Talk:Ship of Theseus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Doesn't this article need citation?

I mean, granted, its a pretty famous philosophical paradox, the article really does need some outside support.--72.150.79.254 20:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Sommit

What does the "Modern Embellishment" add to the concept at issue? The precision of the legalese seems to overwhelm any philosophic content.

I think what it adds is the idea that A and B can be both "the same for the purposes of X" but perhaps not "for the purposes of Y". Michael Hardy 17:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's an episode of "Only Fools and Horses" that refers to this. Trigger (the one who keeps calling Rodney Dave) gets an award from the Council for using the same broom for 20 years. It then transpires that the head has been replaced 14 times and the handle 7 - but Trig still thinks it's the same broom!

[edit] Sports teams?

Seems to me a much more common example of this phenomenon than say, "computer building" would be sports teams. IE people always talk about franchise history in modern baseball trying to relate it with what is currently going on, even though POSSIBLY the only uniting factor is the city/stadium. The whole unit is replaced by new parts, but it's still considered to be the same unit

[edit] Human body

Does the human body completely regenerate itself every seven years? As in, no cells you had in your body seven years ago are still alive today. Therefor couldn't the Ship of Theseus argument apply to all humans? Would that support the fact that identity is a function of perception?

This is uncertain. However, in 2005 the New York Times (reproduced by the Rutland Herald) seems to have run an article where stem cell researcher Jonas Frisén used a method of carbon dating which indicates that if you are middle aged, the average age of all the cells in your body is about 10 years[1]. However, this article does not give a primary source, but I suspect it is in Cell 122, according to Frisén website here [2]. I will investigate this article when I get the chance; for now I will remove the uncited claim in this article.
--Negacthulhu 03:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050803/NEWS/508030317/1028
  2. ^ http://www.cedb.se/cedbsite/faculty/frisen.html

It seems as though the only thing that a person might have in common with themselves from a decade ago would be their mind, although that is open to significant change as well. However even when our original bodies are completely replaced our assigned identities remain. Perhaps the "identity is derived from physical being" argument could be satisfied by defining every new cell as part of the person just as the originals were. Therefor even when the original cells have been replaced the person can still be defined with their original identity because that identity has been passed down through the new generations of cells.

However the strict definition of a body as an absolute object is wrong, to me it is more like how we define a wave. The water that actually makes up the wave is constantly changing, however it is the perceived idea of the wave the remains the same throughout and therefor that is how we must define the wave. So although the molecule that make up a person are constantly changing it is the perception of similarity that creates identity, nothing more.

[edit] Aristotle

This is why I added a section on the end on Aristotole's Four Causes. Even though the material cause changes, the formal cause remains the same. The Formal Cause is basically the design of the object in this system, while the Material Cause is the matter which happens to make it up. Aristotle gives greater presidence to Formal Cause when defining being. --Marcusscotus1 05:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fossil Dating

This is also something we creationists tend to cite whenever someone has claimed to have dated a fossil, since over time every particle of the original bone has been replaced by minerals, and thus you aren't even dating the original bone at all.

From what I've seen, creationists tend not to know a lot of scientifical methods and facts. Just think about the fact that mayybe the thousands of working paleontologists have already thought about any degradation and replacement that may happen to bones and taken that into account when they devised their dating methods.
As you say - creationists are not strong on science - but worse still they evidently aren't prepared to crack open a book now and again and read about how it's done. Fossils are dated in a wide variety of ways - I'm not typing them all in - but here is a small selection:
  • Observations of the fluctuations of the Earth's magnetic field direction in the rocks comprising the fossil.
  • Stratigraphy, studying how deeply and in what layer a fossil is buried.
  • Tree ring matching.
  • Radioisotope-dating of igneous rocks found near the fossil.
Radioisotope dating cannot be used directly on very old fossils since (as our creationist buddy is suggesting) they don't contain any of the original radioactive isotopes used in the dating process - so it's really irrelevent what happened to the original bone. Igneous layers beneath the fossil (ie predating the fossil) and above it (representing a time after the fossil was created) are dated giving a time-range for the fossil itself. But no one method alone is good - so you have to be sure that you have at least two separate estimates of the age of the fossil using different methods before you can be reasonably confident of its age. Some fossils may be a little 'off' in their dating - but they simply can't all be wrong. If just one fossil is correctly dated out of the millions and millions that have been tested then creationism is flat out busted. QED. SteveBaker 19:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Digital Rights Management and Computer Modifications

These two sections are essentially the same. 64.94.49.252 15:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC) Bold text

[edit] Do we really need all these examples?

One or two good examples would have gotten the point across. There is no need to comprehensively list every single example where one thing is gradually entirely replaced. Furthermore, in many of these examples, everything is gradually replaced - LEAVING SOMETHING DIFFERENT AT THE END - which is not what we're talking about here. A Ship of Theseus is only when every part is replaced and the object remains essentially unchanged.

This article is gradually turning into a "List of Ships of Theseus" - which is probably a terrible idea.

We should remove the incorrect usages - and any that there is any debate about whatsoever. I think that'll leave just one or two examples behind - which is more than sufficient to provide backup for the article's message.

