The obvious answer to that is: Who cares, he’s dead.
But, In my opinion, it would matter one hell of a lot to me! I don’t want someone else living MY life!
This is one of those debates that seem to boil down to definitions. I think if I teleported it would be me, even if the physical reality on the other side was a construct. Let metaphysicians debate the details. This belongs with the tree falling in the forest making noise.
Larry Niven’s essay “Theory and Practice of Teleportation” (in his collection “All the Myriad Ways” covers all of this with wry humor. (If the teleporting device doesn’t destroy the original, then shouldn’t we SHOOT the man in the “send” booth? After all, if we don’t, then hasn’t gone anywhere.)I disagree with his idea that conservation of momentum and energy require you to heat up or go shhoting out of the booth – I figure and mismatches have to be borne by the teleportation mechanism. In other words – nail the booth down tight and give it good thermal equalization means.
A last thought – People have been writing Teleporter-goes-wrong stories LONG before Langelaan’s “The Fly”. Any decent device would have enough safeguards and redundancy built into it to not screw up in so obvious a fashion. If I ever invent a teleporter the first demonstration I’m going to give will be to step in with a fly.
So, if the original person is destroyed and an exact duplicate created, what would believers in an afterlife where one retains one’s identity think happens? Are there a hundred and fifty James T. Kirks sitting around in the Great Beyond, each one envious of his older selves’ opportunity to knock booties with new space babes? Or are the copy Kirks all soulless shells, leaving the original pimply 14 year old Kirk, who died in his first transporter trip, to sit around in the hereafter watching his copies get lucky with half the galaxy?
Obviously with this last questions we are TOTALLY in the realm of speculation…personally I suspect (based on some scientific evidence regarding personality, though I am SUPER stretching it) that such a thing is not naturally “allowed” and that the other James T Kirks would indeed be empty shells. They would (I suspect) not function much, save perhaps on a catatonic/autistic level.
Is this even teleportation? I’m leaning towards no. gEEk, you have made some good points. Under our scenario, we have created a second human who is exactly the same as the first. At the moment of creation, the two are exactly the same, but they will immediately begin having two different experiences and leading separate lives. From a moral standpoint I can see the rationale behind not wanting to kill the original. From a scientific standpoint, if the death is simultaneous with the creation, we have in sense, kept ourselves two one person. Yes, we had to kill someone, but we also created someone (Talk about your God complex). Interesting stuff to mull over. Thanks for the perspective gEEk.
/* Long post–you have been warned */
Here are a couple of bits about different forms of teleportation:
1a) For tracer–Larry Niven addressed the conservation of energy problems in his Jumpshift stories (Flash Crowd, The Floating Riot Club, and others) as well. Jumpshift, Inc had enormous damper pools sort of like the Sound Suppression System used by NASA for launches–lots of water to absorb the energy. Since the teleport mechanism had to shift energy anyway, it was setup to divert excess to the pools. Presumably, it could also pull energy from the floats in the pool if someone teleported toward the equator (and thus needed more momentum). A similar but much more robust system would be needed for interplanetary teleportation, where the relative velocities are greater.
1b) The scary thing about this setup is that Jumpshift didn’t really understand how their machines worked. Their theories suggested the existence of a “transition” particle (or wave) with extraordinarly complex energy states and velocity=c, but they never found one. Thus, they didn’t create or destroy anything–they just changed its form, moved it, and changed it back. Would this approach raise any more philosophical problems than, say, squeezing one too many people into a car for a road trip?
- Another noteworthy (if paranoid) contribution to the teleportation literature is the novel Jumper by Stephen Gould. The hero possessed the innate ability to teleport. His experiments with a video camera indicated that he did so by creating a wormhole that pulled him (and anything he was carrying) through it to his target. This is closer to the Trek Tech manual approach, except he went through whole. So is the whole “ripped to bits” :eek: thing really essential? The problems in implementing the “ripped” approach have already been noted, but for the sake of discussion, let’s assume that they can be overcome. Philosophically (not technically!) is the “ripped” version really different from the “whole” version, assuming that each is mechanically implemented?
winky99 said:
Actually, it is and it isn’t. If we’re talking teleportation in the Start Trek mode, no, obviously this would not fit the bill. However, if we stick to a “real world”, IBM teleporting a single particle type of definition, then yes, I think that what we have described is indeed teleportation.
