Paradox Resolution Challenge: Ship of Theseus

[owleye]

Owleye,

Whether one considers (A) the same or different after it has been restored to its original mathematical relations (B), is purely a matter of cognitive estimation (opinion). Therefore, to say that any (B) is an “original,” is itself just an idea.

You have no opinion on it, I see. It could be the same or it could be different. As such you are treating the problem as if it were about any kind of difference. You are a different person than you were yesterday or you can be the same person you were yesterday, all a matter of opinion, as you say. Chicago is different today than yesterday, or it is the same as yesterday, it's just a matter of opinion, an idea in someone's head. You don't seem to be getting what the paradox is about. The paradox specifically talks about replacement of parts. What is the impact of replacing a part? Is there an important distinction between replacing one or a number of parts and replacing every part? Suppose it were possible to take two ships, one that was the Ship of Theseus, while the other was some ship that looked somewhat like it, and could be fitted in such a way that the parts that would be used to replace those on the Ship of Theseus could instead be used to remake it to be identical with the Ship of Theseus. Now we have two identical ships, right? Is it then a matter of opinion whether the untouched ship is still the Ship of Theseus, or should we now think the remade ship is the Ship of Theseus. One might imagine there is a confusion over which one it is if we weren't told, but, like the game with three cups that all look alike, we should all agree that after shuffling them, each of their identities remain untouched. If originally labelled A, B, C as they are lined up, at the end of it, they would be in some rearrangement of those labels.

This being the case, it should call attention to the issue of what it means to be the same thing, when undergoing a change by replacing parts of some object. The idea here is that the parts are identical in everyday to the original. There is no important distinction between the part being replaced and the replacement part. One could ask the same question about the part, if it, too, consists of parts. We could take the paradox all the way down to molecules, or atoms or ions, if that were possible.

One part of the paradox then is whether or not the Ship of Theseus is more than the sum of its parts. Is there something about it that isn't affected by replacing any or all of its parts, that if some other object were composed of the same identical parts would be left out of it? This is what used to be thought of as the object's substance, one that in us, we identify with our inner self, which presumably remains untouched if any of our parts are replaced.

James

James

[neuro]

1. Does it strike you as problematic or sensible that everything around you changes from one instant to the next?

Not problematic at all.
Even if it did not change, I may perceive it differently; my problem is to GIVE MEANING to what I perceive, so my task (the circuitry in my brain fortunately takes care of this) simply is to be able to "recognize" things by noting a sufficient degree of similitude (in composition, general pattern, position, whatever) to suggest that they may be "the same thing".

Then, whether I decide it to be "the same thing" depends on operative as well as cognitive conditions, i.e. on the possible use of such information in practical or cognitive tasks.

Then to what degree should we consider that an object has changed? When our classification of it is no longer met? When it's material composition changes, even if it is only one skin cell (and if not, where is the line?)? When we move our head and see it from a different angle, because we have no proof of 3D space beyond our senses? Or, at the most extreme, every single instant, simply because our conception of it changes? What is your favourite degree and why? :P

There is no such line.

In front of any sensory information our brain simultaneously proposes many alternative readings, proposing it be an element of a system or an object in itself, a known object or a novel one, an interpretable item (partly recognized as similar to something known) or a puzzling donnowhat.

Then, it is up to us, depending on the use (practical or cognitive) we want to do of such interpretation, to consider the experience / object as something we already knew or a novelty.

So, if we recognize a person in a certain amount of flesh, we are interested in the individuality (history, attitude, character, our relation with...) of the person, not in the cells she is composed of. On the other hand, if we wish to recognize our red chevrolet in a parking lot full of identical red chevrolets, then a single different digit on the plate is sufficient for us to tell "it is not my car".

If we are interested in Theseus' ship, we are interested in something which has gone through history with a name attached to it ("Theseus' ship"). Something else, put together with the pieces recollected during its modification, simply is the collection of original pieces of Theseus' ship.

It depends on WHAT we are trying to recognize and WHY are we trying to discern it from anything else, more or less similar.
It depends on THE RELATION we are establishing with the object of concern.

[Neri]

Neuro,

Your explanation is definitive. I can add nothing more.

