Hypothetical on Identity

lovejoydavid

You may have heard this one before, but I quite like it.

There are three teleporters:

One teleporter rips apart the subjects atoms, sends them across space, and reconstitutes them at a remote site.

Another teleporter scans the subject, sends the information to the remote site which then creates a clone, and kills the original.

One teleporter works by a completely unknown mechanism.

In all three cases you would see one of your close friends step in, then step out on the other side, none worse for the wear. Is your friend the same person after any/all of the three trips? Could you be induced to follow them?

poisongirl6485

Hmmmm this is interesting.

The first example reminds me of the TV scene in Willy Wonka where the kid travels by 'television' and becomes tiny.

In this example, I don't think we can know if the person on the other side is exactly the same as the 'original.' Not enough evidence provided to determine this.

In the 2nd example, it's not the same person, it's a replica. The original was destroyed, so no, the 'copy' is not the same.

The third option we can't know if the person is the same either way because we don't know how the mechanism works.

And could I be induced to follow them? Nope.

macpatti

One teleporter rips apart the subjects atoms, sends them across space, and reconstitutes them at a remote site.

If the exact same matter is reconstituted in exactly the same way at the remote site, I'm pulled in two directions on the possible outcome. First, I'm inclined to say that the same being exists at the new site. I don't think the human person is merely the collection of particles that make up his/her body. I think the material components of our body are unified and "possessed" by a formal principle that is the root cause of the behavior of the matter (the "soul"). The formal principle is not the same thing as the matter but it does enliven and direct it. If the matter is exactly the same in the second situation, I suppose it is possible that the "form" will enliven it there as well. It is, of course, quite possible that I am wrong, though, and the result would be a dead collection of particles at the remote site. To be crass, just like dismantling the particles of my body right now and reassembling them will not result in a living human, so the fundamental principle of life/form may simple cease to be present in the matter that is sent to the second location. What I'm struggling with, I suppose, is whether or not something is "lost" between the time of teleportation and arrival at the new location.

Another teleporter scans the subject, sends the information to the remote site which then creates a clone, and kills the original.

A clone is not the same being as that from which it is cloned. As I understand it, a clone is really an artificially produced identical twin. The genetic information of one being is replicated in a second being (the genetic information is inserted into another living cell/organism). An identical twin is not the same being as its twin and therefore there is no reason to think the clone is the same being as the one from which it received its genetic information. It is another person altogether.

One teleporter works by a completely unknown mechanism.

This one is difficult. Since I don't think it is impossible, for instance, to think of God moving a material being from one location to another instantaneously, I cannot rule out the possibility that a material being can be transported while maintaining identity with itself in every respect. I suppose it is also theoretically possible that we might come to discover that space has unusual features that allow instantaneous movement from one location to another. Since I don't know the manner in which this teleporter works and what happens to the matter in order for it to be transported, I will have to conclude that I can't answer this question in general terms.

In all three cases you would see one of your close friends step in, then step out on the other side, none worse for the wear. Is your friend the same person after any/all of the three trips? Could you be induced to follow them?

If my musings are correct, in case one the person is either the same as the one who was transported or is a dead collection of particles (a corpse, perhaps). In the second case, the clone is a new being that closely resembles the original. In the third case, don't know.

lovejoydavid

Two great responses. Give me a little bit, and I will get back to you guys!

dragonbait0126

I have to agree with the other 2 posts with the exception that I think in the 1st scenario, I would say yes it's the same person so long as nothing was lost in translation. If something is lost, I would have to say it would depend on what it was that was lost. If it was a physical characteristic, then I'd say it was still the same person. If it was something that was mental, emotional, neurological, etc., then I don't know that it would be the same person per se but again it would depend upon what was lost. That being said, IRL people "lose" a peice of themselves all the time and we don't consider them to be a "different" person. They may act differently or have a different thought process but they are still the same "person." For example, if a person is in a car accident and loses brain function, they are technically the same person they were before. They may act differently but if John Smith loses some brain functionality he is still John Smith. Same thing if he loses an arm. We use the term "different" to describe someone who has changed (i.e. "after the accident John became a different person") but, I think "changed" might be a better term. John is still John. He just has a changed outlook.

