Do transporters kill?

[Mr. Oragahn]

What is clear that biological life stops during transport, but by Federation scientific and philosophical standards, you're not killed, but turned into an energetic lifeform, very quickly and temporarily, an energetic lifeform that the transporter is coded to recognize.

Is it really that clear?
How can you be dead and conscious at the same time?
It is made very clear that you are conscious during transport, at least some parts of it, so you cannot be dead at that time.
And even when you lose consciousness, it may not be because you're dead, but simply because the transporter has that effect on your consciousness.
Like a pilot that takes too many gees to stay conscious, yet only loses consciousness for a few seconds.
That pilot's not dead by any means...

I precisely acknowledged the two phases when the individual is conscious, at the beginning and the end.
What matters is the extremely small moment of transition between both events, when your body is in such a state that it is prepared to be molecularilly destructured.
The descriptions from the episode clearly prove that biologically, you are dead for a moment. But according to other definitions, you are not.

Religious opinions may appear as potentially hypocritical, as to pretend that you're dead when what matters is the spirit, the soul, and not the flesh, the vessel, since in a state of energized phased consciousness, it would be hard to argue that the mind, the spirit or the soul is dead. However, the vessel, as that biological assembly your mind grew with since birth, is definitely gone for a brief moment.

If religion doesn't recognize the existence of a mind, of a soul inside a machine, no matter how complex and near god-like it would be, as long as you're a pack of teraquads of data, then from a religious standpoint, it would be right to claim that the spirit is temporarily destroyed, and from there it would be a pure question of faith, to refuse to see the incomer stepping out of a transport pod as a person with a soul.

It's even more tricky, because if science is capable of recomposing one, like it would be for the Fifth Element, from mere tissue samples, and if that was enough to claim one is still alive (a very, very tolerant defintion of life that is) then you are immortal, since the highest level of science is omniscience and omnipotence, and therefore godhood, with the ability to create life again and again from anything. That said, this position would only hold because science could allow for it, but it would not be "natural"...

The problem of the term life is that it's a term which meaning largely varies depending on a context that is almost always implied. Human life is not the same as robotic life, for one or planetary life. Could we say a star is alive?

In simpler perceptions, when a human is absolutely dead, the body functions stop, the tissues degenerate. The individual cannot even hope to reproduce, and the mind is lost as its support, the brain (from a technical standpoint) deteriorates. That's the way we generally see someone as dead. We may also think someone is dead when said person is actually very close to death, but can be reanimated, because we're dealing with the appearance of death, a perception which is largely superficial, but often enough to consider one dead.

That's why life and death should probably be better used with adjectives, pre or suffixes, as in physical death, biological death, spiritual death, etc.

In case of transports, life and death may not be necessary terms.
Destruction would be more appropriate. Do transporters destroy something of you? I would say definitely yes, the body. But the transporter is also capable of rebuilding it.

From a scientific standpoint, as long as your body, after transport, absolutely behaves like a human body, it is treated as alive.
It would also be hard to argue that one is dead when he's exactly like he was before the transport, when we are already thinking some artificial lifeforms should be called alive when they have not even achieved a degree of complexity close to ours.

Obviously life is often understood as consistency. Would an AI consider itself still alive if it were dumbed down, put into a more limited system and had several functions removed? Wouldn't we understand what the AI would say if it were to claim that that would be akin to death of what is was?

[sonofccn]

How much of a person has to be intact to say, that the person survives? Has there to be at least a little bit of the body? Or are the informations, with which the body (and mind) can be reassembled, enough?

Obviously the information to even have a ghost of a chance as claiming that said person is still said person as opposed to a clone.

And what if now the whole body was damaged and the informations from the back-up are loaded into a cloned body? Has the person died now or has it still merely lost the memory between the last back-up and the brain-damaging-accident?

In my opinion? The person died and the person who now claims to be John Smith isn't really John Smith. He is merely a duplicate. The real John Smith ceased to exist due to head related trauma, he can no longer recieve and transmit data, no longer is aware of this mortal coil. To perhaps better phrase it if you were John Smith prime when he was hit in the head your world ended at that moment. You are not connected to, or otherwise related to John Smith Beta who wakes up in the hospital room groggy and with a pounding headache.

