Star Trek is soft scifi, you have bad episodes that muddy concepts, because bad writers can't help themselves.
>Stop pointing out canonical events when I don't want them
This is a forum, not a wikipedia. You seem poor at coming to understandings. You like being told (as long as it's a Safe Space, of course).
I have no issue with canon events if they follow their own rules.
1 week ago
Anonymous
>the explanation within the show that they copy and not transport, is evidence that they transport and not copy, because the show is corny
I get the idea, really, but anyone who notices this kills the user in reality is right
1 week ago
Anonymous
If you drown in a pool, have a heart attack, get knocked out, etc, would you want to be revived?
Please answer with either
1. Yes
2. No
1 week ago
Anonymous
I would want to be revived, but that’d be the same body, I wouldn’t be obliterated and remade. Come on, do you not get this?
1 week ago
Anonymous
>I would want to be revived, but that’d be the same body,
How do you know your new *self* is still *you*?
I can save us 100 replies and answer:
You don't care because you want to still live and experience existence.
That's why "To die or not" is irrelevant with this nonsensical transport "debate".
1 week ago
Anonymous
My new me might think the way I do, but my original self may have died. In reality I don’t prefer to suffer a heart attack, especially if there’s a fact I don’t retain my same consciousness after passing out. You know this
1 week ago
Anonymous
My point is, if you are true to your "objection" of not wanting to "die", then you'd refuse any and all resuscitation because any new version is not the *true" you.
The fact that you undermine that belief in a different aspect is proof you're not actually about your argument.
1 week ago
Anonymous
You assume resuscitation terminates the soul, when the question is if total reconstruction to a molecular level does. Can you just explain where you believe the self is located and why grinding a brain to dust and the re-braining it keeps the same consciousness? Because that’s the real question isn’t it
1 week ago
Anonymous
The point is, both aspects are equally plausible and abide by the principle >heart stops <> atomized >consciousness over <> consciousness atomized >energy gets recycled <> transported >either new and necessary amounts flow in or not <> you get transported or not
Why should your answer suddenly change?
1 week ago
Anonymous
There's a difference between a heart stopping and then being turned to dust and then remade into the same heart
1 week ago
Anonymous
The problem is proving *you* are *you*.
Why are you okay with possibly not being the same you in one? But definitely not okay with not being the same in the other?
1 week ago
Anonymous
>Why are you okay with possibly not being the same you in one? But definitely not okay with not being the same in the other
Because one is proven and one is not. I've slept before and I know I'm still me, and even if I was some caveman who never slept before I'd eventually fall asleep and wake up myself, I wouldn't be relying on some unproven claim you just have to step in this portal that turns you to dust because it's easier for everyone. Plus, if I lived in the Star Trek universe, I would enjoy extensive research on if this was the case. They just don't discuss it in the show so for me it's a big fricking no-go since the information they offer makes it look like a rogue mad science that causes existential horrors on a ship every two years or so.
1 week ago
Anonymous
>Because one is proven and one is not. >I've slept before and I know I'm still me,
And you know this for sure how?
1 week ago
Anonymous
If the transporter was proven to have the same effect as sleep, then I would accept the transporter, yes.
1 week ago
Anonymous
But it's proven as demolecularizing and remolecularizing a copy.
1 week ago
Anonymous
But sleep isn't demolecularizing and remoleculatizing though.
I do want to ask you, are you 100% confident you'd retain your 'self' here, or are you just brave and bold and accepting of the risk and the potential progress the transporter offers? Would step into the portal feeling completely safe, or would do so bravely, saying 'its ok if i die'?
1 week ago
Anonymous
So it merely comes down to being okay with a "death" you can be sure is "irrelevant". Which is also, logically what transporting is.
You go to sleep and wake up -> Your existence seemingly continues
You transport -> Your existence seemingly continues
1 week ago
Anonymous
>So it merely comes down to being okay with a "death"
Yes absolutely it's a question of if i'm okay with being killed by the transporter. I thought this was the premise of the conversation
1 week ago
Anonymous
fear of death is fear of pain and your existence possibly ending.
Transporting has neither of those, being , objectively, you cannot differentiate your existence between the two epochs.
1 week ago
Anonymous
What if death objectively exists and is not just a factor of fear? My point is that the transporter kills you, if you're arguing that it's okay to risk being killed for the sake of using the transport, then I don't think we actually disagree. You're saying the transporter arguably kills you
1 week ago
Anonymous
No, I'm saying you qualifying transporting as "death", is inane, and also inconsistent because you don't have the same trepidation with sleep or any other temporary consciousness enders.
It's not rational.
1 week ago
Anonymous
Sleep is different than turning a body to dust and making that body back from the same dust. I've said this many times and you've ignored it.
What if you aren't okay with it... but it happens anyway?
You're FORCED to transport?
Would you ever come to terms, or would you redefine yourself or your perspective?
Even moving from yourself; what about others? What if THEY are NOT okay with being transported, but... >this is an emergency! >WE MUST TRANSPORT FRED out of this room and into the room next door! >Fred: No! I refuse to be transported! I don't believe in the existential philosophy behind it! Find another way!
which can further split into >WE CAN'T! This is the only way! Your refusal will result in your death!
or >WE CAN'T! This is the only way! Your refusal will result in your death AND the death of your wife & daughter being held captive! The kidnappers need to see you alive in the next room! If you refuse to be transported, now, you're killing yourself AND THEM!
Do you speak for Fred in this hypothetical fiction? Are you justified for making the decision for him? For him, his wife & daughter? Only for yourself? What happens?
When does "transport" stop being about (You) being okay with suicide and become about (You) being okay with murder? Does such a sin even exist? Does science supercede any morality, even if it is merely for the sake of convenience?
>What if you aren't okay with it... but it happens anyway? >You're FORCED to transport?
Then I'd be choosing to ignore the question of if transporters kill the original self, for the sake of my own sanity, because the decision was forced on me! Just like a rape victim has an option to say the rape didn't affect them, because they can will themselves into overcoming the rape that was forced on them but that obviously happened! You're dodging the entire question here, if there is an essential self that is lost upon replication. Instead you're talking about waking up as the clone and how you would cope with it. Just say something convincing, man
1 week ago
Anonymous
>Then I'd be choosing to ignore the question >for the sake of my own sanity
And you claim I'M the one "dodging the question?"
You're telling me you'd comply with the suicide, but it would drive you insane.
You're telling me you'd comply with the murder, because it helped you overcome.
You're telling me transporting, forced or not, results in death and you're absolved of fear or responsibility regardless of your own (or others') stance on its morality or existential effects. That your decision to transport to K-Mart is fine. Just as fine as rape being forced on you for the sake of others. There is NOTHING equating "transport" and "rape" as wrongdoings!
Well, not to YOU, anyway!
1 week ago
Anonymous
I have no idea what you're talking about. I never said any of that
1 week ago
Anonymous
But it's established the circumstances of a "Star Trek transport from the surface of a planet onto the bridge of a starship" is not the same as "falling asleep in your bed at home and waking up the next morning."
You are equating those circumstances equally as "life termination."
Not matter if that Anon agrees, you're inherently already accepting what is established: transporting kills you. "You" are not the un-killed (You) from 8 seconds prior. You're a brand new being with identical features. A copy. And that original (since you are a copy) is ended. Gone. Eradicated. Mere data. 1s and 0s. Molecules. Debris. Chemicals.
...or is it?
1 week ago
Anonymous
I'm the other anon and I agree with your argument against that guy
1 week ago
Anonymous
You sleep and wake up -> You are theoretically not the same you
You transport -> you are theoretically not the same you
You cannot be okay with one, but object to the other.
If you haven't figured it out yet, I absolutely do not care about the useless "death" qualification, because seeming existence is ultimately what matters. If you want to waste yours ruminating on such a useless concept, go for it.
1 week ago
Anonymous
Sleep is something unavoidable. Ramifications of sleep are inherently tied to my life.
Star Trek transport is not. I can say "no." Ramifications of transport is avoidable. It is not inherently tied to my life.
As much as you want to equate the two, even if you say "for the sake of argument," you're inherently creating fallacy by determining "causes are equal BECAUSE effects are equal." They're not. By that very same logic, rape is justified because it creates a baby! It is as equally wonderful as consensual love-making between married partners! Because it created the same baby!
There's nothing to "figure out" here. You're lying to yourself.
1 week ago
Anonymous
>Sleep is something unavoidable. Ramifications of sleep are inherently tied to my life.
Just because something is unavoidable, does not mean you can object to it in spirit. Where's the same passion for sleep undermining your "self", as transporting? Does it not matter because the apathy of pyrrhic nature is too heavy?
In actuality though, my greater point is how dismal a view many people have on existence, in viewing it as some unique start & stop measure.
1 week ago
Anonymous
>Just because something is unavoidable, does not mean you can object to it in spirit.
Your rape is unavoidable. Just accept it.
1 week ago
Anonymous
>sleep is spirit rape
it's certainly a start, i'm proud of you.
1 week ago
Anonymous
Can you just be honest with yourself for a fricking second instead of coming up with these incoherent ways to get one over on everyone for explaining the obvious. I'm trying to talk to you as a person here
1 week ago
Anonymous
I'm just shitposting because there's no productive discussion to be had here, considering my pointing out the inconsistency in your thinking was instantly discarded because it crumbles the argument.
