In the future, suppose that scientists develop a device they call a ‘Transporter’. This device takes a careful scan of a person’s brain and body, destroying them in the process. The device then sends the data to another Transporter which rebuilds the brain and body (out of new molecules). The resulting person is molecule for molecule identical with the original person, and seems to have exactly the same beliefs, desires and personality as the original person.
Suppose that the notorious space pirate Captain D’Arby is fleeing the Police and enters a Transporter on Earth. Moments later, a duplicate of him exits a Transporter on Mars. Fortunately, the Police are in hot pursuit and they too enter the Transporter on Earth, and duplicates of them exit the Transporter on Mars.
“Ah hah! We’ve got you at last, D’Arby,” the police declare as they take him into custody. “You’ll pay for your crimes.”
“I do not know what crimes you are referring to,” said the duplicate of D’Arby, “for I have only just come into existence. While it is true that I seem to have memories of someone you call ‘D’Arby’, I myself was newly constructed by the Transporter only moments ago here on Mars. Therefore, I could not possibly be guilty of any criminal acts prior to that time.”
Should the man that Police have in custody be punished for the past crimes of the notorious pirate D’Arby?
It depends on whether you believe that we are just physical matter or not. If, like me, you believe that we have, for want of a better word, a soul, then transporting over too great a distance could result in the separation of body and soul. What the resulting physical only reconstructed person would be like is anybody's guess.
If you leave all that aside though and presume that an exact duplicate had come into being then I would say yes - guilty as charged.
If someone commits a crime and is only brought to trial for it sixty yaers later, how much of the original person actually remains? Would the sentance have to be reduced to take this into account?
Rhymester
You also have to take into consideration that in America unless it's like murder or kidnapping or treason I think that after 7 years you can no longer be tried for that crime.
So let's look at it from a Ray Bradbury standpoint..in the story "The Jaunt" to be transported they had to give you gas and you had to be asleep. And for those people the "jaunt" was instananeous..but the kid held his breath and was awake for it and when they had made it through he commented on how LONG it was...his hair had turned white and he clawed his own eyes out.
So does transportation really work how we think..by what Bob said..or does it actually fold space? If it folds space then the light years that are in between could actually play a role in that I guess. Either that or I am just talkng out of my ass it being this damn early in the morning!!
Just a thought.
Dave
If the transporter works infallibly then I think any legal system would look upon the two D'Arby's as being one and the same. However, if there exists a possibility for the transporter to make a copying error and to reassemble D'Arby into someone a little different (even if only slightly), then I think he might have a plausible defense.
But that would be a rather speculative course of action. I think he would have a much more iron clad defense if he were to claim that there is no free will and that he can't be held morally accountable for his actions. 😉
If the person has exactly the same beliefs, desires and personality as the person destroyed by the transporter, then they have to be the same person. Beliefs, desires and personality depend upon learning, memory and the genotype. If these things are not altered by the transporter, then the new person would have exactly the same learning history and set of memories etc as the old person. If the function of trying and imprisonment is to keep society safe and to deter criminals, then this person must be tried for his previous crimes, as his personality remains the same, and he is likely to commit further offence (obviously this is open to debate, but he seems like a really bad man!
If the function of imprisonment is to make people be held accountable for their actions, then again he must be tried, since he will have a full memory record of his own evil deeds - I doubt one could retain a record of learning and memory that keeps the personality, while selectively removing a record of the actions that the self has done.
Joe
wasn't the point of the transporter that it transformed your matter into energy (Einstein e=mc2 and all that), and then transported that same energy to the rematerialisation site (at the speed of light I assume) where it was used to recreate your matter. Because your matter = your energy = your matter it would not be important that you had changed form and back again, you would be the same person.
In theory anyway, but I always found the transported theory creapy anyway, because I don't believe that it would really be you at the otherend, just that it would think it was you.
If the person appearing at the other end was just a copy he can't be convicted for his crimes because, although he may be a perfect replica, he did not do the crimes himself. Even if he thinks he did them. That would be the same as convicting someone being capable of doing a crime (proven by the origionals actions) instead of actually doing it.
