Imagine a small ship, who having been on the waves for many years, has worn out many parts and they are replaced. After many more years, more and more parts have been replaced, and finally, all the parts have been replaced. At this final stage of replacement, is the ship - which has not a single part remaining from its original - the same ship?
a definition of "same" needs to be provided I think of course it is in the defining of the word "same" that shows the answer yes?
well if I may? If everything is subject to change in that nothing can avoid change, then the notion of "same" in absolutum is an impossibility. The definition of Ship is also part of the picture IMO However if we limit the question to a criteria it could be said that the ship is the same ship. As it is expected that all ships require refurbishment and over haul over time. So if the definition of ship includes refurbishment then it could be said to be the same ship. ie. all ships change, and this ship is no exception, so it is the same changeable ship. But I guess this is not the motive behind the thread is it..or is it? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No, the motive behind the thread is really an argument over identity/selfhood. Now I ask you this: Is not there a difference betwixt mere refurbishment and total change? Imagine if we reach a point where cyborgs are a reality, and humans themselves undergo a process similar to that of a boat. Would that human really be human if everything about him has become a machine? Now, you also refer to an underlying notion of change. Whilst yes, this is so, we can still say "that is the same mountain" or "that is the same tree", despite partial changes. There is a flux, of course, but a sense of identity remains. Is identity, therefore, "beyond" flux? A sort of "immaterial" notion or a mental abstraction?
it is an interesting question... You may recall the movie "Bicentenial Man" Staring Robin Williams. This is I think almost exactly the opposite in notion but surprisingly similar in context. A robot redesigns himself to qualify as human. Imagine a human redesigning himself to qualify as a robot? I would tend to think that if the changes made were sequential and consisted of many small changes over an extended amount of time [years] the transition period would probably feel strange but identity would remain essentially the same from moment to moment because the changes are so small. In abstraction something similar could be said for evolving into a state that was immortal. remaining essentially human but with an unlimited life expectancy. Genetically changing to do so. The whole energy systems of the body would have to change rather dramatically [ including the psychological aspects]. But if changes were in small enough increments then the change would go more or less un-noticed. May be it is worth keeping in mind that Identity is always in a state of flux or change any way.....so a little more would probably not be a problem... I would consider Identity to be a relative concept.....what was I compared to what I am now...compared to speculation on what I may become....sort of thing.
I reread you question and I realise I have failed to tackle teh issue of machine intelligence and organinc intelligence. Machine consciousness and organic consciousness. I would suppose that a human to become a machine and yet retain identity of being human is not possible unless the word Human is redefined. Retaining identity as an individual and be a machine in full would be very interesting as to whether this is ever possible or desirable. How can a silicon chip take on your identity, is one of those fundys that I don't think we are even close to comprehending. It is my understanding that our consciousness is a neccessary outcome of being organic. that we are "from the infinite down to the finite rather than from the finite up to the infinite". A machine is built from the finite where as an organism is built from the infinite....if we enginerred with the infinite in mind we would end up engineering an organic "consciousness" and thus not a machine.....IMO
Well, this happens to a human being all the time. I think it was in the movie Mindwalk that they said the cells in the human pancreas are all replaced every 24 hours. I assume that all of the cells in the human body die and are replaced periodically, except for the brain cells. Are we the same person? Yes, because the patterns, the relationships that comprise the structure, are not changing. But if those do change, then the quality of the whole changes, and the thing is different.
Jason and the Argonauts ... and the ship Argo. It was the same ship, even though all the parts have been replaced.
My answer would be no, it is not the same ship. But it is interesting to think that the ship could not have existed without the original.
