ikilled007: Thought Experiment

Michael (

ikilled007) wrote,
@ 2008-05-13 15:23:00

Current music:

Led Zeppelin - Led Zeppelin - Dyer Maker

Thought Experiment
Are you familiar with the Ship of Theseus? It's a "paradox" of identity. Here is the summary:

According to Greek legend as reported by Plutarch,
The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned [from Crete] had thirty oars, and was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of Demetrius Phalereus, for they took away the old planks as they decayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their place, insomuch that this ship became a standing example among the philosophers, for the logical question of things that grow; one side holding that the ship remained the same, and the other contending that it was not the same.

Plutarch thus questions whether the ship would remain the same if it were entirely replaced, piece by piece. As a corollary, one can question what happens if the replaced parts were used to build a second ship. Which, if either, is the original Ship of Theseus?

Ok, a ship might seem like a complicated structure. Let's make it much simpler.

You have a 2x4 and I have a 2x4. You stand yours up vertically and I balance mine on yours making a "T". We name the object our "T".

Now we replace my 2x4 with a new one. Is it still the "T"?
Then we replace the other 2x4 with a new one also. Is it still the "T"?
Then we put the original 2x4s into a T next to the original "T". Which, if either, is the "T"?

Suppose before we did this experiment, we each wrote on our 2x4s "This is the T"? At the end of the experiement we still have two structures, but one says "This is the T". Is it really the "T" or is the other one the "T"?

This whole thought experiment might sound silly, but consider that the human body constantly creates new cells as old cells die. The average age of cells in an adult body may be less than 10 years. Are you really you?

(Post a new comment)

zarex
2008-05-13 02:33 pm UTC (link)

I don't know why people get so hung up on specific atoms/components/parts being the identity of an object; for any practical consideration it's almost always completely irrelevant. One carbon atom is the same as any other. The organization and function of the object is what matters, unless there's some "collectible" or nostalgic component attached to its components. In this case, like most paradoxes, it's really just a weakness of the language in defining what "same" means.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

longhairedbum
2008-05-13 03:23 pm UTC (link)

Actually, I think that's what the thought experiment illustrates. If you gradually pick off and replace the individual pieces of a ship and replace them with identical pieces, it's the same ship, functionally and aesthetically. The specific components are irrelevant.

ikilled007's 2x4 question is different. In the Ship of Theseus, the individual planks are mostly insignificant. The ship as a whole has a particular function, form, and history amongst its users. With the 2x4s, suddenly the component parts form a greater share of the identity of the object. Writing "This is the T" on one of the 2x4 is a major aesthetic change to the T object. It's like making remaking the ship with bamboo. It's a different ship at that point.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	zarex 2008-05-13 03:30 pm UTC (link)
	Yes, it's the same "T" if I don't care about the signature, but it's a different "T" if I were one who deeply valued ikilled007's autograph. The definition of "same" in our language is somewhat ambiguous; an important point, but I don't think it makes it a meaningful philosophical question or a paradox - it's just a good example of a lack of precision in our language. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	tintaglia30 2008-05-13 02:41 pm UTC (link)
	THIS is an awesome post. And I AM psychotic enough to wonder about shit like this a lot. Further add to it the theory that the entire universe is reborn every few seconds... and no, nobody is ever the same person from birth to death. (Reply to this)

	selfishgene 2008-05-13 03:00 pm UTC (link)
	Tired of trolling on politics and economics? Branching out into philosophy now, I admire your enterprising spirit. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	ikilled007 2008-05-13 03:55 pm UTC (link)
	Trolling? It's my journal. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	selfishgene 2008-05-13 05:25 pm UTC (link)
	You are a genteel rather polite troll, even amusing most of the time. But a troll is a troll. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	malathion 2008-05-28 03:47 am UTC (link)
	Accusing someone of trolling their own journal is a brilliant trolling technique. Hats off (Reply to this)(Parent)

	herbaliser 2008-05-13 04:12 pm UTC (link)
	trust me, this is what happens to people when they stay on the beach all day (Reply to this)(Parent)

etcet
2008-05-13 03:50 pm UTC (link)

I think that the unspoken aspect to this concept is the innate complexity of the object being gradually replaced. At what point is something complex enough to remain "itself" when one part is replaced? Two pieces? Five? Ten? A hundred?

In a body consisting of trillions of cells, any individual replacement is a tiny fraction of the whole.

Or is it more than merely a quantitative argument, and is a qualitative aspect to the replacement also germane? ie: does some part or other contain more of the essence, or the personality, or whatever, of the unit as a whole? The sails of the ship, for instance, or the figurehead - is that a greater, lesser, or equivalent substitution to a floorboard or oar?

