Tranporters, Atomic Level Murder

[SCRawl]

I got most of my points out in the thread that KS linked to. The general rule for this topic of debate is that both sides end up putting out their positions, arguing for a while, and then giving up because they're arguing different things past each other. But I'll add my $0.02, just because.

If I were to step on to the transporter pad, and be disintegrated, it's my position that I just died. My subjective consciousness can proceed no further, because it isn't housed in a meat brain anymore. The guy that gets re-integrated some distance away is identical to me, right down to the most fundamental level that can be detected, and even thinks and acts just like me. For all intents and purposes he is me. After all, who cares that my subjective consciousness just stopped abruptly, especially when this new guy has his own subjective consciousness that's just as good? But the process of destroying my meat brain precludes the possibility of my subjective consciousness proceeding smoothly forward, because, well, I need my brain in one piece for that.

The Genocide of the Valakians? They were dying off due to a natural flaw in their genetics. Phlox did have the cure but choosing to let nature take its course is not genocide.

What do you mean, "let nature take its course"? What do you mean? If a doctor had in his possession a cure to administrate for someone's fatal disease, and explicitly refused to give the cure to someone on the basis that we should "let nature take its course," we would call him a murderer. Wouldn't you?

It certainly isn't murder. Murder requires intent, and an active participation in the act that causes a death. If I were to come upon a man dying of thirst, and refuse to supply him with water, watching him die a horrible death, I'm no murderer. (This theoretical me is a horrible person, of course, but no court could convict me of murder.) If I had been the one who put him in the position to die of thirst in the first place, then you could pin the murder on me, but not for neglecting to provide the necessities of life to someone for whom I bear no responsibility beyond the social contract.

Edit: Batman beat me to it. *shakes fist*

[Stofsk]

The quote from WoK is total baloney as well. Completely out of context; Checkov and Terrel were under Khan's control, so they weren't acting under any official capacity at all. Carol Marcus even expresses stunned disbelief at what she's hearing, and says she won't allow any unauthorised personnel from touching Genesis - how could she determine who is or is not unauthorised if she doesn't have full command and control of the project?

Nevermind the fact that earlier in the film they outright said Reliant was at Doctor Marcus' disposal for use in the project, and how Terrel et al deferred to her for direction on how to proceed via their scan of Ceti Alpha V.

Like KS, I'm also waiting for those 'countless' examples of genocide and slavery promotion by Starfleet in TNG.

[The Romulan Republic]

The quote from WoK is total baloney as well. Completely out of context; Checkov and Terrel were under Khan's control, so they weren't acting under any official capacity at all. Carol Marcus even expresses stunned disbelief at what she's hearing, and says she won't allow any unauthorised personnel from touching Genesis - how could she determine who is or is not unauthorised if she doesn't have full command and control of the project?

Nevermind the fact that earlier in the film they outright said Reliant was at Doctor Marcus' disposal for use in the project, and how Terrel et al deferred to her for direction on how to proceed via their scan of Ceti Alpha V.

Like KS, I'm also waiting for those 'countless' examples of genocide and slavery promotion by Starfleet in TNG.

Well for "slavery", there is their treatment of holograms and other AIs (depending on weather you think they count as people).

For genocide, there are the Founders, but that's it so far as I know.

I think a lot of people exaggerate how bad the Federation is, but they are not squeaky clean.

[Batman]

I don't think many people here ever argued they are squeaky clean (they seem to be perfectly okay with letting a species become extinct rather than risking its 'natural development' becoming 'tainted' by Federation influence). If anything I'd say SDN spent a lot more time looking at the UFP's faults than it did at its virtues.

[Stofsk]

The quote from WoK is total baloney as well. Completely out of context; Checkov and Terrel were under Khan's control, so they weren't acting under any official capacity at all. Carol Marcus even expresses stunned disbelief at what she's hearing, and says she won't allow any unauthorised personnel from touching Genesis - how could she determine who is or is not unauthorised if she doesn't have full command and control of the project?

Nevermind the fact that earlier in the film they outright said Reliant was at Doctor Marcus' disposal for use in the project, and how Terrel et al deferred to her for direction on how to proceed via their scan of Ceti Alpha V.

Like KS, I'm also waiting for those 'countless' examples of genocide and slavery promotion by Starfleet in TNG.

Well for "slavery", there is their treatment of holograms and other AIs (depending on weather you think they count as people).