Isn't the 1st example the premise behind the transport beams in Star Trek? (My husband has been on a DS9 kick lately and is in the process of watching the entire series. That's all I could think about in reading this topic, lol.)

I hope what I'm trying to say makes sense!

BrettPGH

You know I was all set to oppose this. I want my molecules to stay together, seeing as they make me up.

But then I remembered learning once that not a single molecule of your body now was there when you were a child (7 I believe the age was). As we age we shed skin and grow and all that. So there isn't a single piece of "me" that was there as a kid. That's funny to think about. If I'm made up of completely different cells am I the same person?

But if I could have teleported to the gym this morning instead of walking in the freezing cold I would have accepted the inevitable head of a fly. It's F'ing cold!

dragonbait0126

You know I was all set to oppose this. I want my molecules to stay together, seeing as they make me up.

But then I remembered learning once that not a single molecule of your body now was there when you were a child (7 I believe the age was). As we age we shed skin and grow and all that. So there isn't a single piece of "me" that was there as a kid. That's funny to think about. If I'm made up of completely different cells am I the same person?

But if I could have teleported to the gym this morning instead of walking in the freezing cold I would have accepted the inevitable head of a fly. It's F'ing cold!

This confuses me. Because yes, we shed skin, hair, and nails but, our internal molecules are still there. I have the same liver I did when I was a kid. It's just bigger. Same thing goes for all my other internal organs, bones, and muscles. So while our external selves may not be the same as it was when we were a kid, our internal selves are. With teleportation it brings the question of both external and internal components.

LuckyLeprechaun

I think we "shed" cells from all of our organs internally as well. Old ones are cleaned away and filtered out via kidneys/liver/etc. and excreted and new ones are built in their places.

Or, I just made that up in my own head. Not sure which....

But I have also heard the "7 yrs and it's an all new you" idea as well.



But to answer the question, you said none of them are worse for wear, so why would I be afraid?
Teleportation? Sign me UP!

lovejoydavid

Hmmmm this is interesting.

The first example reminds me of the TV scene in Willy Wonka where the kid travels by 'television' and becomes tiny.

Very good! Most people think star trek immediately.

In this example, I don't think we can know if the person on the other side is exactly the same as the 'original.' Not enough evidence provided to determine this.

Hilariously, I just saw this referenced in a Big Bang rerun. Sheldon felt that we would be "dead" in transport, and then reannimated as a different person.

I

n the 2nd example, it's not the same person, it's a replica. The original was destroyed, so no, the 'copy' is not the same.

I agree, we fall into the trap of "falseness." That is, the inherent knowledge that this is a non-identical identical. It is that forgery so good, that even the original painter can't tell, but just the knowledge that it is not the original makes us disdain it. Sadly, I am going to make another dork reference, and mention that this was addressed in the last series of Doctor Who. How many of your are now disdaining me?

The third option we can't know if the person is the same either way because we don't know how the mechanism works.

And could I be induced to follow them? Nope.

Likely not me either. For a dualist, it brings up all sorts of questions, ie, how on earth does a soul/spirit/mind actually stay attached to us? Is it mere epiphenomenon? Or quantum? How could it be transported in such a fashion? I would be like those aborigines, who refused to have thier photos taken. Same problem, frankly, for the others. How do you duplicate a soul with mere genetic cloning?

lovejoydavid

You know I was all set to oppose this. I want my molecules to stay together, seeing as they make me up.

But then I remembered learning once that not a single molecule of your body now was there when you were a child (7 I believe the age was). As we age we shed skin and grow and all that. So there isn't a single piece of "me" that was there as a kid. That's funny to think about. If I'm made up of completely different cells am I the same person?

But if I could have teleported to the gym this morning instead of walking in the freezing cold I would have accepted the inevitable head of a fly. It's F'ing cold!