1 week ago
Anonymous
It was addressed immediately and you continued being difficult for fun. I understand, it's just a smart thing to do on here
1 week ago
Anonymous
>it doesn't count because it's unavoidable >i can still go on believing a contradiction because it isn't a requirement to live
Schopenhauer would be so proud.
1 week ago
Anonymous
Nah that's not it. Don't worry about it
1 week ago
Anonymous
We both know everyone objecting to transport, would instantly be screeching for it, if their life was in danger.
1 week ago
Anonymous
Well yeah if the option was death or cloning yourself at the risk of death, sure. But to travel between office spaces to avoid a shuttle? I don't think so
1 week ago
Anonymous
>Well yeah if the option was death
If you won't die for your beliefs, your beliefs aren't valid.
1 week ago
Anonymous
My belief is in living
1 week ago
Anonymous
whoops, guess you can't transport then :^)
bye!
1 week ago
Anonymous
>kills himself so another version of him can get to some useless arbitrary destination faster to do the space govs bidding
K bye then homosexual
1 week ago
Anonymous
Some version of me is still experiencing, whether it's an old or new epoch of me, is irrelevant.
If you really want to be pedantic, you could argue that every single moment is a new life and death of you, so even worrying about "true" "false" selves is even more embarrassingly irrelevant.
1 week ago
Anonymous
>you could argue that every single moment is a new life and death of you
This is pure cope from gays desperately trying to overcome the cognitive dissonance between wanting to achieve immortality and realizing they're committing suicide to do it.
1 week ago
Anonymous
No, it's a belief when you get to the edge of existentialism, and into Absurdism, which throws away the perils of worrying about eternity or the finite
1 week ago
Anonymous
Cuck: the philosophy
1 week ago
Anonymous
There's no perceptible difference, it's still the same me.Metaphysically judging from offstage isn't the same view.
1 week ago
Anonymous
Thats like saying there's no perceptible difference in experiences in twins. You are moronic.
1 week ago
Anonymous
Twins are different entities, they have different experiences and consciousness, perceptibly, my consciousness is just transferred .
1 week ago
Anonymous
If all that matters to you is that some effigy of you exists in the universe doing things you would do after you die then you're just a narcissist. There's something to be said for wanting to personally do things or experience things, but at this point you're basically saying you believe the universe is objectively improved by your mere presence in it whether *you* get to actually experience it or not.
1 week ago
Anonymous
I don’t really want to be pedantic, I want to be accurate and real
1 week ago
Anonymous
Dude, you do not believe this. Pull yourself together. You are confusing yourself
1 week ago
Anonymous
>so buck-broken you're attempting to gaslight
Alas...
1 week ago
Anonymous
If she weighs as much as a duck -> She's made of wood
1 week ago
Anonymous
Anyone can object to anything they please regardless of how you feel, moron. Yes, any actual break in consciousness is essentially equivalent, but studies have shown consciousness is typically maintained throughout sleep.
1 week ago
Anonymous
What if you aren't okay with it... but it happens anyway?
You're FORCED to transport?
Would you ever come to terms, or would you redefine yourself or your perspective?
Even moving from yourself; what about others? What if THEY are NOT okay with being transported, but... >this is an emergency! >WE MUST TRANSPORT FRED out of this room and into the room next door! >Fred: No! I refuse to be transported! I don't believe in the existential philosophy behind it! Find another way!
which can further split into >WE CAN'T! This is the only way! Your refusal will result in your death!
or >WE CAN'T! This is the only way! Your refusal will result in your death AND the death of your wife & daughter being held captive! The kidnappers need to see you alive in the next room! If you refuse to be transported, now, you're killing yourself AND THEM!
Do you speak for Fred in this hypothetical fiction? Are you justified for making the decision for him? For him, his wife & daughter? Only for yourself? What happens?
When does "transport" stop being about (You) being okay with suicide and become about (You) being okay with murder? Does such a sin even exist? Does science supercede any morality, even if it is merely for the sake of convenience?
1 week ago
Anonymous
In the moment, Fred is irrational, and i will transport him every single time, because he would ultimately rather live and see his wife and kid unless he explicitly tells me otherwise.
If he's butthurt after and spiraling, it is Not My Problem.
1 week ago
Anonymous
So many refuse to justify murder or suicide... until they see how it benefits them!
1 week ago
Anonymous
>And you know this for sure how?
because I lucid dream and am conscious the whole time
1 week ago
Anonymous
>you'd refuse any and all resuscitation because any new version is not the *true" you.
Only after brain death. Cf. Vedek Bareil
1 week ago
Anonymous
Time progresses, no other changes. 1!
Time progresses, my original copy on the planet is obliterated and a copy of myself is made. 2!
1 week ago
Anonymous
I wouldn’t accept the affects of a heart attack and possible loss of self just for the sake of travel, no.
1 week ago
Anonymous
Then you-tell-me:
1. They identify matter
2. They copy-paste it to a new location
3. It runs out of energy before completion
Did it occur?
At what time did it stop occurring?
What if... it was just one more gray hair? Is it relevant? As relevant as life?
1 week ago
Anonymous
>Did it occur?
anon.....
In a semblance of hard-scifi, the transporter would validate at every single step, and have emergency procedures to prevent or minimize catastrophe, like interrupting and dumping atoms back at even the slightest hint of error.
That's what Star Trek gets wrong.
1 week ago
Anonymous
Okay, it validated the first step, but it failed the second step!
What are you asking?
We've seen it literally takes time for a transport to start and end. It's not "validating every single step THEN performing the function INSTANTANEOUSLY," after all. Even the function takes time.
I'm not even talking about the science (as per the OP's desire to speak about "kills you") either! Hell, if we want to bring realistic science more and more and more and more, my God would inertia start becoming ABHORRENT in transportation! Transporting a human falling at 8,000 mph, it checks every step of the way, and then instantly places you in the transporter room...
SPLAT!!!!!!!
And so on!
It's like you're bringing the "Orange and Blue Portal" science into this!
1 week ago
Anonymous
As a concept it is terrible. Only a transporter than does not break you down would be acceptable, like a portal or wormhole from one location to another.
Most of the suicide machine stuff comes because morons TRIED to explain transporters instead of keeping them as space magic. Anything that has to scan you, store you as information and have a backup "buffer" is 100% making a copy.
1 week ago
Anonymous
>Stop pointing out canonical events when I don't want them
This is a forum, not a wikipedia. You seem poor at coming to understandings. You like being told (as long as it's a Safe Space, of course).
1 week ago
Anonymous
>(You): Adolf Hitler! You'll be a better human if you use the transporter! You'll come out the other side NOT hating israelites! >Adolf: I refuse to use the transporter. >(You): YOU'RE A WORSE PERSON THAN BEFORE!
Deconstruct the molecules of that argument with as many different perspectives as you want! Or, apply only one, single, sound argument! Funny how a different perspective might alter results...
1 week ago
Anonymous
Typing like this doesn't make you sound smart it just makes you an butthole.
1 week ago
Anonymous
Oh no!
1 week ago
Anonymous
Still an butthole. Make like a tree and get fricked.
1 week ago
Anonymous
wish i was a tree
1 week ago
Anonymous
You sound discouraged, Anon. I'm glad you shared your emotions with me on a web-forum. And I'm glad I'm talking to you, and not your transporter copy!
1 week ago
Anonymous
But I am the copy anon. Just the evil one.
You fricked up. I noticed you impregnated your copy with too much sarcasm, and had to talk shit. Really you brought it on.
1 week ago
Anonymous
Haha! While you posted that post, I transported to Starbase Couch de LivingAbode, so I'm actually a copy of that me you impregnated, not the same! I'm free!
Can a transporter create a copy without the original being taken apart, or does transporter technology actually move physical material from one place to another?
The opposite is happening, you're applying your limited understanding of how things function to a fictional technology, that in inverse is shown multiple times, multiple ways, to specifically not do what you're describing.
The opposite is happening, you're applying your limited understanding of how things function to a fictional technology, that in inverse is shown multiple times, multiple ways, to specifically not do what you're describing.
>The process of being disassembled – or simply, the conversion of matter into energy – begins when matter starts to lose molecular cohesion, at which point, the molecules would begin to emit nucleonic particles. After the molecules were pulled apart, they were put back together again in their original form.
Many Anons ITT refuse to acknowledge life or consciousness, or refuse to agree when or where it starts. They'll hide behind "it's just fiction" and turn from science to religion.
Why aren't they constantly beaming in little rocks and pebbles? The beam cannot distinguish between pants, shoes, and the shit you don't want to beam over.
It does not kill you, that is only thinking in terms of disintegration and demolecularization/remolecularization. Transportation is a phase shift from matter to energy, so first of all, we have to acknowledge this is possible, that matter can change to another state that is energetic and nonphysical. There are examples of this but not in your physical reality, that is why it appears impossible in your scientific framework. Yet the nonphysical realms already exist. Science has not properly identified this. Now, the ability to change from physical to nonphysical and then back to physical becomes more possible when we realize the relationship between physical and nonphysical. Some of your advanced spiritual beings have turned into the nonphysical state at will, giving rise to stories of ghosts and whatnot, but they are examples of the nonphysical state. Science must first discover the nonphysical state for any progress to be made. But you are still in kindergarten. You are still in a baby classroom for babies.
transporting an infant is ok
equally okay as transporting a ferret
>as long as your pattern or beam doesnt get screwed by shenanigans
What if those "shenanigans" actually make you better? You get to decide what's better, not me, and you get it. Is that unalive justified?
