nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Mind game - The Ship of Theseus

JupiterKid

Ok - here’s a little mind game for you to figure out. The Ship of Theseus is a large wooden sea ship with big sails. Over a 200 year period, the wood making up the Ship gets tired and rotten is gradually replaced, plank by plank.

Eventually all the original wood in the Ship is replaced. Is it still the Ship of Theseus?

Well?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Buford T. Justice XIX

Jovanni Ugly Tribune wrote: »

If you replace all the components of a ship one by one over a period of time and use the removed components to assemble another ship, does the ship exist in two places?

Well, the ship becomes Schrodingers ship then:pac:

o1s1n

Deleted User wrote: »

Ownership is a legal construct. And at law yes, it is still his ship.

If I sell my house, I can't hack the tiles off the walls and take them with me on the basis that I only sold the bricks and mortar. Those items, like the planks of the boat, became fixed to and part of the property, and as someone is buying the property they take all that is built into it.

It's not just about ownership though, it also involves the physical item itself.

So if you replace all parts of a physical item over time, separately, is it the same physical item?

If my family had an axe that was passed down and over the generations, the handle was replaced by my grandfather, the axe head by my father, is it still the same family axe by the time it gets to me?

silverharp

]

_Roz_

It's not the same physical item. The emotional attachment someone has to it, combined with the gradual replacement of parts, might mean that symbolically for that person, it is the same item. But I think once all the original parts were gone, I'd consider the original gone too.

weldoninhio

_Roz_ wrote: »

It's not the same physical item. The emotional attachment someone has to it, combined with the gradual replacement of parts, might mean that symbolically for that person, it is the same item. But I think once all the original parts were gone, I'd consider the original gone too.

Exactly, if artists start replacing the pages of the book of kells today and by 2020 it is completely replaced, its no longer the book of Kells, its a copy of the book.

[Deleted User]

Think of a bus stop its called say Mrs Ryan's shop, shop long gone replaced with a housing estate the bus stop is still called Mrs Ryan's shop even though the psychical presence of the shop is gone. There are lots of example like that.

The name of bus stops in Ireland would make a really interesting whimsically book.

bilbot79

Jovanni Ugly Tribune wrote: »

This is an old paradox. If the water in a river is constantly flowing and being replace is it still the same river. A view states that considering objects to extend across time as four-dimensional causal series of three-dimensional "time-slices" could solve the ship of Theseus problem because, in taking such an approach, all four dimensional objects remain numerically identical to themselves while allowing individual time-slices to differ from each other. The aforementioned river, therefore, comprises different three-dimensional time-slices of itself while remaining numerically identical to itself across time; one can never step into the same river-time-slice twice, but one can step into the same (four-dimensional) river twice.

Or just consider Trigger's sweeping brush.

Can you provide a glossary of non English terms to help us understand?

Fourier

For anybody interested the ultimate extension and extrapolation of this paradox as it relates to thinking beings is Greg Egan's "Dust Theory", a distillation of various philosophical issues in AI research.

Grayson

weldoninhio wrote: »

Exactly, if artists start replacing the pages of the book of kells today and by 2020 it is completely replaced, its no longer the book of Kells, its a copy of the book.

But if most of it had been replaced over a period 1000 years and what we have now is the product of that, you'd still refer to it as the book of kells.

Wittgenstein said that all philosophical problems are just a problem of language. I don't agree with that but i do think it affects some metaphysical problems like this.

It's not what the boat is, it's whether we can refer to the boat as the same boat.

Think of it this way, if the boat had been in the ownership of a family and every 40 years it passed from one generation to another then the current owner could honestly say that a member of his family had been captain of this boat for 5 generations. However if the change had happened overnight then the guy would say someone had replaced the boat.

The difference is perspective and how we apply our perspective to objects.

[Deleted User]

My daughter partner who works in IT is convinced that fairly soon AI will be so good that when you phone a bank or utility provider customers will be put through to an AI computer but it will so good the customer will think they are talking to a person.

I don't think that can happen there are lots of example of why.

The story of king Canute ordering the tide to stop is usually interpreted in modern times as he though he was great and all powerful and thus could command the sea. ( a bit of trump charterer ). The real meaning was that he was religious and was making the point that the might be powerful but he would never be as powerful as God who could turn back the tide.

The point is the same information can be interpreted several ways, words language and meaning are fluid and change their meaning all the time.

AI will never have the intuitive understanding humans have.

Fourier

Well the truth is that we have no way of knowing how close we are to true AI, as we don't know the mechanism behind sentience, could be ten years, could be one thousand, or indeed never.

wakka12

You have that same problem in architecture. When buildings were destroyed in ww2 many were against rebuilding them as its not the same, its an imitation of what was just there

And no the ship is literally a different thing now but just remains with the same name as its appearance hasn't been altered noticeably

Grayson

mariaalice wrote: »

AI will never have the intuitive understanding humans have.

