Teleportation vs Consciousness

Adjust content blocking

cadencee

Channel: fucking-science

Comment

Okay so over the last few years scientists have been attempting to transfer quantum information from one place to another without having to traverse the distance between them and they have managed to do it multiple times, first only a few feet and lately over more than 80 miles by taking advantage of the entanglement between electrons.

Now in theory, with the right technology and a perfect system we could transfer the entirety of the information of a human being using this method by simply 'overwriting' the information of other particles with our own. However the question stands, what would happen to the consciousness of said person once they were broken down and stripped of their particles and had their information transferred onto other particles on the other side of the world.

Now before any science nazis get all buttmad I am not sure if the information exists in itself or the information is simply the arrangement of the particles but either way that's just a technicality. Either way the person is essentially killed, broken down and recreated in a new location with different particles the only thing making them, them is the information itself. So even if the 'clone' is identical to the original do you think that they would have the same consciousness? Or do you think they would simply die and a new person would be created in their place with all of their memories.

tl;dr - If someone is completely broken down into their particles and recreated somewhere else with different particles would the person retain their consciousness or simply die and have a clone replace them?

Sorry, this wasnt really structured, i tend to ramble.

Here is a link if you want to read a bit about it, the are plenty of sources though. www.gizmag.com/teleport-quantum-infor...

Tags: teleportation | science | Consciousness | philosophy

+10

Views: 2486 Submitted: 07/19/2014

Related Top Content:

The Atomic Trampoline

1777

Empathy is a universal trait

Fuck Common Core bullshit

1639

Flat is not justice in this case

1602

How sinkholes form

1530

Wanna talk about our Lord and Saviour Jupiter?

1429

Fluffy T-Rex

1200

Hide Comments

Add Comment Refresh (22)

Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest

Live Updates: On

Options

asd

#10 - tangentialrex

Reply +2 123456789123345869

(07/20/2014) [-]

I actually wrote a paper on this one, and I believe that the "clone" theory was somewhat accepted.

You'd have literally all of your 7*10^27 atoms torn apart violently (most likely), and then somehow reconstituted a distance away. If you could somehow recreate an identical human being, with all of those atoms in the right place, then you would have a completely identical copy of them.

So they would have the same genetic and brain structures. Now, I'm not an expert on neuroscience, but I believe that since memories are stored in various areas of the brain (hippocampus and neuron connections), they would retain the same memories.

And in terms of consciousness, I have no idea. It's hard to define what consciousness is. Theoretically, though, the "clone" should retain all of your emotions/personality. You, however, would still be dead from having your particles torn apart.

Just my $.02, though. Sorry if I didn't answer the question, I'm really tired right now.

#12 to #10 - cadencee [OP]

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(07/21/2014) [-]

You and I seem to be i the same boat. I appreciate you taking the time to comment .

#9 - CherryYumDiddly

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(07/19/2014) [-]

Me and my dad have been pondering this since Star Trek

#13 to #9 - cadencee [OP]

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(07/21/2014) [-]

Ive never seen star trek, not a fan on science fiction personally.

#4 - pimpelipom

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(07/19/2014) [-]

Well, the soul is interconnected with the matter in our bodies, so I would say if its the same "energy" being transferred, the soul ie. consciousness would remain intact. If its some sort of duplication, then the soul would not transfer and it would be a lifeless person that would die very soon.

#6 to #4 - cadencee [OP]

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(07/19/2014) [-]

Im not sold on the idea of a soul, i just dont see how it could interact with the brain in an undetectable way but that is a topic for another time. Thank you for commenting i enjoy reading what people have to say.

#7 to #4 - cadencee [OP]

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(07/19/2014) [-]

Well it is different particles being arranged in the same way to produce the same information so it is different energy but the brain would be fully functional with all its habits and memories intact.

#8 to #7 - pimpelipom

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(07/19/2014) [-]

But if the particles would be essentially the same as in two electrons can be in two places at once, then I would be legit. Basically the whole universe is one big thing of the same origin or source, but there is diversity, hence souls in different places.

#14 to #8 - cadencee [OP]

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(07/21/2014) [-]

I think i see where you are coming from here. But Im not even sure about the theory that electrons are in multiple places at once and where they end up is dictated entirely by probability once it is observed.