Are you telling me you agree or disagree to surgical manipulation? Or dying your hair? Or cutting your fingernails? Or curing your bronchitis? Or using a transportation device on the USS Enterprise?
1 week ago
Anonymous
Your heart stops.
Would you want it to be restarted, knowing the """""""""""new""""""""" you won't be the same """"""""""""""you"""""""""""?
Yes or No?
People who still think you magically spawn into the universe at birth, instead of just being recycled amalgams of energy being reprogrammed by a new record. So they object to their Super Unique Existence™ being turned off and "replaced".
i'm surprised they don't use the transporter to just cure most diseases. that episode with the aging disease, they just pull up data on a teleport from before she got the disease and transport that template, and presto she's cured.
got fatally wounded? transporter reconfigures you with a backup from before you got wounded, old? transporter uses a backup from when you were young.
Why couldn't they just do that with Worf's injury instead of a risky surgery or euthanasia? Why couldn't they do that for all the times Data glitched out? Make a copy of his body without the positron brain. Because then there'd never be any conflict.
I thought the Star Trek cast was so post-tradition that they all accepted and supported that their ‘self’ was killed on transporter use, since they’re all space commies and such
Everybody should what this means. But somehow reddit scientists start always arquing about the semantics >but le copy has the same memories so its means its me!
You are you, your awaraness doesnt get copied
The transporter works by breaking an object down at the atomic level. Then it converts those atoms into a beam of energy that it sends to another location. That energy is then put back together using a blueprint scan taken from before the object was atomized.
That is how a transporter works. It disintegrates an object into atoms and then puts them back together. But it can put those atoms back together however it wants. It can even create totally different objects from those atoms.
Why do none of the moronos who argue this have the capacity to argue a soul gets transported too? It’s so easy. Even breaking bad gave you the ingredients to say the soul is held within matter
Then just say so! Frick! Instead of obfuscating it. You did say so though so I appreciate it. Okay though do you think your consciousness would be retained across clones, yes or no
I think John Scalzi in Old Man's War did it best. >old man signs up to be a space marine >they hook him up to a chair opposite a lifeless super soldier body >they start transferring his mind over to the super soldier body >old man can temporarily see both perspectives, himself and the supersoldier >then he can only see his old dead body >mind transfer complete
The only way I can accept consciousness is retained after complete restructuring of the body is if I can believe we are all the same consciousness experiencing existence separately only due to the differences in our body, which is ok by me
Even if it "kills" you, if it recreated a perfect copy then your consciousness would be perfectly copied over. If you died and your clone goes on and you don't experience life through the clones body, then it wasn't a perfect copy to begin with.
No, they’re totally different concepts. Portals are basically wormholes. A traditional wormhole would likely destruct any matter passing through it but presuming it doesn’t it’s just a doorway between dimensions.
Or they could have just established on the show that you stay alive through the process, and that the immortal soul, or your consciousness, or what-have-you, travels along with the energized matter to the destination point.
They don't break you down, your area of effect, the literal space time becomes transient and is teleported. Wrath of Khan, Kirk is talking while transported and it sounds like he's in a tunnel. You tell those THEORETICAL PHILOSOPHER KINGS to eat shit!
Don't they all, like, "freeze in place" when they're depicted on-screen entering the energy field? Like, they don't start moving or talking until it's done? But everyone else in the room not being transported can?
It's, like, different existences; time has stopped for one being, but not for others. Seems contradictory.
Precisely! Its everything in that area is moved outside of space time so universal laws doesn't apply.
[...]
The show's technical explanation is that it disintegrates the atoms in your body, beams said atoms to the new location then reintegrates your atoms at the final destination. It's more like being turned into goo then put in a can, having that can shipped to france then being turning that goo back into a human.
And yet, they're not dead. The breaking down of atoms doesn't occur because if you broke down atoms, YOU'D HAVE A NUCLEAR BOMB!
>Seems contradictory.
This is really the issue. The show is inconsistent in it's portrayals and explanations of transporter tech. Both sides of the argument are correct depending on which episodes you refer to. Remember that episode where Riker get's cloned by the teleporter tech? This implies that the transporter is suicide pad cloning tech. The episode where Barclay is having transporter anxiety? This implies that the teleporter is a disintegrator and a reintigrator and that the original is maintained.
i will move my own matter thank you very much. shan't be operating any devil tech that messes with my atoms.
The show's technical explanation is that it disintegrates the atoms in your body, beams said atoms to the new location then reintegrates your atoms at the final destination. It's more like being turned into goo then put in a can, having that can shipped to france then being turning that goo back into a human.
That's not the question, the question is if you've already killed yourself by using the transporter, and if you would use the transporter considering this fact
Define "kill" down to the most atomic technical minutia.
The original version of you is destroyed, and a new version is made.
You get on a bus, and the driver clones you with your memories and experiences, then shoots you in the head, and drives the clone to its desitnation.
Define "version". Define "destroyed". You are using words without much regard for their meaning. This is basic Ship of Theseus highschool philosophy.
Define "not enough bbc"
Version as in 'I don't get to go on living, but another version of me does'. I don't give a frick about my clone, if you tell me I'm going to die so my clone can live, my survival instincts are going to kick in.
It ceases to be Theseus’ ship the moment he dies. Prove me wrong
A true NPC.
Philosophy is essentially about pretending to be stupid about nebulous existential/hypothetical/metaphysical concepts so you can appear smarter than you actually are.
Fact is, you use a transporter, your life is going to end and you should be afraid of using one in the Star Trek universe.
>but but
No. You die.
>space energy comes from sugar smacks
>that’s so incorrect, everyone knows it comes from antimatter and dilithium
This is what you sound like
>This is basic Ship of Theseus highschool philosophy
what about the ship of tuvix?
>kicks you in the balls
There's your objet petit a, b***h.
>explains it with an allegory
>autist can't comprehend it
many such cases
You clearly don't even understand the story of the Ship of Theseus. In that story, each component of the ship is replaced one at a time as repairs and maintenance become required. Years later, not a single original part remains on the ship, and the question is whether you can still consider it the same ship. In the transporter problem, it's more like if the Ship of Theseus pulled into port and then an identical ship was built from scratch right next to it and then afterward the original ship was burned down. In that situation, it's very clear that the second ship is not the first.
N…no! The point of the ship of Theseus is that there’s only one easy answer and it’s that if you change everything it’s all still the same!
pilpul is not an argument
Version - different and separate instances of the same object which do not share the same being
Destroyed - the termination of an object
define my gaping butthole, if you would
>The original version of you is destroyed, and a new version is made.
You're wrong, because there's an episode where the show breaks down how teleportation works and how the person being transported perceives it. They made this episode because this conversation was very active even while the show was running - in fact, I'd go so far as to say the character of Reginald Barclay was made entirely to express beliefs held by the fans, so the producers can explain it.
What happens to somebody in teleportation is that they fade out into a weird fuzzy CGI dimension and then fade into wherever they were sent. Barclay, a man who was terrified of teleportation doing the exact thing you're arguing, went into the teleporter and remained so lucid and "fine" with teleportation that he could reach out, while teleporting, and snatch something that was in there with him.
How the frick did Barclay even get into Starfleet? He seems like a total mismatch.
>How the frick did Barclay even get into Starfleet?
He should have never gotten into Starfleet, he doesn't have any particularly notable qualities beyond being "good" at his job. As anon said, he was a character they introduced to parrot fan questions and thereby get "official" answers. Also because everyone in the show is hyper-competent so having someone who's kind of a wreck adds nuance.
Barclay was supposed to be a critique of Star Trek fanboys. Not the normal ones who understand it’s a TV sho to be enjoyed in moderation. The obsessive fanatics who would rather live in a fantasyland (Holodeck) than the real world. Neon Genesis Evangelion did this concept better a few years later but that’s for another thread/
"He" probably got into Starfleet by capitalizing on their own equivalent of DEI and is most likely a FtM trans-this would explain all the behavioral issues he has
Oh noooooooooooooooooooooo!
Being transgayhomopedomurdercriminalgenderqueer is TOTALLY NORMAL AND ACCEPTABLE! Just the same as everyone else! Equal!!! EQUAL!!!!!
Now pander to me because I'm better!
He's a lieutenant in the engineering class, and despite his sperginess he's shown to be highly intelligent - he probably just had top tier scores
he was fine before he was stationed on the enterprise, working someplace where he was consistently the smartest person in the room and left to his own devices. then on the enterprise he felt a bit anxious at being among equals or people who were actually smarter than him. So he tried to get over that anxiety by self-medicating with the holodeck, which had the opposite effect, worsening his anxiety, and caused him to become addicted to the holodeck
Smart enough to fear the transporter
It’s just an illusion. The memories are transferred to the clone at the instant of disintegration so it seems like they are continuous. You’re very stupid to not grasp this.
Including the burning sensation of UTI?
wrong
it's called the "transporter" not the "duplicate copier"
the atoms and molecules are moved
But this episode
canonically disagrees with your semantics.
there was always a pattern buffer. the pattern buffer does not contradict the idea it isn't a copy/duplicate/murder machine.
its a fictional technology and you're applying your very limited understanding of real world physics to it.
And there we have it.
The transporter defense force defeats itself yet again.
Even taking fictional technology into account, there is no pattern buffer in a holosuite.
