I don't understand what you mean by this question. Can you explain it? — andrewk

You said that process metaphysics ''resolves'' the paradox while object-based metaphysics doesn't.

Imho simply changing perspective doesn't truly solve the paradox.

Just because you alter your gaze from thorn to flower doesn't get rid of the thorns of a rose bush.

Looks like a cop-out to me.

I explained in the post to which you were referring that the criterion is that both instances be part of the process that we understand to be the ship of Theseus. — andrewk

Kindly explain what exactly you mean by ''process''.

What something is is not simply a question of its material constitution but of its relationship to other things as well. — darthbarracuda

How does this bear on the paradox?

If I understand you correctly then it means you think both ships are valid referents of ''the ship of Theseus'' because both of them evolve through time developing relationships with other objects (sailors, ports, events, etc).

The "original ship of Theseus" is the one made up of the original planks. The "current ship of Theseus" is the one that has had all of its planks replaced over time. Remember, these are just possible names that I suggested people might use to distinguish them; there is nothing philosophically significant about the terms "original" and "current" themselves. — aletheist

I'd like to point out a small issue with such an interpretation. The criteria/conditions that define the ''original'' ship of Theseus is significantly different from the criteria/conditions that define the ''current'' ship of Theseus. After all if the criteria/conditions are same then there would be just ONE referent of the sign ''the ship of Theseus''. Also, there wouldn't be a paradox to begin with.

However, isn't this equivocation? Using one definition of ''the ship of Theseus'' we get the original ship and using a different definition we get the current ship.

I guess the paradox exposes our defective comprehension of identity.

I'm not quite sure whether the paradox is a matter of convention alone. To explain let me differentiate ''convention'' into two sub-categories.

1. Arbitrary conventions. For example it is an arbitrary convention that the symbol ''1'' refers to unity/one. There's no logic behind it. It's random.

2. Reason-based conventions. For example there's logic behind the convention that it is good to return a favor - it makes for a better society.

If there's any convention in the paradox we're discussing it is not of type 1 (arbitrary). Rather ''identity'' is a reason-based convention. We have to reason out what ''identity'' means and then, much later after rigorous analysis, we establish the convention that ''identity'' means so and so.

Hence, we can't simply brush aside the problem by saying it's just a matter of convention.

That's why I said that a process metaphysics prevents the sort of paradoxes that can arise in trying to analyse this within an object-based metaphysics. — andrewk

Your post suggests that the paradox is solved by simply switching one's perspective (process/object metaphysics). Isn't that a cop out?

In addition, if I understood you correctly, as per process metaphysics it is valid to say both ships A and B are referents of the sign ''the ship of Theseus". If this is the case what is the criteria/conditions that need to be followed/met for the conclusion that both ships A and B are "the ship of Theseus"? Can you clarify. Thanks

So that is the 'switch' from 'the ship' to 'a person' . And, note, the assumption that 'an entire being' CAN be replaced by replacing the components, in the same way that an artefact can. So there's an implicit materialist assumption: that personal identity is of the same order as the identity of material objects, whereas I don't know if that is true at all — Wayfarer

No bait and switch - at least not intentionally. You said there's no paradox and I gave an example in which the paradox is unambiguously manifest.

Also, why is it so hard to imagine a person being physically renewed at the atomic level. There's no logical contradiction involved implying it is possible. So, your objection on this point is moot.

I understand what you mean - basically that full-blown materialism(?) is not sufficient to explain the human phenomenon. For that reason I understand personal identity may differ from the identity of material objects. However, is this difference relevant to the paradox?

The basic assumption you're making, in the case of personal identity, is that the whole is not simply the sum of its parts. There's that extra thing which, according to you, I've overlooked. This is not the case in the paradox. Surely you'll agree that the ship (the whole) is more than the sum of its parts (the planks, nails, etc). So, my analogy actually factors the very thing you accuse me of ignoring.

Hence I suspect that most people would call the reconstructed ship A something like "the original ship of Theseus" to distinguish it from ship B as "the current ship of Theseus." — aletheist

How do you make that distinction - the original and the current?

No, as I explained, I don't agree. Why would you think that completely annihilating an object, and then completely rebuilding a copy of the original object, with the same parts, constitutes having the same object? — Metaphysician Undercover

As children it is common for us to play games. One of these games involves breaking apart toys into its components and then rebuilding. We've all done it and we've seen others do it too. In such cases we never think that the process of annihilation - reconstruction yields a different toy. Are you saying this common sense intuition is wrong?

No, it is not tied to that. The requirement is that only one plank be replaced at a time. Those replacements could happen at the rate of one per nanosecond, or one per century. The speed is irrelevant. Just think about playing a video of that process in fast or slow motion. No matter what speed you play it at, it will never look the same as one in which the ship is exploded by a bomb and rebuilt from scratch. — andrewk

So, you mean to say that so long as the ship is replaced in small degrees the new ship B also has a valid claim to the sign-the ship of Theseus?

