101 replies to this topic

[spunky-monkey]

Thanks for pointing out the point of the exercise, though - unless you're a pure materialist (who would use the technology in a heartbeat), you have no room to criticize anyone who believes in a soul. Calling it a "consciousness" and waving your hands and saying, "We just don't know!" doesn't make it an unscientific, irrational belief (from a purely materialistic point of view).

Hang on. None of us have in this particular thread have once confessed we rely on purely the philosophy of materialism. I see where you getting at here with regards to your theory of the human soul, but that above is not evidence or reasoning on the soul/spirit, its actually trying to announce an absolute explanation of the phenomenal reality, whilst in contrast to idealism and to spiritualism. By presenting us with this proposition, or rather ultimatum, you are basically asserting that the "consciousness is the soul" in question.

The problem with materialism and why no one has bothered to bring it up until now is how it stumbles with its perception on "traditional matter", tangibles, and what actually defines matter in the first place. These dichotomies require scientists to adopt physicalism when speculating quantum field theory and what the universe is indeed composed of, be it "dark matter" or whatever. For instance I like to personally use materialism and physicalism interchangeably Poore, especially when analyzing the mind/body problem. Be more careful with your generalizations, for you see you can have both a "materialistic" AND a "physicalistic" point of view while plenty of time to spare for things like cognitive science, none of which has any requirement for addressing the supernatural at all.

While abstract, I do actually have respect for your propositions and theories, I find much of them worthy of debating and the time I've spent consideration on is evident of that. Selena probably would encourage me not to respond to your recent "post" however there are some important issues we all do need to address. It is becoming rapidly clear you don't have nearly the same level of decency for me or my arguments as I have for yours, the same can arguably be said for everyone else who disagrees with you too. Quite frankly your tone to me and others who doubt your ideas or demand evidence for your theories is venomous. Now, I've taken the time to look at your hypothesis, and summing up my entire statement as just "Words" or making unnecessary assumptions to Wolf and Reflectionist such as "What are you afraid of?" is rather condensing on your part and nothing to be proud of.

Poore stop with the tired smugness routine, if you can't handle our reasoning on the observed/unobserved phenomenon then why do you even bother to put forward your ideas in public debate, subject to criticism, scrutiny and whatnot? I apologize in advance if I annoy you for being so forward with him Selena. At any rate Poore it's your call friend, you can continue to debate sensibly and anonymously like the rest of us, or drag the debate right down with your anti-social behavior instead which will no doubt result in said topic being closed by the moderating staff, only for history to repeat itself all over since the root of the problem wasn't solved. Either way, you cannot be given undeserved recognition for your ideas instantaneously - all of us have our own theories on our perception of reality and all of our logic at some point or other will stumble or fail to grasp every conceivable possible occurrence in life due to the limitations of our understanding of the universe. That's why we debate, we debate because *we want to learn* more about ourselves and others in order to refine and develop our knowledge. All of us will inevitably make a misjudgment at some point on what we think we know, take this thread for example: I mistakenly assumed Jasi was male; and that was an erroneous assumption on my part; I learned from my error and moved on. We all learn from making mistakes and move on, right now though you're stuck in some kind of "immobilization" loop where you cannot accept the values and opinions of others because they conflict with your own i.e. "Words".

I don't expect you to apologize for speaking to me with such dispassionate loathing but I would appreciate it if you could stop the repetition of being so confrontational with everyone and quit playing psychological warfare with us, instead of addressing our arguments.

You forgot the "thought experiment" part.

You ignored my counter argument. I'm well aware of what a thought experiment is, thank you. You've put forward a proposal for an experiment for a hypothesis/theory that you have on teleportation, in order to establish any kind of workable hypothesis or theory reasoning has to take place, because of this, reasoning for teleportation has already taken place within public discussion, therefore your reasoning is eligible for a counter argument.

Not to mention that you could create the new person out of matter accumulated at the destination site - carbon, iron, etc. aren't that hard to come by.

