We're moving Forums to the Community pages. Click here for more information and updates.

Teleportation - Safe Ways/Dangerous Ways

  • Avatar of TelFan7

    TelFan7

    [1]May 14, 2007
    • member since: 08/01/06
    • level: 6
    • rank: Small Wonder
    • posts: 1,015
    Star Trek teleportation in reality would be a life-ending way to do it since it involves taking you apart atom by atom and than either beaming them to the destination or using atoms already there to "re-create" you. But Hiro's of "Heroes" method doesn't involve taking someone apart atom by atom and instead brings A and B together. So if you know or think you know a lot about teleportation please tell what you think are the safer ways to do it and the dangerous ways to do it.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Kurtman

    Kurtman

    [2]May 14, 2007
    • member since: 05/05/03
    • level: 6
    • rank: Small Wonder
    • posts: 1

    Teleporting does indeed pose a real problem to living beings.

    It evolves into a partly scientifical and partly philosophical question: What is conciousness? Is it merely electrical signals? Is it a soul? Is it both? Is it something else?

    By our current understanding, the person to be teleported would be copied from point A to point B and then person A would be disintegrated. Person B could perhaps be exactly like person A to an observer and to itself.

    A good example of this is in the film "The Prestige".
    ***SPOILER***


     

    The bending of space seems like a pretty clever idea...I mean with warpdrives and all, why can't they just warp people instead of beaming (killing) them? 

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of macadamwest

    macadamwest

    [3]May 14, 2007
    • member since: 05/27/06
    • level: 3
    • rank: Soup Nazi
    • posts: 299
    hehehe don't know much about teleportation but did anyone see the ST series where they had first invented teleportation and nobody wanted to do it because it either worked or it didn't and it was like a 50/50 chance of coming back alive? LOL I think it was enterprise but I'm not sure. I just know it was really funny.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of TelFan7

    TelFan7

    [4]May 15, 2007
    • member since: 08/01/06
    • level: 6
    • rank: Small Wonder
    • posts: 1,015
    I would never volunteer to teleport the Star Trek way and if someone or something threated to do that to me I'd raise BLOODY HELL (and say my prayers, because I'd believe I'm either going to the afterlife or nowhere, but definitely not where they intend me to go, only a copy of me will be there, I'll be DEAD)!!!
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of AlexTheGreyWolf

    AlexTheGreyWolf

    [5]Jun 17, 2007
    • member since: 05/28/03
    • level: 4
    • rank: Thighmaster
    • posts: 49

    Well if they manage to transport someone, the consciousness mystery would finally be solved. If they transport X and X's behavior and personality doesn't change, then clearly there's no such thing as a soul and we're just a bunch of atoms.

    The soul idea is silly anyways, I mean when exactly did hominids begin having a soul? Did Neanderthals have souls?

    By the way who said that X disintegrates and a copy is made at the new destination? I thought the transporters just transport (hence the name 'transporter' your atoms to your destination.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Tronman100

    Tronman100

    [6]Jun 17, 2007
    • member since: 12/14/05
    • level: 11
    • rank: Red Shirted Lt.
    • posts: 374
    AlexTheGreyWolf wrote:

    Well if they manage to transport someone, the consciousness mystery would finally be solved. If they transport X and X's behavior and personality doesn't change, then clearly there's no such thing as a soul and we're just a bunch of atoms.

    Umm....no, not necessarily. I don't see any evidence or reason to think that a transported person would definately have any more or less of a soul then the person in the first place.
    AlexTheGreyWolf wrote:

    The soul idea is silly anyways, I mean when exactly did hominids begin having a soul? Did Neanderthals have souls?

    It's all open to interpretation. No one really knows what a soul is or if it exists. I definitely have a consciousness, whether or not you want to call that a soul. I can't prove to you that I have a consciousness, only to myself in the instant in which I prove it (i.e. I can't prove to myself I had a consciousness two instants ago).

    AlexTheGreyWolf wrote:

    By the way who said that X disintegrates and a copy is made at the new destination? I thought the transporters just transport (hence the name 'transporter' your atoms to your destination.