You also say that the time aspect is inconsequential i.e. it doesn't matter whether the destruction/construction took 10 minutes or 100 years. This is probably because you agree with me that the final result is simply indistinguishable - in both cases (10 minutes or 100 years) we end up with ships A and B. How do we proceed now to a solution to the paradox?

If I were to follow your line of reasoning then I'd have to say both ships A and B are referents of "the ship of Theseus? Do you accept this conclusion? If you do then you need two different sets of criteria. One leading to the conclusion that the ship of Theseus is A and another leading to the conclusion the ship of Theseus is B. Wouldn't this be fallacious - specifically the fallacy of equivocation - because we're defining the term ''the ship of Theseus'' in two different ways?

Also, responding specifically to your post, how does the extent of repairs (doing it plank by plank or all at one go) affect the issue? Didn't you agree that it didn't matter if either some or ALL planks were replaced?

No, as I explained, I don't agree. Why would you think that completely annihilating an object, and then completely rebuilding a copy of the original object, with the same parts, constitutes having the same object? — Metaphysician Undercover

Let us imagine a scenario which hopefully will make you see my POV.

Ship A needs to be transported from city x to city y. However, it has to be done by land and also it becomes necessary to disassemble it for easier transport. These kind of situations are quite common. So nothing difficult in imagining it.

After the parts of ship A reach city y they are reassembled in the original exact configuration. In this case annihilation is present but the ship A hasn't lost its identity. There is nothing grossly wrong in holding such a belief.

Please check my response to Wayfarer

'A is going to Thessalonika, B is going to Crete.'

I don't see any paradox here. — Wayfarer

But which one does ''the ship of Theseus'' refer to? A or B

Imagine a person A. Over the course of time his entire being is replaced at the atomic level. Would you not say that person A is, despite the dramatic change in his constitution, still the same person A we began with? Isn't ship B the ship of Theseus?

Continuing from there, we collect ALL the atoms that were replaced in person A and reconstitute it as another body in its original configuration. Wouldn't you say this is person A? Isn't ship A the ship of Theseus?

So which ship A or B is the the ship of Theseus?

This is the pardox.

When I say that 'time is not the important element', I mean the time it takes for the change process to be completed. We can't disregard the time dimension competely, because that would make it impossible to even refer to 'the ship afterwards' and 'the ship before' — andrewk

I'm sorry I didn't express myself as well as required. I do understand that we can't just throw out the entire notion of time.

So maybe I'm agreeing with you that time is not the important element. It seems to me that what is important is that only one component at a time is replaced - so that the ship is not missing say more than 1% of its components at any instant. — andrewk

You posted the above and if you'll notice your paragraph ends with the words ''at any instance'' and this, if I understand you, reintroduces the temporal element as in the speed of destruction/construction of the ships A and B.

You seem to be saying that the ratio of old planks to new planks is relevant (

not missing say more than 1% of its components...

). But this relevance is tied to the notion of speed (time) of construction/destruction which you agreed is irrelevant.

So maybe I'm agreeing with you that time is not the important element. It seems to me that what is important is that only one component at a time is replaced - so that the ship is not missing say more than 1% of its components at any instant. — andrewk

Thanks for seeing my POV. I may be wrong but your condition that ''the ship is not missing say more than 1% of its components at any instant'' makes no sense without a time factor in it. And time, as you and I agree is irrelevant.

As per your logic we can't know anything, after all we can't take mind/consciousness from the equation.

What is so great about experience anyway? It's all pervading - even animals have it - and we do objectify in these cases. Why is our experience so different that it requires special treatment?

But they are not self-aware. My computer is unaware of itself, as is my phone, they don't know that they are who they are. How can I? — dm12

You are right. Computers aren't self-aware. But I don't see how this leads to us being not self-aware.

That is what happens when quantum energy turns into matter — Rich

Which theory is this? Can you elaborate?

Because conscious is creative send intelligent and can create matter. Where does matter get the intelligence? From God? — Rich

What do you mean ''can create matter''? I've never heard of a mind create matter. Are you talking about god?

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy...Shakespeare

I don't think the world is as obvious as it seems to some. Then again I don't think we have enough reason not to think it as obvious as it is.

You're a very well read member of the forum and I'm eager for some genuine spirituality.

So, what about Buddhism is more convincing than the other religions?

I suspect understanding of concepts like nothing, infinity, god, what is before and after life lie deep in our mind, not in our brain. — Ashwin Poonawala

You seem to draw a distinction between mind and brain. Can you clarify?

