The Prestige Duplication / Teleportation (warning, film spoilers)

[Pendaric]

So, every philosophy forum should have a teleportation thread...

Let's kick it off by considering the scenario played out in the movie 'The Prestige' (warning, spoilers follow).

The main plot point of the movie is that the magician perfoms a trick where he enters one door on a stage and re-appears instantaeneously on a balcony approximately 150 ft away. He does this by utilising a teleportation/duplication machine, which creates an exact copy of him on the balcony as soon as he enters a cabinet on stage.

This gives him the problem of what to do with the original of himself, because performing the trick regularly eventually there would be hundreds of copies of the same man around. The way he solves this is by dropping through a trapdoor when he walks in to the cabinet, in to a tank of water and drowning the original. The copy then continues with his life - until the next night when it is it's turn to perform the trick and die.

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d91/CicadaStar/Inside%20The%20Cosmic%20Cube/006PSG_Hugh_Jackman_155.jpg

So, presuming that it is an exact copy in every measurable way, is it still the same person who comes out on the balcony as the person who went in to the cabinet?

It's essentially the classic transporter question - is an exact copy the same as the original?

My own personal answer would be no, it's not me. You wouldn't catch me using a transporter machine under any circumstances, because I would see it as suicide.

[Preno]

So, every philosophy forum should have a teleportation thread...I think you just commited the is-ought fallacy...

[JamesBannon]

Two separate people with two separate identities. They may be exact duplicates at the time the copy is made, but thereafter they will diverge.

[Jobar]

If the duplication is perfect, down to the atomic states at the instant of duplication, then until the duplicates become aware that they are in different locations (which would take a considerable fraction of a second, I think) the two are the same for that short time.

I'd never want to do anything like this unless there was some process which, in that moment of identity, could check the accuracy of duplication, then instantaneously and painlessly destroy the unwanted copy.

Mmm, small correction: I wouldn't do it unless the process could be used for instantaneous interstellar travel, in which case I'd be willing to die if my duplicate- who, in essence, is me- could go to the stars.

[Anne]

I think you misunderstood--- sometimes the original dropped, and sometimes he went to the balcony.

So he never knew if he were to live or die on a given night.

Man I hate that movie. It's really good.

I'd say yes, it's me, because I am the sum of my experiences, and if those are shared, then it is me.

But then, no it's not me, because it is capable of free will.

[Jobar]

I haven't seen the movie, but I think I'll put it on my list. Sounds like something I'd enjoy.

[Anne]

Doubt it.*

But Bowie is Tesla.

http://blog.acton.org/uploads/TeslaPrestige.jpg





*the 'enjoy' part. It is good. On multiple levels.

[Ray Moscow]

I liked the film, and also "The Illusionist" that came out about the same time.

My take on the basic question: identical people, with the same memories, are the same person, even if replicate. Killing one of them would be murder.

IMO, there is no spirit or soul that needs to be divided or left behind in such a case.

[Pendaric]

I haven't seen the movie, but I think I'll put it on my list. Sounds like something I'd enjoy.

The movie is first rate, and there are a couple of other plot twists that I haven't given away with the spoiler so far. Well worth a couple of hours of your time.

[Anne]

I liked the film, and also "The Illusionist" that came out about the same time.

got three movies on a steampunk jag.

The Illusionist: labeled 'crappy'
The Prestige: labeled 'good'
City of Lost Children: labeled 'dark'

My take:
The Illusionist: good, upbeat, romantic and actually shows how magic works.
The Prestige: dark, mean, bitter, but worth a ton of viewings if you can sit through it, because writing wise, it rocks. Want to read the story.
City of Lost Children: upbeat and fun, although a little cynical, nothing horrible. Cool fairytale.

Do not attempt these in a triple feature.


Because CoLC was labeled 'dark' and the Prestige was not, we didn't watch it for a few months after the Prestige...

[Garrett]

Two separate people with two separate identities. They may be exact duplicates at the time the copy is made, but thereafter they will diverge.
I like the way you avoided the word "same".

The scenario makes it clear that the original dies while the copy lives.