It doesn't have to. It just has to be able to mimic it.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

bilbot79 wrote: »

Can you provide a glossary of non English terms to help us understand?

Apart from a single Greek name, it's all in English.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

wakka12 wrote: »

You have that same problem in architecture. When buildings were destroyed in ww2 many were against rebuilding them as its not the same, its an imitation of what was just there

And no the ship is literally a different thing now but just remains with the same name as its appearance hasn't been altered noticeably

The paradox is related to gradual replacement of components over an extended period, unlike the rebuilding of an entire structure in one operation.

AllForIt

mariaalice wrote: »

My daughter partner who works in IT is convinced that fairly soon AI will be so good that when you phone a bank or utility provider customers will be put through to an AI computer but it will so good the customer will think they are talking to a person.

I don't think that can happen there are lots of example of why.

The story of king Canute ordering the tide to stop is usually interpreted in modern times as he though he was great and all powerful and thus could command the sea. ( a bit of trump charterer ). The real meaning was that he was religious and was making the point that the might be powerful but he would never be as powerful as God who could turn back the tide.

The point is the same information can be interpreted several ways, words language and meaning are fluid and change their meaning all the time.

AI will never have the intuitive understanding humans have.

Absolutely. AI = Artificial intelligence, artificial in the sense that it creates the illusion that there is some inherent intelligence there which there isn't. Some seem to think that artificial means that somehow intelligence has been created in a machine akin to our own human minds. No truth to what whatsoever but it does make for some good sci-fi movies.

Oldtree

JupiterKid wrote: »

Ok - here’s a little mind game for you to figure out. The Ship of Theseus is a large wooden sea ship with big sails. Over a 200 year period, the wood making up the Ship gets tired and rotten is gradually replaced, plank by plank.

Eventually all the original wood in the Ship is replaced. Is it still the Ship of Theseus?

Well?

If the ships name plate, after 200 years, still says "Ship of Theseus" then yes, but if the name plate was transferred to another ship, that ship would then be the "Ship of Theseus".

lonewolf1961

what,s black and white . but red all over ??? answers please .

Your Face

lonewolf1961 wrote: »

what,s black and white . but red all over ??? answers please .

A modern day socialist.

sydthebeat

Jovanni Ugly Tribune wrote: »

The paradox is related to gradual replacement of components over an extended period, unlike the rebuilding of an entire structure in one operation.

http://www.markstephensarchitects.com/japan-handles-conservation-rebuilding/

An interesting look at the Japanese approach to architectural conservation.

While the building may not be the authentic structure that stood 1300 years ago, due to the degradation of materials, the building processes and skills have endured because of the willingness to rebuild the complete structures using traditional methods.

So adapting that scenario to the original paradox, if the boats timbers are replaced using modern methods, does that mean it's less "the same boat" than if they were replaced using the original processes and skills??

Canis Lupus

mariaalice wrote: »

My daughter partner who works in IT is convinced that fairly soon AI will be so good that when you phone a bank or utility provider customers will be put through to an AI computer but it will so good the customer will think they are talking to a person.

It's like talking to a robot now anyway when you get an Indian or Filipino call centre.

weldoninhio

Grayson wrote: »

But if most of it had been replaced over a period 1000 years and what we have now is the product of that, you'd still refer to it as the book of kells.

Wittgenstein said that all philosophical problems are just a problem of language. I don't agree with that but i do think it affects some metaphysical problems like this.

It's not what the boat is, it's whether we can refer to the boat as the same boat.

Think of it this way, if the boat had been in the ownership of a family and every 40 years it passed from one generation to another then the current owner could honestly say that a member of his family had been captain of this boat for 5 generations. However if the change had happened overnight then the guy would say someone had replaced the boat.

The difference is perspective and how we apply our perspective to objects.

If its replaced it's replaced, whether over 20 years or 2000 years. People could knock out 2000000 copies of the book of Kells or reproduce a boat to the exact specifications with the exact same materials. Wouldn't make it the same book or boat. Its not perspective. It has literally been replaced.

mzungu

It's really all down to the subjective. Memory and familiarity and ongoing attachment also play a part. For example, would the only real Chelsea team be the one that lined up for the first game in 1905? Over time the players changed but the fan attachment remained, due to the new players over becoming familiar over time. As long as fans believe it to be Chelsea, it's Chelsea. However, if you put out eleven unknowns onto the pitch next Saturday and called them Chelsea, then you may have a problem. Same with the ship, if you replaced it all in one fell swoop then it may dawn on the captain that something is different.

While the ship may not be the same, likewise with a team, the attachment to it remains and creates the continuity. Hence why it won't matter to the captain/fans over time when things change gradually. It's neither the same ship/team, nor is it a completely new one, but rather in a state of flux.