How little we know is astonishing. — Exodus

I agree and I suspect that many people overlook these glaring gaps in our knowledge. I tried going down that path, as you have, but I find myself daydreaming most of the way. The unknown is unfriendly to the thinker - too many possibilities to entertain and difficulty in finding solid proof for any one of these possibilities.

I sense Buddhist influence in such an interpretation. What is it about Buddhism you find so appealing?

To me Buddhism shares a commonality with other religions viz. the escape from suffering. It's old wine in a new bottle. To say nothing of the selfishness inherent in such endeavors; attempts to free oneself from suffering.

if you can entertain the notion that consciousness creates matter which is far more likely than matter created consciousness — Rich

Can you explain why it is ''far more likely'' that consciousness creates matter?

The feeling that there is a self, a me or mine, that has to be saved, is exactly what has to be lost. That is what the crucifiction represents, complete self-giving. Then there is nobody left to save! — Wayfarer

Can you explain further? To me it appears like sophistry.

Karma makes no sense to me without assuming God and Divine Justice either. Without God it just seems to be an amplified naive notion of deterministic causation. — John

To the contrary karma makes sense:

1. It is in sync with casuality. Of course you must believe that everything observable in our universe is both an effect and a cause. If you do believe this then why should human actions be exempt from this general rule (causation)?

2. It solves the problem of evil that looms over god-beliefs.

if everything is made up of just permutations and combinations of elements, what makes me me? — dm12

I think you've answered your own question. Each of us is an unique combination/permutation of matter. I imagine this uniqueness defines each one of us i.e. my particular combination/permutation is me.

So for a lot of people it's like - let's not go there. I'd rather not think about that. — Wayfarer

You're right about the indifference people have to such issues. However, I don't think it's volitional. Rather sensory overload is to blame. We're easily distracted and there are too many distractions in this age. Add to that the paucity of evidence for anything beyond materialism and we create the right conditions for non-believers in anything spiritual.

Like, what is the Darwinian explanation for musical prodigy? Or prodigy of any kind? (Oh, I know - 'makes more kids'. Like, spin me another one.) — Wayfarer

What alternative explanations are there? Are you suggesting reincarnation? If you are then prodigies usually do new things. They don't remember past lives or such. So there's an absence of the necessary connection between the past and present. I think prodigies don't imply anything out of the ordinary. Of course life is far from ordinary.

Is math "central" to the Sun, or is it central to our perception of the Sun, or is it central to a scientific understanding of the Sun -- or is it merely a tool that has proven to be extremely useful in cultivating empirical knowledge of natural phenomena, including the Sun? — Cabbage Farmer

I imagine that for math to work for the sun or anything else there must be a mathematical principle already in play. That is to say we discover math in the sun/anything else. You speak as if we invent math. If the math didn't already exist in our observations no amount of mathematics will work, right?

Such capacities are prior to sophisticated techniques of precise comparison, measurement, and enumeration, and are independent of the concept of number. — Cabbage Farmer

Yet, inherent in them is the concept of quantification/number.

Hmmm. You have a point there. It does look like there has to be something to feed the imagination/mind and that is what you're referring to as the physical world. Am I right?

Looks like I've to call in the big guns...

In the beginning there was nothing. And god said let there be light and then there was light...

The point being what if mind precedes the physical?

If you ask me I think there's more to this reality than the materialistic interpretation that science is so fond of. Your theory is interesting because it has within it the seeds of infinite possibilities. However, it is still too scientific for the simple reason that you simply expand the range of pre-exisiting concepts e.g. you talk of ''particle''. In defense of your theory I like how you accomodate ''free will'' into it.

Do you see any signs of miracle births? — Bitter Crank

Unfortunately no but I'm an optimist and the future is so full of possibilities.

Also, I wouldn't count on a lack of oil bringing an end to war. People did just fine fighting wars before the first bucket of oil was poured into a barrel. — Bitter Crank

At least war won't be that destructive and also without petroleum-politics there'll be less reasons to go to war in the first place.

Statistically :P there are more herbivores than carnivores. So, in nature, it is more likely to encounter a harmless leaf eater than a ferocious carnivore. Therefore, again statiscally, nature is quite moral in disposition.

I wonder too whether there is any limit to this universe. The scales involved, from the atomic to the universe itself, are literally unimaginable.

That coupled with, as you allege, human limitations, leaves a lot of room for mind-boggling possibilities.

However, these constraints notwithstanding, we sometimes have to make definitive pronouncements about this world and ourselves. It is when we reach such a point that we let loose our imaginations and create our very own version of what reality could be.

I think this is what you're doing. There's nothing wrong with that but also there's nothing right in that.

Morality doesn't make sense outside of a social setup. ''Moral'' and ''immoral'' are meaningless to a hermit in a cave. Morality is a property of interactions between two or more individuals, at least one of which is a human. Animals need not be considered as they lack the cognitive ability to process such concepts and are therefore exempt from moral considerations.

