Dr H video: Does Kirk die when he goes through the transporter?

[notFritzArgelander]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR9Na0Q0maQ

[notFritzArgelander]

Does Kirk die? No. Does Kirk live? No again. I'm with those who say "Other"!

[Bigzmey]

The question I believe is answered within the series. There was at least one episode when a person was duplicated during transporter malfunction which implies 'make a copy - destroy original' type of operation.

[notFritzArgelander]

The question I believe is answered within the series. There was at least one episode when a person was duplicated during transporter malfunction which implies 'make a copy - destroy original' type of operation.

True. I think that she is trying to answer the Q by appealing only to physics, not to the series. My answer is still "other" though. There is a discontinuity of conscious functioning. I think that is different from "Kirk dies", "Kirk lives", or "Kirk is copied N times with variations:.

[Michael131313]

I think he turns into "The Fly". Thanks for the post nFA.

[helicon]

I just saw an episode of the original Trek where Kirk, donning a space suit, has been transported to the bridge of a distressed vessel. Whilst McCoy and Spock were able to beam back to the Enterprise, Kirk was lost in the transport process. He apparently was in an intermediate state, appearing to certain crew members almost like an apparition. Eventually they were able to beam him back to the transporter room, hale and healthy.

[WilliamPaolini]

Short answer - No, the life form does not "die" when being transported.

The problem with those who are pondering this is that in their analysis they have departed from the Star Trek Universe and are debating relative to their own universe. If you keep your world view within the bounds of the Star Trek universe then you will realize that no, Kirk or anyone else does not die when they are transported. The transporter converts your physical make up entirely into energy and that energy in then "beamed" (through subspace) to a location where the being is reconverted from its pure energy form back to its physical form. As you see within the Star Trek universe they encounter a number of beings that are pure energy, and as they view it this is a more evolved form of life. In some episodes of the original Star Trek they even pondered how many millennia it would be before humans might similarly evolve. So when the the transporter converts the human into this pure energy and beams it around, indeed the person is still alive, but due their being more primitive in nature, they cannot consciously operate in that state. You also see this in some of the story lines as they themselves only consider a transported person dead when the beaming process is unsuccessful and at no other time, as there have been many instances in the Star Trek universe when the beaming process is having some non-destructive malfunction, re-routed, delayed, etc., and the person is never dead until the beaming and pattern are lost and no longer a cohesive whole (i.e., the life form in a pure energy state). So Star Trek really demonstrates that for them the "life" of a being really transcends simply the physical reconstruction of their atoms but still inherently exists within that pure energy form that is beamed. If it were not, then once the transporter mapped you physically it could use any matter handy to reconstruct "you" back into a living physical form, but note that that was never the case in their universe. So you might look at it as when they are transported the person is in a sort of coma, still alive, just unable to present their conscious presence in this pure energy state due to their being a less evolved and primitive being not yet evolved enough and therefore able to express themselves while in that state.

Now whether any of this can be modeled in our current understanding of science today is completely irrelevant because we live within a difference universe than the fictional one that Star Trek exists in, explains, and shows. But when you stay within the context of the universe and laws of that universe that Star Trek embodies, then no a being does not die when transported. As Dr McCoy would say, they are just "scrambled"

[Bigzmey]

@WilliamPaolini I feel that converts is the key word here. The physical body of Kirk is destroyed since the matter is converted to energy and new body is created on the other side. When body is destroyed that is definition of death.

When in real life body is destroyed we call it death no matter if the spirit or soul moves on.

[turboscrew]

Hmm. It starts to look like the question itself is "ambiguous" (couldn't come up with better expression).
It's really not about whether or not Kirk dies, but what do we mean by "dying" or "person", or "identity".
I've always wondered that if you take a human brain, and replace the cells with artificial "cells" one by one, at which point human intelligence becomes artificial intelligence. Could it, actually, be that human intelligence IS artificial intelligence - just with organic components? And does the person turn into a machine?
And what is "being me"?

[notFritzArgelander]

Hmm. It starts to look like the question itself is "ambiguous" (couldn't come up with better expression).
It's really not about whether or not Kirk dies, but what do we mean by "dying" or "person", or "identity".
I've always wondered that if you take a human brain, and replace the cells with artificial "cells" one by one, at which point human intelligence becomes artificial intelligence. Could it, actually, be that human intelligence IS artificial intelligence - just with organic components? And does the person turn into a machine?
And what is "being me"?

