Does the transporter kill you?

[Blackstar the Chakat]

That could probably work and does seem easier to do, however there are two flaws with an already dangerous system. 1)In an emergency a vessel could run out of raw material to create a transporter 'clone' of someone leaving a 'mind' in suspension until the buffers lose cohesion. 2)You'd need the exact amount of various materials in a body, and you never know who or what you might need to transport.

It's safe to assume that raw material is available for transporter accidents, like where they created a second Riker, or where they needed to add mass to the Captain and others who were turned into kids. However the 'matter-transmission' theory works with the more commonly used teminology like matter stream and confinement beam without coming up with an alternate explination to the term(like the NX-01's 'polorizing' hull plating)

[Captain Seafort]

The way you say it implies that you belive that because the method of operation that has been proposed is stupid and dangerous, it's wrong. The problem with that assumption is that it's the theory that best fits the canon evidence - the fact that it's insanely dangerous is one of the biggest pieces of evidence of the Federation's institutional stupidity.

In addition to this evidence (from the Kirk and Riker cloning incidents), the very method of transporter operation proves that it is fatal. It breaks you down into very small non-working parts, and there is a cessation of consciousness for the duration of transport. For that time you are dead.

A better analogy than your "dissasembling and reassembling" one would be, if you dissassembled the car, melted it down, and then used those raw materials to build a new car, would it be the same car?

[Tiberius]

The way you say it implies that you belive that because the method of operation that has been proposed is stupid and dangerous, it's wrong. The problem with that assumption is that it's the theory that best fits the canon evidence - the fact that it's insanely dangerous is one of the biggest pieces of evidence of the Federation's institutional stupidity.

In addition to this evidence (from the Kirk and Riker cloning incidents), the very method of transporter operation proves that it is fatal. It breaks you down into very small non-working parts, and there is a cessation of consciousness for the duration of transport. For that time you are dead.

A better analogy than your "dissasembling and reassembling" one would be, if you dissassembled the car, melted it down, and then used those raw materials to build a new car, would it be the same car?

I wouldn't say that a lack of consciousness indicates death. Are people dead iof they are in a coma?

When the transporter converts the matter in your body to energy and then reassmbles that energy into matter again, it is not the original atoms from the person who stepped into the transporter. Thus, the person who comes out would be an exact duplicate, yes? No one looking at the person who rematerialises may be able to tell the difference, but that doesn't mean that there is no difference. From the point of view of the person who steps onto the platform, they cease to exist and are replaced with an identical duplicate.

[Captain Seafort]

I wouldn't say that a lack of consciousness indicates death.

Not on its own, but combined with your molecules being scattered halfay across the Galaxy it's a pretty convincing argument.

When the transporter converts the matter in your body to energy and then reassmbles that energy into matter again, it is not the original atoms from the person who stepped into the transporter. Thus, the person who comes out would be an exact duplicate, yes? No one looking at the person who rematerialises may be able to tell the difference, but that doesn't mean that there is no difference. From the point of view of the person who steps onto the platform, they cease to exist and are replaced with an identical duplicate.

It's a good point, but fundamentally, whether the same atoms are involved is irrelevent, as I showed with by "melting a car down" analogy - the raw materials are the same, but it's a different vehicle.

[Teaos]

But why do the parts matter. If one of us was to get into an accedent and need a new heart are we a new person? What if we got a new heart and leg (Assuming it was possible) At what point do you stop being you? Is it just your brain?

If my brain got put into a body of a brain dead person am I still me or am I them?

I count a person as a sum of their memories and expeiences and so long as they remain intact you live even if your physical body is destroyed.

[Captain Seafort]

We've been round in circles like this before, and until it was dredged up again I think we agreed to disagree. It's a matter of whether you believe that cessation of consciousness combined with cessation of physical integrity constitutes death, and if so, is the revived entity you, or just something that looks sounds and acts like you. We have different opinions on the matter, so let's leave it at that.

[Thorin]

I think there are two factors that make this entire debate completely unanswerable;

We don't know how transporters work
We don't have a definition of life, death, or consciousness.

[Captain Seafort]

We don't know how transporters work

Yes we do - they scan a given object, disintegrate it, and either move that matter from one point to another, or produce a recreation of the object from stored matter. Sometimes they try both, as happened to Riker.

We don't have a definition of life, death, or consciousness.

Yes we do

Life - prescence of electrical activity within the brain (or some other method of establishing that the brain is working - I'm no doctor).

Death - abscence of life.

Consciousness - awareness.

There's no question over whether the transporter kills you. What me and Teaos were arguing about is whether the death in question should be considered temporary, in the same way as clinical death is, or permanent, as in some copy of you wandering round with your memories, while you die the moment you're dematerialised.

[Thorin]

Yes we do - they scan a given object, disintegrate it, and either move that matter from one point to another, or produce a recreation of the object from stored matter. Sometimes they try both, as happened to Riker.

If you know how they work - by all means, please go and build one. You don't. No one does.

Yes we do

Life - prescence of electrical activity within the brain (or some other method of establishing that the brain is working - I'm no doctor).

We don't know what makes us conscious - we don't know what makes us aware and what makes us 'alive'. We don't know what life is. How do you know that a rock isn't alive? Or that your computer isn't alive? That has electrical circuits. At what point does a series of electrical circuits become 'life'?

Death - abscence of life.

As we don't know what life is or what is it that makes us alive, it makes the definition 'death' moot.

Consciousness - awareness.

Awareness is all a matter of perspective. When I dream I am aware. Yet I am unconscious.

There's no question over whether the transporter kills you.

Arguable, in the same way as when people's heart stops working and then are resuscitated - have they really died?

