Is the Post-TOS Enterprise Actually a Different Ship?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 лип 2024
- ▶Watch more Trek, Actually videos at: • Trek, Actually
▶Listen to our Trek-themed comedy podcast, The Ensign's Log:
RSS: / sounds.rss
Soundcloud: / the-ensigns-log-podcast
Website: www.lemmelistenpodcasts.com/th...
▶Patreon: / steveshives
▶PayPal: www.paypal.me/SteveShives
▶Subscribe: / steveshives
▶Twitter: / steve_shives
▶Facebook: / thatguysteveshives
Listen to the Late Seating podcast:
▶RSS: / sounds.rss
▶Soundcloud: / late-seating
▶Website: www.lemmelistenpodcasts.com/la...
Listen to The Ensign's Log podcast:
▶RSS: / sounds.rss
▶Soundcloud: / the-ensigns-log-podcast
▶Website: www.lemmelistenpodcasts.com/th... - Розваги
We've had a Ship of Theseus style problem from the very beginning: the transporter
Except that episode of TNG where Barkley thinks he's suffering from transporter psychosis shows that consciousness is preserved through the transportation process, you can be conscious in the transporter buffer. meaning that while you're in there you are still technically alive, this isn't a case of killing someone and disintegrating them and then rebuilding them at them by Adam in a different location, cuz they don't die in the process to begin with
It's completely nonsensical, but several episodes state that you are conscious while being transported. Somehow, the mind is still active during the process. So it can't be killing the people using it.
@@KitKatHexe yeah but none of that makes sense when compared to other "technical" descriptions of the transporter.
If you got your pattern spread across space in a "lost pattern" or whatever then that would be one of the most beautiful things ever. You experience space without a corporeal being. We know that isn't the case. You are "lost". It's is always treated as a bad thing.
@@KitKatHexe also, Scotty is not conscious in the transport buffer that saves his life, so that's not really something that is consistent. Especially considering it's that ONE episode that shows you can be aware during the matter stream. Which is AGAIN inconsistent with other, and more plentiful episodes about the transporter
We have a ship of Theseus problem in real life: you.
Your constituent atoms are constantly being shuffled in and out of your body. If we measure your age by the average time since the atoms that currently consist you were placed in your body, then you're about 4 years old. On average, most of your atoms will have switched out after a decade.
Does anyone hold that the child you remember being was literally a different person? Like not the same individual you claim to be now?
To paraphrase Worf... 'We don't like to talk about it'...
I wonder what his answer would be when they brought up the issue of the corridors of the Enterprise-D being the same corridors as the ship of half a century ago, only with a brown paint job instead of a silver one.
A lot of sets from The Motion Picture and the subsequent trilogy were re-used for TNG.
@@Stoney3K
I think worf would react with
"What do you mean "motion picture".."
As He looks at you like you lost your mind.
@@MKDumas1981 I actually loved that moment. It was a brilliant sidestep by the writers.
@@SenileOtaku Ha. Brilliant
@@Stoney3K Not to mention the kick ass score
Kirk: "Oh my God, what have I done?"
Bones: What you always do. Turn certain death into a fighting chance to live."
"My God, Bones... What have I done?" "What you had to do. What you always do. Turn death into a fighting chance to live"
@@thirdpedalnirvana "My god Bones, what have you done?" "What I always... wait... captain, this game of telephone is getting weird."
The changes were explained in the movie. Decker said "Captain, this is almost a totally new Enterprise, you do not know her a 10th as well as I do!" The upgrades and "redesign" as Decker pointed out. Personally, I really liked the sleek look of the refit.
Almost a totally new Enterprise, not completely new Enterprise. Almost doesn’t count. That means that there were some parts of TOS Enterprise left in the Enterprise Refit. Therefore, it IS the same ship, just mostly rebuilt. 😉
It's possible the old series Enterprise went through several refits by the time Kirk took over for Pike.