You pose interesting questions. My main issue is with the idea of "personal identity". Here is a summary of David Hume's treatment, which resonates with me as most solid:

https://iep.utm.edu/hume/#SH3e

Regarding the issue of personal identity, (1) Hume’s skeptical claim is that we have no experience of a simple, individual impression that we can call the self—where the “self” is the totality of a person’s conscious life. He writes, “For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe anything but the perception” (Treatise, 1.4.6.3). (2) Even though my perceptions are fleeting and I am a bundle of different perceptions, I nevertheless have some idea of personal identity, and that must be accounted for (Treatise, 1.4.6.4). Because of the associative principles, the resemblance or causal connection within the chain of my perceptions gives rise to an idea of myself, and memory extends this idea past my immediate perceptions (Treatise, 1.4.6.18 ff.). (3) A common abuse of the notion of personal identity occurs when the idea of a soul or unchanging substance is added to give us a stronger or more unified concept of the self (Treatise, 1.4.6.6).

[turboscrew]

Hmm. It starts to look like the question itself is "ambiguous" (couldn't come up with better expression).
It's really not about whether or not Kirk dies, but what do we mean by "dying" or "person", or "identity".
I've always wondered that if you take a human brain, and replace the cells with artificial "cells" one by one, at which point human intelligence becomes artificial intelligence. Could it, actually, be that human intelligence IS artificial intelligence - just with organic components? And does the person turn into a machine?
And what is "being me"?

You pose interesting questions. My main issue is with the idea of "personal identity". Here is a summary of David Hume's treatment, which resonates with me as most solid:

https://iep.utm.edu/hume/#SH3e

Regarding the issue of personal identity, (1) Hume’s skeptical claim is that we have no experience of a simple, individual impression that we can call the self—where the “self” is the totality of a person’s conscious life. He writes, “For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe anything but the perception” (Treatise, 1.4.6.3). (2) Even though my perceptions are fleeting and I am a bundle of different perceptions, I nevertheless have some idea of personal identity, and that must be accounted for (Treatise, 1.4.6.4). Because of the associative principles, the resemblance or causal connection within the chain of my perceptions gives rise to an idea of myself, and memory extends this idea past my immediate perceptions (Treatise, 1.4.6.18 ff.). (3) A common abuse of the notion of personal identity occurs when the idea of a soul or unchanging substance is added to give us a stronger or more unified concept of the self (Treatise, 1.4.6.6).

There are known to be false memories and such. I'd go with looser definition. Also, quite much of the idea of identity seems to be based, really, on "because I feel like it". As if self-perceptions couldn't be false.

[notFritzArgelander]

Hmm. It starts to look like the question itself is "ambiguous" (couldn't come up with better expression).
It's really not about whether or not Kirk dies, but what do we mean by "dying" or "person", or "identity".
I've always wondered that if you take a human brain, and replace the cells with artificial "cells" one by one, at which point human intelligence becomes artificial intelligence. Could it, actually, be that human intelligence IS artificial intelligence - just with organic components? And does the person turn into a machine?
And what is "being me"?

You pose interesting questions. My main issue is with the idea of "personal identity". Here is a summary of David Hume's treatment, which resonates with me as most solid:

https://iep.utm.edu/hume/#SH3e

Regarding the issue of personal identity, (1) Hume’s skeptical claim is that we have no experience of a simple, individual impression that we can call the self—where the “self” is the totality of a person’s conscious life. He writes, “For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe anything but the perception” (Treatise, 1.4.6.3). (2) Even though my perceptions are fleeting and I am a bundle of different perceptions, I nevertheless have some idea of personal identity, and that must be accounted for (Treatise, 1.4.6.4). Because of the associative principles, the resemblance or causal connection within the chain of my perceptions gives rise to an idea of myself, and memory extends this idea past my immediate perceptions (Treatise, 1.4.6.18 ff.). (3) A common abuse of the notion of personal identity occurs when the idea of a soul or unchanging substance is added to give us a stronger or more unified concept of the self (Treatise, 1.4.6.6).

There are known to be false memories and such. I'd go with looser definition. Also, quite much of the idea of identity seems to be based, really, on "because I feel like it". As if self-perceptions couldn't be false.

There is no guarantee that because "I" have a set of memories and perceptions that any of them might not be "false". I is just the bundle of memories and perceptions that constitute the "I". The assumption of an I apart from perceptions is a metaphysical one, not a scientific one, and so plays no role since it cannot be pointed to. The concept of a permanent unchanging "I" is an example of how we bewitch ourselves with words that have no clear meaning. The problem is "what is a Kirk?"

[WilliamPaolini]

@WilliamPaolini I feel that converts is the key word here. The physical body of Kirk is destroyed since the matter is converted to energy and new body is created on the other side. When body is destroyed that is definition of death.

When in real life body is destroyed we call it death no matter if the spirit or soul moves on.

I can see you point, but do not agree. Massive parts of your body get replaced and yet you would not say that they die. As example, the cells of all of your skin die and get replaces every few weeks. Did your skin, as an organ, die? No. So when parts of your "real" body are destroyed, "you" do not die nor are you thought of as a copy.