    We've already been having quite the discussion on this in the "Do you think we'll have TNG travel capabilities" thread. Would a transporter physically move the constituent particles or destroy one and recreate it somewhere else? Is there any different on what would happen to you in either method? It's difficult to answer these questions, and even if we could transport a person, we still probably couldn't know for sure.
    Edited on 06/17/2007 5:01pm
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of AlexTheGreyWolf

    AlexTheGreyWolf

    [7]Jun 17, 2007
    • member since: 05/28/03
    • level: 4
    • rank: Thighmaster
    • posts: 49
    Tronman100 wrote:
    AlexTheGreyWolf wrote:

    Well if they manage to transport someone, the consciousness mystery would finally be solved. If they transport X and X's behavior and personality doesn't change, then clearly there's no such thing as a soul and we're just a bunch of atoms.

    Umm....no, not necessarily. I don't see any evidence or reason to think that a transported person would have any more or less of a soul then the person in the first place.
    AlexTheGreyWolf wrote:

    The soul idea is silly anyways, I mean when exactly did hominids begin having a soul? Did Neanderthals have souls?

    It's all open to interpretation. I definitely have a consciousness, whether or not you want to call that a soul. I can't prove to you that I have a consciousness, only to myself in the instant in which I prove it (i.e. I can't prove to myself I had a consciousness two instants ago).
    AlexTheGreyWolf wrote:

    By the way who said that X disintegrates and a copy is made at the new destination? I thought the transporters just transport (hence the name 'transporter' your atoms to your destination.

    We've already been having quite the discussion on this in the "Do you think we'll have TNG travel capabilities" thread. Would a transporter physically move the constituent particles or destroy one and recreate it somewhere else? Is there any different on what would happen to you in either method? It's difficult to answer these questions, and even if we could transport a person, we still probably couldn't know for sure.

    Well if the soul can be transported, then it would be a physical thing, which can't be the case because we'd have identified it by now.

    I think consciousness is just a property of the brain. I think a soul is a very different concept, wouldn't you agree?

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Tronman100

    Tronman100

    [8]Jun 17, 2007
    • member since: 12/14/05
    • level: 11
    • rank: Red Shirted Lt.
    • posts: 374

    AlexTheGreyWolf wrote:

    I think consciousness is just a property of the brain. I think a soul is a very different concept, wouldn't you agree?



    No, not necessarily. Our
    consciousness might be something seperate from a soul, but then again, it might not. I simply don't know. All I can do is go by evidence, which at this moment, is telling me that a soul and the consciouness of a sentient being are essentially one and the same. As for other non-sentient living things, I'm still trying to figure that out.


    AlexTheGreyWolf wrote:
    Well if the soul can be transported, then it would be a physical thing, which can't be the case because we'd have identified it by now.

    By that logic, we couldn't move period without our souls being left behind. No one understands the nature of a soul, to say it has to be physical in order for it to be moved is only a guess. As for us 'finding' it, the brain is the most complex organ we know of, there is still a good deal about it we don't understood. Personally, what seems the most likely to me is that our consciouness is tied to a given section of our brain, a 'primary key' or sorts, I'm not saying this is for sure the case, just what seems most likely to me given what I know. I try to constantly question and rethink my ideas as I'm exposed to knew arguments and information.

    Edited on 06/17/2007 5:25pm
    Edited 2 total times.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of aspenbh

    aspenbh

    [9]Jun 17, 2007
    • member since: 06/18/07
    • level: 5
    • rank: Caveman Lawyer
    • posts: 2

    Tronman100 wrote:
    Would a transporter physically move the constituent particles or destroy one and recreate it somewhere else? Is there any different on what would happen to you in either method? It's difficult to answer these questions, and even if we could transport a person, we still probably couldn't know for sure.

    Unfortunately, the only teleportation method we know operates like this. Two weeks ago a new world record was achieved, when a team of physicists has teleported data over a distance of 89 miles from the Canary Island of La Palma to the neighbouring island of Tenerife. Most scientists are skeptical about teleporting living beings.

    http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2611757.ece#2007-06-04T00:00:25-00\:00

    P.S.: I don't believe in a mataphysical soul, either. And Ibetconscience is just a normal function of the brain.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.