Except teleportation is the transfer of matter from one point to another; I fear you're confusing this subject matter with making genetic copies, an entirely different animal together. Your thought experiment has nothing to do with teleporting and everything to do with Human Cloning instead.

Edit, Edit: @spunky I'm an atheist unless you couldn't tell. So no I don't consider it a bad thing. I was being sarcastic.

Sorry SOAP. I was being far too analytical to spot the humour within the text there.

The soul, as a spiritual object, would not be bound by physical spacetime.

That's an interesting analogy of the soul, one I've not heard for long time. Of course the obvious problem with this premise is that the soul you describe here is essentially the very concept of "God" and not said human soul to begin with. I'll explain why, because by the Jewish and Christian definition or theory of God is that the Supreme Being is literally everywhere, i.e. God is Omnipresent, by which he/she/it fills the universe in all its parts and is present everywhere at once. For the soul to not be bound by space-time or physical body means that it has the very same attributes as God. Also the definition is confounded with regards to the individual, if everyone had a soul that transcended time and space it would mean that everyone's spirit would overlap or intersect everyone else's spirit out there - the implication here is that there is no single entity of the human soul but a boundless infinite immaterial soul that occupies all reality, again fitting theist's description of God only.

[Poore]

Hang on. None of us have in this particular thread have once confessed we rely on purely the philosophy of materialism. I see where you getting at here with regards to your theory of the human soul, but that above is not evidence or reasoning on the soul/spirit, its actually trying to announce an absolute explanation of the phenomenal reality, whilst in contrast to idealism and to spiritualism. By presenting us with this proposition, or rather ultimatum, you are basically asserting that the "consciousness is the soul" in question.

The problem with materialism and why no one has bothered to bring it up until now is how it stumbles with its perception on "traditional matter", tangibles, and what actually defines matter in the first place. These dichotomies require scientists to adopt physicalism when speculating quantum field theory and what the universe is indeed composed of, be it "dark matter" or whatever. For instance I like to personally use materialism and physicalism interchangeably Poore, especially when analyzing the mind/body problem. Be more careful with your generalizations, for you see you can have both a "materialistic" AND a "physicalistic" point of view while plenty of time to spare for things like cognitive science, none of which has any requirement for addressing the supernatural at all.

I addressed this in my response to Wolf briefly, but for the sake of keeping things flowing smoothly: I am using "materialism" in this thread to refer to a belief that there is only physical data in the Universe (matter and energy) and all of this physical data can be observed and fully explained by human beings (via the scientific method). If you know a clearer term for this mindset that will facilitate better communication, please let me know (not trying to be a douche - I actually would like to know).

While abstract, I do actually have respect for your propositions and theories, I find much of them worthy of debating and the time I've spent consideration on is evident of that. Selena probably would encourage me not to respond to your recent "post" however there are some important issues we all do need to address. It is becoming rapidly clear you don't have nearly the same level of decency for me or my arguments as I have for yours, the same can arguably be said for everyone else who disagrees with you too. Quite frankly your tone to me and others who doubt your ideas or demand evidence for your theories is venomous.

I understand that my tone is very abrasive at times, but I'm not genuinely trying to assert some sort of superiority, or to be "venomous". I'm just a blunt person. As for people asking for 'evidence' for my 'theories', I can only say, "I don't have evidence you'll accept as objective" so many times in so many ways before I start to get annoyed when you ask me to present said evidence. All I've EVER tried to get people to agree with me on is that personal truths can have subjective meaning without being objectively proven. Period. Can you explain to me how I might present you with some objective evidence for that? Again, I'm not asking that to be a douche - I'm honestly curious if you have a solution here.

Now, I've taken the time to look at your hypothesis, and summing up my entire statement as just "Words" or making unnecessary assumptions to Wolf and Reflectionist such as "What are you afraid of?" is rather condensing on your part and nothing to be proud of.

More on the thing later.

As for Reflectionist, he specifically stated in another thread (the "why do you debate religion" thread that Selena posted) that he didn't feel it was worth the effort to explain his actual beliefs, which I found extremely smug, condescending, and cowardly, and I haven't been able to respect any of his arguments since then, because he openly admitted they aren't what he really believes, and that he is essentially trolling.