Not just possible; remember the spikes that stuck out of the engine nacelles during Pike's time, that disappeared by the time Kirk had it? That would be a refit/upgrade right there.
Jadeo71 - nope, there no Major Tech Developments that would require a Refit, however we can see the Original Design of the Bridge in the "cage" and at least when KIRK Takes over Someone did a Minor Refit of Enterprise from the "cage" to "TOS" launch.
however During the 5 year Mission KIRK decides to NOT completely Upgrade the Enterprise and when the Enterprise returns home from "the Wrath of Kahn" the Enterprise is 20 Years out of Date .
when the Enterprise Returned home at the end of "TOS" she still was using the OLD Gaillieo Shuttles , while other Starships of the ERA had more Advanced Shuttles and Systems.
@@markplott4820 @snate56 - We find out that minor refit between "Cage" and "No Man" happened during Discovery's season 2 (which is why Pike was free to command the Discovery). if you recall, the Enterprise bridge interior at the start of that season was the blues and greys you see in "Cage", then when we catch back up to it at the end of the season, it has the familiar red accents from the rest of TOS. :)
So... Nobody here remembers the "Original" Enterprise⁉️
The NX-01❓️
Anyone...❓️Anyone at all...❓️Nobody⁉️
@@DJParticle Old comment, but oh well. The algorithm brought me here! lol
Anyway, there's a Jefferies refit design of the ToS Enterprise that was supposed to be used for Phase 2, which never happened. It's the absolute, utterly perfect mid way point between what we saw in ToS, and what we see in TMP. I don't believe it's considered official canon as it's never been seen on screen, but if you look it up you'll see what I mean. Probert used that design as inspiration for what became the refit/A/Constitution II or however you want to refer to it as.
I'm a car guy and we have that argument pretty often. Where is the line where a ''full restoration'' becomes 'its no longer the same car'? A friend of mine has had the ''same'' '48 ford truck for 30 years, since his dad drug it out of a field for a father son project, little did he know it would still be going. Over the years its had a half dozen engines, several transmissions, a couple rear ends, it got rolled over once and needed another cab, he got a deal on a nicer bed, and recently replaced the entire frame and suspension for better handling and stopping. At this point the only thing ''original'' is literally the glove box lid, every nut and bolt that left the factory in '48 is gone......But, its the same truck he and his dad have been hot rodding for 30 years.
When those old rusty hulks get rescued from sitting in a field for decades, very little is kept, including much of the body and frame. My father has an old truck. The engine is a V8 and can go highway speed with ease...had it been the original engine, 50mph would have been difficult to achieve.
Still, even with extensive restoration, nobody ever questions the claim that it's a '39 GMC.
It is the same project but not the same car.
If he dismantled it entirely got rid of the parts then bought all new parts and put it together it is a new project. But since there is continuity it is the same project and thus the same car.
@@gm2407 you say one thing and then another.
I've had the same original broom for decades. I just replace both the brush & the handle every few years when required.🤔
"With all due respect, Admiral, this is an almost completely new Enterprise! You don't know her a tenth as well as I do!" -Cmdr. Willard Decker
"Star Trek: The Motion Picture"
He was right, it was a new ship. And obviously this Ship-of-Theseus issue was used as a plot device in that story to create the power struggle conflict between Admiral Kirk and Captain Decker, who was in fact the rightful skipper of that vessel. Jim had no business bullying his way into command of that ship.
In a strange way, I was actually glad that the Enterprise-D was totaled in Star Trek: Generations, because that event avoided any Ship-of-Theseus issue in the next Star Trek movie. It became clearly established that the next ship (Enterprise-E) was an entirely new ship.
Wrong. Commander Proto-Riker.....
@@perfectsplit5515 True, but I liked what Diane Carey did when she wrote Ship of the Line. It takes place after Generations, but there's a scene where Captain Bateson (read it if you want an explanation) shows Riker that the Enterprise-E is partially made of parts from good old NCC-1701-D. It's a nice little device about the importance of history...and yes, I suppose it affects the Ship of Theseus argument.
