View Full Version : The Car
Maybe this has already been posted, I'm not sure. It's a philosophy problem that I enjoy a lot.
You have a car, probably a good old American Ford because it falls apart on a regular basis. :p Anyway across the years things go out on the car and need to be replaced. Slowly across time on this old Ford every single piece is switched out by a new piece, down to the bolts that hold the car together.
So the question is... If every piece has been replaced, is this the same car that originally came off the assembly line? If not, when did it become a different car?
Benedict
06-04-03, 02:48 PM
I was thinking about this in a somewhat different context today and my solution is it was never a car. It is just alot of parts, but the parts aren't really parts they are little nuts and bolts sticking together to make a whole, the whole is only percieved by us as a car part because of its shape and function (not that I have a clue what is under the hood of a car). system on top of system on top of system, our labeling system is imperfect and personal.
I with thinking about this labeling process in relation to humans and my answer there is the existence of the self (the soal if you will) and the existence of the physical self (body and mind (this would be dualist or something would it not?)). On top of that there is the existence of the perveiced self, hundreds and thousands of perceptions of me and you and other imprinted in the minds of others, all totally unique and all partially connected to the self of he(or she (actually when does one stop being a he and become a she, or vice versa)) who carries this impression and acomodated into the projected self of this person, and so the cycle goes and we are all connected somehow as warped as it is.
I think this is further tied to behaviour adaaption and the forming of culturem, languages and other types of communicational devices.
Siddhartha
06-04-03, 03:39 PM
That sounds like my computer. The only thing remaining the same since I first bought it is the floppy drive. I tend to think of "The computer" not as its parts, but its product. That is, the use I have had of it. That's what I paid for, not for some metal to sit in the corner of my room.
Originally posted by Siddhartha
That sounds like my computer. The only thing remaining the same since I first bought it is the floppy drive. I tend to think of "The computer" not as its parts, but its product. That is, the use I have had of it. That's what I paid for, not for some metal to sit in the corner of my room.
So it seems what you are saying is you define objects (ie your computer) by their function, what they do. What if the function were to change?
What if your computer's motherboard fried and you decided to get a new computer altogether, the thing's outdated anyway, and so you get a new one, but you find that the old one makes a good door stop, or props open the window. Now the function of your old computer has changed, is it a different computer now?
Originally posted by Benedict
I was thinking about this in a somewhat different context today and my solution is it was never a car. It is just alot of parts, but the parts aren't really parts they are little nuts and bolts sticking together to make a whole, the whole is only percieved by us as a car part because of its shape and function (not that I have a clue what is under the hood of a car). system on top of system on top of system, our labeling system is imperfect and personal.
This seems close to what I was thinking. But I'd say, every car part are themselves wholes, and really are undefined masses (like the car) subjected to our "labeling system".
I with thinking about this labeling process in relation to humans and my answer there is the existence of the self (the soal if you will) and the existence of the physical self (body and mind (this would be dualist or something would it not?)). On top of that there is the existence of the perveiced self, hundreds and thousands of perceptions of me and you and other imprinted in the minds of others, all totally unique and all partially connected to the self of he(or she (actually when does one stop being a he and become a she, or vice versa)) who carries this impression and acomodated into the projected self of this person, and so the cycle goes and we are all connected somehow as warped as it is.
Well the physical body is just like a car, and has parts within itself. It actually renews itself completetly about every 7-10 years. Doesn't it just fall into the "labeling system" too? So is there no human just like there never was a car?
ok, let me say I basically agree with you, but here's where I expound and start shoving my finger in the air...
If we start applying this subjective "labeling system" to the world, everything we perceive, what does this say about our rationality? Isn't rationality based on this subjective labeling system? If we can't even accurately define what a car is, then how can we accurately make a rational and/or scientific claim about it?
Euthyphro
06-11-03, 03:32 PM
A functioning car is capable of driving on a paved road. This is an accurate claim, basically from the definition of a car. Lets step back before cars were invented and consult Heraclitus about this other rational accuracy about the cars identity: "you can never drive in the same car twice." Absolute accuracy only applies to concepts about concepts. Once you apply a concept to concrete existence you're approximating. The concept of a particular instance of a car belongs to the world of Forms, not this one.
So are you implying, like I was talking about, that the car is everchanging and not the same from instant to instant?
Would you then agree that our rational minds, which tries to put things into categories is what makes this problem a problem in the first place?
Euthyphro
06-12-03, 10:56 AM
The car is definitely changing at every moment. Rational minds can only conceive of fixed form. We just don't have any mechanism for thinking about absolutely every minor thing changing the car simultaneously.