In fact, here's the actual quote:

You're right. It is annoying and repetitive and redundant. That's why I usually make it a point to be a major asshat about it. It becomes a game to see who can be the biggest undercover asshat. Very, very, very, very, very, very little of what I actually believe actually makes its way into my posts.

It's not worth being honest.

I honestly don't know how anyone can read that and still take anything he says seriously.

As for Wolf, it seems like he isn't as sensitive as everyone else, and understood that I was legitimately asking the questions I asked him in order to promote thought - the very reason you said we debate (i.e. to expand on our own thoughts), and I tend to agree. If you really think I'm some sort of bully and you're being the big hero by standing up to me, I think you're sorely mistaken. I think I'm just one of the few people here who doesn't try to be, as Ref put it, an "undercover asshat". When I ask a question, even if it seems rhetorical, a lot of times I'm genuinely curious (which is why, as in this post, I often add disclaimers). I try not to disguise what I'm thinking.

Poore stop with the tired smugness routine, if you can't handle our reasoning on the observed/unobserved phenomenon then why do you even bother to put forward your ideas in public debate, subject to criticism, scrutiny and whatnot? I apologize in advance if I annoy you for being so forward with him Selena. At any rate Poore it's your call friend, you can continue to debate sensibly and anonymously like the rest of us, or drag the debate right down with your anti-social behavior instead which will no doubt result in said topic being closed by the moderating staff, only for history to repeat itself all over since the root of the problem wasn't solved.

Wolf and I are doing fine right now. The debate seems to be going okay. People were responding to my thought experiment and apparently it got them thinking (which was the point). I didn't mean to sound like such a douche in that post, but apparently people are more sensitive than I thought. In spite of that, I don't see this thread dying right now.

Either way, you cannot be given undeserved recognition for your ideas instantaneously - all of us have our own theories on our perception of reality and all of our logic at some point or other will stumble or fail to grasp every conceivable possible occurrence in life due to the limitations of our understanding of the universe.

I never asked for it. Also, as for the bolded segment, I've made that claim myself (very recently, in fact - see the quote from me below) and completely agree.

That's why we debate, we debate because *we want to learn* more about ourselves and others in order to refine and develop our knowledge. All of us will inevitably make a misjudgment at some point on what we think we know, take this thread for example: I mistakenly assumed Jasi was male; and that was an erroneous assumption on my part; I learned from my error and moved on. We all learn from making mistakes and move on, right now though you're stuck in some kind of "immobilization" loop where you cannot accept the values and opinions of others because they conflict with your own i.e. "Words".

Again, more on the thing later.

I've made the "live and let live" argument countless times on these boards, and I don't know where you pulled the idea that I don't accept the opinions of others from. Disagreeing != not accepting.

You ignored my counter argument. I'm well aware of what a thought experiment is, thank you. You've put forward a proposal for an experiment for a hypothesis/theory that you have on teleportation, in order to establish any kind of workable hypothesis or theory reasoning has to take place, because of this, reasoning for teleportation has already taken place within public discussion, therefore your reasoning is eligible for a counter argument.

Look, the reason I was flippant wasn't because we have different ideas on how teleportation works or on the scientific nature of the teleporter in the thought experiment. That wasn't the point. As Wolf and SOAP pointed out, it got them thinking about the nature of the consciousness/soul, and how it was tied to the physical body. I wasn't making a serious scientific proposition for how "teleportation" might work - I was just getting people to think about their response to the materialistic world view. When you started debating the idea behind the teleporter, rather than caring at all about the issue it was supposed to examine (the idea of the consciousness in relation to physical data), it appeared to me that you were just ignoring the point behind the exercise entirely and attacking the premise of an obviously hypothetical situation, which to me was just "words". It's like someone going into a Harry Potter movie and then arguing about how humans can't use magic. Or, at least, that's how it appeared to me, and so I wrote it off as annoying. Sorry if you got offended by that, but to me that does, indeed, just seem like .