@@OpinionsNoOneCaresAbout Good story just read it.
Kirk actually acknowledges that fact by immediately saying that that was why he was keeping Decker on as exec
I always liked Discworld's answer to the Ship of Theseus problem. The problem only exists if someone makes an issue of it. Otherwise, if everyone thinks it is the same ship. It is the same ship. The magic of the object only exists if someone believes it does, therefore it only matters that people believe it is the same ship.
Ah. The Worf Hypothesis:
"If you believe in an idea, then there can be no doubt that it is true. If you do not, then it is just an idea, and it does not matter if it is true or not.
"ive been using the same mop for 20 years, its has had 10 new handles and 8 new heads"
Ok, Proto-Riker, that had me laughing hard for a few minutes.
What is that even called. Male camel toe? Or just bulge?
Darwin Xavier The correct nomenclature is "moose knuckle."
Well, the actor with what came out about him later, it was probably just an awkward thing they didn't want to talk about.
This was a classic line!
@@darwinxavier3516 Egg in the pants
The US navy in the early 1800's had a policy of "repairing" new ships instead of constructing new ones. They would make a new ship with a few portions of the old ship, calling it a "refit" instead of a new ship. Loopholes are wonderful gardens of innovation and lunacy.
A similar practice happens when a old ship is scraped, and used ceremoniously to create a new ship. This happened with the USS Enterprise(CV-6) and the USS Enterprise(CVN-65). It will also take place for the USS Enterprise(CVN-80).
Perhaps the Enterprise name is worth keeping alive, even if the original no longer exists.
One of the anchors from CVN-65 continues on as a replacement aboard the Lincoln which was in need during its recent re-fit.
Plenty of letters left in the alphabet...
Makes you wonder if the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-E) still has a part from the CV-6 somewhere inside of it lol
Makes sense; Roddenberry was a US Navy officer.
My understanding of what the US Navy considers the same ship vs a replica is whether that ship still has its original keel. Perhaps there is a similar designated part of a Federation starship that they use as well?
My take on this is that it is indeed the same ship - maybe all new parts and such, but the SPIRIT of the TOS Enterprise is still there in the hearts and minds of the crew, especially Kirk - doesn't matter how minor or major the refit was, it's still the elegant lady Enterprise. Bones said it best: " . . . it's a new ship, but she's got the right name . . . treat her like a lady, and she'll always bring you home"
Awww DAMN IT! See? JUST When I thought I had the "Water Works" under control... Someone HAD to bring THAT Up too! LOL :D...
I’ve always felt the reason federation ships had “that look” was because everything is modular, being designed and built by many different federation members. And that nearly every ship contains something experimental. So keeping the parts separated would keep at least part of a ship salvageable when it blew up. I’ve felt that other empires use a more unified ship building process. The speed at which federation ships get “refit” makes me think it goes so fast that the crew doesn’t even think about it much. I imagine them pulling into some space dock and new nacelles and parts just swapped out.
Have you seen Star Trek Picard season 3 - do you feel vindicated?
The TMP Enterprise didn’t “always look that way” to he characters. They even say in TMP that it’s an “almost completely new” Enterprise. It was a substantial refit. TNG and DS9 both contain episodes with elements of TOS. “Relics” and “Trials.” The TOS era looked basically like what it did onscreen. They represented TOS era sets as they were filmed. Nice show of respect on their part.
Enterprise (love it or hate it) also confirmed this when the Mirror Universe Archer finds and commandeers the Constitution class USS Defiant and it looks exactly the same as the original Enterprise complete with matching uniforms.