(Reply to this)

	john_of_arabia 2008-05-13 04:24 pm UTC (link)
	Someone wrote a book on this, about historical objects in America. (Reply to this)

	john_of_arabia 2008-05-13 04:25 pm UTC (link)
	It was called, "The same Axe, twice" (Reply to this)

robertsmcnamara
2008-05-13 04:49 pm UTC (link)

John Locke and David Hume actually had a similar debate except with human memories and not actual atoms. I'm forgetting who said what, but the debate went something like this:

You have ten memories. They are given a label of A-J.

Your subject remembers all ten memories. Due to him remembering all ten memories, one of the philosophers would state that only him remembering all ten memories would allow him to identify as that person. If he loses one memory, he is no longer the same person.

Now the other philosopher would state that that person could lose every single memory except one, and he would still be able to identify as the same person.

Finally! My philosophy (Loyola N.O. represent) undergraduate major being used for something useful.

(Reply to this)

	pjammer 2008-05-13 05:29 pm UTC (link)
	In the immortal words of Steve Winwood I'm not the same boy I used be ... (Reply to this)

boffo
2008-05-13 05:42 pm UTC (link)

The correct answer to the question is, "This is why people mock Philosophy majors."

This is just an exercise in using imprecise language, and then for some bizarre reason thinking that the impossibility of interpreting your meaning from the intentionally vague wording somehow makes it deep and thought-provoking.

It's not a deep question. It's just a product of sloppy thinking. It's functionally no different from the following exchange:

Random Dude: What's that book about?
Wankmaster Q. McPhilosophymajor: Goths
RD: Do you mean the germanic tribe, or emo kids with dyed hair?
WQMP: Yes, that is the question, isn't it? [Raises eyebrow meaningfully, adopts a pensive expression, adjusts beret, runs fingers down lengthy goatee.]

Being a sloppy thinker makes you dumb, not smart. The problem with most Philosophy departments is that they teach the exact opposite. By contrast, you should read George Orwell's essay Politics and the English Language for an excellent discussion on the relation between clear expression and clear thinking.

(Reply to this)

	boffo 2008-05-13 05:45 pm UTC (link)
	Alternatively, you could just insist that the person asking the question define what they mean by the word "same." They'll probably come up with some intentionally vague definition, but if you keep pressing them to define what they mean by that definition, eventually they'll have to ask a question with a concrete meaning. At which point the answer will be obvious. (Reply to this)(Thread)

phanatic
2008-05-13 08:35 pm UTC (link)

That's it exactly: what you mean by 'same.' You can't visit the same river twice, etc etc. The ship changes moment by moment; if you get particular enough, it stopped being the "Ship of Theseus" the moment a bit of planking rotted off and fell into the water, or even before that.

Same thing with the cells question. Why do you start with the assumption that there's some constant and unchanging "you" in the first place? The Last Psychiatrist has a good article on that question in regards to antidepressants:

The article can be summarized: "I've been on antidepressants for most of my life. How do I know who the real me is?"

It's an interesting question, and many have attempted to answer it. But the question is faulty, because it assumes there is a "you."

And, of course, there isn't.

A medication doesn't alter your core personality; your personality constantly changes, adapts, to stimuli. Why do some people go all Zimbardo at the drop of a hat, while men married of 20 years become infuriatingly repetitive in their behaviors?

It's no different than the antidepressant question, which is no different than anything else. You're confused because it's a medication, but there are other things more powerfully transformative than a pill. For example: divorce. You may think the "real you" married your wife or husband, but I am confident that if you had married someone else, you would have been a different person-- sometimes dramatically different. Example: a gazillion women who are in their second (happier) marriage have told me that they don't even recognize the woman that they were in the first marriage. "I can't believe the things I did-- in some ways, I was actually a bad person." And they describe being manipulated-- and manipulating; being selfish, etc. Circumstances made them "bad," and the healthier second marriage has made them into a healthier, better person.

Or whatever. I'm not saying all first marriages are bad, and you are bad for being in them-- I'm giving an example of how an external event that you chose drastically alters your identity. The pill is no different.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	tbncirce 2008-05-13 07:08 pm UTC (link)
	"The average age of cells in an adult body may be less than 10 years." Excluding neurons. Which is a pretty big point to omit as far as defining who "you" are. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	malathion 2008-05-28 03:45 am UTC (link)
	You aren't neurons, either (Reply to this)(Parent)

	fitfool 2008-05-13 11:04 pm UTC (link)
	I heard about the body's cells being replaced fact in the context of reminding people that change is inevitable. (Reply to this)

	malathion 2008-05-28 03:43 am UTC (link)
	Welcome to Philosophy 100 (Reply to this)

Mini Sitemap:

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…