[Garrett]

If the duplication is perfect, down to the atomic states at the instant of duplication, then until the duplicates become aware that they are in different locations (which would take a considerable fraction of a second, I think) the two are the same for that short time.
The word "same" has two distinct meanings, and it's not clear which one you mean.

I'd never want to do anything like this unless there was some process which, in that moment of identity, could check the accuracy of duplication, then instantaneously and painlessly destroy the unwanted copy.
The original gets destroyed, not the copy!

Mmm, small correction: I wouldn't do it unless the process could be used for instantaneous interstellar travel, in which case I'd be willing to die if my duplicate- who, in essence, is me- could go to the stars.
Your duplicate is in essence not you, since you'd be dead while the duplicate would be alive.

If you don't mind dying so that your off-spring (or in this case your doppleganger) can live, that's fine - but don't tell me that you don't mind dying because your essence would live on! Unless you think your spirit would still be alive.

In your scenario, we have two people, and you are one of those people, and that person dies. That's the end of his story. You'd not experience interstellar travel, since dead people don't experience stuff.

[premjan]

There is a difference between subjective identity and objective identity.

[Garrett]

Feel free to expound.

Dead people aren't alive, that's the simple fact I'm laboring under. Jobar stated or implied he'd be dead and then said or implied that his essence would live on. What is this essence that allows him to exist after he dies? That's what I want to know.

It's not an amazing claim coming from a theist - but Jobar isn't a theist. So isn't it noteworthy that an atheist claims his "essence" could continue to exist after he died? I can easily think that my child or my doppleganger or my clone or my duplicate could exist after I die - but I see no reason to think I wouldn't be dead nonetheless!

What is this wonderful essence that is me and can exist even if I die (Jobar: "I'd be willing to die if my duplicate- who, in essence, is me - could go to the stars")?

Sounds like spirit or soul.

[Garrett]

My take on the basic question: identical people, with the same memories, are the same person, even if replicate. Killing one of them would be murder.

So if your replicate runs up bills, you'd be happy to pay them. If he rapes and murders children you'd realize you deserve to be sent to prison for life or death.

Of course, you're using that ambiguous word "same", so its hard to tell. Maybe you'd actually feel it was unfair to punish you for the actions of someone else.

Serious question: are you aware of the difference between the definitions for the word "same"? Type vs instance. Any idea what I'm talking about?

[premjan]

As far as other people are concerned, you would be a different person, especially if both of the copies were present. But as far as you were concerned (to the extent you could ignore the other person's presence) you would be the original regardless of which one you were.

[Garrett]

You realize that did nothing to explain the post I asked you about?

To respond to what you just said - does my existence depend on the opinions of other people? And why did you mischaracterize the original as a copy? What's up with that?

[Garrett]

Hey premjan, if a person is dead can their essence live on? Why aren't you objecting to Jobar's claims?

[premjan]

You realize that did nothing to explain the post I asked you about?

To respond to what you just said - does my existence depend on the opinions of other people? And why did you mischaracterize the original as a copy? What's up with that?

From a physical point of view, there are probably things that are below the replication threshold (atomic spins etc.) which mark one as the original and the other as the copy. But from a subjective point of view the copy may feel exactly like the original. Until an intellectual argument were to convince it otherwise.

[Goodchild]

From my memory of the movie, there was nothing to suggest that it was the original that was drowned every performance. The function of the machine is never made specific and so it could just as easily have transported the original and created a copy where the original once stood.

That was part of the dilemma that Angier found himself in, there was simply no way of knowing whether he was the original or a copy any longer. Every time he used the machine he lost more of his sense of self.

eta: from the IMDB FAQ on the movie -


What does Tesla's machine do?

The movie does not explicitly answer this. The consensus interpretation is that the Tesla machine, whatever it was designed to do, results in two identical copies of an object or person (including memories, personalities, etc). One remains in the Tesla machine, and the other is either created or deposited a short distance away. Angier's lack of knowledge on its workings is part of his character's journey/development. There are four main possibilities: (1) The original stays in the machine and a duplicate is created at the destination, (2) the original is teleported and a duplicate is created within the machine, (3) the original is destroyed and 2 copies are created, one in the machine and the other at the destination, and (4) the machine may not work exactly the same each and every time. For example, one time the duplicate might be left in the machine and the next time the trick is performed, the duplicate might be the one to show up elsewhere.