There is also a line in Star Trek III in which an admiral says the Enterprise is 20 years old … but the Enterprise should actually be like 40-45 years old by that point
Ive been a fan of ST/TOS since it first aired, watching from my fathers side. I was 11 years old. And, my son, watched the same with me, reruns of course. I am 65 now, my son is now 43. And he watches ST/TOS with his son. The Enterprise to us, though appearance had changed was indeed the same ship. Her destruction, heartbreaking.
All of a typical human's cells have been swapped out every approximately 10 years.
Are you still you?
I was about to point this out.
If your consciousness was essentially continuous during that time, I would suspect the answer is yes.
Arguably, no. Different cells in your bod are replaced at markedly different rates (10 years for most bones being the high end of the scale, while some GI cells turnover in a matter of hours or days at best), and keep in mind some cells (notably many CNS neurons) are not replaced at all (which is evolutionarily considered a Good thing, counter to intuitive common sense). The one reliable constant in the universe is... change, and you are no exception. One illusion of your sense of self-continuity is that you see yourself as relatively the same person throughout your life, however, your DNA design is constantly undergoing mutations, errant self-repair, and malign edits due to meds, viruses, and other hostile elements of your environment. Artists & authors notice this more than most whenever they look over a previous work that, at the time of its creation, they considered to be top-notch, but later consider to be rubbish. That's more than just the gradual onset of maturity or the acquisition of wisdom can account for. A brain probe inserted into your gray matter and induced with a nice electrical charge can instantly morph you from "yourself" into a murderous lunatic, or a mental infant. Are you still "you" then? I think this ends up being a more spiritual question at some point, once the arguments of physicality and philosophy are laid plainly on the table...
Was coming down here to say the same
7 years.
touché
Fun discussion, but maritime tradition--mostly established *after* the time of Aristotle--holds that a ship has four specially celebrated and honored events: keel laying, launching, commissioning, and decommissioning. Replacing a ship's keel would not be the same as a keel laying, because a keel laying involves the first step before building up the rest of the structure around it. Replacing would mean removing the old keel from the rest of the structure, then reattaching it--not laying a new keel. Launching is never done after a refit--you just flood the graving dock and let her go on her way. Launching is generally where the ship is named and the champagne is broken over her bow. Again, a ceremony not repeated after a refit. Now, a ship can be decommissioned and recommissioned, sometimes with a new name. But in cases where the same name is used, it's the same ship. (See USS Iowa, BB62, for example). Having said all that, the NC-1701-A Enterprise in Star Trek IV and on, was NOT the NC-1701 Enterprise. NC-1701-A Enterprise was, according to various non-canon sources, either ex-NC-1717 Yorktown, NC-1798 Ti-Ho (which was never commissioned with that name), or another Constitution-Class ship to be named Atlantis. Several times, during WWII, the US Navy commissioned ships with different names than originally planned, so it does happen.
yup NCC 1701 was the same ship even after the rfit per maritime tradtion
Montgomery Scott: [voiceover] USS Enterprise, shakedown crew's report. I think this new ship was put together by monkeys. Oh, she's got a fine engine, but half the doors won't open, and guess whose job it is to make it right.
In an episode of Only Fools and horses (British comedy show) the Roadsweeper Trigger states that he as had the same broom for twenty years, it's had 17 new heads and 14 new handles, one of the other characters ask "How can it be the same bloody broom?" This obviously an updated version of the ship you mention, personally I accept that in ST:TMP we get a refitted tv Enterprise which gets destroyed, even though size wise the new Enterprise is significantly larger!
Isn't the Theseus problem identical to the Transporter problem? If a person is replaced particle by particle, is that person the same?
Exactly.
Even if they are the exact same particles-they’ve been assembled and reassembled. How can consciousness survive through that?
I think the transporter kills you as surely as a disruptor blast does, and then you exact duplicate appears at the beaming location.
And if that makes you a different person, what about the fact that your body today has no cells in common with "your" body ten years ago?