Oddly, what we are now considered (in terms of expressive, interpretitive, communicative being) is the connections between neurons, rather than the structures themselves. Would not those have to be severed, if we are to be broadcast across space? Essentially, that part of our identity would end, and be restructured on the other end. We would be whatever it hooked us to be on the other side. Would we even have the insight, after that, to say that we are a different person?

From a physicalist perspective, I wonder about the cell change over as well. If there is no eternality, then there is only temporality. If, in that regard, we are different moment to moment in small ways, and year to year in large ways, then I wonder how it is that people even recognize each other?

lovejoydavid

I think we "shed" cells from all of our organs internally as well. Old ones are cleaned away and filtered out via kidneys/liver/etc. and excreted and new ones are built in their places.

Or, I just made that up in my own head. Not sure which....

But I have also heard the "7 yrs and it's an all new you" idea as well.

It is a huge variable, as organs that retain stem cells are capable of extensive turnover and regeneration (and are the ones that are hit the hardest by chemo), others have little or no change at all (the brain, for one). Muscle repair, but are very little able to create new cells (hypertrophy verus hyperplasia), etc.

But to answer the question, you said none of them are worse for wear, so why would I be afraid?
Teleportation? Sign me UP!

Courage! I like it. Clearly, you are not an existentialist, which is where my cowardice regarding identity likely comes from.

lovejoydavid

I have to agree with the other 2 posts with the exception that I think in the 1st scenario, I would say yes it's the same person so long as nothing was lost in translation. If something is lost, I would have to say it would depend on what it was that was lost. If it was a physical characteristic, then I'd say it was still the same person. If it was something that was mental, emotional, neurological, etc., then I don't know that it would be the same person per se but again it would depend upon what was lost. That being said, IRL people "lose" a peice of themselves all the time and we don't consider them to be a "different" person. They may act differently or have a different thought process but they are still the same "person." For example, if a person is in a car accident and loses brain function, they are technically the same person they were before. They may act differently but if John Smith loses some brain functionality he is still John Smith. Same thing if he loses an arm. We use the term "different" to describe someone who has changed (i.e. "after the accident John became a different person") but, I think "changed" might be a better term. John is still John. He just has a changed outlook.

Isn't the 1st example the premise behind the transport beams in Star Trek? (My husband has been on a DS9 kick lately and is in the process of watching the entire series. That's all I could think about in reading this topic, lol.)

I hope what I'm trying to say makes sense!

I think this is where physics and medicine will have to go ahead of logic and psychology. If, indeed, it turns out that dualism is correct, and the 'mind' is actually a quantum phenomenon, then some kind of quantum transporter should deliver us intact. Clearly, the second premise is not such a transporter, and we have no way of knowing if the third one is. If monism is correct, then, heck, any of the above are likely okay. Who would know the difference anyway?

lovejoydavid

If the exact same matter is reconstituted in exactly the same way at the remote site, I'm pulled in two directions on the possible outcome. First, I'm inclined to say that the same being exists at the new site. I don't think the human person is merely the collection of particles that make up his/her body. I think the material components of our body are unified and "possessed" by a formal principle that is the root cause of the behavior of the matter (the "soul"). The formal principle is not the same thing as the matter but it does enliven and direct it. If the matter is exactly the same in the second situation, I suppose it is possible that the "form" will enliven it there as well. It is, of course, quite possible that I am wrong, though, and the result would be a dead collection of particles at the remote site. To be crass, just like dismantling the particles of my body right now and reassembling them will not result in a living human, so the fundamental principle of life/form may simple cease to be present in the matter that is sent to the second location. What I'm struggling with, I suppose, is whether or not something is "lost" between the time of teleportation and arrival at the new location.

Precisely my struggle. Odd how we came to the very same sort of question on the matter. It made we wonder if every Christian should cringe at Star Trek.

A clone is not the same being as that from which it is cloned. As I understand it, a clone is really an artificially produced identical twin. The genetic information of one being is replicated in a second being (the genetic information is inserted into another living cell/organism). An identical twin is not the same being as its twin and therefore there is no reason to think the clone is the same being as the one from which it received its genetic information. It is another person altogether.