Except teleportation is the transfer of matter from one point to another; I fear you're confusing this subject matter with making genetic copies, an entirely different animal together. Your thought experiment has nothing to do with teleporting and everything to do with Human Cloning instead.

See above. I don't think you were honestly trying to be the asshole that I thought you were, but I think you legitimately couldn't see the forest for the trees in this case.

[Steel Samurai]

That's an interesting analogy of the soul, one I've not heard for long time. Of course the obvious problem with this premise is that the soul you describe here is essentially the very concept of "God" and not said human soul to begin with. I'll explain why, because by the Jewish and Christian definition or theory of God is that the Supreme Being is literally everywhere, i.e. God is Omnipresent, by which he/she/it fills the universe in all its parts and is present everywhere at once. For the soul to not be bound by space-time or physical body means that it has the very same attributes as God. Also the definition is confounded with regards to the individual, if everyone had a soul that transcended time and space it would mean that everyone's spirit would overlap or intersect everyone else's spirit out there - the implication here is that there is no single entity of the human soul but a boundless infinite immaterial soul that occupies all reality, again fitting theist's description of God only.

I possibly didn't explain myself clearly. My idea of the soul is essentially something that operates the brain which operates the body much like one might operate a computer that controls machinery. So, for example, any chemical reactions from emotions are not the emotions themselves, merely signals that emotions are taking place. It's the soul, not the brain that experiences the emotions. If that makes sense. This view has some problems on the surface that I don't think are insurmountable, but more on that only if people care.

By the soul not being bound by spacetime, I mean that it actually exists on another parallel plane of existence, a spiritual realm, if you will. It interacts with the physical world through the brain and body, but is not bound by them. So, if a body was teleported, the soul, being on another plane of existence, wouldn't really need to worry about travelling to the body's new location or whatnot. This is different from God, who, according to the JudeoChristian concept, can interact directly with both the spiritual and physical realm, is everywhere in both realms, etc.

Obviously this is pure speculation, I can't even point to the Bible as saying any of this explicitly.

[SOAP]

@wolf: I guess I just something new today.

Personally I'd still hesitate.

True, and I concede that I was not as clear as I should have been. When I talk about materialists, I typically mean those who do not consider the soul 'energy', as there is no scientific proof of the soul's energy. I've never met a materialist who actually believed in a soul, but I guess there's always a chance

And this is exactly what my concern would be. Slowly replacing parts of the body isn't the same as completely destroying the body and recreating it atom for atom in one go. It's too drastic for not to at least pause for caution.

As much pain as my body gives me, I'm very attached to it.

[Reflectionist]

As for Reflectionist, he specifically stated in another thread (the "why do you debate religion" thread that Selena posted) that he didn't feel it was worth the effort to explain his actual beliefs, which I found extremely smug, condescending, and cowardly, and I haven't been able to respect any of his arguments since then, because he openly admitted they aren't what he really believes, and that he is essentially trolling.

In fact, here's the actual quote:

You're right. It is annoying and repetitive and redundant. That's why I usually make it a point to be a major asshat about it. It becomes a game to see who can be the biggest undercover asshat. Very, very, very, very, very, very little of what I actually believe actually makes its way into my posts.

It's not worth being honest.

I honestly don't know how anyone can read that and still take anything he says seriously.

As for Wolf, it seems like he isn't as sensitive as everyone else, and understood that I was legitimately asking the questions I asked him in order to promote thought - the very reason you said we debate (i.e. to expand on our own thoughts), and I tend to agree. If you really think I'm some sort of bully and you're being the big hero by standing up to me, I think you're sorely mistaken. I think I'm just one of the few people here who doesn't try to be, as Ref put it, an "undercover asshat". When I ask a question, even if it seems rhetorical, a lot of times I'm genuinely curious (which is why, as in this post, I often add disclaimers). I try not to disguise what I'm thinking.

