Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Is Beaming Down In Star Trek a Death Sentence?
Artem Tashkinov writes: Some time ago, Ars Technica ran a monumental article on beaming of consciousness in Star Trek and its implications, and more importantly, whether it's plausible to achieve that without killing a person in the process.
It seems possible in the Star Trek universe. However, currently physicists find the idea absurd and unreal because there's no way you can transport matter and its quantum state without first destroying it and then recreating it perfectly, due to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. The biggest conundrum of all is the fact that pretty much everyone understands that consciousness is a physical state of the brain, which features continuity as its primary principle; yet it surely seems like copying the said state produces a new person altogether, which brings up the problem of consciousness becoming local to one's skull and inseparable from gray matter. This idea sounds a bit unscientific because it introduces the notion that there's something about our brain which cannot be described in terms of physics, almost like soul.
This also brings another very difficult question: how do we know if we are the same person when we wake up in the morning or after we were put under during general anesthesia? What are your thoughts on the topic?
It seems possible in the Star Trek universe. However, currently physicists find the idea absurd and unreal because there's no way you can transport matter and its quantum state without first destroying it and then recreating it perfectly, due to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. The biggest conundrum of all is the fact that pretty much everyone understands that consciousness is a physical state of the brain, which features continuity as its primary principle; yet it surely seems like copying the said state produces a new person altogether, which brings up the problem of consciousness becoming local to one's skull and inseparable from gray matter. This idea sounds a bit unscientific because it introduces the notion that there's something about our brain which cannot be described in terms of physics, almost like soul.
This also brings another very difficult question: how do we know if we are the same person when we wake up in the morning or after we were put under during general anesthesia? What are your thoughts on the topic?
There's a great animated short by John Weldon that explores this topic. It's called To Be and can be found at this URL: http://www.nfb.ca/film/to_be/
"... which brings up the problem of consciousness becoming local to one's skull and inseparable from gray matter. This idea sounds a bit unscientific because it introduces the notion that there's something about our brain which cannot be described in terms of physics, almost like soul."
No, all it says is that a copy of a brain is not the original brain.
If you make a perfect copy of an orange, all the way down to the subatomic level, then that copy is still not the original orange. It's the copy.
If you make a perfect copy of me, down to the sub-atomic level and that copy walks into my room, then I will not suddenly confuse that copy with myself.
"shared out-of-body experience" is also a new-age farce.
Conversations like this are being had all over the Internet by amateurs who don't know nearly enough about the relevant subjects to speak intelligently on them, and of course consider themselves experts nonetheless.
"Soul" is a religious concept, zero actual evidence of the existence of any such thing, and it is not a concept that should be included in such discussions.
"Consciousness" is only meaningful when people don't abuse it by using it as a modern synonym for "soul." Consciousness is NOT a magical floaty part of yourself that is really you but isn't made out of matter. It's a high-level abstraction of everything necessary for a complex nervous system to be responsive. The word loses all usefulness when it is polluted with superstitious tripe!
The philosophical problem of personal identity is important and relevant, but it is also technical, has a long history, and there is a lot more to know about it than what you can infer from its name and common sense! If you are not educated you cannot participate in the debate!
"Identity" is an abstract concept, not a concrete thing, and the brain arrives it by a very fuzzy cognitive process. All of our "oh its is so mysterious" responses just come from a simple, and ignorant, expectation that this abstract concept should behave more like a physical object. It is why people try to bend your brain with questions like:
if you chop a person's arm of, and attach a different arm, is it still the same person? What if you pull three neurons out of that person's brain, and replace them with three new neurons? What if you pull 300 nerouns out and replace them? 3 million? What if you just swap the whole brain out with a totally different brain that has the same memories? Where is the specific line at which it becomes a different person?
These questions don't point out a problem of reality, nor do they point out a problem of "the mystery of consciousness" or anything stupid like that. They demonstrate that the concept of self that we are using is not clearly defined. That's ALL they demonstrate!
I realize I am ranting. So I will stop. Have fun remaining blind while being led by the blind, on this one.
The other day somebody stole everything in my apartment and replaced it with an exact replica... When my roommate came home I said, "Roommate, someone stole everything in our apartment and replaced it with an exact replica." He looked at me and said, "Do I know you?"
- Steven Wright
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
In my dreams I am a supermodel starship captain.
Well then. I'll see you tonight ...