>the holosuite has no memory
whooooooops
>its a fictional technology and you're applying your very limited understanding of real world physics to it.
Normally I would agree with you. I would just chalk it up to some autistic nerd way overthinking the rubber science in a fictional TV show. But the writers! The writers keep leaning into the most horrifying implications of the technology by constantly using it for drama. Here’s a episode where Riker accidentally gets copied (because it killed Riker and accidentally made two new copies instead of one)! Here’s an episode where it copies Picard wrong and now he’s a boy (because it killed Picard and accidentally messed up his copy)! Here’s an episode where McCoy or Barkley is afraid to go into the transporter (because it kills you)! Hell in Enterprise they explicitly say there was a moral panic and riots when the transporter was introduced to the public (because it kills everyone who uses it). If the writers don’t want us to overthink it maybe they shouldn’t keep strongly implying that the transporter kills you.
And there's episodes where Sherlock Holmes is made more intelligent than any human and given enough sentience to recognize his fiction and SOLVES that!
But they kill him, so, PHEW!
Problem solved!
And there's an episode where two beings are combined into one and live several days coming to terms with their new existence... and accept their new selves!
But the rest of the crew doesn't agree, killing him, so, PHEW!
Problem solved!
Or how the Emergency Medical Hologram eventually gets so many new memories it is officially regarded as its own existence (even getting a future-technology piece that lets him move ad lib!) and he becomes granted his own identification!
But the man he's based on hates him doesn't agree of this outcome so it's NOT him! PHEW!
Problem... solved? Was there a problem? What about Riker? Umm...
Grandma Rose is morally justified for loving her not-husband and throwing away her stolen gift!
Moriarty but yes.
beep...boop..fellow N-P-C
I'm not the guy you're arguing with and I don't particularly care about the philosophical implications of science fiction magic technology, but your argument style is insufferable and you are insufferable. If your first thought is "muh ad hominem" then you further prove it. Nothing you day, do, or think will ever make you likeable. Eat shit and die.
>but your argument style is insufferable and you are insufferable.
Good.
You own it. I respect that.
>casually and unambiguously proves that transporters kill you
Everything else is propaganda.
They saved the data in a holosuite. Not some homosexual bullshit matter stream or whatever nonsense they fed you at the academy. Data. that's it.
The purported "continual" consciousness of the thing now referred to as Barclay is not inconsistent with death via transporter.
Taking the shuttle, enjoy getting atomized idiots
it doesnt matter since that just means souls dont exist. otherwise the "copies" would drop dead instantly from not having souls
Think outside of the box here though, look at it in reality. If there is individual consciousness, even across identical twins, then individual identity would exist in any new flesh. So a clone and it's nervous system would inherently have its own 'soul' meaning its own self and unique identity, the same way twins do. Come ON you guys use your OWN BRAIN instead of HIDING behind these fricking IDEAS YOU WERE TOLD AND DONT EVEN TRUST. LOOK AT IT OBJECTIVELY
>So a clone and it's nervous system would inherently have its own 'soul' meaning its own self and unique identity,
correct, this is the athiest's view
Which means the transporter kills the original and generates a new separate soul from the replicated flesh!!!
transporter cant make souls because only god can make souls
That's the best argument I've heard all thread
People have souls and destroying and replicating their body doesn’t bring the soul to the new body. I mean let’s be real here
>souls can't be copied because..... they just can't okay???
Show me the soul copy in the replicator, and is a copy it’s original? Why don’t I just copy you and rape and murder the original if you like it so much
Has there been a Black Mirror episode yet?
>Has there been a Black Mirror episode yet?
You mean has Black Mirror ripped off The Outer Limits yet? No. But they will.
The other limits episode was pretty good
Episode name?
Thanks
Not him but I think it’s somewhere in season 4. So that narrows down your search to 26.
it was called something like 'think like a dinosaur'
canonically doesn't. interpretation from people who haven't watched it.
Canonically we're given many different explanations/descriptions of how it works and we see it do different kinds of shit different ways.
it doesn't kill you but the transporter operators will sometimes secretly replace a single molecule in your body with one from a troony because that then makes you part troony and that it is funny to them
Shut up homosexual
I mean, I'm amused
Imagine having one value be off by one digit and coming back as an abomination. Like your head is embedded in your abdominal cavity and your feet and hands have switched. Or there’s a glitch in the transporter yourself and you come back as The Fly.
Still safer than flying with Boeing.
But what if you imagine having one value be off by one digit and coming back as a gorgeous masterpiece? Your balding head is completely rejuvenated, thick with hair, now. Or there's a glitch and all the Javascript knowledge that took Brenden Eich his college years to create is perfectly implanted into your memories... instantly?
What if using a transporter... improves you?
this whole thread comes off as AI trying to probe humans to explain souls to them
pretty much
A true NPC!
>thinks teleportation philosophy threads are new
Stupid newbies
The ship saves all the semen spilled on the holodeck in order to make transporter copies. This is canon.
Kinda hot ngl
>two best doctors
>highly intelligent, highly trained, the cream of the crop
>refuse to use transporters, refuse to elaborate
Welp
more like
>best doctor
>and poor imitation of best doctor, but le woman
there's a reason they dropped pulaski so quickly
can it be modified so as to make copies without killing the original? making it a cloning machine?
Yes but no. Ethics and what have you
who gives a shit about ethics i want an army of daxes working my dick
Wasn’t there something about joined Trill not being able to transport because the symbiont didn’t like it or something at one point? Help me out nerds
even better i d rip that parasite out, disgusting thing that it is
yes. in tng the worm took total control and couldnt do transporters
Thanks anon, I remember now. They did some major retcons around the Trill for DS9
They handwaved a lot of the retcons with "well Trill culture was secretive until then" and mostly gets away with it.
Ezri or jad? Important question please respond
given trill naming conventions if that anon said an army of daxes didnt he imply with that he wants several of the worms working his dick not the humanoid hosts
Well that’s much hotter
jadzia man prettiest woman in star trek history
No sir, that would be Ashley Judd
Curzon for sure. He knew how to have a good time.
both
would it be illegal to make 10 clones of counselor troy?
Yes, intentional cloning is illegal in the federation.
what if i do it by mistake?
then you get to keep em son
That’s what the holodeck is for fren
this was because of some kind of accident, the data/matter stream was replicated somehow because some space shit, it bounced back and each side materialized the same individual
I can't remember the specifics right away
There was some kind of storm or some shit causing an interference
infetterance*
Yeah, they had to double up on the transporter beam (or whatever) to get Riker up through the interference. One reflected off it and bounced back down, one made it through. Wah-lah, 2 Rikers.
Here we go. I believe that Riker #2 renames himself and goes back to Starfleet. Then later assumes Original Riker's identity to betray Starfleet at a later time.
It has, however, been like a decade since my last rewatch.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chances_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation)
>Wah-lah
Yes. It's happened accidentally several times throughout multiple series. Riker and Boingler both have living clones in Starfleet with their own careers, off the top of my head.
>bones! the transporter is safe
>where's our new science officer
>we're picking spock up, and watch your step there's a... mess there
how does the teleporter actually work
like what are the parameters for distance and velocity and all that?
do you need direct line of sight?
you just need your imagination
Define you when it is in fact me.
Acoochemoochie
An interesting fact is that teleportation is impossible so you are arguing over nothing
the copy is still you.
you are the continuity of experiences.
>Thomas Riker
Unless there are two of you...then you have different experinces
yeah that's two different people. I wouldn't expect them to both be (you)
>Thomas Riker
Honestly such bullshit he had to change his name. Will should have changed his name. He's the copy, and the other guy got the short end of the stick
How about Will keeps the name but Thomas keeps the beard?
>the copy is still you.
Hey NPC, imagine a copy of you standing in front of you, you then blow your own brain out, are you still alive?
You just described a situation with two different people. The extra person doesn't factor into it.
If I blow my brains out, I cease to be. the continuity of experience is broken.
>If I blow my brains out, I cease to be. the continuity of experience is broken.
You said "the copy is still you"
It's not a copy if its you, at least you understand the concept of self
>You said
OP said "copy". I'm just using the agreed upon vocab.
Star Trek characters are so alien. They literally have no sense of self, willingly walking to their death just to save a few bucks on gas. "Hmmm I could drive to my destination or kill myself and let my copy take over". And this was someone's idea of utopia, creepy shit.
the way i see it, you can also modify bodies as you see fit. so yeah, hairless dax butthole to lick for days
https://archive.4plebs.org/tv/search/image/PlKTKH5EFWLnS0bZ8h3bXg/
converts matter to energy, beams it to a new location and reassembles the matter. It is no different than walking across a room. Accidents that create duplicates are caused by additional energy added to the matter stream but the orignal is still the orignal.
In case anyone hasn't seen it.
Disassemble - Reassemble
Exist - Exist Simultaneously - Cease Existing
Is life moral?
Is existence moral?
>ends with her willing killing and cloning herself to avoid accountability
classic woman moment
>don't mind me, just pirating a dry martini!
i only drink open source martinis
It doesn't. Your consciousness is a direct result of one exact configuration of matter. If the transporter can recreate that exact configuration of matter, including your memories, then your consciousness will live on and you will never have even noticed that your first body got destroyed.
The only way this is not true is if your consciousness is some immaterial element independent of your body.
>>*kills you and makes a copy*
ultimately irrelevant, since the amount of time is so small, that your temporary annihilation, and identical replacement repopulating the space, reconciles the "problem".