Picard didn't treat any holograms badly, he even let Moriarty live despite the latter directly threatening his ship. He also fought to defend Data's rights when at that point his status as a thinking living being was being challenged in court. Although it might be argued that Picard should never have had to do that if the Federation didn't already consider Data a living being and not property, the court did rule in Data's favour which suggests that the issue had simply not come up before.

If you refer to Voyager, well I can't argue with that because Voyager does depict holographic slavery IIRC from a seventh season episode. I prefer to ignore everything Voyager and Enterprise related though, given how fucking shit both those shows were.

Take the precedent set by 'A Measure of a Man' in TNG season 2, and contrast it with the Voyager example. The example Data set should have completely covered the status of holographic AIs, as Data had to argue he was a sentient living being with full rights as opposed to a piece of property. It's obvious that the writers of Voyager simply didn't give a shit and flat out ignored their own continuity just so they could write a Doctor episode with that premise. So while on one hand I can concede that example, I don't have to like it considering it flat out contradicts what's already established by TNG.

For genocide, there are the Founders, but that's it so far as I know.

Section 31 is a black ops rogue unit as far as I know, I don't think you can use them as an example of something the Federation sanctions. Despite them doing that to the Founders, you had guys like Julian Bashir work for a cure.

There was also Picard refusing to release that virus into the Borg collective and using Hugh as a carrier. Yes Admiral Necheyev overruled Picard, but this is a contentious issue anyway - many on this board have said how Picard was wrong to do so considering how dangerous the Borg are and how threatening they are to the Federation, and I suppose you could consider the Founders to be an equal threat.

Is it still genocide when you're fighting for survival against what is essentially a genocidal race hell bent on your destruction?

I think a lot of people exaggerate how bad the Federation is, but they are not squeaky clean.

Of course not, but hey this guy is seriously arguing that transporters murder people, so I think it's overstating the case a bit by falling into 'hurhur Federation sux' territory.

I mean having a thread examine the use of transporters and whether they do kill a subject off is a potentially interesting one. Must it descend into 'oh hai btw the Federation also sells poisoned milk to school children'?

[Franc28]

I don't think many people here ever argued they are squeaky clean

Yea, but that's hardly the point. The point is that people here are using the Star Trek people as a standard of ethics, as if what they think must be automatically valid. My point is that the Star Trek people are far, far below even our standards of ethics, and that we should not trust them on the ethicality of transporters, or anything else for that matter. Heck, I wouldn't trust a Starfleet officer with my plants. They'd probably let it die and claim it was better to not intervene and let "nature run its course."

[Franc28]

It certainly isn't murder. Murder requires intent, and an active participation in the act that causes a death. If I were to come upon a man dying of thirst, and refuse to supply him with water, watching him die a horrible death, I'm no murderer.

You are a necessary part of the chain of events that led to his death, but you didn't kill him. Ooookay then. You're just splitting hairs at this point.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Yea, but that's hardly the point. The point is that people here are using the Star Trek people as a standard of ethics, as if what they think must be automatically valid. My point is that the Star Trek people are far, far below even our standards of ethics, and that we should not trust them on the ethicality of transporters, or anything else for that matter. Heck, I wouldn't trust a Starfleet officer with my plants. They'd probably let it die and claim it was better to not intervene and let "nature run its course."

No, they aren't. Citing the examples of mass use isn't invalidated because the society might be viewed as immoral by some. It was cited because of the idea of self preservation. Any reasonable person would not use the transporter if it killed people and replaced them. You used genocide and slavery to support your claim that the people of Star Trek are so immorale that they could potentially send people to die and be cloned. That hardly means the majority of the people in ST are suicidal.

I'd also like to remind you that your examples fell on their face. They were either taken out of context or like the ENT example was not what you claimed it to be (genocide). The DS9 example is a function of government that exists today, and it is called martial law.

Anyway, regarding the ENT crew not saving that species. If we ignore the fact that ENT was prior to the formation of the UFP (which would invalidate those episodes as evidence for what the UFP does and does not do)...again if we ignore that then I want to point out that the UFP is under no obligation to help a genetically doomed species like an ER doctor would be obligated to stabalize you but NOT CURE YOU.

Or a family doctor is under no obligation to cure someone of a disease if they are unable to pay.

