5 ms·

Not an expert on the subject at all but to my knowledge not quite. Yes, this applies for most cells in the body but in the case of neurons and glial cells, the

Not an expert on the subject at all but to my knowledge not quite. Yes, this applies for most cells in the body but in the case of neurons and glial cells, they stay for decades, so in a real, practical sense, the you of yesteryear is still the you of today right down to the cellular level where it most matters in the brain.

godelski 7y ago
Not only that, there's a difference in repairing a ship over time and swapping out all its parts at once. I'm pretty sure most people would consider the second scenario a new ship.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
  And the whole point of the thought experiment is to show that such a distinction is meaningless.
  - godelski 7y ago
    I'm not quite sure. There's multiple scenarios here. If we upload your consciousness into a computer and you're still alive, then there's multiple entities. If we replace your organs with machinery over time, then there is only a single entity that is changing. The latter is like the ship, but the former is not.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
      So by that reasoning, if we upload your consciousness into a computer and make sure we destroy you before we activate it, same difference right? We've just made the "slow replacement" process significantly more efficient.
      - godelski 7y ago
        I'm not sure if you're trolling, willfully missing the point to be contrarian (trolling), or just missing the point. Multiple entities makes a distinction in this thought experiment.
    - IggleSniggle 7y ago
      This is a really interesting point. From an economic perspective, I’ll say that if there are multiple entities, it dilutes the rarity of the original, and thus it is no longer the same. Destroying the original maintains the entity’s relationship to all external entities, preserving not only the original, but the original’s place in the system.
- WalterBright 7y ago
  With cars, there's a distinction between a "restoration" and a "survivor". A survivor hasn't had things done to it other than maintenance. There's debate about where the line is between a "restoration" and a "replica".
- shadowprofile77 7y ago
  On that distinction i'm not sure I agree, if in both cases all parts of the ship have been replaced, the difference between doing it all at once and gradually is a semantic one, with rejection of the "new" ship as the same thing as the old ship being more of an emotional reaction. In either case, it's somewhat separate from what I mentioned about the cells in the brain and how they do stay the same over decades even if others in the body change just like the parts of the ship. Like I said though, that needs a bit of further confirmation because the science seems a bit ambiguous on the details.
  - godelski 7y ago
    I don't think the difference is as trivial as you think. When you replace things slowly there are shared experiences for those parts. They have commonality among them. When you replace something instantly there is no shared experiences or commonality.
    - shadowprofile77 7y ago
      This is an interesting point that I hadn't quite considered. Not sure how it would apply on the scale of inanimate objects but I could see it being relevant to a macroscopic organic system with consciousness, like our brains and bodies.
      - godelski 7y ago
        Well the analogy was directed at macroscopic organic systems with consciousness. But with Theseus's ship we can see a similarity. If we had a ship, tore it down, then built a new ship without using any parts from the old ship, every sane person would call that a different ship. Frankly, the tearing it down step isn't required (an important factor). Conversely, if we repair a ship over time we do consider it the same ship. Maybe this is just personifying objects, but these conclusions about new ship/same ship would be pretty standard. It is why we distinguish replica and restoration.
        IggleSniggle 7y ago

godelski 7y ago

Not only that, there's a difference in repairing a ship over time and swapping out all its parts at once. I'm pretty sure most people would consider the second scenario a new ship.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
And the whole point of the thought experiment is to show that such a distinction is meaningless.
- godelski 7y ago
  I'm not quite sure. There's multiple scenarios here. If we upload your consciousness into a computer and you're still alive, then there's multiple entities. If we replace your organs with machinery over time, then there is only a single entity that is changing. The latter is like the ship, but the former is not.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
    So by that reasoning, if we upload your consciousness into a computer and make sure we destroy you before we activate it, same difference right? We've just made the "slow replacement" process significantly more efficient.
    - godelski 7y ago
      I'm not sure if you're trolling, willfully missing the point to be contrarian (trolling), or just missing the point. Multiple entities makes a distinction in this thought experiment.
  - IggleSniggle 7y ago
    This is a really interesting point. From an economic perspective, I’ll say that if there are multiple entities, it dilutes the rarity of the original, and thus it is no longer the same. Destroying the original maintains the entity’s relationship to all external entities, preserving not only the original, but the original’s place in the system.
WalterBright 7y ago
With cars, there's a distinction between a "restoration" and a "survivor". A survivor hasn't had things done to it other than maintenance. There's debate about where the line is between a "restoration" and a "replica".
shadowprofile77 7y ago
On that distinction i'm not sure I agree, if in both cases all parts of the ship have been replaced, the difference between doing it all at once and gradually is a semantic one, with rejection of the "new" ship as the same thing as the old ship being more of an emotional reaction. In either case, it's somewhat separate from what I mentioned about the cells in the brain and how they do stay the same over decades even if others in the body change just like the parts of the ship. Like I said though, that needs a bit of further confirmation because the science seems a bit ambiguous on the details.
- godelski 7y ago
  I don't think the difference is as trivial as you think. When you replace things slowly there are shared experiences for those parts. They have commonality among them. When you replace something instantly there is no shared experiences or commonality.
  - shadowprofile77 7y ago
    This is an interesting point that I hadn't quite considered. Not sure how it would apply on the scale of inanimate objects but I could see it being relevant to a macroscopic organic system with consciousness, like our brains and bodies.
    - godelski 7y ago
      Well the analogy was directed at macroscopic organic systems with consciousness. But with Theseus's ship we can see a similarity. If we had a ship, tore it down, then built a new ship without using any parts from the old ship, every sane person would call that a different ship. Frankly, the tearing it down step isn't required (an important factor). Conversely, if we repair a ship over time we do consider it the same ship. Maybe this is just personifying objects, but these conclusions about new ship/same ship would be pretty standard. It is why we distinguish replica and restoration.
      - IggleSniggle 7y ago