**
My pleasure. It is a sad testiment to the depths of my geekdom that I have considered this problem in the past at length and have engaged is some heated debates over it.
Ptahlis said:
**
I have this vision of an uncountable number of Kirks sitting on some ethereal plane watching the “live” Kirk step into a transporter. The millions of Kirks are all shouting “Don’t do it!” in unison. The “live” Kirk cocks his head as though he hears a faint sound, shrugs, and steps onto the pad. Zap, another Kirk shows up in Valhalla looks around, utters a very Homer Simpson-esq “D’oh!” and promptly gets beaten senseless by his millions of predecessors.
:eek:
gEEk
Yes, otherwise it is just porting, not porting via tele.
Though a long-time lurker, nothing motivated me to post on this board until I saw Avalongod’s error uncorrected, and realized that it is possible that nobody might correct it.
Here is his quote (let’s see if my UBB code works):
The human brain does grow new nerve cells, as has been known for years. Avalongod maintains that this discovery, if true, would make huge waves in the scientific world: it did. I remember seeing major articles about it in several science journals. Were you sleeping? 
After scouring the net, I’ve come up with a few links to prove this:
http://www.healthblast.com/cgi-bin/exec/sites/sciencenews/story?story_id=10227&session_id=523783868.22717.N001
The original story, from several years back.
http://206.251.19.72/life/health/brain/lhbra034.htm
Evidence that these new cells are actually used, admittedly from primate and not human research.
http://whyfiles.news.wisc.edu/093learn/index.html
An explanation on a popular science site.
Just doing my part to fight ignorance. 
And now for a contribution to this discussion:
I believe I can see a crux of disagreement here. Some posters (i.e. gEEk, avalongod) believe that subjective consciousness is a real thing that definitely and objectively exists. They believe that it makes sense to say that consciousness is a phenomenon, and one which science does not understand. Most importantly, they feel that consciousness has an identity: that the hunk of consciousness associated with person A is distinguishable in an important sense from the hunk of consciousness associated with person B, even if persons A and B are physically identical. Therefore, if person A or B is killed it can reasonably be said that an individual’s existence has ended.
Other posters (i.e. CalMeacham, winky99) may admit some, none, or all of the above facts about consciousness. However, there is one important difference: they believe that if persons A and B are physically identical, then either their individual hunks of consciousness are completely indistinguishable in any subjective or objective sense or that, though they may be different, this difference between A’s consciousness and B’s consciousness is not important. These people believe that if A or B is killed, nothing important is lost. Though perhaps there is a loss of continuity of thought in some abstract sense, they do not identify this loss with death.
I apologize if I have misconstrued anyone’s opinion, but this is the conflict as I see it. The difference seems to me to be essentially one of values, and therefore cannot be resolved through debate any more than abortion can. Not that I don’t welcome debate on the subject.
Ooh, cites’n’facts’n’fighting ignorance. That’s what we like to see here. Excellent first post JasonFin; hope you stick around.
quote:
wow if this is true, I am seriously pissed at my psyche professors for lying to me all these years. The problem is that I actually did check your links. They refer to a series of authors Peter ERicksson and Daniel Peterson. Understandably I would like to read the actual article. So I went to the website for Nature (where I am a subscriber), where apparently the article was published in their Nature Medicine specialist journal. the thing is, apparently Nature has never heard of either of these two authors or their journal article. So I went on over to PsycheINFO to check there...perhaps it was not on their website. PsycheINFO has never heard of this article either. What gives?
I think you may be making a reference to an article which does not exist. Please provide an actual reference if you do not mind.
If such studies have been conducted apparently all of psychology has missed it. Given that this supposed article is apparently not available in the journal that supposedly published it I question the authenticity of your information (not you personally, you might have been done in by some false internet info)
Again, I think an actual reference would help clear things up (hey the search engines aren't always perfect either)Run a search for “Eriksson” and “Neurogensis” at the Nature site; I found it at here, but I don’t have a subscription. But the guy is indeed listed there, and I registered to get the abstract, which says: “…we demonstrate that new neurons, as defined by these markers, are generated from dividing progenitor cells in the dentate gyrus of adult humans. Our results further indicate that the human hippocampus retains its ability to generate neurons throughout life.”