It's a matter of identification, to be sure. I think it would be more correct to say the ship retains the same name/identification number but is literally a different ship. However, unless there was something significant about the replacement of parts with identical equivalents (e.g., the map back home was stored in the captain's cabinet that was replaced by one without it), for everyday purposes it is the same ship. It's rather like fossils - we say "this is a brontotherium rib," but of course it's not - it's a rib that's been transmogrified into stone by fossilization. There is no doubt that at some point it was a rib in a living creature, and is the very same rib that came out of the beastie's innards...but, just the same, it's not the same rib at all. It's innate "rib-ness" went the way of the dodo when its calcium was replaced by stone, and all that's left is a simulcrum. I think the same would be true of a human who completely replaced her/his parts with inorganic matter. You'd have a sentient, human-SHAPED organism, but unless the conscious mind and personality can survive transfer to inorganic media (and how do we measure the extent to which such a transfer would alter the mind anyway?), the individual in question would not be human, but a simulcrum. We can't put a stone rib back into our friend Mr. Brontotherium, so to speak. Steven Wright used to do a bit about someone breaking into his home and replacing everything with an exact duplicate. I think of most commodities as interchangeable within their respective functions, but there's something unsatisfying about knowing that, despite the fact that it looks and functions just like your telephone/pizza oven/washing machine/fondue pot, it's not.
The identity of the ship is not contained in the material, but in its shape and function. The shape and the function have remained the same. Also, what seems to be crucial for the identity of an entity is that that entity is in a particular relationship with another entity that has an identity. (I don't like all these -tity words much.)
I was once told that every 3-8 months, every molecule in your body has been replaced with another one from the environment around you. I have no link or evidence for this, except that it was told to me in a college biology class. So a minor appeal to authority. bad r-w! bad!
But they are not exact duplicates. They may be, if the things were new and unused, and were replaced by new things. But as soon as you have been using a thing, it becomes worn in particular ways that cannot be duplicated. And this being worn seems to have something to do with the identity the item had for you.
Quantum Quack: Very good film with Robin Williams, enjoyed it completely. Isaac Asimov was a brilliant author, really. "I would tend to think that if the changes made were sequential and consisted of many small changes over an extended amount of time [years] the transition period would probably feel strange but identity would remain essentially the same from moment to moment because the changes are so small." Yes, I do not doubt that identity would remain ultimately the same from moment to moment, but over a period of time, eventually you have a different person. Even the mind is subject to change, with new thoughts and beliefs. Nothing stays the same in terms of identity for anything. It is my assertion that identity is akin to a river. There is but one river, yet the river is never the same from moment to moment. Thus identity can be considered a continual state of flux and not a stationary thing. "May be it is worth keeping in mind that Identity is always in a state of flux or change any way.....so a little more would probably not be a problem... I would consider Identity to be a relative concept.....what was I compared to what I am now...compared to speculation on what I may become....sort of thing. " Might you elaborate a bit on this notion of identity as a relative concept rooted in what one is now now compared to what one was? "It is my understanding that our consciousness is a neccessary outcome of being organic. that we are "from the infinite down to the finite rather than from the finite up to the infinite". A machine is built from the finite where as an organism is built from the infinite....if we enginerred with the infinite in mind we would end up engineering an organic "consciousness" and thus not a machine.....IMO" How do you figure we are "built from the infinite" whilst machiens are "built from the finite"? Onefinity: "Well, this happens to a human being all the time. I think it was in the movie Mindwalk that they said the cells in the human pancreas are all replaced every 24 hours. I assume that all of the cells in the human body die and are replaced periodically, except for the brain cells. Are we the same person? Yes, because the patterns, the relationships that comprise the structure, are not changing. But if those do change, then the quality of the whole changes, and the thing is different. " Even brain cells undergo mitosis and cellular death, and in turn, every atom in the human body is replaced something like every two weeks. Yet by what do you mean the relationships that comprise the structure are changing? Water: Simply because the Argonauts thought as such, does not make it so. What made the ship, if it was totally different, the same? Koyaanisqatsi: Why is it not the same ship? Without its prior connection to its "former incarnation" as it were, it would not exist, and there was a time when its parts were connected to other parts from the original ship. Tezcatlipoca's Hat: "It's a matter of identification, to be sure. I think it would be more correct to say the ship retains the same name/identification number but is literally a different ship." See my answer to Koyannisqatsi.