And ruminating on the "problem" will ultimately amount to nothing tangible, as in: You "proving" "you" are not the metaphysical *you*.
And this isn't even bringing up other aspects like
>he thinks being "born" means new energy is spontaneously affected into the universe
lmao
>kills you and makes a copy
>ultimately irrelevant, since the amount of time is so small, that your temporary annihilation
I killed you and then made a copy of you just now. It's one of my powers. But trust me! You're completely the same as you were before! NOTHING different!
Heh heh.
You DO trust me, right?
What exactly would change and how?
not at all, but all modifications need to be explicitly opt-in
Guys!
I'm the same me!
I'm just 6' 2", now!!
Isn't that great!!?
What exactly is your very obtuse point here?
Your silly non-sequitur strawmans are not coherent.
You seem to be missing any sort of wrongdoing or philosophical brainstorming in the sense of
>teleportation = END
You're either being willfully ignorant or dismissively forgiving.
You're either "refusing to acknowledge" or "agreeing to the Terms & Conditions."
In the theoretical future of Star Trek, it would be implied that a machine would be objective and free of egotistical bias.
A malevolent transporter is a concept for an episode, not the more likely reality you're implying
Good thing its a fictional story with zero function in REAL life!
...or is it?
Do you get to decide? If you answer me, are you deciding for yourself, or for me?
For such an existential topic, DEATH seems pretty poignant...
>What exactly would change
Your location.
>and how?
My powers.
Lemme guess; you'd HATE IT if the teleporter IMPROVED your health, wouldn't you?
...by IMPROVED you mean swap gender, give boobies and make your p*nis feminine and cute???
>he thinks consciousness is a special energy
Its just a continuous chemical process bro. If you copy paste the same chemical structure somewhere else, there no magical transfer.
What if it runs out of toner?
It's more like a subspace portal. It doesn't kill you.
What if it made you younger?
What would that change? People are confused about the process that converts a person into a transmittable energy form. It's not destructive, like converting grape juice into wine is not destructive.
Yeah!
28-year-old (You) is IDENTICAL to 18-year-old (You)!
You don't notice ANY difference!
Same as 78-year-old (You)! And 8-year-old (You)! Nothing's changed!
Same! Equal!
In this context, a teleporter or whatever machine should be able to enumerate the history of your atoms, and merely re-image you to that point in time by the offset of years.
You are still the correct version of you.
De-aging you with the mind of now would break the reflective property of the proof of your image, because of a different mind, and the new You would be a lump of mass in some variable (and probably agonizing) state.
Think a picture who's digital bits are randomly scrambled
Yeah! Think like you do!
Don't think any other way!
Same!
Just like right now! It'd be the BEST THING EVER if we thought EXACTLY THE SAME, right? We'd be copies! We are copies, Anon! You and me!
Same!
Acting like a court jester throwing a childish tantrum of passive aggression only makes me take you less seriously.
Drop the insincerity, take a breath, and articulate your objections like an adult.
My objection is your unwillingness to claim any falsity or any sort of tangent from "truth" on the very specific, explicit concept from fiction!
Even this very same fictional world has MANY, DIFFERENT iterations where the "truth" doesn't always happen. (You) do not maintain.
But, rather than acknowledge it; you stray. Or run away. Or insult. It's not fair to confront hypocrisy! Truth is defined, but you're selecting which definition and ignoring others!
Are you accepting of murder as justified? Or unjustified?
Are you accepting transport maintains murder, but it's justified? Or unjustified?
Are you accepting transport changing ANYTHING but that's justified? Or unjustified?
If I took transporter and everything about me remained the same... but I'm younger! Is that justified? Unjustified?
Hypotheticals exist, Anon! Especially if discussing fiction.
>Hypotheticals exist
>tfw I still don't know how would I had felt if I didn't have breakfast this morning
80iq bros.....................
Yeah!
That copy is identical to me!
Except my lack of breakfast... or a single hair follicle? Or a few years younger???
>My objection is your unwillingness to claim any falsity or any sort of tangent from "truth" on the very specific, explicit concept from fiction!
We are specifically talking about the transporters. With the transporters they have to be able to
1. Identify a specific set of atoms and their subsequent states
2. Categorize them into unique entities
3. Break them down
4. Rematerialize them exactly to a new location
Thus, a transporter has to reason about OBJECTIVELY, many things, else it will kill,mangle, or not do its job and get junked.
A malevolent feature of subjective bias, is out of scope of the engineering and software, subsequently, it is mathematically INVALID to deviate.A transporter of such capacity will not make it onto a starship. And any tinkering on-board will be detected abruptly.
Even you are acknowledging what the transporter does. Look at your step 3!
>3. Break them down
You said "break," you didn't say "create." You didn't say "copy." You didn't say "generate." You used a term we, in English, know as a negative term that de-constructs. It is not a positive word associated with perfection.
And yet... you claim a transporter is perfect! No harm is being done! It meets the standards required to be on a ship and be used by living beings!
Your not changing arguments or presenting evidence or discussing philosophy with me, you're stating what you know! And I'm telling you a different perspective, one that doesn't agree a transporter's feasibility! The example used is "improvement." Taking a transporter's "perfection" for granted, and agreeing with you that it's completely tangible and coherent and right to use a transporter... what if it improved you upon destination? Something YOU wanted to improve? What if the transport made was BETTER than the original, and it's because YOU wanted it to be?
Acceptable?
English is complicated anon, "break them down" is not necessarily a negative term. It would depend on the context it is used, and in the case the context would be equivalent to "separate them into individual parts"..which is not a negative term.
In order to operate correctly, and soundly, a transporter would have to derive and validate proofs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof
In a proof, you cannot deviate without breaking soundness.
1 + 1 == 2 == 1 + 1
The above is known as "reflective" which asserts the "soundness" of the proof.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_principle
https://www-sop.inria.fr/members/Yves.Bertot/coqart-chapter16.pdf
The transporter would have to follow this idea.
1. Figure out the left side of the proof (What the target is)
2. What it resolves to
3. Assert that the right side teleported successfully and is reflective of the target's original
If they (the atoms) are reflective, the transportation is successful.
Here's an exercise for you:
1. How would you be able to insert subjective tampering into the proof, WITHOUT breaking soundness?
Hard to answer your fictional questions with realistic answers... Luckily, there are SEVERAL Star Trek episodes that do that FOR ME!
Done!
Now, was transporting always "wrong" or was it wrong "only during those unique events?" Making it "right" in all other monitored events?
Or, maybe it was never wrong? It was ALWAYS right, even in those unique events that operated outside your soundness?
It stops becoming a question of plausibility, and it starts becoming a question of reason. For humans, it even become morality! A philosophical discussion!
You keep running away from that discussion, though!! You only want to hear about how transportation is perfect, none of the philosophical nuance it results in!
How do you know YOU aren't the reflection in the mirror? Would it be wrong to stop looking?
Transporter functions are mathematical, there's certainly much more fertile ground for philosophizing, but not here.
Also, you surely aren't as well-read as you think you are, if you're still wrongly identifying moralization problems, or even still being stuck in the moralization/existentialist swamp to begin with.
Swim out anon, there's much better worlds beyond.
No! No, no, no! You've created this yourself!!
Here's a mathematically perfect question: the transport is everything YOU wanted it to be!! It's a PERFECT copy... just in a new location!
If I ask that transport "do they feel 'right?'," of course they'll answer "yes!"
If I ask (You) observing this fictional hypothetical of that transport if it is "right?," you'll answer "yes!"
If I ask myself observing this fictional hypothetical of a transport if it is "right?," and I answer "no!..." (You) have just INSTANTLY judged me as "wrong!" Anger and insults, you'll even pass judgment on me! IN FACT, absolutely everyone in the universe MUST AGREE the transport is perfect and right OR ELSE any single discrepancy from any single sentient being is WRONG and EVIL and DESERVES TO GO TO HELL!!!!!!!!!! Even if everyone else agrees that "no, the transport is not a perfect copy" in this fictional hypothetical, making (You) the outlier with your presumption... well who cares about that, right?
No matter what you try to claim, if you acknowledge a transporter's existence, you inherently acknowledge judgment and are required to define it for yourself. Transporting humans is correct! Transporting cows! Transporting gold! Replication is justified! Or not! All that ends up happening is your own willingness to engage with other perspectives. It stops being sciences, doesn't it? It almost seems religious!
I genuinely don't get why you're so stuck on this silly bad/good strawman and the "judgement" nonsense. Please be a more interesting shitposter, or i'm done humoring you.
>I genuinely don't get why
Clearly. You're completely unwilling to discuss philosophy from this fictional story; only discussing plausibility of fictional magic/science.
In fact, you're explicitly judging me, already, as "being worse" for daring you to retain OP's philosophical theme:
>*kills you and makes a copy*
Your unwillingness is either fear or ignorance, in-my-opinion.
I love the idea of a transporter IMPROVING (YOU) if activated.
But... are (You) worse for actively choosing NOT to use it, by that point? You know you'll be better, improved, if you use it... but you actively choose not to! Are you worse for making such a decision? Or are you completely unharmed, perfect, and justified? Does that logic applies to others? Does it apply to your Thanksgiving dinner?
Strange how "kills" becomes an existential discussion beyond "Star Trek says so," huh?