@Robertson Thirdly Personally I'm on the side of good 'ol Bones. I'd rather take a shuttle that trust a atomic disinigrator / re-assembler, and it'd likely be saving a lot of energy and risk in the process, trasporters, especially in the show and movies, are extremely dangerous and waste a huge amount of energy for no other reason than saving a little time (though in reality the process would take hours or weeks at best)... it was likely done to avoid making 'shuttle landing' scenes and sets for the original show to save on budgets XD
@@Bartonovich52 consciousness is just a bunch of electrons or neurons (or something like that).
@@jamesmac357 that's some religions BS. We are atoms/molecules with neurons making up a being.
Excellent video. It took me a few viewings of ST films 1 - 3 to come to appreciate the Constiution refit Enterprise. Shed tears in the theater at her sacrafice. Now when those are shown on TV, I get a warm nostaligia feeling that comes with seeing an old friend that I have not been around in years. Thanks for reminding me of that.
That last clip, of Kirk gazing up at the de-orbiting Enterprise after the self-destruct, in my opinion, that was most definitely the look of Kirk saying goodbye to an old friend as it were, he'd commanded that ship for some 20+ years and it had been like a long-time friend and possibly even a part of the family of the crew members that served on the ship
There's some of that sense of loss in WRATH OF KHAN, as well. Any time the Enterprise gets shot by Khan in that movie, it's shown lurching as if it's in pain. There's a shot immediately after Scotty takes his nephew to the bridge for help where the Enterprise makes a sluggish turn and we can see the phaser burns on it, like someone who's been badly hurt and is still trying to keep moving.
Even with the refit design, it was always meant to be the same ship and, by extension, the same character. Whether it be the battering suffered in WRATH OF KHAN or the final destruction in SEARCH FOR SPOCK, we never saw the Enterprise treated as just an object. It was always treated as a character in its own right and given its own emotional investment. Compare that to the NCC-101-A from VOYAGE HOME-onward, which despite looking the same was treated as the new and different ship it was.
See, this is something I dislike about the new movies. They keep destroying the Enterprise and replacing it (with the butt-ugly new version) rather than treating it like one of the characters. Ironically, Abrams doesn't dare do that to the Millennium Falcon.
Karl Smith I couldn't agree more.
Not old friend: love. She was the "woman" he was married to.
Gene Roddenberry hated the idea of destroying the Enterprise.
They actually mention the refits and upgrades. It’s subtle but Scottie mentions the work done on ship, usually in the first act. TOS and movies are set after the Klingon wars (just an assumption) but the federation might have been in a better position to work on their ships and be able to allocate more resources. The way I see it is like reconditioning a vintage car. Great video 😊
when I looked at the TOS enterprise, I saw: easy to design, modular, sort of crowded, symmetrical, practical - just what a Federation that is quickly growing needs to build ships to service its hundreds of planets. Technology like different kinds of engines, variant warp geometry, etc. came and replaced the clunky standard issue starships just after the events of TAS.
I've been reveling in the current ascension of Star Wars TV (streaming in the year of 2022) that I've put Star Trek to the wayside for a bit. But that ends after watching this fine video. You've actually helped me to reconcile the differences in TOS and the more advanced technologies we've seen in later years. And then you hit me right in the feels with that line of how Kirk is looking at the destruction of an old friend.
It's time to get my Trek on!
It was mentioned during The Motion Picture movie the Enterprise went through a redesign/retrofit. The crew knew the ship looked different
That was simply an outstanding video on every level. Well done, sir. Thank you.
First one I’ve seen. Saw it on my phone. May write longer review when I get to my keyboard. Would have been a good day in Philosophy class. Could easily have been a lecture-discussion in class. I think I took Intro to Philosophy, my professor was from Yale. Valadez I believe. Nice guy.
Mr Scott's Guide to the Enterprise explains it well. Post refit it became an Enterprise-Class variant of the Constitution-Class
. Entire ship was gutted down to the spaceframe of the saucer section and modernized. Same for secondary hull except it was a complete redesign to expanded shuttle and cargo facilities along with a modernized engineering section. The Engines are completely new along with the pylons.