[Positor]

You [Neri] don't seem to be getting what the paradox is about. The paradox specifically talks about replacement of parts. What is the impact of replacing a part? Is there an important distinction between replacing one or a number of parts and replacing every part? Suppose it were possible to take two ships, one that was the Ship of Theseus, while the other was some ship that looked somewhat like it, and could be fitted in such a way that the parts that would be used to replace those on the Ship of Theseus could instead be used to remake it to be identical with the Ship of Theseus. Now we have two identical ships, right? Is it then a matter of opinion whether the untouched ship is still the Ship of Theseus, or should we now think the remade ship is the Ship of Theseus. One might imagine there is a confusion over which one it is if we weren't told, but, like the game with three cups that all look alike, we should all agree that after shuffling them, each of their identities remain untouched. If originally labelled A, B, C as they are lined up, at the end of it, they would be in some rearrangement of those labels.

I think all these things are matters of opinion, based on our intuitive concepts of ships and identity. The identity criterion of "continuously existing over time" will compete with that of "having the very same (i.e. original) parts". In many cases we will find the answer obvious, and our opinions will therefore agree. In some special cases (e.g. where all the original parts of the Ship of Theseus have been recombined into a second ship), our intuitive ideas will be less of a guide, so we may find the question hard or impossible to decide, and our conclusions (if reached) may disagree. In such cases there is no "right" answer in an absolute sense. All we can do is agree to differ – or, where a decision is required (e.g. for legal purposes), stipulate an answer for that specific context.

This being the case, it should call attention to the issue of what it means to be the same thing, when undergoing a change by replacing parts of some object. The idea here is that the parts are identical in everyday to the original. There is no important distinction between the part being replaced and the replacement part. One could ask the same question about the part, if it, too, consists of parts. We could take the paradox all the way down to molecules, or atoms or ions, if that were possible.

One part of the paradox then is whether or not the Ship of Theseus is more than the sum of its parts. Is there something about it that isn't affected by replacing any or all of its parts, that if some other object were composed of the same identical parts would be left out of it? This is what used to be thought of as the object's substance, one that in us, we identify with our inner self, which presumably remains untouched if any of our parts are replaced.

These matters can certainly be discussed, and we can use our analytic skills to consider how our fundamental concepts of identity etc apply to them. We can seek to clarify our thinking about these questions so as to avoid inconsistency or vagueness. But ultimately they are matters of opinion; they cannot be logically or empirically verified in their entirety.

[owleye]

I think all these things are matters of opinion, based on our intuitive concepts of ships and identity. The identity criterion of "continuously existing over time" will compete with that of "having the very same (i.e. original) parts". In many cases we will find the answer obvious, and our opinions will therefore agree. In some special cases (e.g. where all the original parts of the Ship of Theseus have been recombined into a second ship), our intuitive ideas will be less of a guide, so we may find the question hard or impossible to decide, and our conclusions (if reached) may disagree. In such cases there is no "right" answer in an absolute sense. All we can do is agree to differ – or, where a decision is required (e.g. for legal purposes), stipulate an answer for that specific context.

This seems to be a cop-out. If we disagree, might not it be because we are using a different understanding of or different reference to the terms we are using, like 'different' and 'same'? Why not continue the argument, trying to find agreement on the meanings of the words that are used? This is what I think makes the philosopher different than most of us. Most of us do what you seem to be doing, namely -- well, it's just a matter of opinion. Nothing of interest to anybody really.

But even among the uninitiated, folks can be made to wonder about it if the questions are put to them in just the right way (a way, I'm afraid I'm not all that good at, though as you can see I've at least tried). As it happens, I found myself while driving to visit our granddaughter's graduation, discussing this issue with my wife, who has little or no interest in what I find of interest. After droning on for a while, I finally took the step I'd been leading up to in the pursuit on this board, that I hadn't yet got to and wasn't going to because I thought I'd be able to get someone on this board to see the problem and be interested enough to respond to it by finding examples that would provoke further thought.

After going through the duplication as it relates to identity, I introduced to her the star-trek transporter concept where someone is transported down from the ship to the planet by a process which disassembles the person on the ship and reassembles him or her on the planet. An amazing concept, but one might think it could be done because the disassembly could identify all that which is pertinent to the identity of the person -- his or her information content, so to speak, and, using material at the other end, reassemble it from that information. (It's not entirely clear how we are expected to understand the transport in Star-Trek, as it might be understood as transporting the parts as well.)

