Telebee

Just wondering about the origin of creating images by painting, sculpture, chemical, and then electronic. A quote from Giphantie 1760.

“You know, that rays of light reflected from different bodies form pictures, paint the image reflected on all polished surfaces, for example, on the retina of the eye, on water, and on glass. The spirits have sought to fix these fleeting images; they have made a subtle matter by means of which a picture is formed in the twinkling of an eye. They coat a piece of canvas with this matter, and place it in front of the object to be taken. The first effect of this cloth is similar to that of a mirror, but by means of its viscous nature the prepared canvas, as is not the case with the mirror, retains a facsimile of the image. The mirror represents images faithfully, but retains none; our canvas reflects them no less faithfully, but retains them all. This impression of the image is instantaneous. The canvas is then removed and deposited in a dark place. An hour later the impression is dry, and you have a picture the more precious in that no art can imitate its truthfulness.”

In this way it has occurred to me that something else is possible. The quote is from the 1700's and predates TV by some long time. They did not know how, but they could imagine it could be done. I have the method and have wondered about its application instead. It is possible to do something that I saw on a science special some time ago about quantum entanglement. They suggested that it might be possible someday to have a teleport booth which was entangled to Mars or anywhere and allow instantaneous transport. I am not accepting the instantaneous possibility, but speed of light is doable. It seems that it is possible to take the "picture" of matter and replicate it in the same way that one might execute a photographic process. It isn't simple technology, in fact, it would probably be the most complex device I ever considered. It would function like a camera, except that it would create an image that was the "being" in atomic detail. I remember an old documentary about natives thinking that pictures stole their soul. I wonder what people would think about a device that captured the exact molecular state of a person and could make copies. It is certainly possible and in fact it could be like TV, except that instead of seeing an actor in a play, the person would become physically duplicated at the point of reception. It might seem far fetched, but it is possible and to assume that anybody would act with restraint in implementing such a thing is to ignore history.

Would a Telebee copy of motey be any less weird? People have come to accept that DNA can be duplicated to make a clone of the chemical nature of a person and I would assume they will become comfortable with the fact that everybody can have their own personal copy of anybody they want. It would seem that "uploading" consciousness to a computer is a concept that is similar and it does not prevent it being "uploaded" a million times. It has also occurred to me that like surreptitious surveillance as well as voyeurism could take on a different meaning altogether. Could you ever be really sure you had disposed of the last of the "Cats in the Hat"? I didn't create the universe, I only observe it, so don't blame me for what is possible.

ADDED: I thought of something that sort of funny in a twilight zone sort of way. Suppose there were a Telebee protocol that compressed existential information like JPEG and a person would get a "lossy" copy on the Internet of another person. It could make for some strange dating sites. It you had the digital representation of someone, you could select your interests and get a copy streamed. The future is always a shock to the past, I think and perhaps it will be so. I always thought that "Logan's Run" was an odd movie in its time, but cosmetic surgery has made many aspects of personal appearance obsolete as originating from genetic form. Braces, implants, face lifts, cosmetics, bone implants, gene doping ....... And then there is Rule 34 to consider.

ADDED MORE: It could be the new big thing for movies and TV. Real-D instead of 3D. It would certainly be 3D as well as 4D, but you don't have to feed your TV.