It is like a caleidoscop. The thing children look in to: with a lens and pieces of colored glass. You move it and the picture changes. The same happens with things composed from parts/(splinters). The ford was also formed from loose parts in a factory, went through the factory gates, and was rearranged in the course of time. What is so puzzling about that?
The puzzling part is that if you can replace one piece at a time across time with new parts, it's considered to be the same car. You could replace all the parts all at once, and it's considered a different car. The only difference between the two situations is time.
whitewolf
06-12-03, 09:45 PM
I say its a different car as soon as the transformation is full and complete, meaning the bolts are changed and there is NOTHING left from the original.
sargentlard
06-12-03, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by Xenu
The puzzling part is that if you can replace one piece at a time across time with new parts, it's considered to be the same car. You could replace all the parts all at once, and it's considered a different car. The only difference between the two situations is time.
Maybe time is part of the creation of the car and the recognition of it. It, however, really comes down to us percieving it as the same car. It became a different car when a new and more better part was used on the old model. The name stuck though.....i guess you could apply this question to humans also since our bodies don't use any thing more than 10 years old except our brain cells.
Sarge,
It, however, really comes down to us percieving it as the same car.
Yep, spot on. The car is a flux of processes that are constantly changing beneath our awareness. Parts get old and start to give, the iron slowly oxidizes and turns to rust, etc. Looked at a microscopic level, it would be hard to determine where the car ends and the surrounding environment begins (air is a collection of molecules too!)
.i guess you could apply this question to humans also since our bodies don't use any thing more than 10 years old except our brain cells.
I would say that even our brain cells are subjected to this too. The structures of each neuron may remain the same over our lifetimes, but I'm willing to guess that neurons replace proteins, enzymes, etc. throughout their lifetimes, and in many ways like the ford car, but at a microscopic level.
So my BIG question is, if all of this is because of our perception, then how does this affect our rational basis of the world. Reason is based on objects such as this. If we're just making stuff up, forming object borders and giving things labels, what does that say about our reasoning?
i would have to say that it is the same car until all, and i mean all the peices are changed......if they are changed then it could be considered a new car......
yayacatfight
06-13-03, 02:28 AM
well it's a "different" car as soon as you change a single part. BUT, what makes it YOUR car is up to you. that is, your car is made up of the memories you have and the smell and the intangibles. in that sense, even when every part has been changed 4 times it still remains the same car.
The puzzling part is that if you can replace one piece at a time across time with new parts, it's considered to be the same car. You could replace all the parts all at once, and it's considered a different car. The only difference between the two situations is time.
OK. Than the car is the space it occupies. (You have to substract the space of the car from the whole space of the universe) This (moveable) space of the car is then the car and the parts are subordinate (fillings of the space) The space gives it some unicity (uniqueness) so that if you remove/add parts the car's identity survives such changes. Because all space happens in time (in space-time) the identity has some time dimension too. The subparts get their identity from the whole of the space-time-car and they can be switched between the car of the same type. When the car is eventually dissassembled at the junk yard the space-time-car cease to exist. The pars then get the identity of space-time-parts untill they are re-used in an another car. You see? Piece of cake...
Piece of cake...
Sure!!! :D
What you are saying is that what makes the car is the space it takes up. As long as the car generally fills that universal space, it still remains to be a car. So if a piece is taken off of it, like a hub cap or something, then it's still a car.
How about if I rephrase the problem in this way (and have a little fun in the process)...
Ok we go to a car lot, and here's our brand new shiny red bug. Look at her, she's precious!
http://www.duluth.com/~justinj/caratlot.jpg
Anyway, I can't stand the new VW bugs, so I decide to have fun with it. Enter the blade of death... (dun dun)
http://www.duluth.com/~justinj/carblade.gif
You're probably saying, "You wouldn't dream of doing such a thing!"
Oh yes I would!
But I'll give some time to think it over, because sciforums won't let me post anymore images into this post....
Well I gave it some time and thought about it. I've decided.... I really want to destroy this car! :D
So what we're going to do, to enhance my satisfaction, is slice this bug up shaving by shaving cross-sectional style (for all you biologists out there).
Here let me demonstrate...
http://www.duluth.com/~justinj/car.gif
"How could you!!!!" :eek:
Look at the marvels of modern technology at work! My that's blessed. So anyway, we take this bug and continue to chop it to pieces until it's nothing more than a pile of cross-sectioned shavings (a biologist's nightmare, or dream I suppose).
