Teleportation Theory

[nameless6969]

Now I’m posting this because I was thinking about the theory of <br />Teleportation<br />through the process of breaking down atoms and transferring them to<br />another location - now I read on another forum that scientists know the <br />formula<br />for teleportation as:<br /><br />Energy=M (mass)*SoL(speed of light)<br /><br />The problem is the issue of when your body is finished moving from one <br />location<br />to another, whether or not your conscience will still be there and you will <br />still<br />be yourself. Now my theory is that our state of mind and conscience is made <br />up<br />through molecular cell reproduction. If you think about it our body is <br />constantly<br />changing, the atoms and molecules are always moving, and reproducing through <br />mitosis<br />A.K.A. cell division. Now if you take the White blood cells in our bodies, <br />for<br />example when we get sick with a viral infection, our white blood cells send <br />out<br />antibodies to track down the viral infection, then once it has identified <br />the viruses<br />the white blood cells can begin to destroy them, and the next time you get <br />sick your<br />body will already know what type of cells to look for, hence how we build <br />our immune<br />system. If you think about it your cells have to have some form of memory or<br />intelligence to be able to record information and reproduce. This leads me <br />to my<br />thought that if cells can remember things, then maybe it is possible to <br />teach a cell<br />how to do things such as break down and rebuild themselves on command. <br />Although this<br />is just a random idea; then if it were possible the idea of teleportation <br />would not<br />be as impossible as most people think. Going off the theory that our <br />conscience is<br />created by the cellular reproduction of our brain cells, then if they were <br />to be broken<br />down and rebuilt the theory that our state of mind and conscience would <br />return at the<br />same time that our bodies w

 

[jatslo]

Nameless6969 said, "<font color="yellow">Energy=M (mass)*SoL(speed of light)</font>"<br /><br />Jatslo said, "<font face="verdana" color="#99FFFF" size="3">Yeah, SoL stands for "&%$#@! Out of Luck".</font>"

 

[jatslo]

Jatslo said, "<font face="verdana" color="#99FFFF" size="3"> Theory? Um, a theory has repeatable experiments that are not the figment of someone’s imagination. What you mean, I think, is that you have a thought. Please correct me, if I am wrong. Your right, in terms of teleporting a soul; however, I like to think of are being; our soul as a biological computer. So teleporting someone would be like teleporting a computer. If the computer works, then the biological computer will work too.</font>"

 

[bonepile]

This relates to another thread that was posted in the Human Biology section on consciousness some time ago.<br /><br />If the human brain is in fact a biological computer and is soley responsible for consciousness, then consciousness could be represented as a state machine with initial values. After all, a computer is really just an aparatus for calculating the next set of values in a state machine.<br /><br />However, I don't think consciousness can be represented as a state machine. Any state machine could theoretically be written down on paper. Rather than have a computer or brain to calculate the next state, you could do it by hand with a pencil.<br /><br />My point is, if you modelled the human brain as a state machine and wrote it down on paper, no one would ever claim that your piece of paper was "conscious". If you started calculating subsequent states, you would merely be making calculations on a piece of paper. The paper wouldn't be conscious, and neither would be the information stored on the paper.<br /><br />So, there are only two possibilities: <br /><br />1) The human brain CANNOT be modelled as a state machine. Because every computer IS a state machine, no computer will ever be able to simulate the human brain, no matter how large it is or how much memory it has. The human brain operates in a manner that cannot be broken down to (or represented by) boolean logic. Perhaps the answer lies in deeper layers of quantum physics, but how our DNA is able to serve as a blueprint for the coordination of these complex quantum effects then becomes a very interesting question.<br /><br />2) Our brains CAN be modelled as state machines. This means that our consciousness does not originate from our brains, which in turn implies the existence of some higher order of energy or existence, or the supernatural.<br /><br />Or perhaps 1) and 2) are really the same thing. After all, people 400 years ago would have thought that electromagnetic fields were proof of the superna

 

[robnissen]

Your logic is flawed. As regards the first option, you state that if the brain is not a state machine, it must have been created by a higher intelligence. Why? There is nothing in evolution that limits it to state machines.<br /><br />As regards your second option, you are assuming that consciousness exists as some sort of separate entity, whereas consciousness may not even be real. For example, if I could not speak, and I touched a hot plate, to communicate to another, I might write on a piece of paper, "That plate feels hot to me," which, since it is in the first person implies that I have conciousness. But it would be trivial to write a program that has a temperature input, and can also measure shapes, and if the shape is circular, and the temperature is over 100 degrees, the computer would then print: "That plate feels hot to me." A third-party receiving that written communication, would have no idea whether it came from the conscious person or the unconscious computer. But you could then program the computer to print, "because I can feel the plate, I am conscious." But of course, the computer is not conscious, just because its been programmed to say that it is. Similarly, humans may have been programmed (whether by a higher being or evolution, it doesn't matter), to also print out (think) that "because I can feel the plate, I am conscious." There is no way with our current tools to tell the difference between actual consciousness and merely an output that states we are conscious.