[Who is like God arbour]

That said, this position would only hold because science could allow for it, but it would not be "natural"...

... as opposed to the "natural" understanding we have of death today?

Because it is "natural" to still be alive when your heart has stopped to beat, or for preterm babies to survive as it is "natural" to survive deadly infections and badly injuries?

Is all that "natural" because the human being is only part of nature and his doing is as "natural" as the licking of wounds, which can clean such wounds and accelerate the healing?

Besides the more refined methods we are using today, is there a relevant dogmatic difference?

How much of a person has to be intact to say, that the person survives? Has there to be at least a little bit of the body? Or are the informations, with which the body (and mind) can be reassembled, enough?

Obviously the information to even have a ghost of a chance as claiming that said person is still said person as opposed to a clone.

Can you quantify and elaborate that?

And what if now the whole body was damaged and the informations from the back-up are loaded into a cloned body? Has the person died now or has it still merely lost the memory between the last back-up and the brain-damaging-accident

In my opinion? The person died and the person who now claims to be John Smith isn't really John Smith. He is merely a duplicate. The real John Smith ceased to exist due to head related trauma, he can no longer recieve and transmit data, no longer is aware of this mortal coil. To perhaps better phrase it if you were John Smith prime when he was hit in the head your world ended at that moment. You are not connected to, or otherwise related to John Smith Beta who wakes up in the hospital room groggy and with a pounding headache.

And do you have the same opinion, if only the brain was damaged and replaced?

And does it changes your opinion, if the heart was damaged and replaced? What is the deciding difference between the brain and the heart? Aren't both merely for the "natural" survival necessary organs?

Or what if there was no brain damage and the person has gotten a whole new body into which his old brain was transplanted?

[sonofccn]

Can you quantify and elaborate that?

No problem. If we are forced to rebuild the man's body, unless he has his memory and personality, there is no real way you can claim he is John Smith as opposed to a recently born sibling who just happens to look very much like him. Now while I personally wouldn't consider this new John Smith real even with memories I understand Society might but only if the knowledge is passed along.

And do you have the same opinion, if only the brain was damaged and replaced?

Yes. John Smith Prime would still be dead, even if you could download his personality onto the new brain,killing the luckless soul who originally owned it unless this was grown in a lab.

And does it changes your opinion, if the heart was damaged and replaced?

Yes. The heart is a vital organ but John Smith Prime could suffer sever heart damage, be taken to the hospital and revived after the operation and the conconious at the start of the ordeal is the same which would exist at the end. Now the person who gave the heart, of which will beat inside John Smith's chests for years to come, is dead despite part of his being living on still.

Or what if there was no brain damage and the person has gotten a whole new body into which his old brain was transplanted?

Than I would argue that John Smith prime is still alive. The essence that makes him who he is, call it whatever you wish, is still intact.

[Praeothmin]

You're contradicting yourself in your response...
First, when considering that we have to rebuild a man's body, you say:

If we are forced to rebuild the man's body, unless he has his memory and personality, there is no real way you can claim he is John Smith as opposed to a recently born sibling who just happens to look very much like him. Now while I personally wouldn't consider this new John Smith real even with memories I understand Society might but only if the knowledge is passed along.

Then, if "original" brain is transplanted into a completely "new" body, you say:

Than I would argue that John Smith prime is still alive. The essence that makes him who he is, call it whatever you wish, is still intact.

Do you see how any of this is purely semantics?
If the consciousness, what made the man, the memories, the values, are still there, then the person is alive and well.
Our body is part of it, yes, but if it is mostly a vessel.
Would you say a person is less then a complete being if that person's missing a limb?
No, of course not, yet the original body is damaged.
When we get right down to it, what makes a person is his consciousness, personnality, memories, and values.

These come from the mind and "soul", not the body.

As long as the person comes out on the other end fully formed, knowing only himself, then no, he never died, he was only transitioned from the physical state to the energetic one, and back...

[sonofccn]

You're contradicting yourself in your response...
First, when considering that we have to rebuild a man's body, you say:

And a blank mind as well. Remember WILGA was questining if the "data" needed to be salvaged at all. In this scenario John Smith got hit by a bus doing 90 and is just a red smear on the pavement. The docs take that red smear and clone a fresh body, without a shred of Smith's memory or personalty, and claim they "saved" John Smith. Now I ask you if this clone doesn't even have his memory how can you claim he is John Smith?