If you agree then the terms ''objective'' and ''subjective'' must apply or have meaning in the social domain.

Society is a form of meta-existence with the social group taking on a ''life'' of its own with its own sub-categories of organization and rules that govern interactions between them. One set of rules is morality.

As I said before morality is restricted in scope to a society. Therfore we may confine our questions on it in that domain. Is morality ''objective'' or ''subjective'' in a social context?

Clearly, there are acts that run counter to the health of a society. Torture, rape, murder, stealing, lying, all are evidently ''anti-social''. These are ''objectively'' bad.

Altruism, charity, equality, self-lessness, etc. are unequivocally beneficial to society. These are ''objectively'' good.

Everything in the mind is a concept; this includes our understanding of non-existence. Yet it feels to us that what we think of when we observe in our minds the concept of non-existence somehow accurately reflects what non-existence is in actuality, but where is the evidence for this? — intrapersona

One way to approach this question is to think of the time before we were born i.e. before we came into existence. If anything, that time matches quite well with the time after we die in terms of our consciousness. It's an old idea but it makes sense. The state before a bulb is lit and after it is on for sometime and then put off is similar as far as illumination is concerned - darkness.

In other words, for most of society as naive realists or materialists it feels intuitive to think that when you die there is nothing (probably inferred from self-awareness stopping during sleep), but "nothing" is just a concept in the mind. YOU nor any man have any guarantee that you know what nothing means, nor what infinity actually is. Why then are people so sure that their conceptions reflect true states of affairs in the external world accurately? It is clear that these concepts transcend the limits of our feeble human minds and yet we act and think as if we have an absolute true comprehension of what they are and how they exist (probably because it is too difficult for us to think otherwise). — intrapersona

I'm with you in regard to the unjustified confidence materialists have on the matter - that death is the end, a complete and final destruction of consciousness.

However, the opposite - the belief in an afterlife or some conception of continuation after death - is also unjustified.

Given the above I think the reasonable epistemic stance is that of ignorance - we don't know. However, many a times one has to come to a definitive conclusion. If this is the case then where should we place our bets?

I'm confused on this one. Science, the greatest of human achievements, seems to be ambivalent on the matter. While the core sections of science don't entertain ideas of souls and the afterlife, there's still room for such a possibility in the lacunae of scientific ignorance.

Religion on the other hand has definitive beliefs on these matters supported by, usually, proofs that are miraculous in nature. None of these proofs have stood up to scientific scrutiny but that, by itself, doesn't devalue these proofs. As I said before, science has enough holes to allow for the possibility for souls and the afterlife.

So on balance of probabilities it's reasonable to hold that there's more to this universe than meets the eye. Some will take this window of opportunity to be large enough to pull in theories of souls, afterlife, reincarnation, heaven, hell, etc. Others will not.

Likewise, everything in this world is merely a construct of our comprehension and we act as if we are windows for the truth even though it is only a circular self-affirming impression that we attain from putting together our sensory worlds. — intrapersona

What do you mean?

They say ''necessity is the mother of invention''. I'm sure human ingenuity will carry the day for us.

Also look at the upside. Without fuel to run their war machines belligerent states would be automatically restrained. We could be looking at the end of war and all its consequences.

We could make some real progress in global warming and climate change.

Best of all it will expose human ''cilivization'' for what it really is - underserving of the adjectives ''progressive'', ''clever'', ''fantastic'', ''sustainable'', etc.

I think I can safely assume that just because homosexuality is innate doesn't make it 'justified' (aka naturalistic fallacy, or appeal to nature.)
Sorry for the lack of a better word. — NukeyFox

It also doesn't refute homosexuality.

Homosexuality seems (at least to me) to be quite a shaky topic. And I think it is so, because it's just a specific case of moral luck. And the consequence is something that not everyone can agree too. — NukeyFox

I think so too. There are too many variables to consider (religion, law, disease, children, etc.) and we don't agree on any of the above.

I don't think that a God which is just in the future is consistent with any concept of God that I know of. — Metaphysician Undercover

To me god is an ideal of goodness, justice, and other virtues. It is these same ideals that the future AI will possess. So, instead of imagining scenarios of god we will have a real god.

How can I explain the perception of the past? It could be that that too was mentally generated from a perception of another table before that, and so on ... But How did I get the very first perception? — Samuel Lacrampe

I see what you mean. Basically there are two things: perception and the thing being perceived. You seem to think that perception requires a thing that can be perceived and this, per your logic, is the physical world.

However, consider the brain-in-a-vat theory. Stimulating the right centers in the brain could produce all perception in the absence of a physical correlate. How do you solve this problem for your argument?