As if it MATTERS...

By Matt Pike

            Star Trek serves to raise many interesting aspects of human thought into question that might not otherwise be noticeable, nor perhaps, plausible. One example of this is in the questioning of what occurs to a person who has undergone teletransportation. Many people would think of this mode of transportation as a neat opportunity, until it dawned on them what was entailed. As Hanley points out in Is Data Human, The Metaphysics of Star Trek, many people will instinctually shy away from being "beamed" once they realize that it involves their atoms and molecules being deconstructed from their current state. Hanley also asserts that many persons might be willing to undergo transport it they knew their matter was being transported, but would take a different view if they found out it was simply information being transmitted about how to organize recruited matter.

Hanley identifies the source of these concerns as coinciding with how a person's identity and being are to be identified. In typical human fashion, everyone is content with being themselves in their current state and is naturally terrified at the thought of being changed. The question which arises from this is: what determines identity? Hanley quickly refutes the "matter matters" point of view by citing the scientific process of cellular replacement which occurs in our bodies anyway. An additional route to address this would be to point out the quantum relationship between all matter. Humans settle so comfortably into the view that their matter is theirs and it ends where the physical boundaries of their bodies end. This fails to take in to account the fact any and all matter is intrinsically related by natural and fundamental ways. There is constant interaction between the electrons of the atoms within our body as well as with those outside. Given this, our "matter" is simply an arbitrary labeling of territorial limits. Since every part of us is related to every other part of the universe, and beyond, there is no reason why being reconstructed somewhere else with different arbitrary physical boundaries being imposed should make even the slightest difference.

Even with the matter question resolved, issues of psychology still arise. Every potential "beamer" dreads the thought of being reconstituted somewhere with an identical physical body, but being an entirely different person or a "zombie", to use Hanley's technical term. This again requires an actual examination of what is responsible for us being us, which is normally taken for granted. Hanley here makes a split, pointing out that a large amount of the answer to this question is going to depend on how someone labels the soul, and what role they feel it plays. This will be examined, but first, from a nature vs. nurture perspective, if someone is reconstituted in an identical information pattern, then their genetic coding, and DNA sequences will be identical. This will already dictate of the same psychology, as they will have the same genetic predisposition, and perhaps even the same fundamental animal instincts. Along the nurture lines, if a person is transported and arrives with the same memories intact, the brain will have no choice but to have arrived at the same conclusions based on the individuals past interactions with their surrounding environment. Every past lesson, every previous growth experience which lead to the formation of the person will still be recorded, and this will in large part guarantee that the same person will be present in this new location. Additionally, modern scientific research is increasingly tending towards the belief that every aspect of our minds can be represented, and in fact is nothing more than, biochemical interactions. If this is the case, a correct transference of information patterns will surely result in the transmission of the complete psychology of the transportee.

The issue which arises, and Hanley correctly stresses this as an important factor, is that of the soul. Traditionally, assuming a basic belief in a soul, people either feel that a soul is a part of a person's mind and continually manifests itself in their actions and thoughts; or people believe it to be an abstract and intangible something that plays an indefinable role, but yet is absolutely essential. The later view is obviously harder to analyze due to its vagueness, but there are still fundamentals that address both points of view. If the soul is manifest is certain elements of psychology, then a complete transfer of an individuals mind and memories will also transfer that persons soul. If the soul is an abstract of which we know nothing except that it exists, many people argue that only an equally undefined force such as God can be responsible for its transport. This is what Hanley terms the acceptance of the "exclusion principle". Many people seem to think that if a technology has been created by humanity and is employed by men, then it can only have the effects which it is accepted that man has control over. This would seem to imply that a human made transporter could not have direct control over the soul, because it is not something that man understands. The problem with this view is that it again fails to take into account the interrelatedness of all things.

Everything that humans do have certain effects, which we try to see and understand. If we do not understand it, then it is a comforting move to ascribe either that it does not exist or it exists in a supernatural realm. However, man truly understands little of anything. We like to believe that once we control a process, we understand it. In this fashion, we very typically mistake a good degree of accurate prediction to be an understanding of what is occurring. If we consider our traditional understanding of physics, we find many cases where we felt we understood what was occurring, and then a new discovery revolutionized our way of thinking. Given this pattern of mistake realization, it is ignorant to think that we can possibly reach a point of view which can no longer be revolutionized and improved. Once this is seen it becomes apparent that just because we do not understand something does not mean it does not happen. Any action we take may have massive effects on a place light years away, or perhaps even in an entirely different dimension of the universe.

Our potential use of the transporter could conceivably serve to transport the intangible soul as well. Additionally, even if one maintains the view that God and God alone has control over the soul, her processes for the soul's interaction within the universe has been implemented already. If one believes that newborn children have souls, then one is ascribing the ability to create souls to human reproduction. There is no way to know, or even reason for believing, that a God would not have made souls "beamable". After all, if the purpose of the soul is to exist somewhere within us, then God would have had to screw up pretty bad, or severely underestimate us, to have "invented" the concept of the soul in a way which we could potentially loose it through our use of technology.

The major problem with Hanley's analysis, and thus also the analysis contained within this paper, is that it is speculative of something which may happen. So much of this examination would be greatly affected by the most minute particular about the technological process that it is absurd to even pose these questions without a working transporter in front of us in which to reference the questions. What is important in the discussion is that there is nothing inherent in the idea which would cause definite problems. The questioning and analyzing has served to illustrate that are potential issues with the technology which must be addressed if the technology is ever achieved. In this manner, the role of a metaphysical analysis of Star Trek's transporter is to start phrasing the questions which must be asked in the 24^th century. There is no harm in the development of technology itself, but its implementation can be devastating. For this reason, I urge the government to continue their research on the subject, but to carefully consider the ramifications once it has been developed.