 

[bonepile]

By "originates from", I did not mean to imply "was purposefully created by". Sorry for the confusion. This topic has nothing to do with anything being "created" by a "higher intelligence".<br /><br />You do bring up some excellent points though. It might help to define "consciousness". Here is a link to wikipedia's definition:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness<br /><br />I agree with the author of that entry that "consciousness is notoriously difficult to define". It might help to think of consciousness as the part of you (or perhaps property) that observes sensory input. It is the part of you that says, "I think, therefore I am" rather than "I exist because I can observe my own body".<br /><br />In those terms, you are absolutely wrong in asserting that consciousness may not even be real. I know it is real because ultimately, I AM a consciousness. Everything else is physical property, something that I own. I have a mind, I have a brain, I AM a consciousness. It could be that I arise out of my brain, but regardless, consciousness clearly exists. And I know that I exist more surely than I know anything else.<br /><br />I agree completely that nothing in evolution limits the end product to state machines. But this topic isn't about evolution; it is about the effects of teleportation on consciousness.<br /><br />Perhaps I misunderstood you. How exactly was my logic flawed? I claimed that either the brain can be represented as a state machine, or it cannot. I also claimed that a state machine, being nothing more than an informational construct, cannot give rise to consciousness. What do you claim?

 

[nameless6969]

How can you be sure this "consciousness" is not just the effects of the chemicals being produced by the cells in your brain. For example no one really remembers there birth <br />and if they tell you they do they are lying />_> <br />now lets just say that this is because the cells in your brain that create your so called consciousness have died off and your brain has created new cells to replace the old ones but some peoples brain cells are stronger then other peoples so instead of being replaced they evolve to stay alive with the newer cells hence why some people have good memories and some people have bad memories... The use of drugs can also weaken these cells and kill them off...<br /><br />What do you think?

 

[frobozz]

can you prove that conciousness cannot evolve from a state machine? what evidence do you have for this beyond simple human pride and a lack of desire not to be a state machine?

 

[bonepile]

It is actually difficult to separate consciousness from other mental faculties, but it is possible. Memory, logic, calculation, and even artistic ability can be directly linked to physiological brain function. These things are not consciousness. We could program an AI to do the same things, even in the case of artistry.<br /><br />I'm not sure where consciousness comes from. But I do claim that if the effects of these chemicals in the brain could be modelled in a computer, then they cannot give rise to consciousness. The reason for this is that anything that can be modelled in a computer can be represented as a state machine, which in turn is nothing more than an informational construct with inputs and outputs.

 

[bonepile]

That is tough to do, but I'll try. It is more of an intuitive conclusion.<br /><br />A state machine is not a physical entity. It is an idea, or an informational construct. As such, it can be represented in many different ways, just like numbers, or equations. A state machine always has definable inputs (whether or not you happen to know them), and it produces definable outputs. Just as a numerical equation produces a number, a state machine produces a solution in terms of the inputs. In a sense, a state machine is nothing more than a boolean equation.<br /><br />Now a computer is a real physical entity. It is a machine designed to calculate subsequent states in a state machine. Computers are vastly more simple than a human brain in terms of inputs and outputs. You set voltage levels for the input, whether by depressing keys on a keyboard, clicking a mouse, or manipulating the voltages on a network connection. The outputs of a computer are equally simple. Voltage is manipulated to control lights, whether it be a CRT, LCD, or whatever. There are other forms of output, but they are all in the form of voltages representing boolean logic values.<br /><br />There is nothing magical inside the computer. A computer can be completely described by listing the output given every possible sequence of inputs. Of course, no one would really do this for a modern computer, but it is still theoretically possible. My point is that the computer exists soley for converting input into output, and the outputs are easily definable.<br /><br />Now, how would you describe consciousness in terms of voltage levels? You cannot. All you can do is describe supposed symptoms of consciousness, but these are not really consciousness.<br /><br />A robot that acts like a human is in effect sleep walking. If really advanced, it could converse and act real enough to fool anyone. But the light isn't on; no one is home. It is just a machine twitching around, reacting to external stimulae. It