[Goodchild]

My own personal answer would be no, it's not me. You wouldn't catch me using a transporter machine under any circumstances, because I would see it as suicide.

I would agree with this. Unless the constituent particles (molecules, atoms and such) themselves were transported and rebuilt exactly as they were then it must be a different person who just happens to resemble me in every particular.

I've always had this same issue with the transporter on Star Trek :)

[The AntiChris]

Unless the constituent particles (molecules, atoms and such) themselves were transported and rebuilt exactly as they were then it must be a different person who just happens to resemble me in every particular.Why do you think this?

What relevant property of the original "molecules, atoms and such" do you think would be missing from or different in any non-original "molecules, atoms and such"?

Chris

[Goodchild]

Unless the constituent particles (molecules, atoms and such) themselves were transported and rebuilt exactly as they were then it must be a different person who just happens to resemble me in every particular.Why do you think this?

What relevant property of the original "molecules, atoms and such" do you think would be missing from or different in any non-original "molecules, atoms and such"?

Chris

Anything other than using the original materials is a copy. No matter how exacting in detail that copy may be, it's still just a copy and not me.

[Anne]

That was part of the dilemma that Angier found himself in, there was simply no way of knowing whether he was the original or a copy any longer.

Or if tonight was the night he drowned.

Yeah, I remember that vividly. Like most of that movie.

Man it was good.

[The AntiChris]

What relevant property of the original "molecules, atoms and such" do you think would be missing from or different in any non-original "molecules, atoms and such"?

Chris

Anything other than using the original materials is a copy. No matter how exacting in detail that copy may be, it's still just a copy and not me.You haven't answered my question.

I know you think that only specific "molecules, atoms and such" (and not others) have the property of being you. What I was hoping to find out was on what scientific basis you believe this.

Chris

[Goodchild]

You haven't answered my question.

I know you think that only specific "molecules, atoms and such" (and not others) have the property of being you. What I was hoping to find out was on what scientific basis you believe this.

Chris

I thought we were in the Philosophy forum ;)

On a strictly scientific basis I suppose you could say that an exact copy is just as much me as I am, but from the point of view of my consciousness the moment you disassemble the components that comprise my brain you will have killed that consciousness ... whether or not you rebuild it to make one exactly similar.

Using the exact same particles is only where I hedge my bet that my consciousness might survive the process, but in truth I would view any transporter that disassembles the original components as effective death.

[The AntiChris]

You haven't answered my question.

I know you think that only specific "molecules, atoms and such" (and not others) have the property of being you. What I was hoping to find out was on what scientific basis you believe this.

Chris

I thought we were in the Philosophy forum ;)We are. That's why I thought it reasonable to expect you might provide, at the very least, an attempt at rational support for your beliefs.

On a strictly scientific basis I suppose you could say that an exact copy is just as much me as I am, but from the point of view of my consciousness the moment you disassemble the components that comprise my brain you will have killed that consciousness ... whether or not you rebuild it to make one exactly similar.

Using the exact same particles is only where I hedge my bet that my consciousness might survive the process, but in truth I would view any transporter that disassembles the original components as effective death.I see, you're just guessing. Thanks.

Chris

[Goodchild]

What I was hoping to find out was on what scientific basis you believe this.

That's why I thought it reasonable to expect you might provide, at the very least, an attempt at rational support for your beliefs.

Scientific basis and rational support are not necessarily the same thing. Wtf are you asking for exactly or are you just stirring the pot?

You may be asking for something above my ability to describe, but that does not mean that my opinion lacks rationality.

I see, you're just guessing. Thanks.

So what would be your 'scientific basis'/'rational support' to suggest otherwise?

[The AntiChris]

So what would be your 'scientific basis'/'rational support' to suggest otherwise?As you are the one who suggested there was a personal identity property associated with "molecules, atoms and such", the burden of proof rests with you.