And when you say that when the real life body is destroyed we call it death no matter if the spirit or soul moves on, I can't entirely agree. From the spiritual perspective in some religions one can have eternal life. So when the earthly body dies, it is only the body that dies and not the "you". The body is just a vessel and it is not where "life" resides. So there are just too many nuances depending on one's world view for what you say to be true. Depending on one's world view and spirituality, many do not consider it death when the body is destroyed.

But regardless, it is not germane to the argument what "we" may think. All that is important for rendering a well considered opinion as to whether it is death or not when one gets transported is what the prevailing opinion is within the Star Trek universe as that universe and its beliefs are defined in that fiction franchise. If we start wondering outside their world view than any answer we give is IMO invalid. So from my observation of that fiction series, I do not see that "they" consider it death when the body is destroyed. In one episode the minds of some of the star trek characters were transferred into a device and they existed there conversing and interacting while their bodies were hooked up to mechanical devices to keep them functioning. Their bodies without their minds were not considered "alive" but just functioning shells. The part of them that they considered "life" existed in their consciousnesses which were for a time, disembodied. So the people within the Star Trek universe never seemed to convey that just the death of a body meant death.

[notFritzArgelander]

@WilliamPaolini I feel that converts is the key word here. The physical body of Kirk is destroyed since the matter is converted to energy and new body is created on the other side. When body is destroyed that is definition of death.

When in real life body is destroyed we call it death no matter if the spirit or soul moves on.

I can see you point, but do not agree. Massive parts of your body get replaced and yet you would not say that they die. As example, the cells of all of your skin die and get replaces every few weeks. Did your skin, as an organ, die? No. So when parts of your "real" body are destroyed, "you" do not die nor are you thought of as a copy.

And when you say that when the real life body is destroyed we call it death no matter if the spirit or soul moves on, I can't entirely agree. From the spiritual perspective in some religions one can have eternal life. So when the earthly body dies, it is only the body that dies and not the "you". The body is just a vessel and it is not where "life" resides. So there are just too many nuances depending on one's world view for what you say to be true. Depending on one's world view and spirituality, many do not consider it death when the body is destroyed.

I'm not going to complain that discussing religions is a violation of the rules of the board, as long as this thread remains civilized.
(There are some folks on the board who have a direct line to the Ground of All Being and might create a ruckus.)

I just simply wish to note that in some religions, there is no eternal life and the existence of a soul is denied. Other religions tie the soul very closely to the material of the body. All matter has a soul. So they might be more comfortable with the transporter killing Kirk.

That is as explicit as one can be without violating TOS, I think.

But regardless, it is not germane to the argument what "we" may think. All that is important for rendering a well considered opinion as to whether it is death or not when one gets transported is what the prevailing opinion is within the Star Trek universe as that universe and its beliefs are defined in that fiction franchise. If we start wondering outside their world view than any answer we give is IMO invalid. So from my observation of that fiction series, I do not see that "they" consider it death when the body is destroyed. In one episode the minds of some of the star trek characters were transferred into a device and they existed there conversing and interacting while their bodies were hooked up to mechanical devices to keep them functioning. Their bodies without their minds were not considered "alive" but just functioning shells. The part of them that they considered "life" existed in their consciousnesses which were for a time, disembodied. So the people within the Star Trek universe never seemed to convey that just the death of a body meant death.

But the context of this thread is Dr H's video which definitely is mostly outside the Star Trek universe. It's a different context to be sure, but trying to narrow the scope of the discussion is not something many of us would agree to.

When I was a student I did a back of the envelope calculation to see what the bandwidth requirements would be for a transporter to operate in the times allowed by the series. I discovered that the bandwidth requirements were so huge that any energy transporting to assemble a remote Kirk would break down by a pair production instability. It would make a mess of anti-matter and matter that could not preserve the information.

Truth is, the transporter was a device for limiting production costs of the special effects needed for take-off and landing events.

Pardon the context breaking.

[turboscrew]

BTW, last night, in bed, this came to mind. In hospitals it's not uncommon that a patient is clinically dead, and is got back to life. I don't think it's a different person before and after the temporary death.

Also, I remember a study where, in fast reaction situations, impulses sent to muscles were detected before brain activity. It could be that the conscious decision is really just a "reflection" or "aftermath" about the situation. The consciousness may be just a by-product, an emergent property of big and complex intelligent system.

[Bigzmey]

The topic is sensitive but all participants have handled it quite respectfully. Since the discussion is going now more towards definitions of life and death, personal believes, and not Kirk or transporter per se, I feel it run its course. Thanks everyone for keeping it civil and enjoyable.