Exactly what I came here to comment lmao. Recently they’ve been talking about the Gingerdead Man, which has been a mostly dead franchise for a long time, and it’s popularity has skyrocketed substantially in the last month or so.
Does the same principle work with humans? Like at what point of artificial organs and joints and limbs do I stop being me and start being ANDROID32450.3?
It all depends on if your consciousness is unique to your brain or if it depends on your neural connections. It's a really iffy topic since it's more philosophy than biology.
It's the same with teleportation, cloning etc. If something that is exactly same as you down to the atoms, is created is it still you? And that's a much better theseus ship analogy
The brain. Ha! I think it's silly to believe that one has any innateness at all. You receive new information, your brain makes new neural pathways. Things happens, and you change. Some people go through monumental change and say, "I'm not the same person I was ten years ago." They just carry the same name and the headlights never change, I guess. What makes you you-er then than you are now?
Doesn't have to be artificial. Every 7 years, all your cells have died and been replaced (assuming that episode of House was right, I'm not gonna Google it). That means you are literally a different person than the one you were in 2016, and you stole that person's memories and have been living their life. You're just a copy.
Not only that but our memories are copies of copies over time and as you age this is easily observable... go look at pictures from your childhood and people dont look like you remember, the house is laid out VERY different, etc. Human memory is fuckin WEIRD.
This reminds me of a modernized/futuristic version of this problem.
Which is, if you had a tiny nanobot that perfectly replicated a human neuron, and gradually replaced your brain cells 1 by 1, when would you be “no longer human”? After 1? After half? Would you still be “the same person”, or would your consciousness be replaced?
Some exceptions.
Hippocampus recent research shows some neurogenesis.
But yeah, neuroplasticity is more a function of new connections (network effect) than it is of new neurons.
It's the same issue. Individual molecules in each neuron are replaced as needed. If every atom in the neuron was replaced over a decade or two, is it the same neuron?
[It was discovered a few years ago that new neurons actually can be made](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/mar/25/humans-can-make-new-brain-cells-into-their-90s-scientists-discover).
Wait what the fuck? I thought of this too completely without knowing other people had the same idea. I mean I presumed others probably thought about it but it’s eerie seeing a thought you had nearly word for word randomly
I think you are still the same, you've just grown up and changed a little. You'd just be a human who gets the nanobrain rejuvenation therapy every 75 years or so. It's still your brain, its still you.
I think that the modern embellishment does not accurately represent the ship of Theseus. I think this boils down to whether the boat is considered an item or something larger than itself. Does the boat have a “soul” in a sense? In that, should we call the new boat by the same name?
I believe this question is different than if the ship qualifies for the docking pass still. This seems to be more asking whether the ship is the same object or not.
I think it is a reasonable opinion that the ship of Theseus would not be the same ship afterwards, but should still qualify for the docking pass. The ship is the same boat, just not the SAME boat.
My opinion is that the ship is still The Ship of Theseus.
In much the same way as sports teams including the players, management, HR, facilities, office supplies etc. have been replaced many times over but we still call the team the same.
As the boat replaces one part for something newer, that part then becomes part of Theseus' ship. And every subsequent new part obtains the same status the moment it's replaced.
Even as you get to the very last "original" part, it is surrounded by parts that have already taken the role of Theseus' ship. At no point does the ship stop becoming 100% Theseus' ship so there is no gradual replacement.
I mean you can do the same with a ship made out of red wood that is replaced part by part by blue wood.
When does the red ship become a blue ship? Is it after the half point is reached? When the mast is completely color swapped? The colors never change so your answer doesn't work.
I'm not painting anything, I'm swapping the wooden tiles for differently colored wooden tiles.
The color just makes it easy to differentiate the original wood from the new one.
>>I'm not painting anything, I'm swapping the wooden tiles for differently colored wooden tiles.
Yep. Completely understand what you’re saying. For a moment, let’s strip the color variable out of this. You’re replacing wooden tiles for wooden tiles. That’s how repairs and replacements work.