SteveBaker 12:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I think that the example of living things, as well as the Ship of Theseus itself, are the best examples. --Marcusscotus1 15:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Heraclitus Quotation

There is a nice quotation from Heraclitus, but no citation. Which of the fragments is this text from? It sounds like fragment 91, but I cannot find a translation which has him saying "because neither the man nor the river are the same". So a citation to the fragments and, if possible, a translation would be helpful. Jonathonjones 18:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I also noticed that the Heraclitus quotation was a little off. In Fr. 39.2 (22B12), Heraclitus is quoted by Arius Didymus as saying, "Upon those who step into the same rivers, different and again different waters flow." Plutarch notes that the reasoning is as follows, in 22B91a, b: "[The water] scatters and again comes together, and approaches and recedes." The one that most resembles the sentiment about man changing is as follows: "We step into and we do not step into the same rivers. We are and we are not." (22B49a) Any objections to changing it to that one with a proper citation unless the fellow who wrote this returns to explain himself? --jaggerblade

If you have a good citation for it - I'd say do it. The difference may be because two different people are quoting the guy - and it may also be because two different translators translated it from Greek to English - so it's perfectly possible that neither quotation is exactly what Heraclitus said - or it's possible that both versions are about as close as you can get in English to what was actually said in Greek. But I'll go for a quote with a good citation over one without every time! SteveBaker 12:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I waited a length of time to insure that everyone would have a chance to express their opinion before I made the change. I have now re-written the section on Heraclitus to include two cited quotes (rather than the one uncited), and language that is a little more neutral to allow for different interpretations since Heraclitean fragments are so rare. -- jaggerblade 04:10, 07 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Locke's Socks

After two weeks of silence and finally one second, I have merged the article "Locke's Socks" into this page. I don't find it a particularly compelling example, nor a very well-written paragraph. It certainly didn't warrant its own article, as I merged over half of it (that small tidbit in the examples section) and all I left behind was three links and a poorer version of the same Heraclitus Quotation that was removed from this article weeks ago. It could definitely use some rewriting, and I do wish someone would find where Locke actually talked about this, or at least why it carries his name.

You are totally in luck; I've been researching this topic for a philosophy class and I can tell you that Lock makes an argument very similar to Locke's Socks in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding 2.27.3 here [1]
--Negacthulhu 03:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I just found a literal reference to "Locke's Socks" in a October 31, 1981 New York Times article LOFTY DOCTRINES BROUGHT DOWN TO EARTH AT NEW MUSEUM AT PACE, but I have to pay to access it. I don't feel like spending the 5 dollars to buy the article, so I may check the local library to find out more about the museum and maybe put the mystery of hte origin of this idiom to rest. Root4(one) 01:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, somebody just edited the page to say that the fictional character, John Locke of Lost (TV series). appears to refer to this concept of sock patchwork and sock identity. But it seems like the idea still came from the other, "more famous" John Locke.
John Locke referring to John Locke. Weird. (And yet, do we even know it came from the non-fictional person? Maybe "Lost" writers read Wikipedia, especially our Ship of Theseus article?) Root4(one) 04:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Jaggerblade 01:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/locke/locke1/Book2c.html#Chapter%20XXVII

[edit] Merge with Grandfather's old axe

Hi, I propose that Grandfather's old axe is merged into this page as they are fundamentally the same paradox. Do you agree? Andeggs 11:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact it is already discussed in the paragraph at the bottom of this article. I'd say do the merge. Smmurphy(Talk) 06:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Thinking about it now, I'd say maybe not. The problem is when I think about the earlier comment regarding this page becoming a list of ships of Theseus and the inclusion of Heraclitus' river and Lock's sock here. These are fundamentally the same paradox because they are dealing with a fundamental question of identity. All of these could be combined into an article on metaphors used to discuss identity questions, but they perhaps don't belong together in one article, as each one has different pop culture references, was discussed in different contexts by different philosophers (although they did converge), etc. The article Identity and change seems to do this, however.
The Ships of Theseus are, to me, supporting articles to an article discussing the problem with identity. Keeping them separated allows each article to focus on the context and meaning of the individual story, especially cultural, historical, and contextual meanings of the story as the philosophic meaning is in the identity articles. This is similar to the problem created by Aesop's fables. I like how it is done between The Fox and the Grapes and Sour Grapes where each article is succinct and fairly complete (although there is some overlap). Other stories which have the sour grapes moral could easily get there own article. Smmurphy(Talk) 07:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Four dimensions