You say our system is superior? Hardly. Where was the action taken to prevent the genocide in Rawanda? Free health care? Paid for by taxes or other funding that can be traced back to the people. So, calling UFP ethnics far below ours is absurd.

[SCRawl]

It certainly isn't murder. Murder requires intent, and an active participation in the act that causes a death. If I were to come upon a man dying of thirst, and refuse to supply him with water, watching him die a horrible death, I'm no murderer.

You are a necessary part of the chain of events that led to his death, but you didn't kill him. Ooookay then. You're just splitting hairs at this point.

That's just silly. If I never came upon the dying man, then the outcome would be the same. My presence or absence on the scene makes no difference. I'm not depriving him of anything -- I'm merely declining the opportunity to provide it. The two things are not the same.

[Metahive]

That's just silly. If I never came upon the dying man, then the outcome would be the same. My presence or absence on the scene makes no difference. I'm not depriving him of anything -- I'm merely declining the opportunity to provide it. The two things are not the same.

It's interesting to note that some countries, including Germany, actually impose a "duty to rescue" upon their citizens and hold them indeed criminally liable if they fail to render aid in cases they were theoretically able to do so. As far as I know this sort of law is absent in common law countries.

As for me personally I consider it a moral duty to help when I'm in the position to do so.

[SCRawl]

That's just silly. If I never came upon the dying man, then the outcome would be the same. My presence or absence on the scene makes no difference. I'm not depriving him of anything -- I'm merely declining the opportunity to provide it. The two things are not the same.

It's interesting to note that some countries, including Germany, actually impose a "duty to rescue" upon their citizens and hold them indeed criminally liable if they fail to render aid in cases they were theoretically able to do so. As far as I know this sort of law is absent in common law countries.

As for me personally I consider it a moral duty to help when I'm in the position to do so.

I'm of the same opinion, and while I would still like to attach some sort of criminal liability to the role I took on in my scenario, I would still not call my asshole self a murderer. I (and, I think, the courts) reserve that term for people who actively seek the death of another person.

[Jawawithagun]

You are a necessary part of the chain of events that led to his death, but you didn't kill him. Ooookay then. You're just splitting hairs at this point.

Okay. You sell someone a car. This person takes the car for a spin beyond the speed limit and causes a pile-up on the motorway causing multiple deaths and horrible injuries, including a mother and newborn child trapped in burning wreckage and burning to death there.

You are part of that chain of events.

We are not splitting hairs here.

Or maybe something closer to the event itself? You drive on a road, obeying the speed limit. Some prick comes raced from behind you well beyond the limit, tries to pass you and piles right into the oncoming traffic.

Again, you are part of the chain.

[Sela]

@Franc28:

You have a true gift for ignoring the crux of an argument in favor of tangentialities and irrelevancies.

My evidence? You've just spent the better part of the last two pages on this thread trying to argue with people that the Federation citizens were "okay" with genocide and casual murder. In case you forgot:

I also want to add, people here seem to think that people in Star Trek not batting an eye at transporters is somehow evidence that transporters are ethical and not murderous.

was said after the following posts:

The issue would appear to be about whether transporters kill at all. If they do, using one by choice would be a form of suicide.

As I said, the real issue lies in whether on not transporters actually kill. You're not alive at the end of it if it's a clone of you that steps off the transporter pad.

And if the person steps off the transporter pad cannot be distinguished from the one that stepped onto the transporter pad is it a clone or is it still you?

The only relevant issue, as I see it, is whether transporters do kill people as part of their normal operations.

At no point does anyone make the claim that "In the Star Trek universe, nobody objects - therefore it must not be murder/suicide." And that makes this *entire* tangent on the morality of Star Trek just that - a tangent. Which you started, and you continued to the detriment of the far mroe interesting (and core) discussion of the nature of the transporter and life. I include your *OWN* quote to show that it's not just my opinion; you too had identified what the core of the thread was. I'm not accusing you of intentionally derailing the discussion - but just pointing out to you that you DID it, and you'd best stop doing it. If you want to debate Star Trek morality and genocide, make your own damn thread to do it in!

Don't bother defending yourself to me on this matter. If you think the analysis is sound, fix the problem. If not - then ignore it. It's advice, not an accusation. I'm not a mod and this isn't the old days where such behavior would lead to you getting hauled in front of the senate for a titling. If you're gonna respond to me, then respond on topic. . .