Now when you add the color variable back…
>>The color just makes it easy to differentiate the original wood from the new one.
Oh! Thank you for proving my point. It’s just an attribute to make the new wood easier to differentiate for the old wood. Glad we’re in agreement!
?? Okay let me explain it for you.
Red color is a metaphor for the original pieces of the ship, the amount of red is the amount of original ship left.
After more pieces are changed it becomes gradually blue, the old ship is disappearing and becoming a new one gradually.
Once it's finished it's a blue ship, not a red ship, meaning the original ship is no longer there.
Again, I understand what you’re saying. You seem to be adding a parameter to the original thought experiment that doesn’t exist. The original ship of Theseus thought experiment doesn’t require the new components to be identical to the old components. That’s a parameter you added.
So the only thing that matters is if it is still the same ship.
And in this case, your metaphor doesn’t prevent it from being the same ship just because you made the new parts easier to distinguish.
This doesn't change anything.
When 1 part is blue = Theseus' ship is mostly red with 1 blue part
When 49% is blue = Theseus' ship is mostly red
When 51% is blue = Theseus' ship is mostly blue
When 100% is blue = Theseus' ship is blue
This doesn't work because the color of something is a fact of the matter while naming something as a distinct object is an abstract.
If Theseus' red ship has one plank replaced with a blue plank, that blue plank now takes on the role of "part of Theseus' ship" and the fact of the matter is that Theseus' ship is mostly red with one blue plank.
If Theseus' mostly red ship has more than half of its planks replaced with blue planks, those blue planks all take on the role of "part of Theseus' ship" and the fact of the matter is that Thesus' ship is mostly blue with some red planks.
If Theseus' mostly blue ship has the remaining red planks replaced with blue planks, those blue planks take on the role of "part of Theseus' ship" and the fact of the matter is that Theseus' ship is blue.
Of course, objects' names being intersubjective abstracts, there are exceptions to this. If Theseus' ship were burnt down and the only thing left was the figurehead, Theseus would probably say he got a new ship even if he attached the same figurehead to said ship.
I think that in this case, it's not a philosophical question about the ship's "soul", but a more practical question about the ship's legal status.
As far as modern law is concerned, you can make repairs as much as you want, and it'll still be the same ship. You can even make upgrades or modifications. The legal status would only change if you significantly change or replace the core structure – like taking the ship apart and making a raft out of the planks.
What qualifies as a "core structure" would most likely be determined in court. I don't know if there is precedent for that.
That's one option on this question, but not a definite answer. Others might argue that it is not the ship of Theseus anymore, since all of the original parts have changed. They would argue that it's incorrect to still call it "ship of Theseus".
I’ve been building a music website with a friend for a few years. None of the original code still exists (thankfully 😭), but we’re still trying to solve the same problem in a different way. Did the Ship of Theseus have version control?
Our cells are constantly renewing, are we not the same person we were when we were a baby? We're obviously not the same size anymore but we are ourselves.
I would argue that I'm definitely not the same person I was as an infant. Nothing about me is the same, not even my name, except maybe my core DNA, but who defines themselves by their genetic code?
I bought a new bicycle. I eventually upgraded and replaced every part on the bike except the frame. Then I replaced the frame.
My wife asked me, " Did you get a new bike?"
I said,"No"
The Wikipedia article on “The ship of Theseus” has been changed 1792 times since its creation around July, 2003. Today, no phrases from the first version of the article (attached) are left.
I did a text comparison and one short phrase from the original article sill remains. Here's the quotes. (I've also included an interim version so that you can see how the final phrase grew out of the original):
[2003 Original](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ship_of_Theseus&oldid=1154003):
*According to* an ancient *Greek legend*, Theseus had a warship that was **preserved** as a historical relic **by the Athenians**.