So my question is: if the car is the universal space it takes up, and this pile of shavings isn't a car, at what point of this (delightful) process did this shiny VW stop being a car?
Disclaimer: No VW bug was harmed in the creation of this post.
Euthyphro
06-13-03, 03:45 PM
The problem's a lot more interesting, I think, if you consider swapping parts between two cars instead of just replacing parts in one car.
The problem's a lot more interesting, I think, if you consider swapping parts between two cars instead of just replacing parts in one car.
What can be more interesting than this? Look again! :p
http://www.duluth.com/~justinj/car.gif
Simply, beautiful. Look at the elegance of that blade. I think I've created a new artform.
;)
As I stated:
The space gives it some unicity (uniqueness) so that if you remove/add parts the car's identity survives such changes. Because all space happens in time (in space-time) the identity has some time dimension too. The subparts get their identity from the whole of the space-time-car and they can be switched between the car of the same type.
The car happens in space-time: your picture is an example of it. (Imagine a mirror in space-time: all images it showed "hang" behind it). The car space (olso when present) similairy "remains" in its past (while parts change). The further the "past" recedes the the more movement/switching of the parts. Till the space of the car is filled with the parts (of whatever origin) it is the car (of the past space-time). At some point of eventual dissembling of the space-time car it becomes its own torzo. Torzo is still identifiable as the car but some basis parts are missing. (the same the space - torzo of the previous space) Up till there is some resemblance of what the torzo is the torzo of the identity of the car is present. (At some point though the space-time torzo loses the conection to its origin and becomes a "mold" for some new space-time object.)
Hopefully it is more clear now.
Euthyphro
06-13-03, 06:54 PM
Up till there is some resemblance of what the torzo is the torzo of the identity of the car is present. (At some point though the space-time torzo loses the conection to its origin and becomes a "mold" for some new space-time object.)
Of course! The car stops being the same car "at some point". That solves it.
Of course! The car stops being the same car "at some point". That solves it.
Well, take cubisum, eg. Then you get a sort of Picaso car. Imagine all replaced things get different colors - only the shape/space they take identifies the car.
"at some point" this is sort of Zeno paradox. You will never specifiy that point: you are or: for it or: behind it (never "at" it) But you can definetely follow the shadows of space (even of the mould) into the space-time and find there all what you want to know about its previous identities...
wesmorris
06-14-03, 03:54 AM
Originally posted by Xenu
Maybe this has already been posted, I'm not sure. It's a philosophy problem that I enjoy a lot.
You have a car, probably a good old American Ford because it falls apart on a regular basis. :p Anyway across the years things go out on the car and need to be replaced. Slowly across time on this old Ford every single piece is switched out by a new piece, down to the bolts that hold the car together.
So the question is... If every piece has been replaced, is this the same car that originally came off the assembly line? If not, when did it become a different car?
It's an illusion, a misnomer. The car never stops changing. It becomes a different car when you (subjectively) choose to label it as such. Your label does not change the car... time does.
Procop,
Hopefully it is more clear now.
No, actually I'm more confused by your argument now. Let me see if I can break it down...
The car happens in space-time: your picture is an example of it.
Check, got it.
The car space (olso when present) similairy "remains" in its past (while parts change). The further the "past" recedes the the more movement/switching of the parts.
Ok, here it seems you are talking about something similar to Kant's "a priori". Are you familiar with that? I think you are saying that the past exists at the same time as the present, but unlike "a priori" you say it *actually* exists. I would say the past only exists in our minds, as an event constancy type mechanism (aka memory), kind of like the "a priori"- there is only the present.
At some point of eventual dissembling of the space-time car it becomes its own torzo. Torzo is still identifiable as the car but some basis parts are missing.
Torzo? I have no idea what you are talking about. But again, it seems to rely on a past that actually exists. I'm guessing there is no way to verify the existence of torzo or the past (which to me is just memory, object constancy, or "used to be present").
Originally posted by Euthyphro
Of course! The car stops being the same car "at some point". That solves it.
My question is, as this thing is being chopped up, at what point does it stop being a car?
I would say as ProCop stated...
"at some point" this is sort of Zeno paradox. You will never specifiy that point
I would also say that because there seems to be no exact physical point when the car stops being a car, the essence of "car-ness" is a falacy of the mind. A label thrown onto a general pattern of existence.
Wes,
Originally posted by wesmorris
It's an illusion, a misnomer. The car never stops changing. It becomes a different car when you (subjectively) choose to label it as such. Your label does not change the car... time does.
