>>16937762If you could prevent LLMs from ruining and shitting up every place in the internte, would you do it?
No, because person getting out on the other end wouldn't be me anymore. It would be a new, unique instance of me.
>>16937762No. You would have to believe that your conscious experience survives the atomic disassembly of your entire body which I personally doubt. I would most likely experience ego death when I enter the teleporter and someone else with my body and my memories would emerge out of it. Is it even possible to transport and then reassemble all the atoms perfectly so that your physical body consists of all the same atoms that entered into the teleporter? I doubt it. Otherwise it just becomes cloning rather than teleportation.
>>16937762You shouldn't use shitty ai slop to post on /sci/
>>16937861I think I used the term "ego death" incorrectly. It appears to me a drug thing.
>>16937762no, I would teleport everybody else
>>16937863The words on their own worked fine in that context but some pedantic probably would have indeed played the "gotcha" card by insisting there's only one possible definition for ego death.>>16937861What if instead of being transported, all of your event memories are erased? You still retain basic stuff like how to dress yourself, use the toilet, and other simple life skills but you lose all knowledge of the events of your life. Are you still the same you?
>>16937876So in your scenario the teleporter malfunctions and it fucks with the memory encoding process of your brain? Hard to say. To other people you are a different person at that point for sure, but if your physical body didn't experience sudden atomical destruction then I guess from your own experience you would still be "you" as in your qualia persists, except with irreversible amnesia.
>>16937762Fuck no. I'd be way too paranoid about the possibility of dying and a duplicate of me being recreated. The duplicate would never know the difference, but my stream of consciousness might cease to exist.
I actually want to duplicate and have sex with myself.
>>16937895tfw no gay twin to 69 every night
>>16937762it kills uso no
>>16937762If you showed me it, and someone I knew, like a friend of mine or family member, say, my mother, goes through, and she comes out the other end fine, like, if I was a toddler watching thisthen of course I'd use it
>>16937762nah I hate going places.
>>16937842just came to say this. if you rip up my atoms and reassemble them somewhere else, I died and that's a cloneI will never use the teleporter, I'll be taking the shuttle to the surface or other ship like bones. he was a doctor and knew what was up. in a way I could see a possible future civilization not caring about death. imagine if we find out one day that infinite multiple universes exist and reincarnation is real. people might not worry about dying over and over again each time they teleport
>>16937762https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocgFkHElzgQ
>>16937762Start trek showed you still had a soul in motion while physically transported.
>>16938031How would you even prove reincarnation is real? Dont you basically just get memory wiped and put into a new body ? Seems a bit pointless unless you at least had an inkling of previous lives and you could try life again with similar interests
>>16937842Star Trek showed the person to have a soul in motion being sent to a new made body.
Atomic Ship of Theseus. People here dont understand what they are saying
>>16937862stay on topic
>>16937885Same molecules, just loss of all memory and personality other than basic functioning. No teleport needed. It comes to mind because there was an episode of Babylon 5 where a serial killer has his brain wiped of memories and he starts a new life as a monk. Society sees it as a humane alternative to the death penalty but since the essence of who that person was is destroyed, is it really better? The physical body does remain while the mind does not. Almost the opposite of the teleport device, where the mind continues on but the body is a replaced.
>>16938169Your entire body experiences a ship of Theseus scenario as you age but the process is extremely gradual over your life time. It doesn't happen suddenly by atomizing you and then putting the pieces back together somewhere else.
>>16938560Self identity is fiction. If there's change involved, then there's no fixed identity anywhere at any time period.
>>16938565Ok pal. This is the most NPC response to this topic possible.
>>16937842maybe it could be a 3d transform of some fixed space, perhaps a "bounding box" around the transportee could be computed and some tesseract fuckery on that could make what was here, be over there.
>>16938031>I died and that's a clone>Oh no, my body stopped, so the magical non-physical thing that is "me" floatied away, and when my body started again "I" was up in the clouds and couldn't get back!
>>16938630If I made a perfect clone of you down to every single electron and beyond, would you be both people?
you acquire new matter every time you eatyou lose matter every time you go to the toiletmost of your cells get renovated from a few days to years according to the organ involved
>>16938708"I" wouldn't be either. But both of them would have been me.Continuity of existence only extends backwards. Future versions of you are not you, only the past versions of you were.
It would cause worldwide economic collapse via basically destroying the housing market.
>>16937762Physically transporting a body through gravity bending from a ship in space would interfere with the body's electrical signals; they might need to be resuscitated. But the energy expenditure would be more than a shuttle. I can't believe I knew they figured out gravity in the future and could use it. No wonder they send a ship out and annoy some local life.
>>16937842Even ignoring this obvious problem, what if the person getting out won't even be you anymore?What is you? Where does your personality, identity, psyche, id, your memories physically reside? And what if >you are greater than the sum of all these parts?You can theoretically copy the position of all atoms, you cannot do the same with electrons. What if soul is in the spin?
yes because I would be dead and someone else can carrry on this nightmare
>>16937762https://files.catbox.moe/u4ycpa.mp4
>>16938155care to illuminate how something immaterial can move?