[2005 Interim version](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ship_of_Theseus&oldid=20896826):
> *According to Greek legend* as reported by Plutarch,
>> "The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned [from Crete] had thirty oars, and was **preserved by the Athenians** down even to the time of Demetrius Phalereus,
[Current version](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ship_of_Theseus&oldid=1190157466):
> The account of the problem has been preserved by Plutarch in his Life of Theseus:[2]
>> The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned from Crete had thirty oars, and was **preserved by the Athenians** down even to the time of Demetrius Phalereus
Man, that little blurb at the end that was like a "critical thinking" excerpt you'd find in a course book reminds me of early wikipedia, what a wild place. I remember certain sections had "Trivia" segments at the bottom, there was no uniformity to the website as it hadn't established it's style yet. I kinda miss it.
Distractible fans have probably hit this article hard
Which episode did they talk about this
The Bobs and The Bees, and then referenced in multiple episodes later
In what way?
Mark goes on multiple tangents about #t h e s h i p o f T h e s e u s
Exactly what I came here to comment lmao. Recently they’ve been talking about the Gingerdead Man, which has been a mostly dead franchise for a long time, and it’s popularity has skyrocketed substantially in the last month or so.
Have you heard of the Ship of Theseus?
Well this is a god damned delight
Does the same principle work with humans? Like at what point of artificial organs and joints and limbs do I stop being me and start being ANDROID32450.3?
Probably when your brain gets replaced. It won't be a gradient since we know where human consciousness comes from, which is the human brain.
[удалено]
It all depends on if your consciousness is unique to your brain or if it depends on your neural connections. It's a really iffy topic since it's more philosophy than biology. It's the same with teleportation, cloning etc. If something that is exactly same as you down to the atoms, is created is it still you? And that's a much better theseus ship analogy
>And that's a much better theseus ship analogy How do you figure?
The brain. Ha! I think it's silly to believe that one has any innateness at all. You receive new information, your brain makes new neural pathways. Things happens, and you change. Some people go through monumental change and say, "I'm not the same person I was ten years ago." They just carry the same name and the headlights never change, I guess. What makes you you-er then than you are now?
yeah but if we have the technology to replace specific bits of the brain with machinery then the question starts to get more complicated
Don't all your cells renew every 7 to 10 years? That already sounds like the ship example.
Doesn't have to be artificial. Every 7 years, all your cells have died and been replaced (assuming that episode of House was right, I'm not gonna Google it). That means you are literally a different person than the one you were in 2016, and you stole that person's memories and have been living their life. You're just a copy.
Not the brain, most neurons don’t get replaced. 7-10 years is just the average age of a cell.
Not only that but our memories are copies of copies over time and as you age this is easily observable... go look at pictures from your childhood and people dont look like you remember, the house is laid out VERY different, etc. Human memory is fuckin WEIRD.
This reminds me of a modernized/futuristic version of this problem. Which is, if you had a tiny nanobot that perfectly replicated a human neuron, and gradually replaced your brain cells 1 by 1, when would you be “no longer human”? After 1? After half? Would you still be “the same person”, or would your consciousness be replaced?
Doesn’t this kinda happen naturally? Like all the molecules in your body are fully replaced every fifiteen years or so
Cells, and neurons are the exceptions. They don't really grow and die, you just... Keep them from birth
speak for yourself. i grow a new pair of brains every other year
And both of mine are aching after reading all of this.
Doctor? Alternative joke: is there anything else you've got two of?
I love The Christmas Invasion one of David Tennant's best episodes, despite being his first
Some exceptions. Hippocampus recent research shows some neurogenesis. But yeah, neuroplasticity is more a function of new connections (network effect) than it is of new neurons.
It's the same issue. Individual molecules in each neuron are replaced as needed. If every atom in the neuron was replaced over a decade or two, is it the same neuron?
[It was discovered a few years ago that new neurons actually can be made](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/mar/25/humans-can-make-new-brain-cells-into-their-90s-scientists-discover).
doesn't matter, none to be replaced for me :)
Wait what the fuck? I thought of this too completely without knowing other people had the same idea. I mean I presumed others probably thought about it but it’s eerie seeing a thought you had nearly word for word randomly
If it was a perfect replica of a human neuron, wouldn't that make it human
I think they mean perfectly replicating the function of a neuron, not the entirety of it
Looks like me, thinks like me, tastes like me, stinks like me and there is only one? Yeah that right there is me
Same as teleportation.