Leave me out of it, Poore. I have my reasons for not being explicit here on LA about what I believe. My arguments are independent of what I believe, yes (especially in religious topics), but it's usually implied. It keeps me unbiased, not dishonest (at the very least, it keeps it simple, because my beliefs aren't exactly black-and-white). If you bothered to look a little deeper and read a little bit between the lines, you might be able to figure it out. But if you'd prefer to sit back and call me a coward and condescending, and then say that you don't respect me or take me seriously, then go for it... but that's only going to make me distrust you even more. You don't know what I take to bed every night, and if this is how you're going to treat something that should be quite obvious, then I'm afraid I don't have much sympathy for your bitching.

It works out quite nicely, though, because the people who do know better than to take my posts at face value have a pretty good idea of where I stand on things and why and they still manage to respect me (At least, I would hope... wisp? Chik? Lena? Button? SOAP!?), and the people who don't just don't deserve to know me that well. So the more you complain, the more I'll 'troll' you.

But in the future, if you feel like putting on a pair of big boy pants and having a big boy discussion, let me know...in PM. Until then, I'll keep the majority of my personal demons to myself, thank you very much.

Edited by Reflectionist, 06 August 2009 - 01:50 AM.

[wisp]

It works out quite nicely, though, because the people who do know better than to take my posts at face value have a pretty good idea of where I stand on things and why and they still manage to respect me (At least, I would hope... wisp? Chik? Lena? Button? SOAP!?), and the people who don't just don't deserve to know me that well. So the more you complain, the more I'll 'troll' you.

I always understand what your real point is. XD

[Selena]

Perhaps you two should take this part of the discussion to PM if you feel like continuing it.

Otherwise, back to the topic.

[Reflectionist]

Agreed. Sorry, Lena.

[spunky-monkey]

First of all, thanks for taking the time to answer my questions so thoroughly Poore, please bear in mind that my most recent post was submitted before your previous one addressing Selena, due to an interruption, so forgive me if I appeared forward with several points raised. However I won't be giving any opinion on those responses with regards to Wolf and Reflectionist, that's perhaps something best left for them to discuss with you privately, as I cannot speak on their behalf.

I understand that my tone is very abrasive at times, but I'm not genuinely trying to assert some sort of superiority, or to be "venomous". I'm just a blunt person. As for people asking for 'evidence' for my 'theories', I can only say, "I don't have evidence you'll accept as objective" so many times in so many ways before I start to get annoyed when you ask me to present said evidence. All I've EVER tried to get people to agree with me on is that personal truths can have subjective meaning without being objectively proven. Period. Can you explain to me how I might present you with some objective evidence for that? Again, I'm not asking that to be a douche - I'm honestly curious if you have a solution here.

I'm personally not rabidly obsessed with the subject of providing evidence for everything, granted the burden of proof rests with those who make claims, however this subject matter on the soul is something we can't rationally expect empirical evidence for. I'm happy just to discuss hypotheticals if you have no objections, so long as it's carried out scientifically, of course.

Again, more on the thing later.

I've made the "live and let live" argument countless times on these boards, and I don't know where you pulled the idea that I don't accept the opinions of others from. Disagreeing != not accepting.

At the moment you have the belief in immaterial soul, whereas I have the belief no such thing exists. Though I'm afraid this business of 'agreeing to disagree' is not a valid or a satisfactory conclusion to the argument, I personally feel it to be a cop-out that doesn't even address the anecdote. In order to prevent the debate from spiralling downwards into repetition and losing its momentum we may have to shift from using Agnosticism to help us decide what's ultimately knowable and onto Epistemology whenever we discuss propositional knowledge. Any how we've got to at least try not to conclude uncertainty or at least minimize uncertainty principle.

Look, the reason I was flippant wasn't because we have different ideas on how teleportation works or on the scientific nature of the teleporter in the thought experiment. That wasn't the point. As Wolf and SOAP pointed out, it got them thinking about the nature of the consciousness/soul, and how it was tied to the physical body. I wasn't making a serious scientific proposition for how "teleportation" might work - I was just getting people to think about their response to the materialistic world view. When you started debating the idea behind the teleporter, rather than caring at all about the issue it was supposed to examine (the idea of the consciousness in relation to physical data), it appeared to me that you were just ignoring the point behind the exercise entirely and attacking the premise of an obviously hypothetical situation, which to me was just "words". It's like someone going into a Harry Potter movie and then arguing about how humans can't use magic. Or, at least, that's how it appeared to me, and so I wrote it off as annoying. Sorry if you got offended by that, but to me that does, indeed, just seem like .