There is also the other links; USA Today, while no heavyweight, generally does not publish false science: http://206.251.19.72/life/health/brain/lhbra034.htm
There is some other papers that you can check out: Engraftable Human Neural Stem Cells Respond to Developmental Cues, Replace Neurons, and Express Foreign Genes, JD Flax et al, Nature Biotechnology. 16(11):1033-9, 1998 Nov.
Generation of Oligodendroglial Progenitors from Neural Stem Cells, Su-Chun Zhang et al., Journal of Neurocytology, 27: 475-89 (1998).
Maze training alters brain weights and cortical RDA/DNA ratios, Bennett EL, et al, Behavioral & Neural Biology, 26(1):1-22, 1979 May.
Neurogenesis in the Adult Human Hippocampus, PS Eriksson et al, Nature Medicine, 4(11):1313-7, 1998 Nov.
New Nerve Cells for the Adult Brain, Gerd Kempermann and Fred H. Gage, Scientific American, May 1999, pp. 48-53.
Running Increases Cell Proliferation and Neurogenesis in the Adult Mouse Dentate Gyrus, Henriette van Praag et al, Nature Neuroscience, 2(3):266-70, 1999 March.
Well, crap, it won’t allow me to link into a search. But if you run your own search you should find it.
Well that explains things, the web-site had him listed as Ericksson.
Here is the abstract: The genesis of new cells, including neurons, in the adult human brain has not yet been demonstrated. This study was undertaken to investigate whether neurogenesis occurs in the adult human brain, in regions previously identified as neurogenic in adult rodents and monkeys. Human brain tissue was obtained postmortem from patients who had been treated with the thymidine analog, bromodeoxyuridine (BrdU), that labels DNA during the S phase. Using immunofluorescent labeling for BrdU and for one of the neuronal markers, NeuN, calbindin or neuron specific enolase (NSE), we demonstrate that new neurons, as defined by these markers, are generated from dividing progenitor cells in the dentate gyrus of adult humans. Our results further indicate that the human hippocampus retains its ability to generate neurons throughout life.
Well I will be the first to admit when I am wrong, and frankly I am excited! I am annoyed my profs seem to have missed this. I do want to offer you a caveat from actually skimming through the article. What the authors say is that the hippocampus maintains a particular kind of “progenitor” neuron that can potentially reproduce. They do not say that Hippocampus cells actually DO reproduce naturally in the human lifetime. Just that they could. This is still pretty momentous, as the cells could conceivably be used in the repair of nerve damage.
Nonetheless, the remainder of the human brain apparently does not reproduce itself, and as the Hippocampus is not involved primarily in “self” my earlier thesis remains intact.
Neurogenesis:
Ok, I have made it my cause to delve further into the neurogenesis literature (frankly as much out of embarrassment to be caught unawares as my genuine interest in learning new info). What it seems to boil down to is this:
In a portion of the hippocampus known as the dentate gyrus it is observed that indeed new neurons do form. As this area is involved in the formation of new memories, this does make logical sense. whether these cells will prove useful in treating damage to other brain areas is speculative, as the neurons may already be specialized.(neurons in the nose actually also reproduce but are useless for that very same reason).
For those who may have no clue why we are talking about this at all, this all goes back to a “The human body totally replaces itself every few years, etc.” comment someone made that I disputed noting that most neurons do not reproduce, but remain in the body throughout life. I was incorrect in that neurons in the nose (which I already knew) and in the hippocampus (which I did not) do continue to reproduce. However, they still do not die as far as I can see from the articles in question, so they still do not “replace” themselves per se. Also the general trend “non-reproducing neurons” seems to still hold for the rest of the brain and nervous system. I have seen no articles that mention anything other than the dentate nucleus in the hippocampus, does anyone know of any others?
Thank you to JonFin (did I get the name right) for pointing out that article.
The hippocampus processes information and turn it into memory. As such, I would consider it part of the “self”, for I do not think I would be the same person without my particular sort of memories. Some, however, do not tie up their “self” with their memories; this is more a philosophical question than a scientific one.