I mean even the fact that probability (a scale from 0 - 1) is even how we measure it implies that with a large enough sample size (like the trillions of trillions of electrons in the universe) the probability of 'b' amount of electrons being at x,y,z 'a' amount of the time will be 99.99*%.

Because only the single electron has uncertainty but as you factor in more and more electrons and the patterns become more and more solid one hundred billion electrons would form a pattern so close to one hundred trillion electrons that the difference would be virtually indistinguishable.

I do think that particles are different though, even if they are identical. Since as far as we can tell consciousness is metaphysical (dont buy it but what choice do i have) its pretty difficult to tell whether or not it is linked to the brain or even the particles themselves.

#15 to #14 - pimpelipom

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(07/21/2014) [-]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying and how it relates to what I said.

If a particle is the same, in different places, it is THE same particle. Not different. It is not only identical, it is the same exact particle. This might be hard to comprehend.

I try to explain the continuum of soul and body how I've understood it. What we think now is that the brain, as in part of your body, is matter. Then the soul is not matter, but some ethereal thing. In reality (how I've understood it through spiritual practice), there exists a continuum between the "material" and the spiritual (soul). They are not two separate things, but entangled, interconnected. You could even say that 'Life' is the act of "spiritual" affecting the "material". The material world has its own laws by itself, so to speak, but life is that spiritual essence affecting the material from that quantum level of things, as in the consciousness of humans. You think and that affects the material world. This has been proven by science also. Focus affects matter, hence the phrase "mind over matter". That ofc means you need to really think for yourself, and not based on routine. And yes, I do think there is room for completely original thought, it is just processed through the spiritual material continuum and brought into material context.

I understand we are coming from completely different perspectives on this, but that's pretty much what they are, perspectives. I think science is coming closer and closer to what spiritual wisdom (which anyone can find in 'themselves')has known for eternity. I don't know if you're interested in this at all, but feel free to ask anything.

#16 to #15 - cadencee [OP]

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(07/21/2014) [-]

My mother is of the same opinion as you when it comes to spirituality, and although yes science has proven that thoughts do in fact affect the natural world that does not necessarily mean that spirituality has anything to do with it.

I mean sub atomic particles make up the very fabric of existence as far as can tell (with obvious exceptions like darkmatter/energy) so when you create a thought your brain would have to go through the process of formulating that thought affecting the matter in the meantime. Thoughts and consciousness seem to be, as far as i can tell byproducts of certain specific material interactions.

Also we cannot be sure that particles are identical or not, in fact all the evidence points towards the latter. Particles like electrons and protons are made up of even smaller particles called leptons and quarks, held together by an invisible force we refer to simply as 'nothing' . This nothingness is obviously not nothing, it cant be but it seems to be something incomprehensible like another dimension or perhaps a sub atomic particle furnace. I mean protons are constantly blinking in and out of existence, or another interpretation is that protons simply have an extremely short life and new protons are created within this furnace of nothingness.

We honestly have no idea but I would be shocked If we discover the existence of a soul, it is counter intuitive (though much of quantum physics is too) and ties into religious beliefs. Either way spirituality is completely fine but personally Id rather wait for some evidence before committing myself to such a philosophy.

#17 to #16 - pimpelipom

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(07/22/2014) [-]

I figured your mom (or one of your parents) might be religious. Are you a capricorn by your sun sign by any chance (just interested)?

What is beyond the sub-atomic particles? Where do protons go and where do they come from? There are so many things science doesn't have a clue about. How can consciousness be a byproduct of material interaction and affect itself? Materia is experiencing and interacting with itself. Is this only cause-effect? Basically, this would render human life as nothing. I think there is much more to that.

BTW, I know quite a bit about the science side of things, about quarks etc. I'm not saying all particles are the same. I was trying to say that a particular particle can exist in several places at the same time and then it is the same exact particle. I would say this is possible through other dimensions.

I don't think we can verify the existence of a soul for certain, since we can't get into other dimensions by scientific means. Maybe some day. Humans are not third dimensional beings, not by our essence. This also really depends on how you define 'soul'. God is another example of simplistic definitions making the idea of God ridiculous.

#18 to #17 - cadencee [OP]

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(07/22/2014) [-]

I wouldn't call her religious, just spiritual. She believes in ghosts and souls and that kind of thing. My father is agnostic so I got the best of both worlds in that regard. I was educated about religion and spirituality without a significant bias.