The underlying problem here is the argument from inconsistent revelations - for me as an atheist I cannot understand where the existence of the human soul was originally cited from and why as a belief or faith is it so unquantifiable and tangible. Any kind of definition of this incorporeal spirit changes radically from person to person, so much so, that no two beliefs are quite alike. Yours fits the general consensus for a typical thought experiment, but my counter-argument on the other hand was focusing on the material part and not the spiritual comes straight from common knowledge in that matter cannot be created or destroyed, which renders the experiment unverifiable.

See above. I don't think you were honestly trying to be the asshole that I thought you were, but I think you legitimately couldn't see the forest for the trees in this case.

That's because I simply don't understand your definition of teleportation, I still don't get the hypothesis, and yes I know you're saying it wasn't trying to fit actual scientific proposition, but imagine how frustrating that is for others when your premise is misleading when it states teleporting is achieved through technological artifice. The confusion might have been avoided if you had stated the scenario was achieved by paranormal means, rather than a device.

I possibly didn't explain myself clearly. My idea of the soul is essentially something that operates the brain which operates the body much like one might operate a computer that controls machinery. So, for example, any chemical reactions from emotions are not the emotions themselves, merely signals that emotions are taking place. It's the soul, not the brain that experiences the emotions. If that makes sense. This view has some problems on the surface that I don't think are insurmountable, but more on that only if people care.

By the soul not being bound by spacetime, I mean that it actually exists on another parallel plane of existence, a spiritual realm, if you will. It interacts with the physical world through the brain and body, but is not bound by them. So, if a body was teleported, the soul, being on another plane of existence, wouldn't really need to worry about travelling to the body's new location or whatnot. This is different from God, who, according to the JudeoChristian concept, can interact directly with both the spiritual and physical realm, is everywhere in both realms, etc.

Obviously this is pure speculation, I can't even point to the Bible as saying any of this explicitly.

An intriguing prospect, but there are already scientific studies for neurobiological explanations and cognitive theories in place to suggest otherwise, especially Human sciences examining the role of emotions with mental disorders. Generally people argue the soul controls not emotions but morals and the apparent conscience when we've committed "sinful acts" and so on. If the brain's neural mechanisms are messed up from birth or accident, emotions and indeed one's ability to retain knowledge, thoughts and memories are compromised. According to your theory however, the soul is separate on another plane of existence, an eternal one, and logically shouldn't be affected by external forces, or invulnerable under the influence of alcohol, drugs and behavioral disorders, and we know from observation and experience this simply isn't true.

Besides if the soul existed in another reality, wouldn?t that make it an entirely separate entity from us altogether? I can't see any association or feel any relationship between the physical mind and body and some otherworldly presence somewhere else, say a parallel Earth for example. If the body teleported in the physical universe, wouldn't the force or collection of forces that bind it to the spirit break down or be temporarily disrupted? Wouldn't the soul get stuck or left behind somewhere in the Astral plane if the body unexpectedly jumped instantaneously from one location to another? You have to admit this speculation raises more questions than it does answer.

Edited by spunky-monkey, 06 August 2009 - 02:44 PM.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Does the soul interact with the physical brain?

[Poore]

First of all, thanks for taking the time to answer my questions so thoroughly Poore, please bear in mind that my most recent post was submitted before your previous one addressing Selena, due to an interruption, so forgive me if I appeared forward with several points raised.

It's all good. The Internet is a pretty terrible means for effective communication in a debate setting, anyway. Misunderstandings happen. Again, I don't try to be a dick because I don't like people, or have a personal grudge against them - it's just that I am actually a dick.

I'm personally not rabidly obsessed with the subject of providing evidence for everything, granted the burden of proof rests with those who make claims, however this subject matter on the soul is something we can't rationally expect empirical evidence for. I'm happy just to discuss hypotheticals if you have no objections, so long as it's carried out scientifically, of course.

