Forcasted Technologies in Science Fiction

Hicks · Post by **Hicks** » Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:56 pm

As the resident religious nut, I put forth that an insta-clone is just like a regular grown clone which is just like an identicle twin which is just like a dude being born. They get a soul, their soul is not yours, yet they also get your memories, but neither praise for your accomplishments nor condemnation for your sins. They are a new life, and are treated as a new life.

Hicks · Post by **Hicks** » Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:58 pm

As the resident religious nut, I put forth that an insta-clone is just like a regular grown clone which is just like an identicle twin which is just like a dude being born. They get a soul, their soul is not yours, yet they also get your memories, but neither praise for your accomplishments nor condemnation for your sins. They are a new life, and are treated as a new life.

nockermensch · Post by **nockermensch** » Wed Nov 14, 2012 6:14 pm

Hicks wrote:As the resident religious nut, I put forth that an insta-clone is just like a regular grown clone which is just like an identicle twin which is just like a dude being born. They get a soul, their soul is not yours, yet they also get your memories, but neither praise for your accomplishments nor condemnation for your sins. They are a new life, and are treated as a new life.

Right. This creates a situation where a "soul" is detached from what we call "mind" (because a clone as being discussed here starts with a copy of your mind).

Supposing your religion has the concept of Salvation, when you clone an already Saved person (this actually creates a new soul, that just shares memories with the original), does this means you need to witness about Jesus to the clone and have him saved again?

Future is going to be awesome.

Hicks · Post by **Hicks** » Wed Nov 14, 2012 6:32 pm

Actually, my faith believes that "those who believe are saved", but mindcontrol is weird, so I would still admonish my clone to accept the saving grace of our lord, because he knows that I don't know the particulars of god's will, and would rather be safe than make an assumption.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Wed Nov 14, 2012 7:25 pm

ModelCitizen wrote:
DSMatticus wrote: Have you considered that there is no "I" outside the thoughts and memories of that body? You are not the person now that you were when you made that post. Nevertheless, the person who made that post has put key bits of information from the time he made that post into the fleshy data storage he was kind enough to pass on to you, the current now, so you can access them and 'feel' like they are your's. But an exact copy of you can also access them and will also feel like they are his. Continuity of perception is an illusory product of the way human data storage is configured.
That last bit is a very definite statement, on a subject you've just asserted you can't know anything about for sure. You could say "continuity of perception might be an illusory product of the way human data storage is configured" and not be full of shit. But yeah, that had occurred to me.

No. Everything that you consist of is physical and part of your body. If you are supposing that there is some property that you uniquely have that your exact clone will not also have, then you are supposing that property is nonphysical, i.e. SSSOOOUUULLL. I am not full of shit because I failed to consider the possibility that continuity is souls. "It's not a bug, it's a feature."

Hicks wrote:As the resident religious nut, I put forth that an insta-clone is just like a regular grown clone which is just like an identicle twin which is just like a dude being born. They get a soul, their soul is not yours, yet they also get your memories, but neither praise for your accomplishments nor condemnation for your sins. They are a new life, and are treated as a new life.

It doesn't make much sense to say that cloning Ted Kacsynski gives the clone a clean slate, since it is effectvely the same person who would have made and indeed did make the same decisions. We're obviously totally into the realm of "make shit up" (I mean that no religious text I am aware of covers cloning, not as a derisive jab at your faith. Not that I wouldn't deride you and your faith at the drop of a hat. I totally would, and it will be a miracle if I get through this post without doing so), but I think if you really want to capture the concept of ethical responsibility you just clone the soul, good and bad and all. Now that said, clones having a clean slate despite having committed horrible atrocities makes as much sense as newborn infants having a dirty one because someone in mankind's distant past ate an apple, so the problem here may be that I'm trying to find consistency and reasoning in philosophy by idiots (I told you I wouldn't make it).

nockermensch wrote:Supposing your religion has the concept of Salvation, when you clone an already Saved person (this actually creates a new soul, that just shares memories with the original), does this means you need to witness about Jesus to the clone and have him saved again?

You know, I thought this soultalk was just going to be stupid, but then; Christian space theocracy legally mandates teleporters can only be operated by licensed clergy, who are required to baptize you upon arrival. Would a Jewish space theocracy have to contend with the danger of gradual penis erosion for frequent teleporters?