I remain skeptical because of the complete absence of any evidence in support of your guess.

Chris

[Anne]

jeez... I thought we were in media... :(

[Garrett]

You haven't answered my question.

I know you think that only specific "molecules, atoms and such" (and not others) have the property of being you. What I was hoping to find out was on what scientific basis you believe this.

Chris

I thought we were in the Philosophy forum ;)We are. That's why I thought it reasonable to expect you might provide, at the very least, an attempt at rational support for your beliefs.

On a strictly scientific basis I suppose you could say that an exact copy is just as much me as I am, but from the point of view of my consciousness the moment you disassemble the components that comprise my brain you will have killed that consciousness ... whether or not you rebuild it to make one exactly similar.

Using the exact same particles is only where I hedge my bet that my consciousness might survive the process, but in truth I would view any transporter that disassembles the original components as effective death.I see, you're just guessing. Thanks.

Chris
Unlike, say, you, who has scientific proof that a dead person can still be alive if the other molecules adhere to some arbitrary standard.

[Garrett]

I know you think that only specific "molecules, atoms and such" (and not others) have the property of being you. What I was hoping to find out was on what scientific basis you believe this.
Dead people aren't alive. My mistake is what exactly?

[Garrett]

So what would be your 'scientific basis'/'rational support' to suggest otherwise?As you are the one who suggested there was a personal identity property associated with "molecules, atoms and such", the burden of proof rests with you.

I remain skeptical because of the complete absence of any evidence in support of your guess.

Chris
That's right, there's no evidence that people actually exist in spite of the fact that physics hasn't found a people-particle.

[The AntiChris]

Unlike, say, you, who has scientific proof that a dead person can still be alive if the other molecules adhere to some arbitrary standard.

[Dead people aren't alive. My mistake is what exactly?

[That's right, there's no evidence that people actually exist in spite of the fact that physics hasn't found a people-particle.I have no idea what relevance these comments have to anything I've said on this thread.

Chris

[Garrett]

Dead people are not alive. If you agree that's true, then explain why you don't object to Jobar's claim that he would essentially be alive if only a copy were built of him.

[Garrett]

What relevant property of the original "molecules, atoms and such" do you think would be missing from or different in any non-original "molecules, atoms and such"?

Chris

Anything other than using the original materials is a copy. No matter how exacting in detail that copy may be, it's still just a copy and not me.You haven't answered my question.

I know you think that only specific "molecules, atoms and such" (and not others) have the property of being you. What I was hoping to find out was on what scientific basis you believe this.

Chris
Do you deny that certain collections of atoms and such are individual people? Of course not.

So what is your scientific basis for implying that other collections of atoms and such can be you?

[Garrett]

For some reason, people exist. Another person with all atoms arranged as in my body would not be me.

It is so weird that some people disagree. It's telling that they play games rather than give reasons.

[Garrett]

I know you think that only specific "molecules, atoms and such" (and not others) have the property of being you. What I was hoping to find out was on what scientific basis you believe this.
Dead people aren't alive. My mistake is what exactly?
<no response>

no surprise

My entire position is nothing more than dead people are dead. Watch AntiCris fuss about it without addressing it. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

[The AntiChris]

I know you think that only specific "molecules, atoms and such" (and not others) have the property of being you. What I was hoping to find out was on what scientific basis you believe this.
Dead people aren't alive. My mistake is what exactly?
<no response>

no surprise

My entire position is nothing more than dead people are dead. Watch AntiCris fuss about it without addressing it. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.You're confused. My comment is not addressed to you or anything you've said on this thread.

Chris

[Ray Moscow]

My take on the basic question: identical people, with the same memories, are the same person, even if replicate. Killing one of them would be murder.

So if your replicate runs up bills, you'd be happy to pay them. If he rapes and murders children you'd realize you deserve to be sent to prison for life or death.

Of course, you're using that ambiguous word "same", so its hard to tell. Maybe you'd actually feel it was unfair to punish you for the actions of someone else.