Agreed.

At the moment you have the belief in immaterial soul, whereas I have the belief no such thing exists. Though I'm afraid this business of 'agreeing to disagree' is not a valid or a satisfactory conclusion to the argument, I personally feel it to be a cop-out that doesn't even address the anecdote. In order to prevent the debate from spiralling downwards into repetition and losing its momentum we may have to shift from using Agnosticism to help us decide what's ultimately knowable and onto Epistemology whenever we discuss propositional knowledge. Any how we've got to at least try not to conclude uncertainty or at least minimize uncertainty principle.

Yeah, this is the big problem with pretty much every spiritual/metaphysical debate. I don't know if I have good solution to this problem right now...maybe I should go reread some of Gödel, Escher, Bach first.

The underlying problem here is the argument from inconsistent revelations - for me as an atheist I cannot understand where the existence of the human soul was originally cited from and why as a belief or faith is it so unquantifiable and tangible. Any kind of definition of this incorporeal spirit changes radically from person to person, so much so, that no two beliefs are quite alike. Yours fits the general consensus for a typical thought experiment, but my counter-argument on the other hand was focusing on the material part and not the spiritual comes straight from common knowledge in that matter cannot be created or destroyed, which renders the experiment unverifiable.

I was sort of begging the question here - I should have said something like "assume a device for transportation that functions as follows exists", and probably provided a more scientific explanation of its function, but I was more focused on the philosophical connotations of the thought experiment than its details, so that kind of fell by the wayside

(you were right, maybe I should have used genetic replication as an example rather than teleportation - I was thinking about the device from The Prestige when I was writing it)

That's because I simply don't understand your definition of teleportation, I still don't get the hypothesis, and yes I know you're saying it wasn't trying to fit actual scientific proposition, but imagine how frustrating that is for others when your premise is misleading when it states teleporting is achieved through technological artifice. The confusion might have been avoided if you had stated the scenario was achieved by paranormal means, rather than a device.

Really all I was trying to get at is, "is an exact material copy of you the same as you, and how do you think this would effect the idea of consciousness". This is really shaky territory, I know, and there's not really a whole lot of cognitive science to fall back on here empirically, but I think its helpful for getting people interested in examining their own ideas of how consciousness (or, if you don't believe in it, the illusion of consciousness) works and what they know/think about it.

[Khallos]

Edit: This story really illustrates my point of view about this subject (from the WikiPedia article):

I remembered once, in Japan, having been to see the Gold Pavilion Temple in Kyoto and being mildly surprised at quite how well it had weathered the passage of time since it was first built in the fourteenth century. I was told it hadn't weathered well at all, and had in fact been burnt to the ground twice in this century. "So it isn't the original building?" I had asked my Japanese guide.
"But yes, of course it is," he insisted, rather surprised at my question.
"But it's burnt down?"
"Yes."
"Twice."
"Many times."
"And rebuilt."
"Of course. It is an important and historic building."
"With completely new materials."
"But of course. It was burnt down."
"So how can it be the same building?"
"It is always the same building."
I had to admit to myself that this was in fact a perfectly rational point of view, it merely started from an unexpected premise. The idea of the building, the intention of it, its design, are all immutable and are the essence of the building. The intention of the original builders is what survives. The wood of which the design is constructed decays and is replaced when necessary. To be overly concerned with the original materials, which are merely sentimental souvenirs of the past, is to fail to see the living building itself.

I'm thinking Pratchett, a Dwarf, an axe/throne made of bread, probably the Fifth Elephant.

It's an interesting idea, but I'd say it only works because we like to personify inaminate objects. Of course if the symbolism of the object still remains, than it has kept its "soul". This is of course as solid as an argument for a person deciding a diety's favourite drink, but unlike in the case of humans most reconstruction (through teleportation) and restoration reuses the old where it can.

And if you believe there is a soul, it surely would find the body again, after all when a person is resuscitated, there soul isn't simply gone I'd hope when brought back.