I understand that science is currently lacking and always will be. For every question three will rise to replace it. Wisdom is not the accumulation of knowledge but the acknowledgement of our own ignorance. If we believe that we know everything (as religion asserts) then we have no reason to seek further knowledge.

I don't like arguments from ignorance (we dont know so for 'x') I just don't think it is productive. Spirituality has a very real psychological place in society and within individuals however I am just not sold on the idea itself.

Our current laws of physics are really only applicable to our own solar system as we have discovered many things outside of our galaxy which seem to contradict what we considered unbreakable laws of nature. We have no way of testing anything outside of our current solar system and so we are severely limited.

To say that the soul is the answer to any of our questions doesn't say anything and actively seeking out evidence to support such a hypothesis is unproductive, as is any theory which goes form the top down (start with the answer and seek evidence to support it).

My star sign is Leo by the way, and I place absolutely no stock in astrology and neither does any astronomer worth his salt (no offense).

Your point about 'human life' meaning nothing is a misconception in my opinion. What are humans but a breed of particularly intelligent primates who developed a strain of philosophy (science) which allowed them to accurately interpret the world around them. Value is subjective, human life is not objectively more important than the life of a mouse, humans simply place the wellbeing of their species over that of other less intelligent species.

In fact we determine how valuable a lifeform is by its cognitive development and how self aware it is. Dolphins, whales and chimpanzees for example are extremely intelligent and appreciate quality of life. A cow, pig or chicken are virtually biological machines that run almost entirely off of instincts. For example when the chemical that tells the brain it needs to eat is released, it eats. The same with the chemical which tells the brain that it needs to reproduce or defecate.

Pigs chickens and cows have a nervous system so that it can tell when it is in danger and respond accordingly which is why their quality of living isn't considered that important. Though it is something which needs to be refined of course.

#19 to #18 - pimpelipom

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(07/22/2014) [-]

Then there is some capricorn there because of your tendency to view things. There is some truth to astrology although its not an exact science, there are too many variables. It has been studied and there are consistencies, you can look it up if you want.

Our surrounding affect us on a deep level, which might not be apparent. That means our solar system, our earth etc. affect the laws of our physiological-mental-spiritual whole and other things like the how we appear and even physics. If you believe in evolution then these surrounding affect the course and laws of that too. There might be a world with three sexes (or one) somewhere for example. Another example: If our surrounding would be in the right way, we would be more spiritually aware and could maybe read each others thoughts mentally more easily etc.

I don't like arguments based off of ignorance either. What I'm saying is putting a greater understanding to words, and there is always room for misspelling on my part and misconception on everyone else. I'm saying I know a lot of stuff not perceivable, since I'm in touch with the universe or god. And that sentence is an example of putting stuff to words. God, soul are terms that I use for simplicity and because they are commonly known and everyone can at least somewhat relate to them.

Well if there is no active consciousness, like you seem to claim, there is nothing to be done differently and what we perceive as human life, self-aware, self-acting entities, would be without meaning. If you take this away, there is nothing, because it is opposite of the definition. I'm not even talking about value or importance here, because value becomes irrelevant if there is 'no life'.

Yes, our culture determines how valuable everything is by that. I don't. I see everything equally valuable and as part of a whole. Although I see humans as being at the top as spiritual entities.

#20 to #19 - cadencee [OP]

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(07/23/2014) [-]

Again, I place no stock in Astrology. You seem to have a transcendence complex, this complex is pretty amusing to me because if you believe that you see the truth that others are blind to then there is nothing I can say which will hold weight with you, but no matter.

Again, there is no observable difference between something that is impossible to perceive and something for which there is no evidence. Either way, there is no reason to give such philosophies any credibility.

Again, the value of life is determined by individuals and by extension, societies. Life having meaning is not dependent on the existence of the soul, it just depends on your perspective. If you want to find significance in the idea of existence itself then you are going to have a hard time. However if you can give your life meaning. Spend time making anothers life easier, be a good person. Study a science and contribute to contribute to the advancement of society.

Be happy, fall in love, have children, bring those children up to be intelligent and tolerant individuals. Then die, die and give your particles, atoms, molecules and nutrients back to the planet and the universe which allowed you with miraculous, beautiful, brief life. Be a part of the cycle, forever. Immortalized in the cosmic system of matter and energy. Life has meaning, and we don't need to live forever to appreciate this.

