From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Sat Apr 05 2003 - 19:00:53 MST
Lee Corbin wrote,
> Here is a question for you: suppose that an unknown person
> living in New York City absolutely needed a serum, and for
> contrived reasons, only you could deliver it to him in time.
> The only way that you can arrive in New York in time is to
> teleport by a method that (sadly) must destroy the original
> as the scan is made. Would you teleport?
I would not teleport to save the other person unless I was willing to give
my life for that person. I would consider the destructive teleport to be
death to me. Nobody else would care, since the duplicate who replaces me is
good enough to carry on in my place. For me, this is the same as having a
pod-person grow in my back yard and then kill me and take my place.
> A second question is, suppose that this sort of teleportation,
> again for technical reasons, was the only kind of teleportation
> discovered so far. Would you teleport across the pacific on
> business, in the light of its cheapness and convenience?
Nope. Again, because I consider it death to me, with another person taking
my place. Cheapness and convenience don't convince me. Suppose I told you
that it was much cheaper to kill you and have an actor on Mars study up and
assume your identity. This is much cheaper than actually sending you to
Mars. This actor is so good, that nobody else could tell the difference.
He will memorize all your history so he can answer questions and act like
you. He is far enough away, that nobody can take DNA tests to detect the
difference. He could pretend to take a DNA test, but then transmit your DNA
record instead. There is a delay in radio signals to Mars, giving him
plenty of time to research answers to questions about you he doesn't know.
Thus, he will be indistinguishable from you in all detectable respect.
Don't you want to go to Mars in this fashion? It is cheaper and convenient?
There is no way to detect that he is not you after the fact. Everybody who
undergoes this process now reports from Mars that they feel fine and there
is nothing to fear. I don't see why everybody doesn't allow this method of
transport.
> We agree, except that I'd sadly acquiesce in "destruction of the
> original" scenarios, knowing that I had come "that close" to having
> a bonafide duplicate.
I think duplicates are cool. After one was created, I would hate to see one
destroyed. Each is a person deserving life as much as the other. I see no
rationale for why one should be destroyed.
> > I think we are wasting time discussing whether individual atoms are
> > important until we actually find someone who holds this belief.
>
> I totally agree. Let us agree not to resume discussion of whether
> particular atoms matter until someone argues that it does.
It's not a big deal for me to waste time. But I think it is a problem that
does not need to be solved. Other problems, such as how to teleport with
destroying the original, do need to be solved. I would like to be uploaded
into a more robust body. I will only agree to do this if an procedure
acceptable to me is invented.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, IAM, GSEC <www.HarveyNewstrom.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 05 2003 - 19:13:06 MST