ModelCitizen · Post by **ModelCitizen** » Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:46 pm

DSMatticus wrote: No. Everything that you consist of is physical and part of your body. If you are supposing that there is some property that you uniquely have that your exact clone will not also have, then you are supposing that property is nonphysical, i.e. SSSOOOUUULLL. I am not full of shit because I failed to consider the possibility that continuity is souls. "It's not a bug, it's a feature."

This paragraph does not make the slightest bit of sense. I think you're trying to accuse me of believing in ghosts or something, but I can't tell because there's just too much non sequitur there. Would you like to try again with less word salad?

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Wed Nov 14, 2012 9:24 pm

ModelCitizen wrote:
DSMatticus wrote: No. Everything that you consist of is physical and part of your body. If you are supposing that there is some property that you uniquely have that your exact clone will not also have, then you are supposing that property is nonphysical, i.e. SSSOOOUUULLL. I am not full of shit because I failed to consider the possibility that continuity is souls. "It's not a bug, it's a feature."
This paragraph does not make the slightest bit of sense. I think you're trying to accuse me of believing in ghosts or something, but I can't tell because there's just too much non sequitur there. Would you like to try again with less word salad?

Fine, we'll go back to square one: there is no way to argue that teleporter clone is less a continuation of you than you are except to appeal to entirely nonphysical phenomenon, because teleporter clone is an exact physical copy of you. If there really is any link between you at (t-1) and you at (t-0) that your teleporter clone would not have, it is not a physical thing because he has every physical thing you would if you had not been teleported. Entertaining that sort of continuity is a foray into dualism bullshit where you are more than your own brain, and that is simply not true.

If continuity of perception exists at all, then it is a thing in your brain I can point to on a sufficiently advanced and accurate diagram of your brain. And then I can copy it with my teleporter, and give it to your teleporter clone, and he becomes as much a continuation of you as if you hadn't been teleported at all. If I can't point to it on a diagram and give it to your clone, then it doesn't actually physically exist and we're talking about something with as much evidentiary validity as a soul.

Hicks · Post by **Hicks** » Wed Nov 14, 2012 9:25 pm

I believe the "perfect" clone of Ted Kacsynski is someone to be pitied, not vilified. A victim of technology that makes it believe both that it did a horrible thing, and that it was right to do it. It is a creature needing help, not extermination.

DSmatticus, I don't care if you insult me or my religion. Your views on faith are as ridiculous to me as you would think of people who think the earth is flat or that gravity don't exist. And I am totally cool that we disagree.

nockermensch · Post by **nockermensch** » Wed Nov 14, 2012 9:41 pm

DSMatticus wrote:
nockermensch wrote:Supposing your religion has the concept of Salvation, when you clone an already Saved person (this actually creates a new soul, that just shares memories with the original), does this means you need to witness about Jesus to the clone and have him saved again?
You know, I thought this soultalk was just going to be stupid, but then; Christian space theocracy legally mandates teleporters can only be operated by licensed clergy, who are required to baptize you upon arrival. Would a Jewish space theocracy have to contend with the danger of gradual penis erosion for frequent teleporters?

I find the irrational ways people react to technology at least as interesting as the technology itself. As for the teleportation, I could see people developing ritualized behaviors to overcome the fear that the guy emerging from teleporter's other side "isn't them". Silly things like telling the guy to memorize a word before the teleport and asking him the word afterwards. Also some religions outright banning their members to being teleported, and the "teleporter messed with my mind" defense becoming popular on tribunals.

Winnah · Post by **Winnah** » Wed Nov 14, 2012 9:54 pm

In my earlier question, I was going to make Bob a fundamentalist scientologist, who refused to use teleporters unless his thetan count was clear.