#21 to #20 - pimpelipom

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(07/23/2014) [-]

You just made that transcendence complex up? Of course what you say holds weight to me. I'm interested in scientific discoveries and such. I'm also interested in different world views. Lets just say I hold truth as the most valuable. Furthermore, I already knew all the things you told me.

You place no stock in Astrology? Neither did I a few years back. Then I began to think my understanding on different levels of being and it makes sense. I think all of the mass media horoscopes are complete rubbish, but there is some truth in real astrology. If you can see bigger pictures and understand that there are several attributes affecting everything you can find interesting stuff about a lot of things.

You have a scientific viewing angle to things and I appreciate that. I go from the spiritual to the material and back. You're placing one method of acquiring information over another. That doesn't mean there isn't any credibility to what spiritual means can provide. That understanding spurs from the spectator himself as being part of the subject. The tool is the consciousness itself. Science can always be wrong and what it has discovered as of now (in the area of interest) is supporting what I have come understand through unscientific means. Science is very limited, and can't access the state of being you can in your very own consciousness.

I'm probably yelling at the wind here and you can't understand or accept what I'm saying, but I'm just saying. I think were having a nice, civilized discussion here.

About the value thing. We're not talking about the same thing. I'm not talking about value like I said. I'm saying there is no 'life' as we understand it if everything is predetermined and there is no active entity affecting the "material" world. Then there is no meaning, there is no good/evil, there is only random **** floating around affected by certain laws. Complex entities conversing about the essence of the universe. This wouldn't be with only material laws.

#22 to #21 - cadencee [OP]

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(07/24/2014) [-]

For what its worth I wasnt the one to thumb you down and i'll balance it. Sorry about the late reply I am really busy with Uni and work.

It probably isnt called a transcendence complex but that doesnt make it non existent. Basically what I meant by that is that if someone feels as though they can see the world through a different dimension so to speak, something that the other person cant relate to then it doesnt matter what that other person says because it is comparatively ignorant or narrow minded. The religious do it all the time to explain everything, any time an issue comes up with the logical coherency of an argument for God they answer it with something like, you need faith to understand or something like that.

I am not sure what to say to the rest of what you mean. Education and intelligence does not necessarily equate to logical consistency. Please correct me if im wrong but you seem to skip the steps you would usually take to come to a logical conclusion when it comes to spirituality. You seem to have the information and understand it but still jump to unnecessary conclusions when it comes to the mysteries of the universe. I am honestly at a loss here. It was nice talking to you though, it is a welcome change to the usual mindless preaching that usually results from such a interaction.

#1 - ninjamanfu

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(07/19/2014) [-]

well, either you get a blank slate on the other side, or a corpse, or consiousness goes with the matter. i sure would like to see what happens.

#2 to #1 - cadencee [OP]

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(07/19/2014) [-]

The thing is that no one would be able to tell, the clone would think that it was a success as they have the memory of stepping into the teleportation device and would act exactly as the original would the only person who would notice the difference would be the person who gets deconstructed and even then they would simply be dead.

It is more of a philosophical question, one that i had trouble with even before I knew that it was possible, since such technology could exist within the few centuries it is a very real ethical issue which our ancestors may have to deal with and one that leaves me bereft of words.

#3 to #2 - ninjamanfu

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(07/19/2014) [-]

IF the teleportee is conscious at all. the process could disrupt the electro chemistry of the brain completely and deposit a perfect copy of a corpse with a blank brain. if the subject is alive and more or less the same i'd call it a win and let tumblr argue over they have a soul or not anymore.
remember that taking someone's picture was though to be a form of soul stealing? well the teleporter could actually do it. i just hope if it does something like that it doesnt hurt too bad because you know im third or fourth in line to use that thing, lol.

#5 to #3 - cadencee [OP]

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(07/19/2014) [-]

Yeah, this hypothetical is predicated on the machine being 100% functional, there is no way they would do human testing until they tested it on animals with a decent level of conscious awareness like Chimpanzees or dolphins.

I dont believe in the idea of a soul however consciousness is definitely an aspect of living (as a human at least). I really dont think id risk it... i mean unless we start populating other planets (which seems likely) i dont think id use it just in case personally it just seems... too risky.

#11 - sparxta

Reply -1 123456789123345869

(07/20/2014) [-]

Add Comment