100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Ship of Theseus | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Fri 01/27/12 01:27 PM
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus
The Ship of Theseus, also known as Theseus' paradox, or various variants, notably grandfather's axe and (in the UK) Trigger's Broom (based upon the BBC sitcom Only Fools and Horses) is a paradox that raises the question of whether an object which has had all its component parts replaced remains fundamentally the same object. The paradox is most notably recorded by Plutarch in Life of Theseus from the late 1st century. Plutarch asked whether a ship which was restored by replacing all its wooden parts remained the same ship. The paradox had been discussed by more ancient philosophers such as Heraclitus, Socrates, and Plato prior to Plutarch's writings; and more recently by Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. This problem is "a model for the philosophers"; some say "it remained the same, some saying it did not remain the same".[1] Fun philosophical topic. It prompts discussions on continuity, and identity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_identity Little extra to add to the fire. There is an interesting conversation over at the JREF. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=228171 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It seems like a word game to me. Its useful in clarifying what a person actually means by 'same' or 'identity' in any given conversation, and useful for challenging sloppy language-based thinking. Those who mistake their labels for reality have the most to gain from this investigation.
There never was, in reality, a 'ship of theseus'. There was only a subset of reality (i would say a collection of processes, but thats another model) which was (or were) conveniently labeled the 'ship of theseus'. As time passes, and circumstances change, one can choose to continue applying that label, or not. Reality doesn't care. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Fri 01/27/12 01:50 PM
|
|
It seems like a word game to me. Its useful in clarifying what a person actually means by 'same' or 'identity' in any given conversation, and useful for challenging sloppy language-based thinking. Those who mistake their labels for reality have the most to gain from this investigation. There never was, in reality, a 'ship of theseus'. There was only a subset of reality (i would say a collection of processes, but thats another model) which was (or were) conveniently labeled the 'ship of theseus'. As time passes, and circumstances change, one can choose to continue applying that label, or not. Reality doesn't care. If the ship of Theseus is labeled based on its ownership (Theseus owns the ship called Ship of Theseus regardless of its constituent parts) then the problems disappear. Such a practical stand point however is not as exciting to discuss among philosophers. The same is true of perception. If you are labeled based on an unknowable catalog of your constituent parts and those parts change over time, well of course you are going to have problems with identity. I tend to agree the flaw is the labeling system not reality. I think the interesting part of this has a lot to do with the common (mis)perception of Philosophical Materialism, and why I brought it up. I think that bears further analysis. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the ship of Theseus is labeled based on its ownership (Theseus owns the ship called Ship of Theseus regardless of its constituent parts) then the problems disappear. True, but I wasn't just speaking on the level of 'which moniker to apply to which currently-existing subset of reality that we designate as 'that ship' ' - I hold that most of our concepts of sustained identity (not sustained existences of a pattern or process, but actual identity) of any kind are a consequence of our language based models, and have nothing to do with reality. I haven't thought through how this applies, or not, to sub-atomic particles... but when it comes to aggregate systems, it seems to me that there was no 'that particular ship' to begin with. 'That ship' is just a gross over-simplification of a massive collection of processes which are mostly beyond our perception. Such a practical stand point however is not as exciting to discuss among philosophers. Philosophers love to masturbate. I think the interesting part of this has a lot to do with the common (mis)perception of Philosophical Materialism, and why I brought it up. I think that bears further analysis. Yeah, various kinds of materialism are often straw-manned by people who disagree with materialist views. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oddly, airplanes are sometimes called ships ... as opposed to actual airships. According to FAA regulations if, for example, a plane crashes and every single part is replaced, you can still register it as the same plane with the same number and same history.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oddly, airplanes are sometimes called ships ... as opposed to actual airships. According to FAA regulations if, for example, a plane crashes and every single part is replaced, you can still register it as the same plane with the same number and same history. I think that this is useful. The FAA is not concerned with the true nature of the relationship between beliefs/perception and reality. In the everyday sense, registering planes, giving them numbers, tracking their ownership and history all helps keep people safe. Simplifications can be useful. Though I'm not sure how useful it is to keep the history of a plane the bridges before and after the event of every part being replaced... but thats an edge case which doesn't undermine the overall usefulness of numbering and tracking planes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if you replace the number 1 by erasing it and rewriting a 1 is it the same identity?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Fri 01/27/12 09:06 PM
|
|
I don't remember which topic it was, but someone had brought up something that I think might serve the discussion better.