The spooky music in the background always does it for me. Imagine a Jonathan Frakes power hour every night from 7-9 with TNG followed by fact or fiction. evening back in the day. Streaming took away this synergy.
I'm actually kinda disappointed Cinemaphile removed hyperlinking. I get the feeling people don't watch those webms since it'd require extra steps beyond clicking it.
Also, I always think about the Loch Ness monster when I see "Fact Or Fiction."
Also also, saved.
>Your unwillingness is either fear or ignorance, in-my-opinion.
No, it's because you're so far off the trail of topic with
>But... are (You) worse for actively choosing NOT to use it, by that point?
Not even tangential to the thread, as you're talking about that one episode of the twilight zone
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_12_Looks_Just_Like_You
Which is a boring and trite "moral" "problem".
>Which is a boring and trite "moral" "problem".
And now you have answered. Transportation is "boring" and "trite" and any person who dares question it is a "moral problem." Thank you for your time.
In this instance, yes, transporters are boring because they have to function with perfect consistency and accuracy.
Inserting your incoherent head-canon/daydreaming is not an argument or interesting discussion.
They don't magically improve or mutate atoms, they just copy-paste them.
>they have to function with perfect consistency and accuracy.
There are multiple Star Trek episodes that prove that Star Trek transporters DON'T "have to" have perfect consistency and accuracy to function, though.
>technology can sometimes fail
Yes anon, that is the "reality" part of it all. When they stop working properly, very bad things happen, like with any technology.
>very bad things happen
Tuvix was a very bad thing???
Thomas Riker was a very bad thing??? Or was it Will???
Uh oh! You're acknowledging what you were claiming was impossible as being possible and passing judgment that ANY result MUST be wrong, then!
And yet, other perspectives disagree with you! And, it is quite easy to presume a circumstance where even the "failed" product believes itself to be BETTER than before and accepts himself for any differences! But rather than give him your acceptance of reality, you claim he's wrong and killing him is justified. Good work, captain Janeway!
see
>Tuvix
Not a valid transport, writers being bad for the sake of a bad gimmick.
>Thomas Riker was a very bad thing???
yeah, also again, bad writing.
How can you claim it was invalid when it functioned?
>because the result wasn't a perfect identity swap from one location to another
As much as you try to insert "valid" or "sound" or "reflect" or "perfect" you cannot halt the FACT it OCCURRED. Now, you're tasked with existential, philosophical crisis. It's not scientific, anymore!
In one case, you can claim this abnormal event resulted in a flawed product, so the crisis is easily solved! After all, NO ONE "wants" any differences, right?
In another case, this abnormal event resulted in a BETTER product, so the crisis only increases! After all, who doesn't "want" to have improvements?
All that keeps happening is (You) are deciding what's best and that's-that!
Because two copies of the same thing can mimic eachother but aren’t the original, duh
People attempting to transport themselves over and over again until they RNG struck-by-lightning odds and mutate themselves to perfection is certainly an experiment, but not one i'd wager as productive use or consider interesting.
Isn't that just shiny hunting with DNA? Just soft resetting until the RNG pulls in your favor?
Lots of people have more than enough time to approve of that, after all. They outright want it! They want it now!!
William Boimler, on the other hand, is Star based.
>Inserting your incoherent head-canon/daydreaming is not an argument or interesting discussion.
He's not wrong, Anon. It's proven multiple times that transporters are not reflecting perfection, they're pasting pixels. It's proven in data banks of times it was used. It's proven when used to generate completely new creations without any location transport whatsoever. It's proven when time makes zero difference in construction, causing the transported creation to literally be less-aged than non-transported. Canonically, the generated product you claim is merely pasted is not the original. The original ceases to be.
Technology failing/malfunctioning or Star Trek writers being bad and breaking consistency for the sake of a concept doesn't invalidate the principle.
>doesn't invalidate the principle.
You're absolutely right! The principle of transportation use in the world of Star Trek can be INHERENTLY IMMORAL. Right from the start. Always was, always will be.
Or not.
Depends on your belief system.
Not science.
Those weren’t malfunctions moron, everything he said was when the transporter was working correctly
transporters do not clone by design, therefore it is literally a malfunction.
But they worked as designed when they cloned
Yes, again see
subsection:
>Star Trek writers being bad and breaking consistency for the sake of a concept
Meaning the transporters are lot logically sound and lack any consistently that denies they kill the user. Explain to me how this invalidates the idea that every time the transporter is used properly, if logic is applied consistently, that even in the good episodes the user isn’t killed and replicated. It holds better canon if they are
Transporters, as a concept are sound
1. They identify matter
2. They copy-paste it to a new location
Again, because Star Trek is soft scifi, you have bad episodes that muddy concepts, because bad writers can't help themselves.
I have no issue with canon events if they follow their own rules.
>the explanation within the show that they copy and not transport, is evidence that they transport and not copy, because the show is corny
I get the idea, really, but anyone who notices this kills the user in reality is right
If you drown in a pool, have a heart attack, get knocked out, etc, would you want to be revived?
Please answer with either
1. Yes
2. No
I would want to be revived, but that’d be the same body, I wouldn’t be obliterated and remade. Come on, do you not get this?
>I would want to be revived, but that’d be the same body,
How do you know your new *self* is still *you*?
I can save us 100 replies and answer:
You don't care because you want to still live and experience existence.
That's why "To die or not" is irrelevant with this nonsensical transport "debate".
My new me might think the way I do, but my original self may have died. In reality I don’t prefer to suffer a heart attack, especially if there’s a fact I don’t retain my same consciousness after passing out. You know this
My point is, if you are true to your "objection" of not wanting to "die", then you'd refuse any and all resuscitation because any new version is not the *true" you.
The fact that you undermine that belief in a different aspect is proof you're not actually about your argument.
You assume resuscitation terminates the soul, when the question is if total reconstruction to a molecular level does. Can you just explain where you believe the self is located and why grinding a brain to dust and the re-braining it keeps the same consciousness? Because that’s the real question isn’t it
The point is, both aspects are equally plausible and abide by the principle
>heart stops <> atomized
>consciousness over <> consciousness atomized
>energy gets recycled <> transported
>either new and necessary amounts flow in or not <> you get transported or not
Why should your answer suddenly change?
There's a difference between a heart stopping and then being turned to dust and then remade into the same heart
The problem is proving *you* are *you*.
Why are you okay with possibly not being the same you in one? But definitely not okay with not being the same in the other?
>Why are you okay with possibly not being the same you in one? But definitely not okay with not being the same in the other
Because one is proven and one is not. I've slept before and I know I'm still me, and even if I was some caveman who never slept before I'd eventually fall asleep and wake up myself, I wouldn't be relying on some unproven claim you just have to step in this portal that turns you to dust because it's easier for everyone. Plus, if I lived in the Star Trek universe, I would enjoy extensive research on if this was the case. They just don't discuss it in the show so for me it's a big fricking no-go since the information they offer makes it look like a rogue mad science that causes existential horrors on a ship every two years or so.
>Because one is proven and one is not.
>I've slept before and I know I'm still me,
And you know this for sure how?
If the transporter was proven to have the same effect as sleep, then I would accept the transporter, yes.
But it's proven as demolecularizing and remolecularizing a copy.
But sleep isn't demolecularizing and remoleculatizing though.
I do want to ask you, are you 100% confident you'd retain your 'self' here, or are you just brave and bold and accepting of the risk and the potential progress the transporter offers? Would step into the portal feeling completely safe, or would do so bravely, saying 'its ok if i die'?
So it merely comes down to being okay with a "death" you can be sure is "irrelevant". Which is also, logically what transporting is.
You go to sleep and wake up -> Your existence seemingly continues
You transport -> Your existence seemingly continues
>So it merely comes down to being okay with a "death"
Yes absolutely it's a question of if i'm okay with being killed by the transporter. I thought this was the premise of the conversation
fear of death is fear of pain and your existence possibly ending.
Transporting has neither of those, being , objectively, you cannot differentiate your existence between the two epochs.
What if death objectively exists and is not just a factor of fear? My point is that the transporter kills you, if you're arguing that it's okay to risk being killed for the sake of using the transport, then I don't think we actually disagree. You're saying the transporter arguably kills you
No, I'm saying you qualifying transporting as "death", is inane, and also inconsistent because you don't have the same trepidation with sleep or any other temporary consciousness enders.
It's not rational.
Sleep is different than turning a body to dust and making that body back from the same dust. I've said this many times and you've ignored it.
>What if you aren't okay with it... but it happens anyway?
>You're FORCED to transport?
Then I'd be choosing to ignore the question of if transporters kill the original self, for the sake of my own sanity, because the decision was forced on me! Just like a rape victim has an option to say the rape didn't affect them, because they can will themselves into overcoming the rape that was forced on them but that obviously happened! You're dodging the entire question here, if there is an essential self that is lost upon replication. Instead you're talking about waking up as the clone and how you would cope with it. Just say something convincing, man
>Then I'd be choosing to ignore the question
>for the sake of my own sanity
And you claim I'M the one "dodging the question?"
You're telling me you'd comply with the suicide, but it would drive you insane.
You're telling me you'd comply with the murder, because it helped you overcome.
You're telling me transporting, forced or not, results in death and you're absolved of fear or responsibility regardless of your own (or others') stance on its morality or existential effects. That your decision to transport to K-Mart is fine. Just as fine as rape being forced on you for the sake of others. There is NOTHING equating "transport" and "rape" as wrongdoings!