Now, given this mode of transport, as we know from how information can be transported wirelessly in the tech world, it's not to hard to imagine that the move action associated with "dragging and dropping" has two modes to it. For the transport mode, that which is moved doesn't leave behind what is being moved, whereas a copy action, does. As such, the same machine could be used to cause a duplicate at the other end. Thus, whereas we thought we were transporting the person to another location by way of the transporter, in how Star Trek gave us that illusion, what would we think if the person transported was left unaltered while their duplicate was transported? My wife perked up at this because she realized that something important happened in how our identity is understood.

James

[Gregorygregg1]

Perhaps what we are talking about now is a question of trust. If the government requires my date and place of birth for their record, they will not accept a copy of my birth certificate, though it may be contain exactly the same information. In their eyes it isn't the same as the original because they don't trust me not to have altered the information. If I trust the artisans entrusted with preserving "The Ship of Theseus", It retains its identity. If I don't trust them, maybe it's just another ship.

[owleye]

Perhaps what we are talking about now is a question of trust. If the government requires my date and place of birth for their record, they will not accept a copy of my birth certificate, though it may be contain exactly the same information. In their eyes it isn't the same as the original because they don't trust me not to have altered the information. If I trust the artisans entrusted with preserving "The Ship of Theseus", It retains its identity. If I don't trust them, maybe it's just another ship.

Well, I suppose from an historical perspective, the need for a certificate of birth isn't so much about the need to have one, since it may be assumed that one was born even without someone certifying it. Then, again, who knows? I think the principle purpose was to have on record when, where and by whom, mostly so as to connect them to their parents. What would happen if these sacred texts went up in flames? What would be done to the poor lads and lasses who are shaken loose from that beam of civilization they'd previously been anchored to? Well, we see a bit of it in the Birther movement in U.S. politics. Not exactly a welcome page being turned in our history book.

Turning to the issue of trust. With respect to the need to have an original, however, this appears to be related to the need for authority on such matters. The government seal of recognition corresponds to the ability of the seal itself to mark its originality. It has a kinship with a signature, elaborated in that unique way signatures are supposed to be in order to make them linked inextricably to their author, which in this case to those authorized to establish that originality. This in turn spawns a forgery or counterfeit testing industry. Trust might be involved but only after the rulers establish the authority to fend off the forgers and counterfeiters.

With respect to the issue of who are our parents, birth certificates may be giving way to DNA testing. Other than that, however, time and place stamping might be possible in other ways, though giving birth is one of those events that doesn't seem to require one to go through such a stamping process. One's age might be reduced to a time stamp biologically given at birth, don't know. Where one was at one's birth might be traceable to a specific environment encoded as well. Given enough resources, forensic science may even be able to make that connection.

James

[Keep_Relentless]

Ok! Am back and have read the messages, and am really glad at the expressions.

The foremost idea that I am taking from this is that the question of identity is proposed as entirely a matter of opinion, or subjective. I agree with Owleye that this shouldn't mean we should "agree to disagree", this may be another matter entirely but I am tired of hearing that everybody is entitled to their opinion; I'm a freethinker in more senses than religious. It is true that we can say, with regards to identity, "That is that because I say it is," but that shouldn't stop us from reasoning it out. Intuition is the key to enlightenment, and communication is the greatest fuel for intuition.
I also, along with Owleye, see that this is a problem of the relation of identity and part. I also think, though, that it is a problem of language, illustrating its limits, practically and essentially, of identification and reference.

Ultimately I think we might best aim at a resolution through:
1. Recognising that physically everything constantly changes
2. Clarifying our own individual references satisfactorily.
Perhaps after all we should tell each other what we mean by "ship", and elaborate sufficiently as to cover all questions that may be proposed regarding the identity of "ship".
If, as neuro asserts amidst some splendid answers, our means of identification is flawed, then we must continue to refine it "satisfactorily". I do not agree that this is the case, however. Even if it cannot be expressed or understood meaningfully, I am quite sure that there is a perfectly defined reference outlined by each word for each mind, albeit this shifts, perhaps constantly.

I suppose we must hope that our situations coincide sufficiently that we may understand each other accurately through analogy!

[BadgerJelly]

The way I see this Keep is that there are many ways to approach this as a question (I can only see two manin ones though :

1) Like I said, and you've said too, ask first and foremost what we mean by "ship"? It this a true entity or a construction of other entities? If I call you "human" then you leave and someone else walks into the room and I call them "Human" then am I wrong?

2) Accept ship as a FACT for the sake of seeing where this idea leads you ... or we could say accept that a Dragon flew from the sky landed on earth and made gravity reverse? What would happen?

