what if the process was in this order:
The new “you” has the same cells, and the old “you” is just as dead-all I’ve done is change the order of the steps without changing the outcome. Are you o.k. with this?
How does “tear all of my molecules apart” imply that it kills me? If, after tearing my molecules apart, it puts them (or equivalent molecules) back together in the same way in another location, then it hasn’t killed me, just moved me. I’d have no problem at all with that, as long as it was well-tested and proven to work reliably.
The “killed in cold blood” thing does give me pause, certainly. I’d hope that the operator’s assistant wouldn’t use a baseball bat to accomplish the job, 'cause then I’d have to fuck him up big time.
But I’d guess that my old atoms would be used to assemble someone arriving at my departure location.
As for the order of things, I rather like your idea. I’d like verification that my new self arrived safely before my old self is destroyed. Reverse that order and the potential for permanent death is very real.
If I trusted it (designed and built it myself, maybe) I’d certainly use it.
And the first time I went through, I’d bring a fly with me.
If it doesn’t work well enough to know to put my hands at the ends of my arms, let alone mix me up with fly parts (not to mention the micro-parasites on my skin or the bacteria in my gut), then I don’t trust it and won’t use it.
But as tdn pointed out, one could consider the new incarnation not as your successor, but as you. Afterall, the seemingly random assembly of molecules that make you you will still be around on the other side of the transporter.
That obviously opens up the discusson taking place in the thread that Nature’s Call linked to. I was unaware of that thread, to be honest. But it is an interesting part of the discussion.
It seems to depend on where one falls with regard to what makes a person - the memories, emotions and all those things that are more intangible, or the physical structure of molecules, cells and body parts. I personally tend to fall in the camp that it is those intangibles that make a person. This allows for the continuation of the person even though cells are being replaced constantly, and we are all ultimately made up of a hodge-podge of atoms that were created in distant stars and expelled via supernova explosions millions of years ago. I am who I am because of my past experiences and lessons I’ve learned along the way. But that’s just me and my opinion on the matter.
The faith in science part, to me, comes largely from the faith you’d have to have in order to step onto a platform and believe that even though you’d be killed, you’d be reassembled and brought back to life, as it were, on the other side. Maybe faith in science is the wrong term, because it seems to have brought up a lot of questions on motives, failure rates, etc - which for the sake of what I was curious about, would not be part of the equation.
Here’s the other funky part of it - if there was a mechanism to erase the painful couple seconds of disassembly, so that the new incarnation doesn’t feel a thing - then really, you’d have no memory of said incident at all. You’d just ‘appear’. You’d remember walking onto a platform, and the memory would be a completely seemless segue to your current location (on the other platform).
True.
I had my last computer for about 10 years. In that time I replaced the CD drive, power supply, mouse, keyboard, monitor, floppy drive, RAM, modem, and even the hard drive. Pretty much everything except the case and motherboard. Throughout that time I’d kept the same OS (OK, I upgraded from ME to XP, but let’s forget about those awful ME years), kept the same settings, and kept every document and file that I considered important.
Did I have the same computer that I started out with? I’d argue that I did, as during the whole process, that which gave it value to me never really changed much.
Imagine this. New you is assembled. Old you is still standing on a platform, having been scanned with whatever was used to scan your biometrics. Old you is just waiting to die, and knows it.
For those brief moments, there are two of you in existence.
Would the new you, as a just assembled person, be ok with knowing that the old you is just hanging around for verification purposes, and will then be killed?
This probably starts to border on great debates about what makes you you - which isn’t necessarily the intent. I brought up the whole thing just because as I really thought about teleportation, it made me realize all these possibilities that are far more reaching into personal psyche than I ever considered when I was watching Star Trek.
I’m not figuring there will be any definitive answers - its just a mental exercise that I’ve gone through, and figured it was interesting enough to see if others would want to play along 
I would, eventually, if I’d been assured by years of its widespread use that it was innocuous. I wouldn’t be first in line.
Would I? mmmm…maybe not.
But it wouldn’t stop me from eating those tasty tasty Wonka bars.
New scenario: The info is transferred, the new “you” is assembled, and it is time for the old “you” to play “baby harp seal”. At that time, you change your mind and decide to cancel the deal.
Who has more right to your existence, You 1.0 or You 2.0?
That does put an interesting spin on the question, I must say. It’s so hard to wrap my head around that I can only respond with joke answers.
Old me gets to commit a murder. Then he deserves the death penalty. Murdering bastard.
Old me overpowers the technician and runs free. Then there are two of me. One works while the other is on permanent vacation. Every few years we switch. (How we switch locations is left as an exercise for the reader.)
That was my other thought - the logistical aspect. Long before there could be a teleporter in everyone’s home, it’d have to start with teleporters in major cities. So those folks wanting to travel from Boston to LA could use one. Very much like an airport - although likely much more costly.
But even before all that, they would probably be used simply for transport of goods across country, eliminating the need for the entire long-haul trucking industry. I’d think that smaller, box trucks would still be used to ferry good from the teleporter to local businesses and what-not. But then that gets into plain ole replicator technology, a whole other discussion.
As far as your joke answers - having one of me work while the other is on vacation also occured to me. But ah! that brings up another point - as soon as you each have a single memory that is different, you start to become different people. After 6 months of working, the working you will probably be quite changed from the perma-vacation you. You’d have different experiences to shape your outlook, different daily routines, different circles of friends, etc.
We have had this discussion in my family. I would refuse to get in a machine that kills me, deconstructs my body and then rebuilds an exact replica somewhere else. They claim they would use it because it’s so convenient. I guess I won’t be vacationing with my family on Alpha Centari.
That’s another interesting question.
My answer: The very existence of the question will ensure that such technology will never get built (or used) in the first place. And it will cause yet another major political split.
Which side would Fox News take on the issue?
Any hesitation I had wouldn’t be due to a lack of faith in science. It would be a lack of faith in the people who built it.
It doesn’t matter, they’re both me. The only difference is physical location and few seconds worth of separate life experience. Pick one at random and it will be like nothing ever happened.
Sorry, but either one of them is a legal human being and can’t be killed, both are legal human beings and can’t be killed, or neither is legally a human being and both can be killed.
This thread keeps getting interestinger and interestinger.
I’m actually doing a lot of personal work on myself these days. Lots of self-improvement stuff. I won’t get into details, but I hope to become a completely different person by the end of it. And I’ve been working on it for a while. Had I not made the decision to do so a year ago, I don’t think my life would be all that different now.
Wow, that’s kind of depressing.
But to answer your concern, I wouldn’t worry about it one bit.
I’m not sure what makes me me, but for some reason I think I am more than just the sum of my parts. I don’t believe in a soul or spirit or anything like that. I think human consciousness may be an emergent property that arises from the ability to process large amounts of data really quickly. Therefore, perhaps the me after teleportation would be me to everyone else even though it would be someone else to me.
To take Czarcasm’s question further–what if the old me isn’t destroyed? There can’t be two mes, so which is the real me? If you say it’s the old me, then I would suggest not stepping in the teleporter.
In the original Star Trek, they invented the transporter because the shuttle was too expensive. In the real world we know that our Space Shuttle isn’t the most reliable method of transportation. I think a transporter beam is probably safer than riding a giant fire cracker.