hypothetical #3 -Star Trek transporter

[ignoramus]

ok ... this is what I want to explore...
If it is indistinguishable from the original (apart from the location of creation of course), why are we still funny about doing it...

Do we as atheists believe we are more than the sum of our parts?

Let the woo spill out man! Tell me what it is exactly that bothers you... Do you not agree with Boru's post?
Is our fear a philosophical objection entirely with no foundation in reality...

[The Valkyrie]

Hell yes!

[brewer]

I seem to remember the transporter screwing up in several episodes, so that goes in the con list. I also remember that the transporter computer retains the code to duplicate the individual (if functioning properly), definitely a pro.

Based on this criteria I think I'd do it at least once, so that I could have my code saved. The risk to benefit ratio seems pro.

[ignoramus]

No saving your code indefinitely ... That would make us potentially immortal.
Plus, there would not be enough silicon in the universe to store everyone's code.

[brewer]

No saving your code indefinitely ... That would make us potentially immortal.
Plus, there would not be enough silicon in the universe to store everyone's code.

Don't want that, just saved long enough to fix misadventure. In my old age I've become a clumsy fuck. And there is a shit ton of assholes on the road.

[The Valkyrie]

No saving your code indefinitely ... That would make us potentially immortal.
Plus, there would not be enough silicon in the universe to store everyone's code.

Pamela Anderson.

'Nuff said.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Although in Star Trek the transporter is supposed to move your actual atoms rather than rebuild you each time with new atoms. No idea if that makes a difference to being you. And there are some episodes where I think it's suggested that people stay aware during the transportation. But that must break down at some point. Maybe they are aware while still being scanned. And why isn't it painful?

[ignoramus]

Move as in copy/delete ? I thought ... could be wrong though... It is only bs at the end of the day...

As you may have heard in the last week, 2 dudes can categorically prove (for all intents and purposes) that we are not living in a simulation.
Basically there's some quantum shit that happens (in our universe) that cannot be recreated using any type of computing power ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...ation.html

I think Elon Musk alluded that it's more worrisome if we're not living in a sim. He feels that either we (post human) or some other race never progressed enough to reach that stage...
Maybe all the more reasons why we are alone in the universe.

[I_am_not_mafia]

An example of a scientist explaining why a philosopher is talking shit. In this case Nick Bostrom who also talks utter shit about AI. This is a good example of what I am arguing about in my thread about philosophy regarding philosophers needing to know enough about the field they talk about.

[ignoramus]

hehe ...what is the actual skill of a philosopher? (if not talking unfalsifiable bullshit )