As for right and wrong I struggle to see how this has anything to do with the topic because I do not personally see a correct definition of right and wrong?

I think it is very important that you've touched on the idea of this not being subjective? If you are not careful here you can go around in circles for ever trying to answer a question that is already an answer in itself.

Also the argument for having an EXACT copy of the ship is a strange one in what we perceive as physical reality. For something to be identical to something else EXACTLY it has to BE it in the same point of space and time. It has to be it not a copy of it because a copy is exactly that ... an impression of the true state of the object NOT the actual object.

If you want to accept this as a Paradox then I am okay with that as long as you accept EVERYTHING as a Paradox.

Also lets not forget that a Paradox is something that goes against our intuition which is constructed by logic ... is that itself not contradictory? Or are we just conditioned to label things so much we cannot see the forest for the trees sometimes?

[Keep_Relentless]

The way I see this Keep is that there are many ways to approach this as a question (I can only see two manin ones though :

1) Like I said, and you've said too, ask first and foremost what we mean by "ship"? It this a true entity or a construction of other entities? If I call you "human" then you leave and someone else walks into the room and I call them "Human" then am I wrong?

That's the beauty in the subjectivity; it appears you can choose whether you are wrong or not. You must then define "human" sufficiently to suit all intended purposes.

As for right and wrong I struggle to see how this has anything to do with the topic because I do not personally see a correct definition of right and wrong?

If the Ship of Theseus puzzle is taken as one of language then the question of "right vs. wrong" may be similar to "what a ship is", in the sense that they are subjective and constantly shift. Note that it is not ethics itself that shifts but rather the interpretation, definition and therefore reference of each and every word and other persistent experience that refers (which may be all of them, given our tendency to link notions).

Also the argument for having an EXACT copy of the ship is a strange one in what we perceive as physical reality. For something to be identical to something else EXACTLY it has to BE it in the same point of space and time. It has to be it not a copy of it because a copy is exactly that ... an impression of the true state of the object NOT the actual object.

This is why all I advocate as a result of this paradox is that we understand that no two things are alike (otherwise they couldn't be two things!) and that we continue to clarify our own references.

If you want to accept this as a Paradox then I am okay with that as long as you accept EVERYTHING as a Paradox.

I see "paradox" as a relative term, in proportion to our own understanding. If we accept the premises to a certain degree, and then reject the implications to a certain degree, it's paradoxical to said degrees. Where these degrees are and who does the accepting/rejecting is open to debate. In the loose sense though, "paradox" and "problem" can be identical, and all a problem is is "something to think about", which I could comfortably call "everything".
(Everything is a problem ;P)

[mtbturtle]

http://courses.dce.harvard.edu/~phils4/theseus.html

The Ship of Theseus:

How much change can the identity of a thing tolerate? You might answer: "that depends on the thing," or "that depends on the sort of thing we are talking about." Some philosophers think that there are no standard set criteria that would help to identify each and every thing for a thing of its kind. They believe - these philosophers do - that there are different criteria of identity for different sorts of thing. So, for example, what we think of as the Boston Red Sox may, just may, tolerate much more change in its identity and still be regarded as the Boston Red Sox than, say, an oak tree or a Ford Taurus.

[BadgerJelly]

@ Keep - I hear ya! Paradox is a relative term. I do NOT see one here at all unless, as I stated, EVERYTHING is a Paradox.

There is nothing contradictory about a ship having parts replaced but there is utter insanity is believing the ship un-becomes itself unless its a purely nonsense based riddle ... in which case it makes sense to ask a nonsense question to further our understanding of "reality" in its conceptual forms in ignorance of the possibility of direct form.

[mtbturtle]

What's a relative term? and how is paradox a relative term?

[Keep_Relentless]

What's a relative term? and how is paradox a relative term?

A relative term is what is called a vague term in the context of "The Heap" and "Bald Man" puzzles. "Like" is a relative term. "Huge" is a relative term. A relative term refers to an arbitrary point on some magnitude, and most of them are entirely meaningless without context. For example, "love" and "know" are equivalent terms according to the dictionary, because its meaning hasn't been defined with other words that have meaning.
Most medical diagnoses are also relative; they are manifestations that are "officially problematic".
People use relative terms in almost every sentence, and logically it destroys any definitive meaning. It would annoy me if there weren't far greater common annoyances.