Do you see how any of this is purely semantics?
If the consciousness, what made the man, the memories, the values, are still there, then the person is alive and well.

The debate on this question, as opposed to the previous question which is distinct and seperate from the main discussion, is regarding the importance on wether this is the prime consciousness or if it is merely a copy. I take the view that only the Prime matters, if that perishes than a death has occured, I can only assume you view it differntly?

As long as the person comes out on the other end fully formed, knowing only himself, then no, he never died, he was only transitioned from the physical state to the energetic one, and back...

This is where we disagree. In my opinion, of course, it doesn't matter if John Smith beta knows everything about the real John Smith's life down to the last detail he isn't John Smith. He is merely a perfect copy, a clone, a replica. He is as much our John Smith as a John Smith living in a virutally identical alternate reality would be.

[Roondar]

I feel this whole discussion hinges on wether or not the ST universe has life exist as a purely biochemical element or not.

Suppose that in the ST universe (there is some evidence this is true), life has two parts - the body and the 'neural energy' (or soul, if you will). Now the Transporter obviously does things with your body. If you have a 'soul', the question becomes: does it also do something with your soul?

If you don't, the question becomes: how much can you physically alter in a person before he's dead?
As a real world conundrum for that part, consider brain surgergy and brain damage in general. If you get a stroke, are 'you' still alive (even though you now act completely different)? If a doctor alters your brain to save your life, did he? Or did he kill you?

Another question would be: if you get 'shifted' or 'pushed' into this alternate state - do you really die? Other ST technology can push people into a phased state for instance. Did they die? If so, why, they seemed totally normal?

See, our technology probably could not 'shift' a human into a form of energy without killing. But does that also go for UFP technology? We already know from DS9 that 'pattern buffers' don't actually hold a true copy of you - the whole station barely had enough memory to hold the 'neural energy' from a few people from a single transport. So what do they hold?

I just don't think that this can be answered as easilly as that. We have no clue (due to the Sci-Fi ness of it) how it really works, nor do we have an accurate answer to the underlying reasons why Starfleet accepted (during Enterprise) that transporters did not actually kill. Considering the statements made on enterprise is is however clear that they did think it through. And whatever else you might think, Starfleet is not the kind of orginisation that would just allow tech that kills whenever it's used.

[Mike DiCenso]

The Deep Space Nine episode that Roondar is refering to is "Our Man Bashir", the James Bond parody/homage where a transporter accident results in the bodies of Sikso, Kira and three others needing to be placed in the holosuite Julian Bashir and Garak are running the spy adventure program on, while the "neural patterns", not "neural energy" were stored in the station's main computer because the neural patterns take up so much storage space (this conflicts somewhat with what was established in the earlier TNG episode "Relics".
-Mike

[Jedi Master Spock]

Point of discussion: Interestingly, in Star Trek, we know that Vulcans have an apparently immaterial, immortal, and even transferable soul, their katra. We also know that a number of Vulcans have hung onto theirs while going through a transporter.

[Roondar]

Also interesting might be this here:

http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/03 ... Object-Yet

Suppose transporters work based on something like that: you'd not kill anything, you'd merely change the existing matter to exist in several places at once for a limited period.

(and then change it back so it only exists in one place)

Note: I'm not saying that transporters use this exact thing, merely that a similar process (but Sci-Fi magic style) might be used where matter is not actually destroyed or truelly converted as such. In such a process you would not die (any matter involved is still your own).

Transporter oddities such as the Riker copy and the Evil kirk can still be explained: in these cases there is (AFAIK) always a source of additional matter present and yes, in cases of splitting up/forming back (such as the Evil Kirk and the Tuvix episodes) you would die in this theory.

A failure ala DS9 would also kill you in this model (I think).

Normal transporter activity however, would not kill, nor would activity that only 'adds' matter (such as the Riker copy)

[SailorSaturn13]

You're contradicting yourself in your response...
First, when considering that we have to rebuild a man's body, you say:

And a blank mind as well. Remember WILGA was questining if the "data" needed to be salvaged at all. In this scenario John Smith got hit by a bus doing 90 and is just a red smear on the pavement. The docs take that red smear and clone a fresh body, without a shred of Smith's memory or personalty, and claim they "saved" John Smith. Now I ask you if this clone doesn't even have his memory how can you claim he is John Smith?