This needs attention. Can someone with the cited source please try again summarize the idea. As it is it appears that we're just redefining "river" to mean "the four dimensional object of the river from when it comes into existence to when it stops." So the "river" never exists at any moment in time. Further this doesn't address the heap of sand issue, i.e. the river never at any moment in time comes into existence or stops existing. Arrow740 02:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't read the cite, so ... feel free to ignore me!
My interpretation of what you just said, "comes to existence" would rather be the fuzzily defined area where the river "begins", or water flows into the river. but this is a bit nonsensical since rivers often have multiple tributaries, tributaries have multiple creeks and streams, until frankly we remain with the entire river basin. Is the river basin where the river "begins"? Maybe.
Now if we look at the set of river basins as they change over time, we may be able to use some sort of four dimensional definition. A river basin may begin to exist when it "splits off" another basin (however you want to define that). The river may cease to exist if it joins another basin, or maybe a flood overwhelms the entire basin or some other phenomena happens.
Root4(one) 16:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
As it is we're just saying "the river is the four dimensional object which is the river," or "the river is the river as it moves through time and space." Arrow740 18:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I see your point. We're taking advantage of the vagueness of language to the extreme, I think. "Thus the 4-dimensional river is the same river as itself." Huh? I may strike out that sentence. I think the concept that had been attempted to be conveyed was that there is the continuity of perception of a river that relates to a 4-dimensional river object, and we think we can call it the same object because of this continuous relationship. But that 4-dimensional object needs to be labeled a 4-dimensional object unless in some context such a labeling is not needed. The quoted sentence is so ambiguous as to be nonsensical. Root4(one) 04:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apostrophe and pronunciation of the possessive form

[1] seems to imply we can use "'s" after any s, however, our article, giving references like bartleby would suggest we can omit the s on "hard to pronounce" possessives. For instance "Jesus'" and "Socrates'" is apparently often used. So, is Theseus's that hard to pronounce? I don't think so... the "eeyoos" elongates the second syllable which would make "ez" much more clearer than saying "Jesusez" and "Socratesez". Root4(one) 17:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] paradox

What makes this a paradox? A paradox involved contradiction. There is no paradox here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.215.227.222 (talk) 08:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

A paradox occurs when something seems (intuitively) to be one way but is actually another, or if our intuition can lead to two different results when the thing is analyzed from two different perspectives. The Ship of Theseus is a paradox because we are calling something that contains no elements of the original, the same thing as the original, or rather, we identify it by the same name, although it is completely different (in terms of materials, etc). We're calling two different things the same exact thing.
Does that help? Root4(one) 12:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


No, it doesn't really help. For it to be a paradox, you have to say something like "If it were the same, then X must be true. But if X is true, then it must not be the same". Unless you can come up with an example that fits that logical pattern, it's not a paradox. It's just a conflict between two different definitions of 'the same'. For instance, the ship is only replaced with different materials. If form, design, purpose, and intent are defined as the important elements in judging 'sameness', then it is still the same. In fact, the decay of the parts which were replaced was really making it DIFFERENT from the original Ship of Theseus. The replacements brought it CLOSER to being "the same" ship.

Whenever a word X is used with two different meanings, you have a paradox, because you can find something about which you can say "It is X, and yet it is not X!".--Niels Ø (noe) (talk) 15:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vehicle modification?

Is this article in the "Vehicle modification" category as a joke (I chuckled), or is it serious? It seems a bit out of place. Thank you. CSWarren 20:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems there have been some legal cases where a classic car was completely 'reenvisioned' by a coachbuilder-type shop and they tried to avoid the various elements of emissions/tax baggage that have unfortunately accumulated over the past hundred years or so. The taxman and the anti fun/petrol-consumption fascists didn't like this very much. 123.255.55.110 00:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shinto shrine

I read about a particularly revered Shinto shrine all of whose parts are replaced every twenty years with exact duplicates. The old parts are then incorporated into other shrines all over Japan. That could go into the article too. Tualha (Talk) 11:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of "the same"

I've removed the following comments from the section Definition of "the same":

(A problem: "Since nothing can be qualitatively different without also being numerically different, the river must be numerically different at different points in time." - this contradicts the example in the first paragraph of the painted bowling ball)
(Actually, "nothing can be qualitatively different without also being numerically different" is a false claim. Not all qualities must be different for a thing to be, overall, qualitatively different. For instance, numerical value might be a quality factor that remains the same, while other qualities change.)

--Niels Ø (noe) (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio ....

that should be included in this article.

(1) The same paradox/contradiction occurs in the Buddhist text, "The Questions of King Milinda." Milinda (aka Menander, Menandros) was an ethnic Greco-Macedonian ruler of Baktria. He held a "close encounter of the theological kind" to determine which of several religions was best. The Buddhists, BTW, claim to have won. The form the question takes there uses a chariot as the Greeks used the ship. Let's say I replace each spoke of the wheels, the axle, etc., etc., etc.,--is it the same chariot?

(2) I believe that most if not all Japanese shrines operate on the basis of regular replacement by an "exact replica." Within the complex surrounding the central pagoda, there will be TWO 'footprints' where alternate structures will be raised. When the new one is finished, the old one is, I believe, lovingly disassembled.

I need to check my sources before I add that to the main article; if somebody has more time and wants to beat me to it, go ahead.

BTW, if over time, tendentious editors replace every word of the original post, is it still the same article? Should all murderers in prison be released after--what is it, 17 years? After all, that's not the person who committed the crime.

76.170.95.226 (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmph. I forgot my tildes when I hit save, and though I edited them in, I guess it's too late. Sorry 'bout that, guys: I ain't tryin' to hide nuffin.

Terry J. Carter