4 ms·

> A zoo is still a zoo if there aren't any animals in it Is it? Identity is an interesting thing. To use a commonly-cited example-- if I swap out the muffler

> A zoo is still a zoo if there aren't any animals in it Is it? Identity is an interesting thing. To use a commonly-cited example-- if I swap out the muffler of my car and toss the original in the backyard, I think most would say I am still driving the same car. If I do the same with the front left tire, it's still essentially my car. Even if replace all four tires, same. But what if I swap one part a day with a replacement, after a while I'll have all my original car parts in the backyard-- and am in effect driving a car made of totally new parts, but is this still the same car? If not, when would you no longer say it's the same car? And, if I assemble the collection of gradually discarded parts sitting in the back yard into another car-- now what? Which is my car? The thing I'm driving or the car made of the old parts? Or are they both the same car? Am I really the same person I was when I was 10 ...or 10 months? What is the "me"-ness, or are we talking about a different person? Where's the line... Or... when Captain Kirk uses the transporter-- his molecules are disintegrated, and then a copy of him gets assembled on some planet (using local materials I believe)... So is "he" transported, or is he being killed and replaced with an exact copy? (I think this question made its way to a Breaking Bad episode) Anyhoo. Is a zoo without animals in it still a zoo? I dunno.

JorgeGT 9y ago
It's an age old question indeed, the example you cited has been recorded from at least the first century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus
aato 9y ago
This kind of stuff is fun to think about. In my opinion identity is based on behaviour, not composition. So long as an entity matches a given behaviour profile, then for all intents and purposes that entity IS the thing that the behaviour is normally attributed to. Kind of like Duck Typing: "If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck." So my response to your car example is that both vehicles are "the same car" since both get you around and both are owned by you. In that sense, as your behaviour changes so does your identity. If you were able to 100% accurately encode all the actions you could ever take into a Markov Chain, then I would argue that Markov Chain is what makes you "you" at that point in time.
- chii 9y ago
  So if an alien abducted you, created a clone to replace you while you are experimented upon, you'd still agree that you are living normally, and nothing happened to "you"?
  - aato 9y ago
    Interesting! I would say that I am living both normally and abnormally since "I", in this case, is referring to two entities which are indistinguishable in terms of their behaviour.
  - Sacho 9y ago
    Conversely, people usually go through profound behavioral transformations several times in their lives. Does that mean they are not "themselves" anymore?
    - aato 9y ago
      Very broadly speaking, I would say yes. Again this is just my take, but I argue that different sets of behaviours are indicative of different identities. For example, at work I may keep to myself and be very quiet - in that setting my actions would define me as an introvert. With my friends I may be more outgoing and talkative, which is more characteristic of an extrovert. So I have two identities depending on my behaviour. I am not my introverted self when with friends, and not my extroverted self when at work.
  - diminish 9y ago
    Few years ago, I was in a PR show for a shopping center where Paris Hilton showed up. Everyone was interested to see her. It turns out she was not the true Paris Hilton but a doppelganger.
oAlbe 9y ago
Well, technically speaking, at least for a car, you can draw a pretty clear line. Your car is your car because it is registered in your name through a number soldered on its frame. Changing the frame would change that number and you wouldn't be driving the same car, at least from a legal point of view. But yeah, is a zoo without animals still a zoo? Hard to say. Even without animals, a zoo would retain its potential to be a zoo. Meaning that you could put animals in it and would be back to being a zoo. Same thing can't be said about a restaurant, for example. You can put animals in a restaurant, but regardless of how good you can lock them in it's still not a zoo.
- TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
  It's hard to say because it's not a yes/no question, and the most useful answer is going to be very context/state dependent. A zoo isn't a collection of animals - it's a social, financial, and cultural structure with associated buildings, signage, web site, and staff, that usually houses animals. If you lose the animals temporarily, you can keep the rest and still have a zoo. (This has actually happened during wartime evacuations.) If you lose everything, you have a former zoo. We have minds that put simple labels on complex relationships.
chii 9y ago
Interestingly, at the sub atomic scale, the quantum state _is_ the identity. If you have two particles at the same state, then it's meaningless to say you have two particles, add they are actually the same particle...
edem 9y ago
I think the key part is conrinuity here. What happens if you step into a device which disassembles you atom by atom then reassembles you (assuming that this is possible)? Relevant article: https://waitbutwhy.com/2014/12/what-makes-you-you.html https://waitbutwhy.com/2014/12/what-makes-you-you.html
celticninja 9y ago
A zoo without animals is just a collection of buildings, sure it could be a zoo again but it could also be anything else. A bit like a Lego house, you can break it up and you have all the parts to make a house, so it is potentially a house but it could also be anything else.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  http://imgur.com/a/UBDSO http://imgur.com/a/UBDSO Indeed it could ;)
wellboy 9y ago
You are also not the same person as 1 millisecond ago, since numerous neuronal connections changed. So it definitely comes down to the definition. You would also be you if your brain were just in a glass with wires and you could process input and give output through a computer maybe without all the gut bacteria.
delecti 9y ago
The Ship of Theseus question is certainly relevant to a discussion of identity changing over time (our body's cells are constantly turning over), but I think it's completely unrelated to a discussion of the line between my gut bacteria and me. Though to answer your question, "I" am an emergent phenomenon resulting from the interactions of the atoms in my body. "I" am just a wave passing through the universe, with my body as the medium of transmission. Similarly, "wind" is merely a description of what the air is doing where you are. As the wind blows, the specific air molecules you're observing as "the wind" are completely different from moment to moment, but a breeze persisting through an afternoon is all perceived as being the same wind.
- agravier 9y ago
  Your gut bacteria determine a lot of your behaviour.
  - delecti 9y ago
    And the most interesting animals determine the flow of traffic around the zoo. But the zoo is still not the elephants. My environment also influences my behavior, but I am not my environment.
collinmanderson 9y ago
> a copy of him gets assembled on some planet (using local materials I believe Doesn't the Star Trek transporter use the _same_ atoms/materials without making a copy?