Well, not to YOU, anyway!
I have no idea what you're talking about. I never said any of that
But it's established the circumstances of a "Star Trek transport from the surface of a planet onto the bridge of a starship" is not the same as "falling asleep in your bed at home and waking up the next morning."
You are equating those circumstances equally as "life termination."
Not matter if that Anon agrees, you're inherently already accepting what is established: transporting kills you. "You" are not the un-killed (You) from 8 seconds prior. You're a brand new being with identical features. A copy. And that original (since you are a copy) is ended. Gone. Eradicated. Mere data. 1s and 0s. Molecules. Debris. Chemicals.
...or is it?
I'm the other anon and I agree with your argument against that guy
You sleep and wake up -> You are theoretically not the same you
You transport -> you are theoretically not the same you
You cannot be okay with one, but object to the other.
If you haven't figured it out yet, I absolutely do not care about the useless "death" qualification, because seeming existence is ultimately what matters. If you want to waste yours ruminating on such a useless concept, go for it.
Sleep is something unavoidable. Ramifications of sleep are inherently tied to my life.
Star Trek transport is not. I can say "no." Ramifications of transport is avoidable. It is not inherently tied to my life.
As much as you want to equate the two, even if you say "for the sake of argument," you're inherently creating fallacy by determining "causes are equal BECAUSE effects are equal." They're not. By that very same logic, rape is justified because it creates a baby! It is as equally wonderful as consensual love-making between married partners! Because it created the same baby!
There's nothing to "figure out" here. You're lying to yourself.
>Sleep is something unavoidable. Ramifications of sleep are inherently tied to my life.
Just because something is unavoidable, does not mean you can object to it in spirit. Where's the same passion for sleep undermining your "self", as transporting? Does it not matter because the apathy of pyrrhic nature is too heavy?
In actuality though, my greater point is how dismal a view many people have on existence, in viewing it as some unique start & stop measure.
>Just because something is unavoidable, does not mean you can object to it in spirit.
Your rape is unavoidable. Just accept it.
>sleep is spirit rape
it's certainly a start, i'm proud of you.
Can you just be honest with yourself for a fricking second instead of coming up with these incoherent ways to get one over on everyone for explaining the obvious. I'm trying to talk to you as a person here
I'm just shitposting because there's no productive discussion to be had here, considering my pointing out the inconsistency in your thinking was instantly discarded because it crumbles the argument.
It was addressed immediately and you continued being difficult for fun. I understand, it's just a smart thing to do on here
>it doesn't count because it's unavoidable
>i can still go on believing a contradiction because it isn't a requirement to live
Schopenhauer would be so proud.
Nah that's not it. Don't worry about it
We both know everyone objecting to transport, would instantly be screeching for it, if their life was in danger.
Well yeah if the option was death or cloning yourself at the risk of death, sure. But to travel between office spaces to avoid a shuttle? I don't think so
>Well yeah if the option was death
If you won't die for your beliefs, your beliefs aren't valid.
My belief is in living
whoops, guess you can't transport then :^)
bye!
>kills himself so another version of him can get to some useless arbitrary destination faster to do the space govs bidding
K bye then homosexual
Some version of me is still experiencing, whether it's an old or new epoch of me, is irrelevant.
If you really want to be pedantic, you could argue that every single moment is a new life and death of you, so even worrying about "true" "false" selves is even more embarrassingly irrelevant.
>you could argue that every single moment is a new life and death of you
This is pure cope from gays desperately trying to overcome the cognitive dissonance between wanting to achieve immortality and realizing they're committing suicide to do it.
No, it's a belief when you get to the edge of existentialism, and into Absurdism, which throws away the perils of worrying about eternity or the finite
Cuck: the philosophy
There's no perceptible difference, it's still the same me.Metaphysically judging from offstage isn't the same view.
Thats like saying there's no perceptible difference in experiences in twins. You are moronic.
Twins are different entities, they have different experiences and consciousness, perceptibly, my consciousness is just transferred .
If all that matters to you is that some effigy of you exists in the universe doing things you would do after you die then you're just a narcissist. There's something to be said for wanting to personally do things or experience things, but at this point you're basically saying you believe the universe is objectively improved by your mere presence in it whether *you* get to actually experience it or not.
I don’t really want to be pedantic, I want to be accurate and real
Dude, you do not believe this. Pull yourself together. You are confusing yourself
>so buck-broken you're attempting to gaslight
Alas...
If she weighs as much as a duck -> She's made of wood
Anyone can object to anything they please regardless of how you feel, moron. Yes, any actual break in consciousness is essentially equivalent, but studies have shown consciousness is typically maintained throughout sleep.
What if you aren't okay with it... but it happens anyway?
You're FORCED to transport?
Would you ever come to terms, or would you redefine yourself or your perspective?
Even moving from yourself; what about others? What if THEY are NOT okay with being transported, but...
>this is an emergency!
>WE MUST TRANSPORT FRED out of this room and into the room next door!
>Fred: No! I refuse to be transported! I don't believe in the existential philosophy behind it! Find another way!
which can further split into
>WE CAN'T! This is the only way! Your refusal will result in your death!
or
>WE CAN'T! This is the only way! Your refusal will result in your death AND the death of your wife & daughter being held captive! The kidnappers need to see you alive in the next room! If you refuse to be transported, now, you're killing yourself AND THEM!
Do you speak for Fred in this hypothetical fiction? Are you justified for making the decision for him? For him, his wife & daughter? Only for yourself? What happens?
When does "transport" stop being about (You) being okay with suicide and become about (You) being okay with murder? Does such a sin even exist? Does science supercede any morality, even if it is merely for the sake of convenience?
In the moment, Fred is irrational, and i will transport him every single time, because he would ultimately rather live and see his wife and kid unless he explicitly tells me otherwise.
If he's butthurt after and spiraling, it is Not My Problem.
So many refuse to justify murder or suicide... until they see how it benefits them!
>And you know this for sure how?
because I lucid dream and am conscious the whole time
>you'd refuse any and all resuscitation because any new version is not the *true" you.
Only after brain death. Cf. Vedek Bareil
Time progresses, no other changes. 1!
Time progresses, my original copy on the planet is obliterated and a copy of myself is made. 2!
I wouldn’t accept the affects of a heart attack and possible loss of self just for the sake of travel, no.
Then you-tell-me:
1. They identify matter
2. They copy-paste it to a new location
3. It runs out of energy before completion
Did it occur?
At what time did it stop occurring?
What if... it was just one more gray hair? Is it relevant? As relevant as life?
>Did it occur?
anon.....
In a semblance of hard-scifi, the transporter would validate at every single step, and have emergency procedures to prevent or minimize catastrophe, like interrupting and dumping atoms back at even the slightest hint of error.
That's what Star Trek gets wrong.
Okay, it validated the first step, but it failed the second step!
What are you asking?
We've seen it literally takes time for a transport to start and end. It's not "validating every single step THEN performing the function INSTANTANEOUSLY," after all. Even the function takes time.
I'm not even talking about the science (as per the OP's desire to speak about "kills you") either! Hell, if we want to bring realistic science more and more and more and more, my God would inertia start becoming ABHORRENT in transportation! Transporting a human falling at 8,000 mph, it checks every step of the way, and then instantly places you in the transporter room...
SPLAT!!!!!!!
And so on!
It's like you're bringing the "Orange and Blue Portal" science into this!
As a concept it is terrible. Only a transporter than does not break you down would be acceptable, like a portal or wormhole from one location to another.
Most of the suicide machine stuff comes because morons TRIED to explain transporters instead of keeping them as space magic. Anything that has to scan you, store you as information and have a backup "buffer" is 100% making a copy.
>Stop pointing out canonical events when I don't want them
This is a forum, not a wikipedia. You seem poor at coming to understandings. You like being told (as long as it's a Safe Space, of course).
>(You): Adolf Hitler! You'll be a better human if you use the transporter! You'll come out the other side NOT hating israelites!
>Adolf: I refuse to use the transporter.
>(You): YOU'RE A WORSE PERSON THAN BEFORE!
Deconstruct the molecules of that argument with as many different perspectives as you want! Or, apply only one, single, sound argument! Funny how a different perspective might alter results...
Typing like this doesn't make you sound smart it just makes you an butthole.
Oh no!
Still an butthole. Make like a tree and get fricked.
wish i was a tree
You sound discouraged, Anon. I'm glad you shared your emotions with me on a web-forum. And I'm glad I'm talking to you, and not your transporter copy!
But I am the copy anon. Just the evil one.
You fricked up. I noticed you impregnated your copy with too much sarcasm, and had to talk shit. Really you brought it on.
Haha! While you posted that post, I transported to Starbase Couch de LivingAbode, so I'm actually a copy of that me you impregnated, not the same! I'm free!
>massa, it steal my soul, no beam me please massa
even the Vulcans would laugh you out of the room for your ignorance
Can a transporter create a copy without the original being taken apart, or does transporter technology actually move physical material from one place to another?
>unbeamed for life
Transporters pull your molecules apart. I’m not passing judgment, just stating a simple fact.
You don't know what you're talking about. I'm not passing judgement, just stating a simple fact.
Please explain this very real technology to us, Melvin
The opposite is happening, you're applying your limited understanding of how things function to a fictional technology, that in inverse is shown multiple times, multiple ways, to specifically not do what you're describing.
