There is a tradition in philosophy for using science fiction stories in order to create engaging and insightful thought experiments. Donald Davidson’s Swampman is a perfect example of this. Indeed, his story was itself inspired by another philosopher, Hilary Putnam, and his sci-fi thought experiment involving Twin Earths. In this article, we look at how Davidson’s Swampman raises interesting philosophical questions about the teleportation machines used in the television series Star Trek and its spin-offs.
The Transporters
The teleportation device in Star Trek, referred to as the “transporter,” was originally devised by the television production team as simply a cost-effective way of moving characters from ship to planet and so on. However, from this bit of cost-saving ingenuity was born a fascinating philosophical question: In the Star Trek universe, what happens to people when they are transported?
The simple explanation is that when a person is transported, all of their individual molecules are broken down in the transporter and then put back together in the exact same configuration at another location. In the television series, most people seem to be unperturbed by the idea of their bodies being routinely destroyed and then rebuilt. There are exceptions. Both Dr. McCoy in the original series and Dr. Pulaski from The Next Generation are very reluctant to use the teleporter. The philosophical question is whether McCoy and Pulaski are right to be worried.
If any of us were at this moment to be reduced to all of our individual molecules, we would for all intents and purposes, be dead. If at some point later all our molecules were reassembled and in the correct order, we would once again be alive. If this is how teleportation works on Star Trek, it must be the case that when characters use the transporters, they are first killed in one location and then brought back to life in another.
Perhaps McCoy and Pulaski are unduly worried, and being killed and resurrected in their times is a perfectly safe procedure. However, there is a thought experiment in philosophy that seems to show that the person ‘resurrected’ would not be the same person who was killed. That is, the character transported is not the same person who entered the transporter but a replica.
The Swampman Thought Experiment
In a 1987 article, “Knowing One’s Own Mind,” Donald Davidson asks us to imagine him standing near a swamp during an electrical storm. A bolt of lightning strikes a tree near where Davidson is standing. Somehow, in this moment, he is completely obliterated, and the tree transforms into his exact replica. For our purposes, we can imagine Davidson “teleporting” from next to the swamp to where the tree stood.
The “Swampman” that now stands exactly where the tree once stood, who is an exact replica of Davidson, walks away from the swamp and back to Davidson’s home. He walks like Davidson, talks like Davidson, and none of the philosopher’s friends or family can tell the difference between the two. When he reaches Davidson’s home, the Swampman even sits down and begins writing philosophical articles exactly like those of Davidson.
Most of us will have heard the saying: if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. The Swampman certainly walks like Davidson and talks like Davidson, but is he Davidson? Davidson thinks not.
He says:
My replica can’t recognize my friends; it can’t recognize anything, since it never cognized anything in the first place. It can’t know my friends’ names (although of course it seems to), it can’t remember my house. It can’t mean what I do by the word ‘house’, for example, since the sound ‘house’ it makes was not learned in the context that would give it the right meaning – or any meaning at all. Indeed, I don’t see how my replica can be said to mean anything by the sounds it makes, nor to have any thoughts.
If the replica is not Davidson, then is the Dr. McCoy that emerges from the transporter not Dr. McCoy, but a replica?
Swampman’s Creator, Donald Davidson
Donald Herbert Davidson was born in Massachusetts, USA, in 1917. He graduated from Harvard in 1939, after studying literature and classics. Davidson went on to earn a doctorate degree in philosophy, which he completed in 1949. His studies were interrupted by the Second World War, in which Davidson served in the US Navy. The dissertation he submitted was on Plato’s Philebus; however, Davidson’s interests were moving away from literary studies toward a strongly analytical approach to philosophy.
Davidson held positions at several academic institutions during his career. These included Stanford, Princeton, Rockefeller, the University of Chicago, and the University of California. Davidson’s philosophy has become hugely influential in the areas of philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, and action theory. However, his work has also found a following in other philosophical areas, such as literary theory, and has been of interest to continental as well as analytical philosophers.
Of the public reception of Davidson, it is his Swampman thought experiment that stands most prominent. Although a fascinating idea and the subject of this present article, taken as a sample of Davidson’s entire philosophical output, the Swampman is but one small part. Indeed, Davidson made little use of the thought experiment after publishing the idea in 1987 and rarely elaborated upon the idea. Nevertheless, the Swampman looms large in the popular imagination. And this fact alone demonstrates the potential power of the philosophical thought experiment. Before moving on to further explore the Swampman, it will be useful to take a closer look at thought experiments in general.
Other Thought Experiments
Thought experiments offer intriguing alternative views of philosophical problems. Presenting a problem in a new way helps to bypass any existing ideas and prejudices audiences may bring with them (even if they do not realize it). This way, we can test our intuitions about various things without the worry that deeply ingrained beliefs that would be costly to abandon will unduly affect our response. In addition, and especially in the case of some complex debates in analytical philosophy, thought experiments help draw out ideas easily lost among technical jargon and specialist knowledge.
However, when using thought experiments, whether they are ones we create ourselves or those offered by others, we must be mindful of what Daniel Dennett refers to as “intuition pumps.” Thought experiments are designed to test our intuitions, but it is easy to craft a story that elicits intuitive responses that are in fact incorrect. This is done, in most cases accidentally and inadvertently, by drawing people’s attention to particular ideas deemed to be important and diverting attention away from what is deemed extraneous detail. This is something any good storyteller will do when crafting a story, and a good thought example is constructed out of a good story. However, this so-called “extraneous detail” may actually be important, and through its omission, particular ideas appear intuitively to be correct. Dennett uses the word “pump” to evoke the way that some thought experiments can, whether the author intended this or not, “pump out” a set of intuitions rather than test them.
In mapping Davidson’s Swampman onto the idea of teleportation in Star Trek, we must be mindful of any “extraneous” information we omit. But also, of any belief that might be difficult to abandon (i.e., the belief that Dr. McCoy remains the same after using the transporter).
Is the Swampman Different From Davidson?
The reason Davidson believes that the Swampman is not the same as himself is that the Swampman does not have his experiences. He has Davidson’s memories, but because he was born instantly at the moment the lightning struck the tree, he did not experience any of the events Davidson did. This is why Davidson says that his replica does not recognize anything because it never “cognized” anything in the first place. We cannot redo something we have not already done. To cognize something is to know and become aware of it; the Swampman did not become aware of anything, Davidson did.
This means that, although to everyone, including the Swampman, he would appear to be Davidson. From what we might call a “God’s eye perspective,” it can clearly be seen that all of Swampman’s “memories” are false memories. This is why he does not actually recognize Davidson’s neighbor because all the information he has about this neighbor derives from Davidson’s previous cognitions.
Regarding the transporters in Star Trek, we could say the same about any of the characters using the teleportation machine. That is from God’s perspective, although Dr. McCoy rematerializing on the surface of some planet appears to be the same person that stepped into the transporter, he is in fact not. And this is something he could never know for himself.
In the Star Trek universe, many people have used transporters. If Davidson is correct about his Swampman, all those who have been teleported would be radically different kinds of people from those who have never used a transporter. Although outwardly they would appear to be the same people, the fact is that they are not the same people. We just lack the ability to detect the difference. Perhaps McCoy and Pulaski were right to fear the transporters.