And on that note, on to the core of the matter. I for the life of me can't figure out how you can differentiate between gradually taking apart the ship of theseus and doing it "suddenly". It's the same process, and using the rate at which it's taken apart and put back together as a factor seems very arbitrary. What are you saying?, if we replace 10% of the ship in an hour, that's the same ship, but 90% in an hour it's a new ship somehow?!

I need you to pin down your criterion on what *EXACTLY* constitutes "life of a person". Nobody in this thread would (I hope) try to argue that being left unconscious, without a heart or a brain, for a two-hour medical procedure and then having them "reattached" and being woken up two hours later constitutes dying and being resurrected! We don't have the technology for the latter (brain removal) but we *DO* hae the technology for the former (heart removal).

Transport is the exact same thing, only to the n'th degree. Brain, heart, lungs, colon, kidneys - all your organs and biomass removed. . . suspended on "life support" . . .and then reassembled perfectly healthy. If something were to go WRONG in the middle, THEN you'd die. In fact - that *happens* a few times. . . Dr. Crusher is once seen making out death certificates with the cause of death listed as "transporter accident/malfunction". It's a known risk - just as surely as the risk we undertake in any surgery that we might die on the table. But if nothing goes wrong, then you never died, plain and simple. Sure your consciousness ceased for a while, but that's a regular part of a routine surgical -errr- transport procedure.


I contend, that part of what constitutes "death" is its irreversibility. Obviously the word 'death' 's definition is ambiguous, but to support my point of view:

(the permanent end of all life functions in an organism or part of an organism) "the animal died a painful death"

*SNIP* Historically, attempts to define the exact moment of a human's death have been problematic. Death was once defined as the cessation of heartbeat (cardiac arrest) and of breathing, but the development of CPR and prompt defibrillation have rendered that definition inadequate because breathing and heartbeat can sometimes be restarted. Events which were causally linked to death in the past no longer kill in all circumstances; without a functioning heart or lungs, life can sometimes be sustained with a combination of life support devices, organ transplants and artificial pacemakers.
Today, where a definition of the moment of death is required, doctors and coroners usually turn to "brain death" or "biological death" to define a person as being clinically dead; people are considered dead when the electrical activity in their brain ceases. *SNIP*

And, as such, when/if that limitation of being unable to "restart a dead brain" is crossed, then that definition of "brain death" will also be inadequate. Clearly complete and total disintegration of all particles of one's body *must* be considered a form of death in our society, yes? After all - how can it possibly be restored?! And yet if we divine a method by which it is not only possible but in fact TRIVIAL to do just that. . .then we can no longer refer to "complete body disintegration" as 'death' either.

[Franc28]

Sela, you are wasting my time. Not because of your giant digression, but because of your main point. Again, you are using a circular argument in order to make your point. If continuity is used as one's standard, then the brain is not "restarted." The brain is destroyed. Period. Then a new brain is made. Again, circular argument on your part, and you have not advanced the discussion any.

[Franc28]

Okay. You sell someone a car. This person takes the car for a spin beyond the speed limit and causes a pile-up on the motorway causing multiple deaths and horrible injuries, including a mother and newborn child trapped in burning wreckage and burning to death there.

You are part of that chain of events.

We are not splitting hairs here.

Fine, but there's no relation of cause and effect between me selling him a car and him causing a pile-up, unless I sold him a defective car. Anyone else could have sold him a car and the same thing would have happened. If I had sold him a defective car, then you could trace it back to me. This is a much better analogy to deliberately letting someone die of thirst, which by the way is a long, agonizing death.

This is an irrelevant issue anyhow. If you somehow refuse to accept that someone who refuses to act to save a life, even though it would entail little cost to himself, is a murderer, then refuse to accept it. I don't care. You don't have to apologize for your lackadaisical morality.

[Korto]

Under your definition, Franc28, I am a murderer. I have it within my power to save lives of desperate, starving people, and I don't act. "Just a dollar a day can result in wells being dug, an education...) etc, etc. I could afford it, but I don't give, therefore people die, therefore I'm a murderer. In fact, under your definition, I would have to give all that I can, every last penny I can spare, else I'm a murderer. Yes, it's easier to ignore a face you don't know who's only on TV than someone you actually meet in the flesh dying, but easier =/= more moral.

How's your charity giving?