Lets say for example we have developed nano machines that when programed correctly and compiled in sufficient numbers [trillions of trillions] we have an entity that resembles a human form. that has teh most sophisicated animation software available. That has the processing ability that seems to way outstrip the human potential. say every cell consits of millions of these nano bots. Is this a living thing or still just a machine? When asking whether we could evolve into this machine yet retain identity as self the big question as to what life is is a very important question and at this stage in our understanding impossible to answer. Another series of movies called Gallatica ran on TV recently showing as part of it's plot the evolution of machine to organic. [ As you can see I do like the creative philosophy of so many sci fi flicks] It was interesting from the view that the Cylons had come to understand more about life and consciousness than humans had. [ although seemingly quite insane] I would think that identity and living are intrinsically linked. For example: Say we are placed in a process that takes many years as our brains and bodies are slowly being reconfigured with a mechanical virus. Slowly the virus transforms the victum into machine. To do this the virus must first KILL a cell and then replace it. As this happens our consciousness looses a small part of it's awarenss. The body would fail to recognise the machine cell as being part of it's living existence, in fact the body would probably consider it as a dead bit. Slowly the victum would die and be replaced by a nonliving machine. Identity of self would die also. IMO. So no matter how well you replicated the identity the true identity would die as the cells are killed off. Identity is a product of genetics as well. Maybe the question that really needs to be asked is how a living being identifies it self as self.? What is needed for an identity to be established? What are the limitations the physical form generates that affords identity? These are all huge questions. For example I hold to this current understanding and/ or hypothesis about consciousness therefore identity: <img src=http://www.ozziesnaps.com/one1.jpg> The space between blue rectangles represent our conscious interactions That this infinite arrangement is very important in this question of life and identity. This is how we can see ourselves within others and in part achieve identity in doing so. Engineering a machine with this interactive relationship would be the biggest obstacle. How can a machine have this infinite relationship with everything that grants us the consciousness we take for granted. You may feel that what I am saying goes beyond the proven etc thus is inadmissable to the conversation. But I ask: How can the question be answered if we have no idea about what identity of self actually is?
QuantumQuack: Battlestar Galactica is an awesome TV miniseries and now, TV show. Great. Best show on television by far. "So no matter how well you replicated the identity the true identity would die as the cells are killed off. Identity is a product of genetics as well." Whilst it is likely that neither mountains or the sea are self-aware, do not they have an identity we can speak of? "Maybe the question that really needs to be asked is how a living being identifies it self as self.? What is needed for an identity to be established? What are the limitations the physical form generates that affords identity?" An identity of self most surely needs a thinking organism, at the very least. "That this infinite arrangement is very important in this question of life and identity. This is how we can see ourselves within others and in part achieve identity in doing so." Beyond finding common ground, what significance does this has? How do you also find this to be an infinite relationship? "You may feel that what I am saying goes beyond the proven etc thus is inadmissable to the conversation. But I ask: How can the question be answered if we have no idea about what identity of self actually is?" Oh, yes, we most surely need to define what identity consists of. If we have no firm foundation upon which we might build the edifice of our thoughts, mostly surely will it collapse against the gale of reason.
Everything is made up of relationships, which are in turn made up of relationships. If the relationships stay the same, then the thing stays the same. Even if the "things" that appear to us as things change.
our entire society revolves around the answer to the question being no. a person's cells die out after time (i have no idea how long, i'm no biologist) but if the answer was yes, the maximum jail sentance would be a few months, as after that much time it would be a different person entirely
Prince James, The Argonauts thought Argo to be the same ship all the time. The (perceived) identity of a thing depends on the observer. Yes, an identity WE can speak of. A river is never the same, the water in it changes; what is more, take the rivers in flatlands that often flood and completely change their course, the new one a hundred meter away from the old one -- yet we still consider it the same river. But it takes another self that identifies itself as such to perceive identity in another entity. Without some kind of communication, there is no mutual knowledge of identity. Would a person consider himself having an identity if left to himself, without any other entities that can communicate? I think not. Interestingly, we can talk about a term, identity in this case, without holding an explicit definition of it. We grasp it intutitively, without a definition, but in our mind we seem to have some kind of placeholder for this definition, and we have this placeholder until we come up with a definition. * * * Onefinity, YES.