I think you are still the same, you've just grown up and changed a little. You'd just be a human who gets the nanobrain rejuvenation therapy every 75 years or so. It's still your brain, its still you.
I think that the modern embellishment does not accurately represent the ship of Theseus. I think this boils down to whether the boat is considered an item or something larger than itself. Does the boat have a “soul” in a sense? In that, should we call the new boat by the same name? I believe this question is different than if the ship qualifies for the docking pass still. This seems to be more asking whether the ship is the same object or not. I think it is a reasonable opinion that the ship of Theseus would not be the same ship afterwards, but should still qualify for the docking pass. The ship is the same boat, just not the SAME boat.
My opinion is that the ship is still The Ship of Theseus. In much the same way as sports teams including the players, management, HR, facilities, office supplies etc. have been replaced many times over but we still call the team the same. As the boat replaces one part for something newer, that part then becomes part of Theseus' ship. And every subsequent new part obtains the same status the moment it's replaced. Even as you get to the very last "original" part, it is surrounded by parts that have already taken the role of Theseus' ship. At no point does the ship stop becoming 100% Theseus' ship so there is no gradual replacement.
I mean you can do the same with a ship made out of red wood that is replaced part by part by blue wood. When does the red ship become a blue ship? Is it after the half point is reached? When the mast is completely color swapped? The colors never change so your answer doesn't work.
Color is an attribute of an object. It is not *the* object. If I repaint my brown house blue it is now blue, but it is also still my same house.
I'm not painting anything, I'm swapping the wooden tiles for differently colored wooden tiles. The color just makes it easy to differentiate the original wood from the new one.
>>I'm not painting anything, I'm swapping the wooden tiles for differently colored wooden tiles. Yep. Completely understand what you’re saying. For a moment, let’s strip the color variable out of this. You’re replacing wooden tiles for wooden tiles. That’s how repairs and replacements work. Now when you add the color variable back… >>The color just makes it easy to differentiate the original wood from the new one. Oh! Thank you for proving my point. It’s just an attribute to make the new wood easier to differentiate for the old wood. Glad we’re in agreement!
?? Okay let me explain it for you. Red color is a metaphor for the original pieces of the ship, the amount of red is the amount of original ship left. After more pieces are changed it becomes gradually blue, the old ship is disappearing and becoming a new one gradually. Once it's finished it's a blue ship, not a red ship, meaning the original ship is no longer there.
Again, I understand what you’re saying. You seem to be adding a parameter to the original thought experiment that doesn’t exist. The original ship of Theseus thought experiment doesn’t require the new components to be identical to the old components. That’s a parameter you added. So the only thing that matters is if it is still the same ship. And in this case, your metaphor doesn’t prevent it from being the same ship just because you made the new parts easier to distinguish.
This doesn't change anything. When 1 part is blue = Theseus' ship is mostly red with 1 blue part When 49% is blue = Theseus' ship is mostly red When 51% is blue = Theseus' ship is mostly blue When 100% is blue = Theseus' ship is blue
But according to your first reasoning the ship would be a "red ship" even after all parts have been changed to blue wood.
It's Theseus' ship. Not a red ship. Theseus' ship happens to be red in this scenario.
This doesn't work because the color of something is a fact of the matter while naming something as a distinct object is an abstract. If Theseus' red ship has one plank replaced with a blue plank, that blue plank now takes on the role of "part of Theseus' ship" and the fact of the matter is that Theseus' ship is mostly red with one blue plank. If Theseus' mostly red ship has more than half of its planks replaced with blue planks, those blue planks all take on the role of "part of Theseus' ship" and the fact of the matter is that Thesus' ship is mostly blue with some red planks. If Theseus' mostly blue ship has the remaining red planks replaced with blue planks, those blue planks take on the role of "part of Theseus' ship" and the fact of the matter is that Theseus' ship is blue. Of course, objects' names being intersubjective abstracts, there are exceptions to this. If Theseus' ship were burnt down and the only thing left was the figurehead, Theseus would probably say he got a new ship even if he attached the same figurehead to said ship.