Anyway, it's a moot point - don't you realise how difficult it is to extradite someone from Mars!😵
I've wondered about this before as well (actually it touches on our private conservation in our game, Bbarr...). Are we more than the sum of our molecular parts? Or is there more vague notion of "consciousness" that animates us and makes us unique? Since I'm training to be a scientist, I suppose I should think that we are just made of our parts, that we are simply an assembly of molecules. However, instinctively, I don't feel as if that's the case. Imagine for a second that part of the transporter malfunctioned - and while the person was scanned and being recreated at the other side, the destruction mechanism on the original transporter stopped working, so that there were now two exact duplicates of D'Arby rather than only one. Could both be convicted of the crime? Would either one suffice? Are they the exact same person? It's hard for me to imagine there being two "me"s walking around - we wouldn't share our consciousness, so we couldn't be the same person, could we?
I tend to reduce it to the overly simplistic idea of object-oriented programming. One can have multiple instantiations of the same object, with the exact same characteristics, but each of the objects is actually unique, and needs to be treated as such. In the same way, two instantiations of the same person would actually not be the same person.
Tough to explain or put on paper.
-mike
p.s. - bbarr I will move soon, as soon as I can figure out a decent move!
Well there was that one star trek next generation episode where we discover years earlier there was this transporter malfunction and a duplicate Commander William Riker had been stuck on this planet for like 8 years. Boy was the duplicate pissed when he found out not only was his double now a Commander (he was till just a lowly lutenant, or something) but that Commander Riker got to spend all those years scoring alien babes while he was stuck in a cave.
Originally posted by maggoteerwasn't there also an episode where they used the transporter log to 'resurrect' a dead colleague?
Well there was that one star trek next generation episode where we discover years earlier there was this transporter malfunction and a duplicate Commander William Riker had been stuck on this planet for like 8 years. Boy was the duplicate pissed when he found out not only was his double now a Commander (he was till just a lowly lutenant, or something) but ...[text shortened]... Commander Riker got to spend all those years scoring alien babes while he was stuck in a cave.
Originally posted by legionnaireThat reminds me of Woody Allen's "The Purple Rose of Cairo", where a character in a movie becomes enchanted with a woman in the audience and comes down off the screen to meet her. The actor who protrayed the character hears of this and is frightened of the possible implications of having a double of him running around in the real world, so he has to convince the character to go back up on the screen and rejoin the movie. It's a very enjoyable movie.
I've wondered about this before as well (actually it touches on our private conservation in our game, Bbarr...). Are we more than the sum of our molecular parts? Or is there more vague notion of "consciousness" that animates us and makes us unique? Since I'm training to be a scientist, I suppose I should think that we are just made of our parts, t ...[text shortened]... on paper.
-mike
p.s. - bbarr I will move soon, as soon as I can figure out a decent move!
Originally posted by legionnaireNot one of the cells that makes up my body existed 6 months ago. Does that make me a different person to that which roamed the planet in Aug 2002? I think not. What difference is there between cells being replaced gradually over a period of time or instantly?
I've wondered about this before as well (actually it touches on our private conservation in our game, Bbarr...). Are we more than the sum of our molecular parts? Or is there more vague notion of "consciousness" that animates us and ...[text shortened]... bbarr I will move soon, as soon as I can figure out a decent move!
P.S. Of all the Star Trek characters, I dislike Ryker the most.
Originally posted by timmoActually, that's not true. Almost all of your muscle cells and neurons in your brain are the same as they were since a few months after you were born.
Not one of the cells that makes up my body existed 6 months ago. Does that make me a different person to that which roamed the planet in Aug 2002? I think not. What difference is there between cells being replaced gradually over a period of time or instantly?
P.S. Of all the Star Trek characters, I dislike Ryker the most.
-mike
Originally posted by legionnaireGood work Mike, you got in there before me.. to throw into this too, while it is true that there are new brain cells born every day, many of them remain the same throughout our life
Actually, that's not true. Almost all of your muscle cells and neurons in your brain are the same as they were since a few months after you were born.
-mike
Joe