Sorry about that ridiculous watermark.

  • Steve@communick.news
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Yes. The copy is you as far as it can tell.
    And the original you doesn’t exist anymore to be able to tell anything.

    So “you” continue, from your point of view.

    • Kaity@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      no… that’s not sufficient. There’s a new me that was not me that is now me, yes, but the original me is gone. Story ended from my point of view, from the new me’s point of view it was all fine but they will end in the next transport.

      If it can be undeniably proven exactly the same as sleeping or anesthesia, fine. If consciousness provably persists all the way from de-materialization, transport, and re-materialization, like Lt. Barkley. fine. But if there is any doubt that consciousness ends, and a new consciousness is created, that is where the problem lies, and why many, like McCoy, won’t use one willingly.

      • Steve@communick.news
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        But consciousness doesn’t persist through sleeping or anesthesia. It stops, then starts again some time later. The continuity of memory seems persistent to the consciousness, so it can’t really tell the difference. Because it would be impossible for a consciousness to perceive it’s own down time.

        And it’s not really accurate to say a new consciousness is created. It would be more accurate to say the same consciousness is recreated.

        • Kaity@leminal.space
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          I’m not trying to be combative, just to illustrate the point: “cite your sources.”

          Definitive research is needed.