JorgeGT 9y ago

It's an age old question indeed, the example you cited has been recorded from at least the first century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

aato 9y ago

This kind of stuff is fun to think about. In my opinion identity is based on behaviour, not composition. So long as an entity matches a given behaviour profile, then for all intents and purposes that entity IS the thing that the behaviour is normally attributed to. Kind of like Duck Typing: "If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck." So my response to your car example is that both vehicles are "the same car" since both get you around and both are owned by you. In that sense, as your behaviour changes so does your identity. If you were able to 100% accurately encode all the actions you could ever take into a Markov Chain, then I would argue that Markov Chain is what makes you "you" at that point in time.

chii 9y ago
So if an alien abducted you, created a clone to replace you while you are experimented upon, you'd still agree that you are living normally, and nothing happened to "you"?
- aato 9y ago
  Interesting! I would say that I am living both normally and abnormally since "I", in this case, is referring to two entities which are indistinguishable in terms of their behaviour.
- Sacho 9y ago
  Conversely, people usually go through profound behavioral transformations several times in their lives. Does that mean they are not "themselves" anymore?
  - aato 9y ago
    Very broadly speaking, I would say yes. Again this is just my take, but I argue that different sets of behaviours are indicative of different identities. For example, at work I may keep to myself and be very quiet - in that setting my actions would define me as an introvert. With my friends I may be more outgoing and talkative, which is more characteristic of an extrovert. So I have two identities depending on my behaviour. I am not my introverted self when with friends, and not my extroverted self when at work.
- diminish 9y ago
  Few years ago, I was in a PR show for a shopping center where Paris Hilton showed up. Everyone was interested to see her. It turns out she was not the true Paris Hilton but a doppelganger.

oAlbe 9y ago

Well, technically speaking, at least for a car, you can draw a pretty clear line. Your car is your car because it is registered in your name through a number soldered on its frame. Changing the frame would change that number and you wouldn't be driving the same car, at least from a legal point of view. But yeah, is a zoo without animals still a zoo? Hard to say. Even without animals, a zoo would retain its potential to be a zoo. Meaning that you could put animals in it and would be back to being a zoo. Same thing can't be said about a restaurant, for example. You can put animals in a restaurant, but regardless of how good you can lock them in it's still not a zoo.

TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
It's hard to say because it's not a yes/no question, and the most useful answer is going to be very context/state dependent. A zoo isn't a collection of animals - it's a social, financial, and cultural structure with associated buildings, signage, web site, and staff, that usually houses animals. If you lose the animals temporarily, you can keep the rest and still have a zoo. (This has actually happened during wartime evacuations.) If you lose everything, you have a former zoo. We have minds that put simple labels on complex relationships.

chii 9y ago

Interestingly, at the sub atomic scale, the quantum state _is_ the identity. If you have two particles at the same state, then it's meaningless to say you have two particles, add they are actually the same particle...

edem 9y ago

I think the key part is conrinuity here. What happens if you step into a device which disassembles you atom by atom then reassembles you (assuming that this is possible)? Relevant article: https://waitbutwhy.com/2014/12/what-makes-you-you.html https://waitbutwhy.com/2014/12/what-makes-you-you.html

celticninja 9y ago

A zoo without animals is just a collection of buildings, sure it could be a zoo again but it could also be anything else. A bit like a Lego house, you can break it up and you have all the parts to make a house, so it is potentially a house but it could also be anything else.

jacquesm 9y ago
http://imgur.com/a/UBDSO http://imgur.com/a/UBDSO Indeed it could ;)

wellboy 9y ago

You are also not the same person as 1 millisecond ago, since numerous neuronal connections changed. So it definitely comes down to the definition. You would also be you if your brain were just in a glass with wires and you could process input and give output through a computer maybe without all the gut bacteria.

delecti 9y ago

The Ship of Theseus question is certainly relevant to a discussion of identity changing over time (our body's cells are constantly turning over), but I think it's completely unrelated to a discussion of the line between my gut bacteria and me. Though to answer your question, "I" am an emergent phenomenon resulting from the interactions of the atoms in my body. "I" am just a wave passing through the universe, with my body as the medium of transmission. Similarly, "wind" is merely a description of what the air is doing where you are. As the wind blows, the specific air molecules you're observing as "the wind" are completely different from moment to moment, but a breeze persisting through an afternoon is all perceived as being the same wind.

agravier 9y ago
Your gut bacteria determine a lot of your behaviour.
- delecti 9y ago
  And the most interesting animals determine the flow of traffic around the zoo. But the zoo is still not the elephants. My environment also influences my behavior, but I am not my environment.

collinmanderson 9y ago

> a copy of him gets assembled on some planet (using local materials I believe Doesn't the Star Trek transporter use the _same_ atoms/materials without making a copy?