As I mentioned somewhere else, the clone will already be lacking at least one experience of the original (being killed and cloned), so it is not the same person. Obviously, it cannot just be a DNA copy, the machine must be able to copy the connections in the brain, the various characteristics caused by environment and stimuli, etc. It will never be right, as, even if it is indistinguishable, it is not identical (ie, it was not caused by the same causes, just ones that produce like results, thus a difference is formed). So, agreed.

This one is difficult. Since I don't think it is impossible, for instance, to think of God moving a material being from one location to another instantaneously, I cannot rule out the possibility that a material being can be transported while maintaining identity with itself in every respect. I suppose it is also theoretically possible that we might come to discover that space has unusual features that allow instantaneous movement from one location to another. Since I don't know the manner in which this teleporter works and what happens to the matter in order for it to be transported, I will have to conclude that I can't answer this question in general terms.

This one I think just works on existential fear. I really lack insight into this hypothetical, as it is not mine, but that is my guess. What absurd thing are you on the other side, and how will that lack of knowledge about the manner in which you identity was (or was not) altered bother you forever? I happen to think that, whether it be God or science, the only way in which space will allow us to move, intact, with that kind of speed is if wormwholes, folded space, or spiritual realities, allow us to alter the distance between two points, not have us altered to go a distance.

If my musings are correct, in case one the person is either the same as the one who was transported or is a dead collection of particles (a corpse, perhaps). In the second case, the clone is a new being that closely resembles the original. In the third case, don't know.

Good insights. Most of us (sans lucky) really did not care to address the fact that someone else went ahead us, and seemed fine. In this age, I think most of us are just used to being lied to by quite good deceptions, and no longer care to trust such reassurances. As well, if it is an existential issue, then it is too personal to trust to that. (LL might just have more guts) All three, to my mind, seem to violate dualism, the second one violates genuiness and uniqueness, and the third one violates informed consent!!

LuckyLeprechaun

In the spirit of full disclosure, I have been wishing for a teleportation device for soooooo long. I imagine a doorway that you could just walk through, and instantaneously walk out of on the other side. This would eliminate the transportation industry. Think of it, you could go have lunch in Paris, and be home instantly afterwards. No more traffic. Ever. No more airports or planes needed to go anywhere on earth, just the need to have a doorway built so it could be a destination.

I've always been intrigued by sci-fi

lovejoydavid

In the spirit of full disclosure, I have been wishing for a teleportation device for soooooo long. I imagine a doorway that you could just walk through, and instantaneously walk out of on the other side. This would eliminate the transportation industry. Think of it, you could go have lunch in Paris, and be home instantly afterwards. No more traffic. Ever. No more airports or planes needed to go anywhere on earth, just the need to have a doorway built so it could be a destination.

I've always been intrigued by sci-fi

I love scifi, and always have. Sadly, it is all nonsense. Quantum entanglement means you can transmit, say, photons over long distances, but not matter. The quantum field does not seem to be able to handle that. And wormholes, well, one would apparenlty have to be the size of the black hole at the center of the galaxy to actually send a person without killing them, and you would still need to place the other end where you want to go before being able to use it. Science is a downer, scifi is more awesome.

lovejoydavid

Does anyone think they have any insight into what the point of this hypothetical is? I did not write it, and the person who posed a version of it claimed not to have. For me, I think it is an existential challenge. One of the keys of existential philosophy was the crippling fear of 'non-being' (death), which any thoughtful existentialist would tell you is absurd. A state of non-being inherently implies no sense of your state, so you are essentially terrified of something you will never, ever be aware of. This puzzle, I think, plays with that same concept, as non-being as loss of identity are terrifying for the same reasons. Look at movies like the Invasion of the Body Snatchers, or the Thing. Even, to some extent, the Matrix, in which your identity is, in fact, not yours at all, but you are completely ignorant of it. The hypothetical poses the idea of there being a you, but possibly not YOUR you. However, in none of the examples are we left with the notion that we would ever be aware of it. So why is it frightening? From the perspective of a dualist (myself), I should say that it is that part of us that knows it is eternal, balking at something that challenges that notion. Life rejecting non-life. However, I would dearly love to hear other positions!