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Wed Nov 14, 2012 9:56 pm

DSMatticus wrote:
ModelCitizen wrote:
DSMatticus wrote: No. Everything that you consist of is physical and part of your body. If you are supposing that there is some property that you uniquely have that your exact clone will not also have, then you are supposing that property is nonphysical, i.e. SSSOOOUUULLL. I am not full of shit because I failed to consider the possibility that continuity is souls. "It's not a bug, it's a feature."
This paragraph does not make the slightest bit of sense. I think you're trying to accuse me of believing in ghosts or something, but I can't tell because there's just too much non sequitur there. Would you like to try again with less word salad?
Fine, we'll go back to square one: there is no way to argue that teleporter clone is less a continuation of you than you are except to appeal to entirely nonphysical phenomenon, because teleporter clone is an exact physical copy of you. If there really is any link between you at (t-1) and you at (t-0) that your teleporter clone would not have, it is not a physical thing because he has every physical thing you would if you had not been teleported. Entertaining that sort of continuity is a foray into dualism bullshit where you are more than your own brain, and that is simply not true.

No one is arguing that a teleporter clone isn't identical to you. People are arguing that identical does not equal same for much the same reason that two identical computers from the an assembly line aren't actually the same object even though they're outwardly indistinguishable from each other. .

ModelCitizen · Post by **ModelCitizen** » Wed Nov 14, 2012 10:29 pm

DSMatticus wrote:If continuity of perception exists at all, then it is a thing in your brain I can point to on a sufficiently advanced and accurate diagram of your brain. And then I can copy it with my teleporter, and give it to your teleporter clone, and he becomes as much a continuation of you as if you hadn't been teleported at all. If I can't point to it on a diagram and give it to your clone, then it doesn't actually physically exist and we're talking about something with as much evidentiary validity as a soul.

Given that you insist on using that word "soul," it appears you are accusing me of believing in ghosts and otherwise trying to make me out as some kind of superstitious strawman. Since I already predicted that one of you asshats would try this and already stated I had no interest in having this retarded conversation, I'll leave you to it.

ModelCitizen wrote: So if you want to explore the idea of a retarded, frustrating, politicized discourse about how people who use teleporters may or may not be committing suicide and so they can be replaced by outwardly-identical meat robots, then bring up the issue of apparently-perfect cloning vs consciousness. But seriously, fuck that. Just thinking about it makes me want to strangle everyone on my side of the issue, let alone any paintchip-eating Butthurt Atheists currently hitting Reply to accuse me of closet religiosity or whatever.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Thu Nov 15, 2012 12:39 am

hyzmarca wrote:No one is arguing that a teleporter clone isn't identical to you. People are arguing that identical does not equal same for much the same reason that two identical computers from the an assembly line aren't actually the same object even though they're outwardly indistinguishable from each other. .

That is completely the wrong question. You are asking whether two objects with identical composition are the same object, and you are using an example of two objects which have always been distinct objects to show that two objects with identical composition are in fact not the same object. Of course they aren't the same object; neither the teleporter clone nor the teleporter 'survivor' are the same person, and they don't have to be for anything I said to make sense. The actual question is whether two objects of any composition can have been the same object at some point in their past. And I think it's safe to say, "yes, they can." Asexual reproduction, specifically fission, is something that actually happens, and that seems like a really good example to go to.

It's also important to note most people don't really care what they're physically made of, and one carbon atom is as good as another (which is good, because you are running a 24/7 Ship of Theseus). Silicon is fine too, really. Most people are really much more interested in themself as a piece of information, and the underlying hardware that information is represented on not so much. That does change some things.

ModelCitizen wrote:Given that you insist on using that word "soul," it appears you are accusing me of believing in ghosts and otherwise trying to make me out as some kind of superstitious strawman. Since I already predicted that one of you asshats would try this and already stated I had no interest in having this retarded conversation, I'll leave you to it.

No, I am accusing you of considering a nonphysical phenomenon, and highlighting the ridiculousness of that through a specific nonphysical phenomenon. It's a coherent argument, plus mockery based on similarities between your proposition and something laughable. You can tell, because you can take my post and remove 'soul' and get this:

DSM wrote:Fine, we'll go back to square one: there is no way to argue that teleporter clone is less a continuation of you than you are except to appeal to entirely nonphysical phenomenon, because teleporter clone is an exact physical copy of you. If there really is any link between you at (t-1) and you at (t-0) that your teleporter clone would not have, it is not a physical thing because he has every physical thing you would if you had not been teleported. Entertaining that sort of continuity is a foray into dualism bullshit where you are more than your own brain, and that is simply not true.

