4 ms·

By that logic you would need to call like half of all useful phenomena that most people's lives consist of and depend on, as "man-made delusion". We still need

By that logic you would need to call like half of all useful phenomena that most people's lives consist of and depend on, as "man-made delusion". We still need to interact with our lives, and many of the abstractions help us do that. BTW if you just replace the word "delusion" with "abstraction" you'll probably see how it makes a lot of sense. Every abstraction is a delusion by definition, is it not? Because the abstracted thing doesn't really exist in the same way as source observation?

scotty79 6y ago
Are they really useful or are they just easy to copy and to rember? Staying power of memes in culture has little to do with their usefulness. Whole lot of popular narratives distract us from the nature of reality rather than helps us interact with it. I would gladly see introduction to particle physics that doesn't show a single sharp rigid sphere.
- Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
  Being able to refer to my car, or ship, or other vessel, as an identified single object, regardless of what parts have been changed - yes, I would say it is very useful thing for living with it and operating it. > easy to copy and to rember That's a very important, useful and valueable property of an abstraction, yes. Though certainly not the only important property. Or do you want one that takes you hours to understand and that you have to remind yourself of it and re-learn every week?
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  This is also an argument that is worth considering. Many such distinctions that cannot be made rigorous that stick in various cultures but never existed in others simply exist because a man copies his fellow man, not because they are useful in achieving any goals. Though, as I said, they exist to simplify reality. I assume he human brain works so it does, simply to conserve energy and admit an inaccurate though usually useful enough solution. The problem is when such fuzzy logic is mixed with actual rigorous logic and attempts are made to analyse the former with the latter — that I find a futile waste of time. There is a very good reason that no clear answer has been found to the quæstion raised in The Ship of Theseus even after millennia of contemplation — there is none, and the quæstion is bereft of sense.
  - scotty79 6y ago
    Fun thing to do is comparing different cultures and seeing how very popular concepts that supposedly usefully describe common reality in one culture are completely missing from some others with no ill effect. Like 'dietary fiber' or 'hydration'.
Blikkentrekker 6y ago
> By that logic you would need to call like half of all useful phenomena that most people's lives consist of and depend on, as "man-made delusion". We still need to interact with our lives, and many of the abstractions help us do that. And they are, and they might help you, but trying to ask scientific or metaphysical quæstions about it, is an exercise in futility. > BTW if you just replace the word "delusion" with "abstraction" you'll probably see how it makes a lot of sense. Every abstraction is a delusion by definition, is it not? Because the abstracted thing doesn't really exist in the same way as source observation? The difference is of course that some abstractions have rigorous definitions rather than purely based on human intuition, and then attempting to reason about them rigorously, quickly leading to reductions to the absurd such as here. The quæstion raised in The Ship of Theseus assumes that there even be a meaningful, rigorous distinction between “same identity” an “different identity” — I reject that and attempting to reason about this with actual logic and empiricism is ridiculous. It is as foolish as trying to have a scientific investigation about who is beautiful and who isn't.
- cbozeman 6y ago
  > It is as foolish as trying to have a scientific investigation about who is beautiful and who isn't. We actually do have these investigations, and there is a scientific quantification of what is and isn't beautiful. Symmetry is a significant factor, but there are others - many others. Nancy Etcoff's research delves into this - she even wrote a book about it - Survival of the Prettiest: The Science of Beauty.
- Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
  You seem to assume that any process reasoning or thinking has to be scientific to be useful. A very dubious proposition. Given your example, thinking about who is beautiful and who isn't (not "Scientific Study", just thinking) would be pointless is well, and in reality, in practical objective reality of a lot of people, isn't. > quickly leading to reductions to the absurd such as here. That is the whole point of the original thought experiment, it shows exactly that. But it leads there by showing not that the question itself is wrong. But by showing that if you try to apply scientific thinking to everything, you end up with absurdity. That there are many areas of life where intuition is a much more suited, practical, and result-rich method of thinking.

scotty79 6y ago

Are they really useful or are they just easy to copy and to rember? Staying power of memes in culture has little to do with their usefulness. Whole lot of popular narratives distract us from the nature of reality rather than helps us interact with it. I would gladly see introduction to particle physics that doesn't show a single sharp rigid sphere.

Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
Being able to refer to my car, or ship, or other vessel, as an identified single object, regardless of what parts have been changed - yes, I would say it is very useful thing for living with it and operating it. > easy to copy and to rember That's a very important, useful and valueable property of an abstraction, yes. Though certainly not the only important property. Or do you want one that takes you hours to understand and that you have to remind yourself of it and re-learn every week?
Blikkentrekker 6y ago
This is also an argument that is worth considering. Many such distinctions that cannot be made rigorous that stick in various cultures but never existed in others simply exist because a man copies his fellow man, not because they are useful in achieving any goals. Though, as I said, they exist to simplify reality. I assume he human brain works so it does, simply to conserve energy and admit an inaccurate though usually useful enough solution. The problem is when such fuzzy logic is mixed with actual rigorous logic and attempts are made to analyse the former with the latter — that I find a futile waste of time. There is a very good reason that no clear answer has been found to the quæstion raised in The Ship of Theseus even after millennia of contemplation — there is none, and the quæstion is bereft of sense.
- scotty79 6y ago
  Fun thing to do is comparing different cultures and seeing how very popular concepts that supposedly usefully describe common reality in one culture are completely missing from some others with no ill effect. Like 'dietary fiber' or 'hydration'.

Blikkentrekker 6y ago

> By that logic you would need to call like half of all useful phenomena that most people's lives consist of and depend on, as "man-made delusion". We still need to interact with our lives, and many of the abstractions help us do that. And they are, and they might help you, but trying to ask scientific or metaphysical quæstions about it, is an exercise in futility. > BTW if you just replace the word "delusion" with "abstraction" you'll probably see how it makes a lot of sense. Every abstraction is a delusion by definition, is it not? Because the abstracted thing doesn't really exist in the same way as source observation? The difference is of course that some abstractions have rigorous definitions rather than purely based on human intuition, and then attempting to reason about them rigorously, quickly leading to reductions to the absurd such as here. The quæstion raised in The Ship of Theseus assumes that there even be a meaningful, rigorous distinction between “same identity” an “different identity” — I reject that and attempting to reason about this with actual logic and empiricism is ridiculous. It is as foolish as trying to have a scientific investigation about who is beautiful and who isn't.

cbozeman 6y ago
> It is as foolish as trying to have a scientific investigation about who is beautiful and who isn't. We actually do have these investigations, and there is a scientific quantification of what is and isn't beautiful. Symmetry is a significant factor, but there are others - many others. Nancy Etcoff's research delves into this - she even wrote a book about it - Survival of the Prettiest: The Science of Beauty.
Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
You seem to assume that any process reasoning or thinking has to be scientific to be useful. A very dubious proposition. Given your example, thinking about who is beautiful and who isn't (not "Scientific Study", just thinking) would be pointless is well, and in reality, in practical objective reality of a lot of people, isn't. > quickly leading to reductions to the absurd such as here. That is the whole point of the original thought experiment, it shows exactly that. But it leads there by showing not that the question itself is wrong. But by showing that if you try to apply scientific thinking to everything, you end up with absurdity. That there are many areas of life where intuition is a much more suited, practical, and result-rich method of thinking.