[SCRawl]

This is an irrelevant issue anyhow. If you somehow refuse to accept that someone who refuses to act to save a life, even though it would entail little cost to himself, is a murderer, then refuse to accept it. I don't care. You don't have to apologize for your lackadaisical morality.

You are confusing "commits immoral actions" with "murderer". It is immoral to deny life-saving assistance to a person in dire need when the cost is negligible. It is also immoral to murder a person. This does not mean that to deny life-saving assistance to a person in dire need when the cost is negligible is murder.

[Sela]

Sela, you are wasting my time. Not because of your giant digression, but because of your main point. Again, you are using a circular argument in order to make your point. If continuity is used as one's standard, then the brain is not "restarted." The brain is destroyed. Period. Then a new brain is made. Again, circular argument on your part, and you have not advanced the discussion any.

Then - if I follow you correctly - you must think that heart-transplant patients. . . and hell, ANYONE under general anesthesia - dies during surgery?

Mercifully, no country in the world agrees with your asinine logic and surgeons aren't all out of a job. My argument isn't circular - I made an assumption I assumed you would accept: Open heart surgery patients do not 'die'.

[Franc28]

Then - if I follow you correctly - you must think that heart-transplant patients. . . and hell, ANYONE under general anesthesia - dies during surgery?

AFAIK, heart surgery does not obliterate the patient to their component atoms. So... what's your point? Again, this is a Ship of Theseus argument which, as I said many times, has no relation to the transporter scenario.

My argument isn't circular - I made an assumption I assumed you would accept: Open heart surgery patients do not 'die'.

... I never said THAT argument was circular. It's just false.

[Franc28]

Again, I am not interested in discussing personal standards. If you're okay with standing by idly while people die and don't consider it unethical, then that's your opinion. I think readers can form their own opinion on whether it is murder to directly and personally participate in someone's death. I think you're splitting hairs, but let's chalk the issue to personal opinion and move on.

[Sela]

My argument isn't circular - I made an assumption I assumed you would accept: Open heart surgery patients do not 'die'.

... I never said THAT argument was circular. It's just false.

*sigh* So you think that all open-heart surgery patients die, but then come back to life 2 hours later? Clearly for you death is irrelevant, then.

Then - if I follow you correctly - you must think that heart-transplant patients. . . and hell, ANYONE under general anesthesia - dies during surgery?

AFAIK, heart surgery does not obliterate the patient to their component atoms.

You stress "continuity" as being your argument repeatedly. If it's continuity of consciousness, that is clearly obliterated.
If it's continuity of form, that too is obliterated. Why should it matter if it's the removal of a component organ or the removal of a grouping of atoms? What is the LOGICAL difference between the two? It's the exact same thing, just done on a different level. Say that we develop a radical new way to cure cancer which involves removing all your cells, and then - cell by cell - putting them back, but "censoring" out the cancerous cells. That would be a new MEDICAL TECHNIQUE. We would not refer to people who undergo it as "dying". Not even if it required full-body de-cellularization to get at all the potentially cancerous cells. Why? Because the state was reversible from beginning to end.

[Franc28]

*sigh* So you think that all open-heart surgery patients die, but then come back to life 2 hours later? Clearly for you death is irrelevant, then.

I think you misread me completely. What I was saying is that what you just said there is false. I do not believe they die and come back to life.

If you want to swap stupid analogies, your position is the equivalent of saying that someone who got shot in the head couldn't possibly have died. After all, getting shot is much less destructive to the body than getting completely obliterated.

Stupid analogy? Yes, but so is yours.

You stress "continuity" as being your argument repeatedly. If it's continuity of consciousness, that is clearly obliterated.

How is "continuity of consciousness... obliterated" during heart surgery? That's absurd.

If it's continuity of form, that too is obliterated. Why should it matter if it's the removal of a component organ or the removal of a grouping of atoms? What is the LOGICAL difference between the two? It's the exact same thing, just done on a different level.

So what? Again, nothing to do with the complete obliteration of the individual.

[Jawawithagun]

Fine, but there's no relation of cause and effect between me selling him a car and him causing a pile-up, unless I sold him a defective car.

Bullshit! He drove the car BECAUSE he bought it from you. He caused the accident BCAUSE he drove the car at that time in that place.

Anyone else could have sold him a car and the same thing would have happened.

Certainly. But nobody else did. So none of those potential sellers is part of the causal chain and YOU are!
Being replaceable doesn't remove you from the causal chain as long as you're not actually replaced. Which you aren't.