 

[frobozz]

The problem with your argument is that you simply reduced one non-provable statement to another. It's circular.<br /><br />You claim that you cannot describe conciousness by a use of voltage levels (which would be a type of finate state machine) you claim it would have no sense of being. Essentially you seem to define conciousness as "that which a computer cannot do" and as such rule out what you are trying to prove by setting it as an axiom. This is bad.<br /><br />For example, how do you know, especially based on the complexity of the way the brain does process information, that your so-called sense of "being" is nothing more than an emergent property of the system? Secondly if it is an emergent property, what's the stop us from building a machine that has that property?

 

[frobozz]

Let me get you started perhaps on how to do this on a more theoretically stable and less hand-wavy level.<br /><br />Step (1) Define conciousness independently of what can and cannot be computed.<br /><br />Step (2) Check that this property is indeed held by the human brain.<br /><br />Step (3) Show it's not a computable function.

 

[bonepile]

Thanks for the input.<br /><br />Step 1) is the killer here. I think it is something that you either see or do not, based on other people I've spoken with. The basic issue is that consciousness is not a physical phenomenon.<br /><br />To illustrate this better, think of someone who is in an advanced state of sleep walking. Their brain is still functioning at a high level, so they are able to talk, move about, converse, eat, etc. In fact, their brain is working so well that they can solve complex problems, come up with innovative discoveries, compose music, and even tell great jokes. But they aren't aware of any of it because they are sleeping.<br /><br />Set aside for the minute the fact that we do not believe such a state of "sleep walking" is possible. That is irrelevant to the argument. The big question is, how do we know if this individual is "sleeping" or is in fact "awake"? The answer is that we cannot know. All we have to go on are physical symptoms.<br /><br />Now it is true that we are able to measure brain waves and correlate them with states of alertness. But again, that is merely acknowledging the relationship between brain waves and physical response. It tells us nothing as to whether or not the individual is aware of their actions.<br /><br />In a nutshell, there is no way to physically determine whether or not someone or something has a "sense of being", or a point of awareness. How do you measure something like that, after all? All we can measure or observe are physical parameters, ie. what the individual does and how they respond.<br /><br />If that doesn't make sense to you, then steps 2) and 3) are irrelevant. However, if it does make sense, then you are left with conclusion that you are only able to judge whether or not your own brain has consciousness, because you alone can experience it. And then step 3) follows easily. After all, how do you make something non-physical from physical components?<br /><br />There are a couple things that you ha

 

[nameless6969]

Well you see the difference between an AI and a human being is that our bodies are made up of living cells capable of reproducing and creating more of itself...<br />now what if we could input information into the cells kind of <br />the way a virus does when you get sick and basically program the cells to do things...<br />

 

[bonzelite]

i think when teleportation of organisms happens, it may render any individual ********, like a brain-dead or comatose person. at best ********. probably. <br /><br />the transition of the body from one location to the other, nearly instantly, will disallow any resident ghost in the shell the ability to find itself. <br /><br />and let us be atheists and purely hard-core "fact" driven, and say that the body is simply an assemblage of chemicals, nothing too special. material-only stuff. consciousness is a big joke. you would have to rematerialize the body nearly exactly as it was before it was teleported, or the cross-threading of just a few cells and systems would propagate and render a gross deformity, plus retardation. <br /><br />you will have lab animals teleported with missing limbs and inside-out areas. but they'll do it. they will have to shoot lots of practice shots to get the one perfect bullseye. <br /><br />didn't they already teleport something in the lab? like an atom or something? where it existed in 2 locations at once for a fraction of a second? i could swear i read that somewhere a few years ago. <br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[bonzelite]

this is a loaded statement:<br /><br />"I guess the most important truth here is this: Acting aware does not equate to being aware any more than coughing equates to having a viral infection."<br /><br />you just cocked the hammer.