After the moment of their duplication, they would be continue life as different people with individual responsibilities, obviously. But at the moment of replication, they would be the same person with the same memories, values, and "soul" (whatever that is).

Serious question: are you aware of the difference between the definitions for the word "same"? Type vs instance. Any idea what I'm talking about?

Sounds like the begininng of a useless and time-wasting conversation, so I'll pass.

[Garrett]

My take on the basic question: identical people, with the same memories, are the same person, even if replicate. Killing one of them would be murder.

So if your replicate runs up bills, you'd be happy to pay them. If he rapes and murders children you'd realize you deserve to be sent to prison for life or death.

Of course, you're using that ambiguous word "same", so its hard to tell. Maybe you'd actually feel it was unfair to punish you for the actions of someone else.

After the moment of their duplication, they would be continue life as different people with individual responsibilities, obviously. But at the moment of replication, they would be the same person with the same memories, values, and "soul" (whatever that is).
At the moment of replication they'd be two individual people.

Serious question: are you aware of the difference between the definitions for the word "same"? Type vs instance. Any idea what I'm talking about?

Sounds like the begininng of a useless and time-wasting conversation, so I'll pass.
Lord knows we don't want to use words in a way that allows us to be understood.

[Garrett]

I know you think that only specific "molecules, atoms and such" (and not others) have the property of being you. What I was hoping to find out was on what scientific basis you believe this.
Dead people aren't alive. My mistake is what exactly?
<no response>

no surprise

My entire position is nothing more than dead people are dead. Watch AntiCris fuss about it without addressing it. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.You're confused. My comment is not addressed to you or anything you've said on this thread.

Chris
So you agree that dead people are not alive.

[Ray Moscow]

Can we discuss the different meanings of the word "the" as well? Slavic languages somehow get by without it, but they are obviously missing something.

[Anne]

I once had a coworker who also taught English who promised an instant A to anyone who could actually define the word the. Give it a meaning. No one did.

I'm only here for the movie...

[Garrett]

Can we discuss the different meanings of the word "the" as well? Slavic languages somehow get by without it, but they are obviously missing something.
Your neighbor flies the same flag you do. How many flags total?

Your immediate family shares the same house you do. How many houses total?

The word "same" has (at least!) two distinct meanings, and I don't understand why you don't want to clarify your intended meaning.

[Garrett]

I once had a coworker who also taught English who promised an instant A to anyone who could actually define the word the. Give it a meaning. No one did.

I'm only here for the movie...
It depends on context. Typically it just tags the following noun as being definite. The cat... That merely means we should imagine or realize there is a particular cat and that particular cat is being talked about. The cat meows. While the word "cat" could refer to any or all felines, adding the word "the" makes the reference specific (hence definite), in this case to a particular individual.

Give me my A please.

[Anne]

nah, you just explained how you use it. Give me a definition, plz.

next!

;)

[Garrett]

nah, you just explained how you use it. Give me a definition, plz.

next!

;)
This is interesting, Anne. I did give a definition. Hell, I looked it up first, in the definition book. And what I read clicked with what I know, so I'm comfortable with it.

Definitions, by definition, describe how words are used. I gave the the primary definition for the most common usage.

...

oh wait

I'm talking to a female.

;)

[Anne]

who's channeling her coworker.

What does The mean?

And, yeah, I see what you did there. ;)

[Garrett]

What does The mean?

It depends on context. Typically it just tags the following noun as being definite.

[Ray Moscow]

Can we discuss the different meanings of the word "the" as well? Slavic languages somehow get by without it, but they are obviously missing something.
Your neighbor flies the same flag you do. How many flags total?

Your immediate family shares the same house you do. How many houses total?

The word "same" has (at least!) two distinct meanings, and I don't understand why you don't want to clarify your intended meaning.

It was just in a bad mood. You probably have a good point.

Please carry on.

[Garrett]

It was just in a bad mood.

Well I sure understand that!

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-eatdrink004.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)

[Anne]

Beers all around!

[Garrett]

Resolved: dead people are not alive. Sorry, Jobar and Febble and AntiChris. There is something seriously and fundamentally wrong about your view.