Neural stem cells apparently may be able to adapt themselves into usage as neurons. How wonderful to think that we may be able to fix brain damage and Alzheimer’s someday relatively soon. [standard disclaimer] This is a new area of science and I am very interested to see what they discover; I don’t know that they know for sure that neurons in other areas do not reproduce. The USA Today article says that the cortex in monkeys has shown that it is producing new cells, but I am not positive that they are not talking about only the hippocampus here–it’s been a while since I have studied the anatomy of the brain.
I wouldn’t bash your Psych teachers for not knowing; my mother taught Psych, and it takes quite a while for the latest in neuroscience to make it to the textbooks. Of course that is true in every discipline; RTFirefly had a good thread a while ago about what made it into textbooks and what did not. Now think of how you can embarass them in class.
Guadere:
quote:
YEs and no. The general tendency in psychology is to differentiate between self and memory. They can each have impact on each other (which I think was what you meant, perhaps not) but are distinct. Generally, sense of "self" is thought to be contained within the prefrontal cortext, though this is kinda wishy washy. There are, of course, other researchers who would agree with you Guardere, but I suspect they are the exception.
quote:
~~~Neural stem cells apparently may be able to adapt themselves into usage as neurons.
Well this is generally what they are supposed to do.
It would be cool if we could use them to repair brain damage. Have you heard about the research done with fetal stem cells that actually seemed to work?
quote:
~~~The USA Today article says that the cortex in monkeys has shown that it is producing new cells, but I am not positive that they are not talking about only the hippocampus here--it's been a while since I have studied the anatomy of the brain.
Though the cortex and hippocampus are both part of the "forebrain" they are distinct structures. If the cortex is still producing stem cells, that would be fascinating. IF you have a reference, I would enjoy reading that.
quote:
~~~I wouldn't bash your Psych teachers for not knowing; my mother taught Psych, and it takes quite a while for the latest in neuroscience to make it to the textbooks.
You are correct of course. I have heard that textbooks are usually 10 years behind the time. In grad school I would expect folks to be a bit more on top of things, but I guess the psyche people sometimes miss the "neuroscience" stuff.
quote:
~~~Now think of how you can embarass them in class.
This would be fun. I am also glad to have accurate up to date info for my own classes as well.Welcome JasonFin. Good first post.
avalongod–I’m not much of a neurosurgeon so maybe you could help me understand some of what I just read.
The hippocampus does generate new neurons.
These neurons are probably used for new memories? Are they sent to different parts of the brain? Are they replacing dead neurons?
Just the Princeton study by Gould cited in the USA Today article. The don’t give the name.
Well, they’re added human neural stem cell to mice’s brains, and they appear to grow into the approriate cells, but they haven’t tested whether they’re actually functioning yet. However, “the scientists found that the stem cells restored a brain area in mutant mice whose cerebellar granule neurons do not develop properly.”
http://www.hms.harvard.edu/news/releases/199stemcell.html
Winky:
From what I understand from these enlightening articles:
question:
This is the hypothesis and would make logical sense. It was previously assumed that new memories were formed by making new axonal connections between preexisting neurons. Apparently making new axons is at least part of the process as well.
question:
~~~Are they sent to different parts of the brain?
The article in question does not suggest they even migrate to other areas of the hippocampus, let alone the brain. But who knows, they might. There is another article that suggests other neurons might do just that, which I will share in a second...
question:
~~~Are they replacing dead neurons?
My understanding is that they could, but that it is not their primary function. (Going out on a limb here). It seems to me that they are primarily related to new memory functions, so if you kill off the old neurons, you still lose the old memories (as happens in Alzheimer's Disease).
To Guadere:
FOUND IT!
Here is the abstract to Elizabeth Gould (1999) Neurogenesis in the neocortex of adult primates. Published in Science.
Examined structural plasticity in the brains of adult macaques, Macaca fascicularis. In primates, prefrontal, inferior temporal, and posterior parietal cortex are important for cognitive function. 12 adult macques were injected with bromodeoxyuridine (BrdU) and immunohistochemistry was used to examine cell-specific markers in the 3 neocortical areas. New neurons are added to
these 3 neocorticatal association areas, but not to a primary sensory area. The new neurons appeared to originate in the subventricular zone and to migrate through the white matter to the neocortex, where they extended axons. These new neurons, which are continually added in adulthood, may play a role in the functions of the association neocortex.
Migrating neurons is UNHEARD of in adults (well obviously not). This is exciting stuff.