"Paradox" is a relative term because it is defined in terms of some subjective and, yes, arbitrary level of agreement with a) premises and b) implications.

[owleye]

What's a relative term? and how is paradox a relative term?

A relative term is what is called a vague term in the context of "The Heap" and "Bald Man" puzzles. "Like" is a relative term. "Huge" is a relative term. A relative term refers to an arbitrary point on some magnitude, and most of them are entirely meaningless without context. For example, "love" and "know" are equivalent terms according to the dictionary, because its meaning hasn't been defined with other words that have meaning.
Most medical diagnoses are also relative; they are manifestations that are "officially problematic".
People use relative terms in almost every sentence, and logically it destroys any definitive meaning. It would annoy me if there weren't far greater common annoyances.

"Paradox" is a relative term because it is defined in terms of some subjective and, yes, arbitrary level of agreement with a) premises and b) implications.

I read the above three times and I was unable to determine your point. Examples are supposed to help, not confuse.

If I stopped there, I might have the positive effect of prompting you to clarify your clarification, however, you may find it difficult because you wouldn't know where to begin. Indeed, I'm finding it difficult as well. I think the problem lies with how you explain what you mean by 'relative'. It seems as if you are adding to the confusion by lumping together a number of different ideas that taken together doesn't help get at the concept. Here's what I learn from what you say.

1. To be relative is to be vague.
2. To be relative is to be arbitrary.
3. To be relative is to be meaningless without context.
4. To be relative is to be problematic.
5. To be relative is to lack definition (lack definitive meaning).
6. To be relative is to be subjective.

Given this, do you think you've clarified or confused?

James

[mtbturtle]

I dunno I gave up. It was a hodgepodge of philosophy buzz words all stuck together. It makes my eyes glaze over and my little brain hurt and then I start thinking about what to make for dinner...

[Keep_Relentless]

Well I would then attempt to summarise by saying that relative terms, while referring to a spectrum, do not definitively specify a region of the spectrum as they purport to. My new example is, if you asked "Do you like x or y more?" I could give an answer without any problem, but if you just asked "Do you like x?" I must say "How much?" or else specify a line between "Yes" and "No" at my own leisure, and without a clear location of the line the entire dialogue is meaningless.

[owleye]

Well I would then attempt to summarise by saying that relative terms, while referring to a spectrum, do not definitively specify a region of the spectrum as they purport to. My new example is, if you asked "Do you like x or y more?" I could give an answer without any problem, but if you just asked "Do you like x?" I must say "How much?" or else specify a line between "Yes" and "No" at my own leisure, and without a clear location of the line the entire dialogue is meaningless.

The task you have in from of you is enormous, I think. The words you fill the page with represent a kind of scrambled eggs approach to understanding. What may be missing in it is a curiosity that seeks why a term such as 'relative' is needed, or what role the term plays in sentences, or more specifically what other term does it distinguish itself from. Alternatively, you might wonder about the context of its typical use. Instead, what you seem to be pursuing is the depth and breadth of the instances of its use as if this will lead to its understanding. As such you want to make the task a difficult one. It's true that many concepts are difficult to define (e.g., liberty, justice, democracy, philosophy), but when someone asks you how I should understand its use (i.e., what do you mean by 'x'), what you need to do is provide a few simple phrases to get across the idea, by fixing its meaning in some context, plus an example to give the reader an understanding of what you have in mind.

So, for example, if I'd been using 'relative' in a sentence, say "'Nothing' is typically used in its relative sense.", and someone asked me what I meant by 'relative', I would respond by saying that 'relative is a term that is distinguished from 'absolute' and intends to imply a particular universe of discourse under which it applies and is relevant, and is usually implicitly, not explicitly given. For example, when asked what I have in my pocket, I can reply "Nothing.", and be truthful even when, undoubtedly, there's some air in my pocket.

James

[littletrio]

I hate to be a thread hi-jacker but I would like to ask you great minds a question. Looking for some good works on the fields of philosophy, epistemology, consciouness, ontology, semanitics, semiotics, space, logic, psychology, quantum and all physics, and the such. I would like to acquire the ability to perform modal logic, quantum variables, and the like. Would need to start from scratch. Some algebra, trig, and geo but many years ago.

Thanks Owl, for the reco's Leibniz and User Illusion. Great stuff, I read Bertrand Russel's views on Leibniz and the are both great minds. I really enjoyed the User Illusion, right up my alley.