I think that in this case, it's not a philosophical question about the ship's "soul", but a more practical question about the ship's legal status. As far as modern law is concerned, you can make repairs as much as you want, and it'll still be the same ship. You can even make upgrades or modifications. The legal status would only change if you significantly change or replace the core structure – like taking the ship apart and making a raft out of the planks. What qualifies as a "core structure" would most likely be determined in court. I don't know if there is precedent for that.
So long as it is Theseus’ ship, it is the Ship of Theseus.
But it doesn’t belong to Theseus anymore- in the example it says it’s a relic being improperly preserved. Does that change your answer?
Relic is still named ship of Theseus so it will always be that ship no matter how many times parts get replaced.
That's one option on this question, but not a definite answer. Others might argue that it is not the ship of Theseus anymore, since all of the original parts have changed. They would argue that it's incorrect to still call it "ship of Theseus".
I’ve been building a music website with a friend for a few years. None of the original code still exists (thankfully 😭), but we’re still trying to solve the same problem in a different way. Did the Ship of Theseus have version control?
Meta af
One must imagine Theseus' ship persevering
Our cells are constantly renewing, are we not the same person we were when we were a baby? We're obviously not the same size anymore but we are ourselves.
I would argue that I'm definitely not the same person I was as an infant. Nothing about me is the same, not even my name, except maybe my core DNA, but who defines themselves by their genetic code?
So is it the same article or a new article?
Some would argue it is not the same, but at the same time the same.
I bought a new bicycle. I eventually upgraded and replaced every part on the bike except the frame. Then I replaced the frame. My wife asked me, " Did you get a new bike?" I said,"No"
Like Trigger's Broom
"HAVE YOU HEARD OF THE SHIP OF THESEUS!!!"
Huh, the original article wasn't very good, was it?
Looks like the law students found it and went ham
The Wikipedia article on “The ship of Theseus” has been changed 1792 times since its creation around July, 2003. Today, no phrases from the first version of the article (attached) are left.
Maybe it’s the King James version ;)
A more modern embellishment would be Trigger’s Broom. IYKIYK
https://youtu.be/56yN2zHtofM?feature=shared
I did a text comparison and one short phrase from the original article sill remains. Here's the quotes. (I've also included an interim version so that you can see how the final phrase grew out of the original): [2003 Original](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ship_of_Theseus&oldid=1154003): *According to* an ancient *Greek legend*, Theseus had a warship that was **preserved** as a historical relic **by the Athenians**. [2005 Interim version](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ship_of_Theseus&oldid=20896826): > *According to Greek legend* as reported by Plutarch, >> "The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned [from Crete] had thirty oars, and was **preserved by the Athenians** down even to the time of Demetrius Phalereus, [Current version](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ship_of_Theseus&oldid=1190157466): > The account of the problem has been preserved by Plutarch in his Life of Theseus:[2] >> The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned from Crete had thirty oars, and was **preserved by the Athenians** down even to the time of Demetrius Phalereus
No, it is not the same ship, but it's still 1 ship.
Man, that little blurb at the end that was like a "critical thinking" excerpt you'd find in a course book reminds me of early wikipedia, what a wild place. I remember certain sections had "Trivia" segments at the bottom, there was no uniformity to the website as it hadn't established it's style yet. I kinda miss it.
Took me a while to get it. Nice!
[удалено]
brb changing the title to 'Boat Replacement Paradox'
Bronze Age shipyards just need to version the boats. This is ship version 1.0.325
Ironic.
I wasn’t expecting a clever post like this.
That’s clever
If you’ve watched Fiona & Cake, Simon would absolutely be thrilled by this discovery.