Would you go through the transporter?

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-09-28 02:50pm

Morilore wrote: The point was that Metrion said that it didn't mean he was dead if he loses time. I pointed out that he didn't know that, but I should have pointed out that in order to resolve this debate we need to define exactly what the hell "death" is supposed to mean - because if you died and an identical clone of you with all your memories was created and awoke a moment later, it would think it had just passed out, and from its perspective, there was no death.

i don't know what happens outside my body when i'm asleep. but that doesn't mean that i died while i was unconscious. you're assuming too many unexplainable factors to make this idea of yours work. once again occam's razor handles it nicely.

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2004-09-28 02:54pm

Morilore wrote: The point was that Metrion said that it didn't mean he was dead if he loses time. I pointed out that he didn't know that, but I should have pointed out that in order to resolve this debate we need to define exactly what the hell "death" is supposed to mean - because if you died and an identical clone of you with all your memories was created and awoke a moment later, it would think it had just passed out, and from its perspective, there was no death.

Just FYI, Metrion's a lady.
And we KNOW what Death is supposed to mean. Until you can show that people actually die and are replaced by clones whenever they lose consciousness, Metrion's point is completely valid.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-28 09:05pm

I'm sick of hearing imbeciles say that "Realm of Fear" proves continuity of consciousness through the procedure. If there was a discontinuity, what makes you think Barclay would have perceived it? DON'T YOU REALIZE THAT IT'S FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE BY DEFINITION TO PERCEIVE A DISCONTINUITY IN YOUR OWN CONSCIOUSNESS?

There is obviously part of the procedure in which you remain functional, but the assumption that the entire procedure is devoid of any discontinuities is just that: an assumption, with no logic and certainly no scientific, quasi-scientific, or even Treknobabble justification behind it.

As for the argument over whether Scotty was dead when he was in the transporter "buffer", some people need to look up the concept of death in the dictionary. He was dead, just as dead as the assassins in "The Sixth Day", and the creation of clones does not change that fact. Riker's accidental cloning procedure (during which he also failed to perceive a discontinuity in his own consciousness) proves the point nicely.

Bob the Gunslinger · Post by **Bob the Gunslinger** » 2004-09-29 05:15pm

So, would you ride the transporter Mr Wong?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-29 05:56pm

Bob the Gunslinger wrote:So, would you ride the transporter Mr Wong?

Not if I had a choice. If I was facing death otherwise, I'd probably go through if only because in that situation I'm dead either way, and I'd prefer to have a clone of myself live on rather than being snuffed out of existence without a remnant.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2004-09-29 06:56pm

Bob the Gunslinger wrote:Then where did Riker get two souls or energy patterns from? If they are unique to every living person, wouldn't one of the Riker bodies have fallen to the ground dead? And if he was conscious during the entire transport, when was his consciousness split in two? Do they both remember the transport as continuous? This would certainly discredit the Barclay scenario as proof that you don't die in a transporter, since one of these Riker "souls" must not be the original..

My bet is that the transporter malfunction was that it created the clone but forgot to 'delete' the original. However, I haven't seen that episode yet.

Oh and BTW, I agree with Mike. If the choice was between dying and dying and being replaced with an exact clone that would continue my life, I'll take the transporter. If I'm not gonna die, though, I wouldn't use the transporter.

Oh, one thing that struck me: Wouldn't that planet be the ULTIMATE weapon? Find some diehard federation officer that would do anything for the Federation. Beam him back and forth between that planet. Soon you have an entire army (Jem Hadar style). Plus any equipment they are carrying is also cloned.

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 2004-09-30 05:14am

Basically choosing the transporter for me would be suicide. It might be less painful than whatever impending death was coming though, so that would be a factor.

As to the clone idea, here's how I see it:

When I was transported, I'd be dead. A clone would be created (thus, not me) who has false memories of being me.

So it'd be like murdering me and waking up my twin after hypnotising him to believe that he's me. Unless my "soul" is transferred to the new body, I won't be conscious anymore as a corporate entity. So for "me" it's irrelevant, and my demise is guarenteed either way. The guy who steps out of the transporter is a completely new person born that very minute with false memories. The only continuity he has with my being it that he's made from the same matter that once made up my body.

If you'd asked me this 10 years ago I'd probably have said yes, but I didn't think about it too hard. ; )

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2004-09-30 06:49am

Oh, one thing that struck me: Wouldn't that planet be the ULTIMATE weapon? Find some diehard federation officer that would do anything for the Federation. Beam him back and forth between that planet. Soon you have an entire army (Jem Hadar style). Plus any equipment they are carrying is also cloned. Smile

The planet could only be beamed to for a few days every 8 years and even then the conditions for the cloning only exist for a few minutes either side of that window.
On top of that the Federation didn't really understand how the cloning happened.

My bet is that the transporter malfunction was that it created the clone but forgot to 'delete' the original. However, I haven't seen that episode yet.

If you believe that then why does the Federation even need the planet? They could clone anything with a regular transporter just turn delete off.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2004-09-30 11:17am

TheDarkling wrote:
Oh, one thing that struck me: Wouldn't that planet be the ULTIMATE weapon? Find some diehard federation officer that would do anything for the Federation. Beam him back and forth between that planet. Soon you have an entire army (Jem Hadar style). Plus any equipment they are carrying is also cloned. Smile
The planet could only be beamed to for a few days every 8 years and even then the conditions for the cloning only exist for a few minutes either side of that window.
On top of that the Federation didn't really understand how the cloning happened.

My bet is that the transporter malfunction was that it created the clone but forgot to 'delete' the original. However, I haven't seen that episode yet.
If you believe that then why does the Federation even need the planet? They could clone anything with a regular transporter just turn delete off.

Note that I have not yet seen that episode. It will be playing later this week, however, and my PVR is set to record it.

Oh, and the Federation has a big 'moral issue' with cloning, as seen by how Riker sabotaged the facility that was insta-cloning him in that one colony.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-09-30 12:00pm

Praxis wrote:
Oh, and the Federation has a big 'moral issue' with cloning, as seen by how Riker sabotaged the facility that was insta-cloning him in that one colony.

only because the clones were made without their permission. i doubt the squeamishness of a few officers are representative of the position of the entire federation.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2004-09-30 06:30pm

Praxis wrote: Oh, and the Federation has a big 'moral issue' with cloning, as seen by how Riker sabotaged the facility that was insta-cloning him in that one colony.

I can't see why that would apply if there was a transporter accident like the one in the Motion Picture.

I doubt all the other nations with transporter technology have similar moral compunctions.