What me and Teaos were arguing about is whether the death in question should be considered temporary, in the same way as clinical death is, or permanent, as in some copy of you wandering round with your memories, while you die the moment you're dematerialised.

I understand perfectly what you're arguing. But the point is that we don't know how a transporter works, we don't know whether it is a clone that is basically a new person, or whether it is the same old one. In the way that matter and energy is interchangable, the matter was not destroyed. It was converted, and then converted back, in it's particular pattern. The fact we don't know the workings of a transporter and doesn't allow us to say 'it is the same atom', or similar.

[Captain Seafort]

If you know how they work - by all means, please go and build one. You don't. No one does.

Being able to deduce a device's operating principles from its depiction in canon is nothing like knowing the physics behind it, or having a circuit diagram. We've been told how a transporter works (or at least the basic principles), and we've seen how it reacts in various situations. That's enough to conclude that it causes death.

We don't know what makes us conscious - we don't know what makes us aware and what makes us 'alive'. We don't know what life is. How do you know that a rock isn't alive? Or that your computer isn't alive? That has electrical circuits. At what point does a series of electrical circuits become 'life'?

Again, knowing what is responsible for life (electrical activity in the brain stem), is different from knowing why this causes life.

I don't know the fine detail of how a saw cuts wood, other than it's something to do with electromagnetism. That doesn't stop me from cutting up bits of tree, nor from knowing that a sharp saw is better than a blunt one - I've deduced it from experience, both mine and others.

Arguable, in the same way as when people's heart stops working and then are resuscitated - have they really died?

Yes - clinical death. There's no debate about that. The question regarding the transporter is whether the death it causes is reversable (like clinical death) or irreversable (like brain-stem death).

[Thorin]

Being able to deduce a device's operating principles from its depiction in canon is nothing like knowing the physics behind it, or having a circuit diagram. We've been told how a transporter works (or at least the basic principles), and we've seen how it reacts in various situations. That's enough to conclude that it causes death.

I didn't say we didn't know it's operating principles, did I? I said we don't know how it works. To know how something works means just that. Not you know a little about it, or the general principles. You need to know how it works to say whether or not it is the same matter and the same consciousness.

Again, knowing what is responsible for life (electrical activity in the brain stem), is different from knowing why this causes life.

You need to know what is the cause of life to determine whether it is the same life. Whether the former has ceased to exist and something with the same memories has been created, or whether the same consciousness, the same entity still exists.

I don't know the fine detail of how a saw cuts wood, other than it's something to do with electromagnetism. That doesn't stop me from cutting up bits of tree, nor from knowing that a sharp saw is better than a blunt one - I've deduced it from experience, both mine and others.

Yes. The difference between a saw cutting wood and a transporter is one works on a quantum scale. You would have to know how the saw works on a quantum scale. You're point is completely irrelevant - the analogy doesn't work. If you want to know something as detailed as 'life', you must do something equally as detailed - either cellular (such as neurons) or atomic. But we can't look at consciousness on the cellular scale, as we just don't know how it works.

[Captain Seafort]

The key piece of evidence in the entire debate is the example in "Second Chances" of transporters creating life, and thereby demonstrating that continuity of life is not required as part of their operation.

If the transporter was based around the same consciousness being transferred from one body to another then Thomas Riker couldn't exist. His consciousness was created at the moment he rematerialised on the planet's surface. Any arguments that "it was an accident" don't wash - a consciousness-transfer model of transporter operation would not be able to magic brand-new consciousness' from thin air. The Potemkin's transporter did, without anyone realising that anything had gone wrong, therefore Thomas Riker's existence must be a result of the transporter's normal operation reacting to the double-lock.

[Blackstar the Chakat]

We don't know how transporters work

Yes we do - they scan a given object, disintegrate it, and either move that matter from one point to another, or produce a recreation of the object from stored matter. Sometimes they try both, as happened to Riker.

If they disintegrated it wouldn't that mean the material in question is no longer usable? And even if you melt a car down into it's basic elements and rebuilt into a car it would still be the same car right? You just took it apart to smaller components. I figured basic auto parts would be the easiest analagy.

There's no question over whether the transporter kills you. What me and Teaos were arguing about is whether the death in question should be considered temporary, in the same way as clinical death is, or permanent, as in some copy of you wandering round with your memories, while you die the moment you're dematerialised.

And we have no evidence that one does lose consiousness in the 'beam'. In fact Barcly once was consious inside a buffer once if I remember correctly. That was a unique situation, but from what I've seen a person doesn't normally lose consiousness while in transport. To my knowledge there is no evidence that a transporter does kill you.

[Mikey]

If anyone had read my epistemologies when this thread was alive the first time, you could see that the question doesn't have to the continued life of the original body - it is actually whether you believe that the continuity provided by the simulacrum is enough to constitute identity. In other words, it doesn't matter that the original body is dead - because it is - but what matters is that having the duplicate mitigates the entire death of the individual in question.

[Captain Seafort]

If they disintegrated it wouldn't that mean the material in question is no longer usable? And even if you melt a car down into it's basic elements and rebuilt into a car it would still be the same car right? You just took it apart to smaller components. I figured basic auto parts would be the easiest analagy.

No, it would be a different car. Take for example the battlecruiser Gneisenau, scuttled in harbour in 1944, raised in 1951, and cut up for scrap. Is the ship (probably a merchantman) built of that metal the Gneisnenau? No.

And we have no evidence that one does lose consiousness in the 'beam'.

Yes we do. When Scotty was trapped in a transporter beam for 75 years he had no concept of the passage of time - he thought the Enterprise that had come to rescue him was Kirk's.