If continuity of perception exists at all, then it is a thing in your brain I can point to on a sufficiently advanced and accurate diagram of your brain. And then I can copy it with my teleporter, and give it to your teleporter clone, and he becomes as much a continuation of you as if you hadn't been teleported at all. If I can't point to it on a diagram and give it to your clone, then it doesn't actually physically exist and we're talking about something with as much evidentiary validity as a soul no evidentiary validity.

The actual core argument is, again, really simple: you are not an entity transitioning through states, because that would imply you are more than your current physical representation and there is some part or aspect of you not captured by your current state that we can't replicate by making an exact physical copy of you.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Thu Nov 15, 2012 12:40 am

ModelCitizen wrote:Given that you insist on using that word "soul," it appears you are accusing me of believing in ghosts and otherwise trying to make me out as some kind of superstitious strawman. Since I already predicted that one of you asshats would try this and already stated I had no interest in having this retarded conversation, I'll leave you to it.

The KKK accurately predict that people will call them racist all the time. Because they are racist.

You accurately predicted that people would accuse you of believing in souls. Because you believe in souls.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Thu Nov 15, 2012 1:35 am

DSMatticus wrote:
nockermensch wrote:Supposing your religion has the concept of Salvation, when you clone an already Saved person (this actually creates a new soul, that just shares memories with the original), does this means you need to witness about Jesus to the clone and have him saved again?
You know, I thought this soultalk was just going to be stupid, but then; Christian space theocracy legally mandates teleporters can only be operated by licensed clergy, who are required to baptize you upon arrival. Would a Jewish space theocracy have to contend with the danger of gradual penis erosion for frequent teleporters?

Best Term Ever. I award you one internet, sir.

nockermensch · Post by **nockermensch** » Thu Nov 15, 2012 3:28 am

Kaelik wrote:
ModelCitizen wrote:Given that you insist on using that word "soul," it appears you are accusing me of believing in ghosts and otherwise trying to make me out as some kind of superstitious strawman. Since I already predicted that one of you asshats would try this and already stated I had no interest in having this retarded conversation, I'll leave you to it.
The KKK accurately predict that people will call them racist all the time. Because they are racist.

You accurately predicted that people would accuse you of believing in souls. Because you believe in souls.

The funny thing is that souls existing or not are pretty much irrelevant: Unless humanity radically changes in some essential way in the next centuries, a large part of it should still believe on souls by the time a teleporter is invented, and then you'd have shit like: Bob teleports. Friends and family shun him afterwards, because they believe Bob is not Bob anymore. Bob is forever wracked by self doubt (imagine your parents starting to believe that their son was disintegrated and you're "just a copy")

Also, it'd probably take just one accident with teleportation (real or fake, see "the teleporter changed my mind" legal defense) to create a lasting aura of fear around the tech. Would you trust a teleport if "it's known" that it messed with somebody's personality?

Calibron · Post by **Calibron** » Thu Nov 15, 2012 3:55 am

I think second guessing the backwardness of society in regards to accepting these world changing technologies is a bit pointless. If people have this kind of power and they haven't socially evolved to the point where they can be trusted with it, then we're all dead and civilization is over.

rasmuswagner · Post by **rasmuswagner** » Thu Nov 15, 2012 5:38 am

Also, people don't fucking have continuity of consciousness. It's a dog whistle for stupid [EDITED] who don't want to admit they're talking about souls.

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Thu Nov 15, 2012 6:05 am

Not that this asinine clusterfuck isn't entertaining, but I have a question about the warp drive. It hypothetically operates by mangling up spacetime in front and then putting it back together in back. What happens if you don't do the second part? Can you weaponize the warp drive?

Hicks · Post by **Hicks** » Thu Nov 15, 2012 6:18 am

Yes. In the OP I reference total conversion reactors: matter that was in annihilated space-time is converted into energy with 100% efficiency. Weaponized conversion bombs are just overloaded warp reactors without any shielding.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Thu Nov 15, 2012 6:32 am

Chamomile wrote:Not that this asinine clusterfuck isn't entertaining, but I have a question about the warp drive. It hypothetically operates by mangling up spacetime in front and then putting it back together in back. What happens if you don't do the second part? Can you weaponize the warp drive?