Instead of a ship or inanimate object, lets review the same OP topic using a human being. If the brain of one human could be sucessfully transplanted into the body of another would the human who received the transplant still be the same human as before the transplant? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you change because of your education or due to a life experience
as a matter of personal growth are you still the same person?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is the Job of Philosophy?
To engage in mindless Mindphlock,or to give a rational view of existence? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is the Job of Philosophy? To engage in mindless Mindphlock,or to give a rational view of existence? Both.....or none.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is the Job of Philosophy? To engage in mindless Mindphlock,or to give a rational view of existence? Both.....or none.... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is the Job of Philosophy? To engage in mindless Mindphlock,or to give a rational view of existence? If philosophy has a purpose, then that purpose has evolved over the course of human existence. About the time of Plato, Aristotle and the like, philisophy was science and its purpose was to create, through observation and cognition, various hypotheses and then to test them by whatever means were thougth to be adequit at the time. Schools of philosophy were in essence schools of science. Other transitions included questions arizing from the theological, among the the dualism of body and mind and then ethics, thus philosophy entered the relms of both mysticism and materialism. Today, philosophy taken dualistic paths with the development of both the science and the continuation of the metaphysical. The science side of philosophy employs strong ethics, and thus it serves the scientific path by questioning the use, methods, thought processes, and the results of scientific, technological, and medica advances. On the metaphysical side, it still deals with qustions of dualism, spirituality, and its own ethics. One think at issue in determining if philosophy is the same thing today as it was in the time Plato, we would have to ask the question, is it still recognizable by all people today in all its forms as philosophy? I would say its not though not because that would be accurate rather, because not everyone has the same knowledge or information that leads to an understanding of philosophy throughout history. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is the Job of Philosophy? To engage in mindless Mindphlock,or to give a rational view of existence? If philosophy has a purpose, then that purpose has evolved over the course of human existence. About the time of Plato, Aristotle and the like, philisophy was science and its purpose was to create, through observation and cognition, various hypotheses and then to test them by whatever means were thougth to be adequit at the time. Schools of philosophy were in essence schools of science. Other transitions included questions arizing from the theological, among the the dualism of body and mind and then ethics, thus philosophy entered the relms of both mysticism and materialism. Today, philosophy taken dualistic paths with the development of both the science and the continuation of the metaphysical. The science side of philosophy employs strong ethics, and thus it serves the scientific path by questioning the use, methods, thought processes, and the results of scientific, technological, and medica advances. On the metaphysical side, it still deals with qustions of dualism, spirituality, and its own ethics. One think at issue in determining if philosophy is the same thing today as it was in the time Plato, we would have to ask the question, is it still recognizable by all people today in all its forms as philosophy? I would say its not though not because that would be accurate rather, because not everyone has the same knowledge or information that leads to an understanding of philosophy throughout history. And even if they did have the same set of standards (information) would each individual process it "exactly" the same?.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THIS: !! "In the realm of cognition, the special sciences are the trees, but philosophy is the soil which makes the forest possible.".............  Ayn Rand..... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if you replace the number 1 by erasing it and rewriting a 1 is it the same identity? I would say 'yes' - but that which is the 'same' in this situation doesn't exist in reality. It's an abstraction. Instead of a ship or inanimate object, lets review the same OP topic using a human being. I think that was the point - to build up a working set of ideas on the notion of identity, without the extra garbage that comes from preconceived notions of (and attachments to) 'self'. If you change because of your education or due to a life experience as a matter of personal growth are you still the same person? Just as its useful to some to slap the same number on a crashed plane thats been completely replaced, its useful for us to model people as having continuity of identity. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just as its useful to some to slap the same number on a crashed plane thats been completely replaced, its useful for us to model people as having continuity of identity. Linking a thing for practical purposes to a concept as identity never runs into paradox, only reference to some mysterious dualistic notion of consciousness has issues. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think what I find most interesting, is to ask the question how can our knowledge of philosophical identity help us understand cultural identity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just as its useful to some to slap the same number on a crashed plane thats been completely replaced, its useful for us to model people as having continuity of identity. Linking a thing for practical purposes to a concept as identity never runs into paradox, only reference to some mysterious dualistic notion of consciousness has issues. 
|
|
|
|
|
