There would be no way to determine if your consciousness persists - such that the same "you" is the same connection on both sides. Even if it looks like you, acts like you - it would shatter the foundation for what it means to be conscious.
That would require an enormous amount of bravery and belief in the technology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_Like_a_Dinosaur_(The_Out...
In which case, if consciousness can be streamed, can that consciousness be hijacked? Or do I stop existing the moment it's transported?
Too many uncertainties.
Of course, I think that this is extremely impractical so it isn't a decision that I actually have to face. In this hypothetical scenario though, I'd much rather use the "transporter" as a cloning machine... having two of me would be pretty awesome.
It kills "you". Not the objective "you" of course, that lives on in the copy. It kills the subjective "you".
By terminating the stream of consciousness, the person going into the matter teleporter dies. There's no way for the stream of consciousness to continue after that point.
It's not ---------------X------------------
It's
-------------------XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXX---------------------------
If you're comfortable dying so that a copy of you can live the rest of your life, that's your business. But most people don't have that sort of objectivity.
If we reject the subjective assumption, then this whole discussion is moot (and I need to re-consider my life and become a Zen Buddhist monk off in the hills somewhere)
How can you know that? How can you even know what that means? :)
What is a stream of consciousness? Why wouldn't it be replicated along with the physical body? If it's separate from the physical body, why doesn't it move from the original body to the new one? If you know the answers to these questions: how do you know them?
But you're unconscious...
> But most people don't have that sort of objectivity.
Where did you get that idea from?
> If you're comfortable dying so that a copy of you can live the rest of your life, that's your business.
You will eventually die and (hopefully) a partial copy of you(children) will continue living on and you don't even have a choice about it.
All I'd count on is that it would be the cheapest method that does the job. If soundproofing the booth and killing you slowly and painfully saves them money over quick and painless, you are probably getting slow and painful.
Personally, my threshold question for whether or not I would consider using a transporter is: can this technology be tweaked to make a duplicator instead of a transporter?
If the answer is "yes", I'm not riding.
Really, there's no way to determine if your consciousness persists from one moment to the next. All that we know and experience is perfectly consistent with a world in which every moment in time has a different "you."
If I remember correctly, that was actually the reason that anesthetics weren't used in operations for a time after their discovery - people believed that if you were out your soul would leave your body. Luckily, we've gotten over that particular idea.
And if teleportation ever becomes a reality, human society will adjust its concept of "self" to adapt as well. The premise of a "persistent" self (essentially a soul) and the fear of death will seem like magical thinking and silliness.
All we actually have to work with here is memory. Based on this, we have the illusion of continuity of consciousness. But we have no real clue if that actually happens or if it's just something we've made up.
Sorry but that doesn't make sense. By the same token you can start believing in supernatural creators- because, after all "we don't know how [physics] really works".
And yes, we do know some things. For instance, if something goes wrong with your brain, your conscious mind is also messed up. That's pretty solid knowledge there.
Besides you'll need to jump through some serious hoops before you can explain how my consciousness could be in your body without me knowing anything about it. Not that I'd put that beyond her, the little hussy!
Plus, I don't remember being anyone else and I don't think anyone else remembers being me.
Edit: Btw, despite the fact I'm indulging you, I don't find that sort of discussion particularly productive. You might as well argue that parallel lines could eventually intersect. Sure. They could. But we assume they won't. Now what?
I agree that we can't do much but assume that consciousness is indeed continuous like this. But my point is that it is an assumption. When you get down to the actual facts, consciousness ending due to teleportation is no more or less supported than consciousness ending due to sleep. So I find it weird to worry about one and not the other.
Inspired by an Outer Limits episode.
The long answer is that under no circumstance should I ever be allowed anywhere near a person-copier, whether it teleports or not, unless you would somehow enjoy being conquered and ruled by a ravening horde of me-copies.
The complete lack of political corruption would almost make up for having to be around me all the time. I think most people would probably prefer an occupying clone army/bureaucracy to at least be somewhat attractive. If you think it's bad having one "2" at a party, just imagine a hundred copies of that person that are all trying too hard to go home with you or your date (or both) rather than go back to the disappointing dogpile at the clone barracks, yet again. And now imagine that instead of that happening one time at a party, it's everywhere you go, forever.
Inspired by final chapters of The Forever War.
What makes you believe that either copy of "you" would be diminished in any way? Also, which foundation of consciousness would be shattered?
So I guess, to answer your question, are defined by who you are to the rest of the world or are you defined by the collection of thoughts and actions that make up your experience?
But, surely, the non-teleported "me" would not be the "me" that got teleported, it would be the "me" that was left behind and destroyed.