Check memory alpha. That is quite literally what happens. Simple fact: you’re a drag on this conversation because you inject falsehoods.
>a wiki is wrong
wow that's never happened before.
It’s information based on direct quotes from the official series you well-poisoning troglodyte
wrong.
>The process of being disassembled – or simply, the conversion of matter into energy – begins when matter starts to lose molecular cohesion, at which point, the molecules would begin to emit nucleonic particles. After the molecules were pulled apart, they were put back together again in their original form.
Conclusion: You are the moron
Many Anons ITT refuse to acknowledge life or consciousness, or refuse to agree when or where it starts. They'll hide behind "it's just fiction" and turn from science to religion.
Why aren't they constantly beaming in little rocks and pebbles? The beam cannot distinguish between pants, shoes, and the shit you don't want to beam over.
>is this atom a subset of HUMAN_TARGET
>beam it else discard it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subset
They can even disable a firearm during transport. If you fall, the transporter can rematerialize you in a standing position. That thing is magic.
That is such a cop out for suicidal people. You get to do it without hurting your friends and family. If your clone is suicidal then he can do it too.
It does not kill you, that is only thinking in terms of disintegration and demolecularization/remolecularization. Transportation is a phase shift from matter to energy, so first of all, we have to acknowledge this is possible, that matter can change to another state that is energetic and nonphysical. There are examples of this but not in your physical reality, that is why it appears impossible in your scientific framework. Yet the nonphysical realms already exist. Science has not properly identified this. Now, the ability to change from physical to nonphysical and then back to physical becomes more possible when we realize the relationship between physical and nonphysical. Some of your advanced spiritual beings have turned into the nonphysical state at will, giving rise to stories of ghosts and whatnot, but they are examples of the nonphysical state. Science must first discover the nonphysical state for any progress to be made. But you are still in kindergarten. You are still in a baby classroom for babies.
Yeah he’s mentally ill
You die everytime you fel deepl sleep and a clone copy of your soul wakes up instead
captcha:g04ds
This scenario has provable falsability though, you could test it unlike the teleporter
Verification not required.
you can only prove it doesn't happen to someone else.
Wow you’re so funny and interesting and totally not a drag
It’s like that greek ship thing in philosophy
TOS s1-2
TNG s3-6
DSN s2-5
VOY s2-5
ENT s1-2
There is no self. No persistent personal identity. This happens to you every second of every day. Buddha was right. Read Derek Parfit.
Your body is constantly regenerating itself, the you from now is a clone of the dead you from 10 years ago
what would even be the issue with that? the philosophy?
the part where you unalive
but youre back again as long as your pattern or beam doesnt get screwed by shenanigans.
transporting an infant is ok
equally okay as transporting a ferret
>as long as your pattern or beam doesnt get screwed by shenanigans
What if those "shenanigans" actually make you better? You get to decide what's better, not me, and you get it. Is that unalive justified?
>is using technology for improved bio mods just
really Black person? Are we back in 8th grade again with these pothead thoughts?
Are you telling me you agree or disagree to surgical manipulation? Or dying your hair? Or cutting your fingernails? Or curing your bronchitis? Or using a transportation device on the USS Enterprise?
Your heart stops.
Would you want it to be restarted, knowing the """""""""""new""""""""" you won't be the same """"""""""""""you"""""""""""?
Yes or No?
Star Trek I'm perfect.
People who still think you magically spawn into the universe at birth, instead of just being recycled amalgams of energy being reprogrammed by a new record. So they object to their Super Unique Existence™ being turned off and "replaced".
i'm surprised they don't use the transporter to just cure most diseases. that episode with the aging disease, they just pull up data on a teleport from before she got the disease and transport that template, and presto she's cured.
got fatally wounded? transporter reconfigures you with a backup from before you got wounded, old? transporter uses a backup from when you were young.
Why couldn't they just do that with Worf's injury instead of a risky surgery or euthanasia? Why couldn't they do that for all the times Data glitched out? Make a copy of his body without the positron brain. Because then there'd never be any conflict.
whole lot of homosexualry in this thread
Space folding is the best instantaneous transport
I like this bit from This Book is Full of Spiders Seriously Dude Don't Touch It
more interesting then the rest of whats written in this thread
Was there ever a villain who did really unethical shit with the transporter?
HARCOURT!
I know they were robots, but I love how it ended with Kirk being an butthole to punish him.
You wouldn't download a Bajoran female
If my body is disintegrated then I have died. I don’t care how well you put Humpty Dumpty back together.
How disintegrated does it need to be?
If you were put into (a perfect) stasis, shipped to your location and then woken up, is that still you or did you die?
If they chopped off your limbs en-route (for better packing, perhaps), but re-attached them (perfectly), is that still you or did you die?
How about if they diced you up into little cubes?
What if there was an error and a copy was made of you but it had a bigger dick. Do you step aside for the new improved you?
I thought the Star Trek cast was so post-tradition that they all accepted and supported that their ‘self’ was killed on transporter use, since they’re all space commies and such
The Orville is literally better than any Star Trek
Everybody should what this means. But somehow reddit scientists start always arquing about the semantics
>but le copy has the same memories so its means its me!
You are you, your awaraness doesnt get copied
The transporter works by breaking an object down at the atomic level. Then it converts those atoms into a beam of energy that it sends to another location. That energy is then put back together using a blueprint scan taken from before the object was atomized.
That is how a transporter works. It disintegrates an object into atoms and then puts them back together. But it can put those atoms back together however it wants. It can even create totally different objects from those atoms.
Is that death? You decide.
The surviving reconstructed creature would not consider to death, but the thing that was shredded to pieces would think so, if it weren't dead.
Many Anons refuse to equate these opposite decisions as true.
Why do none of the moronos who argue this have the capacity to argue a soul gets transported too? It’s so easy. Even breaking bad gave you the ingredients to say the soul is held within matter
Souls aren’t real
Then just say so! Frick! Instead of obfuscating it. You did say so though so I appreciate it. Okay though do you think your consciousness would be retained across clones, yes or no
Clones are made from different matter or grown from partial matter, transporter end results aren’t clones
Do you believe consciousness is transported by the transporter of if it’s merely a replica
You’re trying to assert that consciousness is a metaphysical fantasy like a soul. I reject your fallacy.
Do you believe you would be yourself if you warped across the room the way they do in this show, yes or no
Why was the Sci-Fi channel way better than current Syfy?
>leftist utopia
>nobody has an eternal soul
What a bleak existence.
I think John Scalzi in Old Man's War did it best.
>old man signs up to be a space marine
>they hook him up to a chair opposite a lifeless super soldier body
>they start transferring his mind over to the super soldier body
>old man can temporarily see both perspectives, himself and the supersoldier
>then he can only see his old dead body
>mind transfer complete
>itt
>Was "Total Recall" real!? Was it all just an implanted story, or was it ACTUALLY happening!?
>The fictional film was factual!!!
>Or was it!?!?!?
The only way I can accept consciousness is retained after complete restructuring of the body is if I can believe we are all the same consciousness experiencing existence separately only due to the differences in our body, which is ok by me
Even if it "kills" you, if it recreated a perfect copy then your consciousness would be perfectly copied over. If you died and your clone goes on and you don't experience life through the clones body, then it wasn't a perfect copy to begin with.
this image is too small and for some reason the images arent loading
again
so i cant opine on this
This entire argument would have been solved by having the transporter room be a portal room instead. Stargate is leagues better than Star Trek.
actually sweaty the portal does the same as the transporter, only super duper fast!
No, they’re totally different concepts. Portals are basically wormholes. A traditional wormhole would likely destruct any matter passing through it but presuming it doesn’t it’s just a doorway between dimensions.
i will move my own matter thank you very much. shan't be operating any devil tech that messes with my atoms.
Or they could have just established on the show that you stay alive through the process, and that the immortal soul, or your consciousness, or what-have-you, travels along with the energized matter to the destination point.
They don't break you down, your area of effect, the literal space time becomes transient and is teleported. Wrath of Khan, Kirk is talking while transported and it sounds like he's in a tunnel. You tell those THEORETICAL PHILOSOPHER KINGS to eat shit!
Oh shit, well if that's the case then that makes a difference. That's all I needed to know, really.
Don't they all, like, "freeze in place" when they're depicted on-screen entering the energy field? Like, they don't start moving or talking until it's done? But everyone else in the room not being transported can?
It's, like, different existences; time has stopped for one being, but not for others. Seems contradictory.
Precisely! Its everything in that area is moved outside of space time so universal laws doesn't apply.
And yet, they're not dead. The breaking down of atoms doesn't occur because if you broke down atoms, YOU'D HAVE A NUCLEAR BOMB!
>Seems contradictory.
This is really the issue. The show is inconsistent in it's portrayals and explanations of transporter tech. Both sides of the argument are correct depending on which episodes you refer to. Remember that episode where Riker get's cloned by the teleporter tech? This implies that the transporter is suicide pad cloning tech. The episode where Barclay is having transporter anxiety? This implies that the teleporter is a disintegrator and a reintigrator and that the original is maintained.
The show's technical explanation is that it disintegrates the atoms in your body, beams said atoms to the new location then reintegrates your atoms at the final destination. It's more like being turned into goo then put in a can, having that can shipped to france then being turning that goo back into a human.
my goo feels different than before, time to kill myself
That's not the question, the question is if you've already killed yourself by using the transporter, and if you would use the transporter considering this fact