Yes, that's pretty much what I believe. But I had another question, a bigger question...
" So my BIG question is, if all of this is because of our perception, then how does this affect our rational basis of the world. Reason is based on objects such as this. If we're just making stuff up, forming object borders and giving things labels, what does that say about our reasoning?"
What do you think?
Euthyphro
06-14-03, 12:48 PM
Xenu, I'm not well read enough to say much on the subject, but you might want to check out some of Wittgenstein's writings. It sounds like it might be related. Check out: http://www.kfs.org/~jonathan/witt/ten.html
Torzo?
An example of a <a href=http://members.tripod.com/tomsic/torzo.html>torzo </a>.
So the question is... If every piece has been replaced, is this the same car that originally came off the assembly line? If not, when did it become a different car?
I would seem it never becomes a different car. It's always a car, and it's always your car. or perhaps it's never the same car, the atoms within it moved as soon as it came off the assembly line.
:confused:
Siddhartha
06-14-03, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by Xenu
So it seems what you are saying is you define objects (ie your computer) by their function, what they do. What if the function were to change?
What if your computer's motherboard fried and you decided to get a new computer altogether, the thing's outdated anyway, and so you get a new one, but you find that the old one makes a good door stop, or props open the window. Now the function of your old computer has changed, is it a different computer now? You're right, I define an object by its function. However, if I used my motherboard as a doorstop, I'd call it a doorstop, not a part of my old computer. You see? All things are impernanent. ;)
Euthyphro,
Thanks for the link. A little confusing at first, my brain's not used to looking at webpages in that way, but interesting info.
ProCop,
An example of a torzo .
I looked at the link, and was like "that's just a piece of artwork, what the hell". Then after awhile something clicked, "ahha!". You mean "Torso" right? Are you a native english speaker, or is Torzo just some (russian?) philosophy term I don't know about?
moving,
I would seem it never becomes a different car. It's always a car, and it's always your car. or perhaps it's never the same car, the atoms within it moved as soon as it came off the assembly line. :confused:
Your head starts to hurt after a while doesn't it?
You're right, I define an object by its function. However, if I used my motherboard as a doorstop, I'd call it a doorstop, not a part of my old computer. You see? All things are impernanent.
If I came to your house, and saw your door, I'd say "why are you using your motherboard for a doorstop" and not "nice door stop, it kind of looks like a motherboard". Also if your car breaks down on the side of the road, would it cease being a car until it was fixed again? My point is, humans don't define things only by their function, there are other factors involved when we create object boundaries.
wesmorris
06-15-03, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by Xenu
Wes,
Yes, that's pretty much what I believe. But I had another question, a bigger question...
" So my BIG question is, if all of this is because of our perception, then how does this affect our rational basis of the world. Reason is based on objects such as this. If we're just making stuff up, forming object borders and giving things labels, what does that say about our reasoning?"
What do you think?
Hmm. Well, I think it means that all knowledge is tentative. Rather, this conclusion is reached because all knowledge is tentative...
Maybe both eh?
I think maybe it shows that our language isn't really well aligned with reality as well. I don't imagine those who crafted whatever language took the 'sublte philosophical nature' of reality into account. Language is utilitarian.
Interesting, if one could perfectly dilieate all 'objective truth' of the human experience, I wonder how a particular language would stack up against that in terms of effieciency (the number of words wasted attempting to describe a particular aspect of said perfection). I suppose the hard part is: How would you describe the perfectly dilineated objective human experience with an imperfect language?
I doubt it possible by the nature of the beast.
So I guess the true implication is: Don't take life too seriously because at some level - it's all folly.
Edit: on second thought, the hard part is discovering the perfectly dilineated objective human experience... or again, is it both.. it's always the damn chicken and the egg in a sense. How do you perfectly dilineate it without the perfect language to describe it? How make the perfect language without the perfect understanding? This seems to be the 'absolute zero' of philosophy.. maybe deeper.. maybe the absolute zero of reality. As you attempt to approach any universal physical limitation you find that it is harder and harder to do so.. never being able to actually get there. It is the same with some attempts to understand certian things.. like the conditions that lead to one's ability to contemplate one's self.
:m:
Screw it, I'm gonna play some Vice City.
sargentlard
06-15-03, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by Xenu
So my BIG question is, if all of this is because of our perception, then how does this affect our rational basis of the world. Reason is based on objects such as this. If we're just making stuff up, forming object borders and giving things labels, what does that say about our reasoning?