You can't not do the second part. The Spacetime has to go somewhere. but it comes pre-weaponized, in that when you tear a proton in half it turns into its constituent energy. So it's kind of like there being an antimatter bomb on the front of your warp vessel all the time. The issue is figuring out how to time and direct your warp jumps so that you don't accidentally vaporize whatever is at wherever you're going.

-Username17

Hicks · Post by **Hicks** » Thu Nov 15, 2012 6:50 am

You are right, as far as I've read the energy is only released when the warp drive is deactivated. Mind you that under normal circumstances the cross-sectional area of your warp bubble is less than the diameter of a proton, and for normal deep space operation you'll only encounter something like one atom per 1.6*10^20 meters traveled, or one every 10,000 lightyears, and that would take a hundred years at the projected maximum velocity of10x lightspeed. Unless of course you do something crazy like warp through a nebula, planet, or star; but remember: normal operations.

Does anybody knows what happens should a 200m ship turn off its warp drive inside another object? Say like the moon?

ModelCitizen · Post by **ModelCitizen** » Thu Nov 15, 2012 6:53 pm

You know, it's funny. DSMatticus and rasmuswagner are strawmanning like hell, but this isn't even in the top three dumbest arguments I've had about the nature of consciousness. The dumbest was the time someone concluded that I was a Randroid libertarian for trying to discuss the subject at all. What laissez faire capitalism or undersea dystopias have to do with the nature of consciousness... I don't know. It was weird.

A lot of people are mortally frightened by questions they can't answer, and will try to shut down discussion by derailing into a simpler debate they can understand. Usually it's one that demonizes the person raising the uncomfortable issue. Christians start "witnessing," people who are really wrapped up in atheism as an identity accuse you of being religious, more-liberal-than-thou types paint you as an uberconservative. I'm sure you could get actual conservatives to start screaming about how you only think [whatever] because of your supposed liberal indoctrination in college. Anything but address the actual issue.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Thu Nov 15, 2012 7:06 pm

Model, you are being a fucking idiot. You don't just get to allege that "other people who are not me" are avoiding the discussion while refusing to engage in the discussion.

You are making the retarded claim that there is some essential aspect to selfhood that is non physical. People have stated that you are wrong and asked you to explain what the fuck this magic non physical thing is that is essential to your self, and you have refused to explain what the fuck you are talking about.

Now, no one is bothering to ask Hicks what he thinks the magic non physical part of selfhood is, because he thinks it is a soul. But when you say that for damn sure some non physical part of you exists, but you refuse to explain what it is...

You don't get to accuse people of avoiding the conversation.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Thu Nov 15, 2012 7:24 pm

ModelCitizen wrote:DSMatticus and rasmuswagner are strawmanning like hell...

I have made the argument three times now without mentioning the word soul. I don't know where the hell your persecution complex is coming from, but I do know where I want you to shove it.

ModelCitizen wrote:Anything but address the actual issue.

DSM wrote:Fine, we'll go back to square one: there is no way to argue that teleporter clone is less a continuation of you than you are except to appeal to entirely nonphysical phenomenon, because teleporter clone is an exact physical copy of you. If there really is any link between you at (t-1) and you at (t-0) that your teleporter clone would not have, it is not a physical thing because he has every physical thing you would if you had not been teleported. Entertaining that sort of continuity is a foray into dualism bullshit where you are more than your own brain, and that is simply not true.

If continuity of perception exists at all, then it is a thing in your brain I can point to on a sufficiently advanced and accurate diagram of your brain. And then I can copy it with my teleporter, and give it to your teleporter clone, and he becomes as much a continuation of you as if you hadn't been teleported at all. If I can't point to it on a diagram and give it to your clone, then it doesn't actually physically exist... [mockery sanitized because your ability to read shuts down in the presence of insults and you start derping about strawmen that never happened]

DSM wrote:The actual core argument is, again, really simple: you are not an entity transitioning through states, because that would imply you are more than your current physical representation and there is some part or aspect of you not captured by your current state that we can't replicate by making an exact physical copy of you.

There are no strawmen there. Those are the arguments. They address the issue. Your accusations are offensively off base, because I have made every effort to address the question in a way that will reach you. Maybe you don't understand the arguments, but that doesn't make them strawmen or not answers, so fuck you.