If I had sold him a defective car, then you could trace it back to me. This is a much better analogy to deliberately letting someone die of thirst, which by the way is a long, agonizing death.

...and totally missing the point.

This is an irrelevant issue anyhow. If you somehow refuse to accept that someone who refuses to act to save a life, even though it would entail little cost to himself, is a murderer, then refuse to accept it. I don't care. You don't have to apologize for your lackadaisical morality.

Still missing the point what YOUR claim of being directly responsible just because you're part of a causal chain actually entails.

[Franc28]

Certainly. But nobody else did. So none of those potential sellers is part of the causal chain and YOU are!
Being replaceable doesn't remove you from the causal chain as long as you're not actually replaced. Which you aren't.

My original point, if you read the post in question, was that I was a necessary part of the chain of events, not that I am a part of the chain of events. By the latter standard, so are all of his ancestors. Yet it is clear that his great-great-grandfather is not responsible for the car accident, because he is not a necessary part of it.
Or to say it in a different way, the specific action of me selling him the car does not explain any relevant fact about the event. Suppose I had cut the break line. This event would explain a relevant fact about the accident (e.g. why the car didn't stop when the guy pressed on the brakes). The identity of the seller, however, does not. I hope that clarifies the situation.

At any rate, this is a discussion on a side-point, whether the Enterprise crew committed genocide. Whether they actually did or not, I think it's indisputable that they are irresponsible to an astonishing degree, and that therefore they should not be trusted. This was the point I was trying to make. Do you object to that point?

[Simon_Jester]

*sigh* So you think that all open-heart surgery patients die, but then come back to life 2 hours later? Clearly for you death is irrelevant, then.

I think you misread me completely. What I was saying is that what you just said there is false. I do not believe they die and come back to life.

If you want to swap stupid analogies, your position is the equivalent of saying that someone who got shot in the head couldn't possibly have died. After all, getting shot is much less destructive to the body than getting completely obliterated.

Stupid analogy? Yes, but so is yours.

People can die of damage much smaller-scale than what surgeons inflict on patients as a matter of routine. I mean, most abdominal surgery starts with "Step One: cut the patient's abdomen open;" if that happened in the wilderness it would be death by disembowelment. On an operating table, performed by trained personnel, it's very much survivable.

You can't survive having your heart cut out in the desert. You can survive having your heart cut out on an operating table during a transplant- not guaranteed, but possible.

So the philosophical question stands: is taking someone apart and reassembling a 'good as new' version the same as killing them? If so, "death" becomes much less significant as a philosophical concept. The reason we consider "death" to be a big deal is that it's irreversible- you can't "spend a year dead for tax purposes" or the like; you stay dead.

Can a reversible procedure, one that will predictably be undone over and over, be classified as death?

You stress "continuity" as being your argument repeatedly. If it's continuity of consciousness, that is clearly obliterated.

How is "continuity of consciousness... obliterated" during heart surgery? That's absurd.

Heart surgery is done under general anesthesia; you are unconscious during the surgery. Ergo, your consciousness is not continuous during the surgery.

If it's continuity of form, that too is obliterated. Why should it matter if it's the removal of a component organ or the removal of a grouping of atoms? What is the LOGICAL difference between the two? It's the exact same thing, just done on a different level.

So what? Again, nothing to do with the complete obliteration of the individual.

"Complete obliteration" implies an irreversible process- which, by all appearances, transporter operations aren't.

Let's take another hypothetical case. Imagine that I take Fred, dope him unconscious on a table, and remove one atom of his body with a pair of micro-tweezers. I then take this atom across the room and put it on a table.

I repeat the process, taking away a second atom of Fred from where the first one used to be, and placing it beside the first atom in the same relative position. I then do this again and again, transferring Fred across the room one atom at a time. Assuming unlimited amounts of time to work and no problem of decay, I could theoretically take every atom of Fred's body, move it across the room, and attach it to a new "Fred body." If I make no mistakes, the new body will be in all respects identical to the old one.

According to your argument, at some point in the process I killed Fred and replaced him with a Fred-clone. So, when did this happen? At what point during the process of taking Fred apart, moving him, and putting him back together, did I kill him?

At what point did Fred-clone become 'alive'? Is there some vital principle or soul that had to fly across the gap when the first Fred died, only to reanimate the Fred-clone?