I guess you could say because of all the stimulus that this world has to offer we have to make labels to survive it all. Even though our brain filters out much of the garbage stimulus we still have a lot to go on and at some point or another we must label and categorize all this data.
We realized the fact the car changed as soon our new inventions started improving it, the envicroment started working on it but if we relate that example to everything else that changes in life causing us to completely change our definitions of them that would be too much mental stress. So for the sake of our sanity we call it our car even though deep down we know it really has changed technically. Also we tend to emotionally tag what we appreciate and love.......i mean if your lover showed new signs of behavior which surprised you late into the relationship (signs such as mild things...not "my lover is ax murderer" signs).... do you sit down and ponder and reestablish your opinions on the lover and then reinstate their level of importance in your mind.....Probably not...because it is too much work and you'd hate to have a different opinion on somebody you invested so much ime in.
Wes,
Good post. Language is quite utilitarian. Looking at a evolutionary point of view, it's necessary for it to be that way. Also, who wants to listen to someone describe something "perfectly", because to even come close, you'd have to sound like you're from a Tolkien novel. "Go right ahead and describe that Hobbit hill, I think I'll come back in the morning." :p
As for the chicken and the egg, I'd have to guess that humans don't have perfect understanding of their environment. From what I've learned of perception, the brain does a lot of filling in and sometimes sees what it wants to see. So even if our language were to be "perfect" it would be describing a world that is at least partially confabulated.
So I guess the true implication is: Don't take life too seriously because at some level - it's all folly.
I like that line.
Sarge,
Good post too!
I guess you could say because of all the stimulus that this world has to offer we have to make labels to survive it all. Even though our brain filters out much of the garbage stimulus we still have a lot to go on and at some point or another we must label and categorize all this data.
Agreed. I think reason developed mainly as a way to conserve energy and avoid risks. Instead of doing something outwardly, one can just form a model in one's head, to see if it works. These models aren't perfect, but they do the job.
Also we tend to emotionally tag what we appreciate and love.......i mean if your lover showed new signs of behavior which surprised you late into the relationship (signs such as mild things...not "my lover is ax murderer" signs).... do you sit down and ponder and reestablish your opinions on the lover and then reinstate their level of importance in your mind.....Probably not...because it is too much work and you'd hate to have a different opinion on somebody you invested so much ime in.
I wonder if language reinforces this ownership thinking with having word like "my". It would be interesting to compare cultures who don't have possessives in their language, and see the degree of materialistic attitudes.
sargentlard
06-17-03, 04:15 PM
HMM i don not know of any culture that use language without any assertive, or possesive words. If there are any it would be amazing because of every culture i know there seems to be a sense of Pride and honor related with one's possesion....a certain Turf tagging even though that turf might come down to car or something even less significant.
Hell, i would be emotional too about my Ferrari:D
wesmorris
06-17-03, 04:21 PM
Comes down to pissing on a tree to mark your teritory eh?
sargentlard
06-17-03, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by wesmorris
Comes down to pissing on a tree to mark your teritory eh?
In some places i know....yeah....it really does.
But this is off topic so sorry Xenu for jacking your thread.:)
wesmorris
06-17-03, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by sargentlard
In some places i know....yeah....it really does.
Indeed.. but do you see the same thing in pride regarding your possessions? Is it related?
Seems to me it's survival related. You are prideful such that you are protective, you are protective such that you survive since that which you protect is important to your survival. Llife has become luxurious (which is FANTASTIC BTW) but the same shit applies. Pride in having shit is pissing on your area to make invaders fuck off, though in modern times it's a real bastardization of the same idea.
Just expounding on what I was saying due to my potential vagueness and all.
sargentlard
06-17-03, 04:35 PM
*puts on Italian accent*"...you're a good kid Wes..ehh...i'll keep you see...you're good kid see"
Again you're very much right. I agree with what you said and i must say that it is sad that our Pride comes down to protecting stuff that isn't even needed the least bit for our survival.....i guess the notion of "i earned so back off bitch, it's mine" gets too you.
People fight over the stupidest stuff....i guess what once was a practise to survive has turned into a practise to accumalte the latest and greatest to gain status.....gain status...ee gads...that is also beneficiel to our survival so could this change in thought be another subtle form of survival adapted to the new world???
BTW Xenu sorry for the thread jacking.
Sarge's Ferrari...
http://www.duluth.com/~justinj/ferrari.gif
:D
sargentlard
06-17-03, 04:46 PM
:eek: :( :mad: ....*must not use the fist of death*
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.