>>16937762Yes, I would.
>>16937762Couldn't afford it innit
>>16938618Yeah right, like it was able to tune you into a new location like changing a radio station
>>16938887The ability to move people and resources to and from far remote areas with ease would actually cause a massive economic boom thoughbeit.
>>16942314No because the entire western economy has been propped up my real-estate bubble since the late 80s
>>16937891It stops existing when undergoing anesthesia thoughbeitever
>>16942627It exists outside of time, man
>>16942538The markets would adjust quickly and the burst of the housing bubble will be overwhelmed by the growth of the teleportation bubble and only people who deserve to be left behind will be left behind. I don't know why you smart people are so scared of game changers when you should easily be able to adjust to the change if it weren't for stubbornness.
>>16937842The person from 15 years ago isn't the same you either as all your current cells have died and been replaced, so what then
>>16942688How long until scientific mathematics proves and quantifies the fact that your consciousness exists in a higher dimensional plane?
I'd say no, but unlike most people my answer has nothing to do with a soul or sense of continuity/consciousness.My self is defined as the entire biological organism. In order to transport it using any teleportation technology I can imagine, you'd need to digitize it. This process is necessarily lossy, and therefore the result would not be a perfect replica, merely a very good facsimile. Accepting death like that is contrary to my goals and morals, so I'd reject it.There are a few exceptions worth considering. The first is the discrete universe, in which the data that completely details me is finite, and thus the digitization isn't lossy but actually perfect. In this case, if I was trusting enough of both the physics of the discretization, the teleporter, and the operators, I've no objection to the transportation.The other is a teleporter which doesn't involve a scan->destroy->send->reconstruct workflow. If instead it was a wormhole generator or something that maintained the integrity of my self, I have no objection.
>>16942276>a radio stationmaybe a bunch of them, all at once
>>16942688I'm ok with that because its gradual.
>>16937842why do you assume this is how it would work? >uhh it happened in fiction!it's fiction dude
>>16943327I get your point, but if it turns out there'd be zero difference between gradual and instant, would you still be opposed?
>>16943327>>16943593Meaningless gibberish. Hilarious how anyone can look at this shit and believe real humans are writing that garbage.
>>16943612The fuck's your issue?
>Using the teleporter kills you and sends your soul to the afterlife, a clone takes your place>But from an outside perspective the teleported you acts identical to how you originally wereSo what is it exactly that the soul does if there's no noticeable difference with or without it?
>>16945603Soul? This is /sci/, not /x/ lol
>>16937762If I could teleport the poop from my anus into the toilet I would save tons on toilet paper
>>16943035There is no lossless identity in any point in time, for both the body or the mind. There is always a state changes within the body between time period 1 and time period 2, at plank time scale. The same goes for your mind where the mind is always changing, so its ALWAYS lossy. A body/mind that is not lossy cannot change, cannot move, cannot do anything.
>>16945739Do you have a single shred of evidence to back that up?As I mentioned in the discrete universe exception, I'd change my mind if that were the case. But a function that's fully injective mapping from a continuous domain to a continuous codomain is not inherently lossy. Given our current understanding of QM, the time propagation operator fits this description.
>>16945885The notion of change and time is the difference of state.
>>16945891Irrelevant; it's the loss of information that I resent. A shift in time isn't more inherently lossy than a translation in position. What matters is the discretization versus continuum. In the latter, it is necessarily lossy, but in the former, it is not. Consider the humble doubling sequence [math]n_k=2n_{k-1}[/math] for [math]n_k\in\mathbb N[/math]. Given any [math]n_k[/math], you instantly know the entire sequence. If we assign the index within the sequence ([math]_k[/math]) as time, then you "change" as you go through it. But there is no loss of information, the entire sequence is preserved.
>>16945986If you eat, breathe, shit, sleep, think, talk, write, those create lossy states. Burning of the calories is a lossy action state. Information state is lost upon change from one state to another a human body. The state change is slow for some non-reactive elements and we dont know if there are any non-lossy particles in the universe at all even at their base state.
>>16945992Can you please define lossy? Your definition is clearly incongruent with the one I have laid out.
>>16946001Lossy is lossy. You lose cells, you lose information. The fundamental being changes, one bit at a time, to millions/billions of information states each breathing period. The trillions of microns eat/poop inside the body also shift as you're going along your daily life. The entire biome mass goes through multiple generations each day. If we're classifying human body as the whole of the body, then the whole of the body is constantly is cycle of birth and death inside the body. And for thoughts and minds, the conscious mind forgets 99.99% of the daily information and only keeps a low resolution snapshot of memory daily that is extremely shoddy and blurry.
>>16946011You seem unprepared for this discussion; I encourage you to investigate what lossy means and information theory.