That is obviously not the case with transporters.

Do you see how any of this is purely semantics?
If the consciousness, what made the man, the memories, the values, are still there, then the person is alive and well.

The debate on this question, as opposed to the previous question which is distinct and separate from the main discussion, is regarding the importance on whether this is the prime consciousness or if it is merely a copy. I take the view that only the Prime matters, if that perishes than a death has occurred, I can only assume you view it differently?

As long as the person comes out on the other end fully formed, knowing only himself, then no, he never died, he was only transitioned from the physical state to the energetic one, and back...

This is where we disagree. In my opinion, of course, it doesn't matter if John Smith beta knows everything about the real John Smith's life down to the last detail he isn't John Smith. He is merely a perfect copy, a clone, a replica. He is as much our John Smith as a John Smith living in a virtually identical alternate reality would be.

Ah, but here the Quantum Theory disagrees with you. According to it, two particles having exactly the same characteristics (spin, orientation, impulse etc) are truly indistinguishable. That also means that there is no difference at all between "particle X moved from A to B" and "X destroyed in A and identical X created in B". which means that as long as transporter recreate human on quantum level (i. e. same particles in same relative position and states) we cannot distinguish this from original. That means that "Person X disassembled in A and exact quantum copy created in B" and "Person moved from A to B" are one and the same.

The fact that patterns can be "stored" doesn't need to contradict this. If the Storage (memory cells) are based on quantum effects, you can be stored and still emerge as exact quantum copy.

As for how AIs view that question Let's quote BSG:

-Gaius, I cannot die. When this body is destroyed, the consciousness will be transferred elsewhere. I'll just wake up in an identical body.

Now if this , when the mind is simply copied into a clone body, is not considered kill, what about procedure where the body is perfectly recreated, too?

[Khas]

That wouldn't be considered a kill in my book either.

Also, I'd suggest reading the book "Teleportation: The Impossible Leap". It's a book about the physics of teleportation, and boy, did it clear some things up for me.

[sonofccn]

That is obviously not the case with transporters.

Of course not but it was questioned as we probe more ethical considerations. I merely answered.

Ah, but here the Quantum Theory disagrees with you. According to it, two particles having exactly the same characteristics (spin, orientation, impulse etc) are truly indistinguishable. That also means that there is no difference at all between "particle X moved from A to B" and "X destroyed in A and identical X created in B". which means that as long as transporter recreate human on quantum level (i. e. same particles in same relative position and states) we cannot distinguish this from original. That means that "Person X disassembled in A and exact quantum copy created in B" and "Person moved from A to B" are one and the same.

Forgive me but I don't see how Quantum Theory prevents the loss of conciousness or the creation of a copy. A flawless copy but he still is just a copy. To illustrate would you want to use this machine if you ended up as the Alpha version destined for death? Don't talk about how the copy is flawless talk about what happens to the poor slob you vaped to create your flawless copy

[sonofccn]

Now if this , when the mind is simply copied into a clone body, is not considered kill, what about procedure where the body is perfectly recreated, too?

Well I don't see it that way because all you are doing is copying data. There is nothing stopping you from filling up a room full of six's, all convinced they are the real one and all equally delusional. You kill six and a new six awakens down to the final moment but that doesn't help the six that did the dying. That unique unit, that snowflake, has ceased and will never be again.

[SailorSaturn13]

Now if this , when the mind is simply copied into a clone body, is not considered kill, what about procedure where the body is perfectly recreated, too?

Well I don't see it that way because all you are doing is copying data. There is nothing stopping you from filling up a room full of six's, all convinced they are the real one and all equally delusional. You kill six and a new six awakens down to the final moment but that doesn't help the six that did the dying. That unique unit, that snowflake, has ceased and will never be again.

But that's the question: what makes a lining thing unique? The atoms it consists of are replaced several times over the life time, so why would a simultaneous replacement be different? Isn't that then, by your definition we are all copies,, i.e. each time all atoms are replaced it is considered old "I" die and a new is called in its place?