4 ms·
You're essentially using a sorites paradox/Ship of Theseus argument to attack the idea that a piece of electronics can ever, even in principle, be said to be 'p
by MaxBarraclough 6y ago
You're essentially using a sorites paradox/Ship of Theseus argument to attack the idea that a piece of electronics can ever, even in principle, be said to be 'permanently broken'.
In common usage, we consider 'permanently broken' to be meaningful, we draw the line somewhere reasonable, and don't worry too much about giving a legalistic precise definition. I think my earlier examples stand up ok here. The phone is bricked, and the laptop is not. There may be edge cases where it might not be clear whether we can say whether a device is 'bricked' or not. That's not a problem. There might be an edge case in furniture where it's not clear if it's a chair or a table, but the categories of chair and table are still worth keeping.
...anyway it looks like a promising ARM-based computer ;-P
- avmich 6y agoI think we'd agree that term "bricked" is somewhat relative. Different people can define it - slightly or not - differently, which of course makes communications more difficult, yet for now that's where we are. The point was that the original nitpick can be questioned.
- CarelessExpert 6y ago> You're essentially using a sorites paradox/Ship of Theseus argument to attack the idea that a piece of electronics can ever, even in principle, be said to be 'permanently broken'. Dude, setting aside the argument itself, I never expected to see the Ship of Theseus busted out to win an internet debate... well done!
- MaxBarraclough 6y agoIn the proud tradition of people lacking a formal education in philosophy, I think I got it slightly wrong - the continuum fallacy is the better fit.