 

[ag30476]

Of course either the state of our minds can either be modelled by a computer or it cannot. <br /><br />Your flaw is that you then say if the mind is a computer than it cannot have consciousness. The flaw is that you are assuming consciousness is a special think.<br /><br />RobNissen's point is similar to Wittgenstein's private language argument. Wittgenstein's argument is that words only have meaning in a public context. When we you say things like "I think therefore I am" you are referring to a private experience. It is really no different than saying "I feel a sensation therefore I am." When you talk about your feeling of self and I talk about my feeling of self, we may think we talk about the same thing. But actually for each of us the self is a private thing. <br /><br />That's Wittegenstein's argument in a nutshell. You may not buy it. But the main point is what is consciousness? Other lines of philosophical argument (Hume and Dennet for example) and even scientific research (Freud and modern cognitive research) lead to problems with the concept consciousness.<br /><br />Searle's Chinese room argument seems to be what you are trying to get at (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Searle%27s_Chinese_room)<br /><br />The point Searle was making was not that consciousness cannot be defined by a computer. Rather he argues that meaning/understanding (semantics in the article) cannot be stored in a computer program (or the state of the machine) . The program is just a list of symbols. It can have no inherent meaning.<br /><br />I prefer the systems argument to counter Searle. Searle does present probably the strongest challenge to those who would claim that minds can be reduced to computers (like me <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> ).

 

[bonzelite]

blade runner.

 

[ag30476]

The book "Do robots dream of electric sheep" was philosophically more interesting.

 

[bonzelite]

well. people have claimed to have already done it by leaving the body. the teleportation of the physical body is a sort of technological backwards idea. it is far easier to master the non-locality of consciousness than to dematerialize, literally, a chair or a buick, then to have it rematerialize a few yards, or years, away. <br /><br />maybe the key to that is actually in psychic development of the 6th sense. as in telekinesis. teleporting is just the next step. it would seem to be a parallel dimensionality thing, of non-local events that are happening in the same real-time and are connected literally. <br /><br />i would bet it would involve harnessing time-dialation and the "arrival at a destination before you have left" paradox --you acutally master the art of that and materialize it. and the only way presently that i can think of do even simulate that is to imagine or dream it, lucidly, as if you were literally awake as you were dreaming. this can be practiced, actually, ie, lucid dreaming, and there are books on how to strengthen this faculty.<br /><br />of course this verges on pseudo-science, i know. but hey, we're riding the fence of pure science and metaphysics when we get into talks about consciousness --the pure atheist will deny any such ghost in the shell or soul-alive consciousness. science will be the only church in a purely secularist view.<br /><br />the agnostic will admit to a god, perhaps at least to a higher energy, and perhaps a soul that simply inhabits these mortal machines of chemicals and bone for a brief time. and then we merge back with the "cosmos" where we came from --thus teleporting.

 

[tmccort]

<br />bonzelite, why do you believe this stuff? It's nonsense.

 

[bonzelite]

i said myself that it borders on pseudo-science. what about that did you not understand? <br /><br />

 

[tmccort]

<br />It doesn't border on pseudo-science, it IS pseudo-science.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">maybe the key to that is actually in psychic development of the 6th sense. as in telekinesis. teleporting is just the next step. it would seem to be a parallel dimensionality thing, of non-local events that are happening in the same real-time and are connected literally.</font><br /><br />Oh, come on...<br /><br /><font color="yellow">we're riding the fence of pure science and metaphysics when we get into talks about consciousness --the pure atheist will deny any such ghost in the shell or soul-alive consciousness.</font><br /><br />There is no evidence what so ever that consciousness is anything other then brain chemistry.<br /><br />This kind of bull&%$#@! drives me nuts.

 

[j_rankin]

in order to make a computer act like a brain, it doesn't need to be amazingly fast and have extreme programming, but it simply needs to physically and naturally know how to connect new wiring to itself when it learns new techniques. The more wires it will have assigned to a particular task, the more efficiently it will be able to carry out that task. <br />That is how the brain works - the more the brain learns how to do something, the more neurons bunch together to make that function as efficient as possible.<br /><br />Take driving a car as an example. When you learn to drive, you really have to concentrate on how you use your feet and when to change gears. But after a while, when the brain has binded together enough neurons, you are able to drive almost without thinking about it. <br /> <br />The difficult part behind this is preventing the computer from short-circuiting. The brain sometimes has the same trouble, especially within epilectic people.

 

[j_rankin]

Did you know that certain radio-waves can instill fear into the brain? There are all kinds of mood-inducing factors caused by radio waves. <br />Also, out-of-body experiences are likely caused by drugs such as endorphins that the body naturally releases when it thinks it's dying, putting the person into a "high" as if they had taken a large dosage of heroin.<br /><br />If you want to border on pseudo-science then compare these scientific facts with astrology. <br />Perhaps certain positions of stars and planets really do change our moods. But if that's true then it is all something which will be explained through science, not the supernatural.<br /><br />Science repeatedly tells us that the chemical state of our bodies massively affects how the brain works and what is being thought.