But then we get into the subject of the book not being canon. LMAO
Ignoring the dates and a few other details, there's still some useful techie stuff in it...
I have that guide too and always wanted it to be Canon.
I like bits, but I made corrections here and there. Not so sure about the transwarp and the Kelvan shield system parts.
Ah. Someone posted it is not "canon..." I guess we'd have to throw that out, then...
can someone explain what "canon means please ? In the UK we fire balls out of them using gunpoweder !
I discovered your channel a week or so ago and as a life long Trek fan I have to say, I have found you're videos to be binge-worthy! Great thoughts and questions. Very well done sir. I am impressed by your thorough observation, dissection, analysis and conclusions. Thanks for your effort and work to produce these videos. When I was a boy, in my house, if while channel surfing an episode of TOS was found the rule was you must stop there, and it was never objected to. TNG pilot and DS9 pilot were family events and as an adult in the early 2000s I rediscovered my love for the universe. Thanks again and keep up the good work my man; thought provoking and entertaining!
One thing to keep in mind: in some current navy's, military ships get refits of various types (from minor to major) throughout their life. Some within two years of being commissioned (which itself may happen years after the ship was first 'put to sea'). Why you ask. Many reasons, including adding systems that were not available/ready a few years earlier. Replacement of systems for more modern systems (new developments or because the new system is now affordable). Replacement of systems where design faults have been found, or which have suffered repetitive failures. Multiple refits due to not wanting to have a ship out of service for an extended time (so different systems replaced at different times). Alternatively, there may be major refits combining a lot of changes, or to carry out life extension work, as this means a lot of dismantling, may as well replace/renew various systems at the same time.
But you would not really expect much if any of the above 'routine' events to make it into a script where the writer is more interested in the main threads of the story...
Here's one for you. What if you took half the material from the ship, replaced it with new material, then took the material removed, put that together with even more new material, to create a second ship. Which one is the original? Both ships would be made up of 50% of the original ship.
in a simple respect, the ship that had parts taken from it is the original. This brings to mind the transporter problem.
Philosophy is often confounding but is a wonderful mental exercise, unfortunately leading to many misunderstandings in human interrelation.
Plus, this issue is simply reflective of the human tendency to ascribe identity to inanimate objects.
Twinsies? Or, which one keeps the dedication plaque?
I actually was surprised he didn't go with 'Identity, in of itself, is an entirely internal concept, so whoever makes a statement on it; "It is the original Enterprise" or "It isn't the original Enterprise" would be right, for themselves, for that is what they believe.' as the closing statement. It would have been suitably ironic :) The entire concept of identity is just that; A concept. It has no basis in reality. Things just are, they have no label attached somewhere that states if it is a tree or rock, we just label them that. What makes one tree different from another? Lots of things, but we group things into easily identifiable lots and label it something to make life easier for us. Language has a lot to do with this, as it limits how we can describe the world, so we HAVE to create identities to make life easier for ourselves.
RE: John Miller: If I recall correctly, that actually happened a few times over the course of human history.
I think one of them was in WW-II, which semi-regularly had ships being blown in half (and sinking) from their magazines detonating.
I can't recall the particular instance I read about, or even if it wasn't a joke, so take it with a heaping spoonfull of doubt.
RE: John Miller: (but on a tangent)
I *do* recall a slightly different problem, what happens when you put opposing halves of two different ships together?
If it was in WW-I, you get the HMS Zubian.
Made from the forward third of HMS Zulu, and the middle and aft thirds of HMS Nubian.
(not that the middle-third of HMS Zulu wasn't salvageable, but as extensively linked with it's now missing aft-third as the middle is, better to just lop off the intack bow and weld it onto HMS Nubian)
This case was functionally labelled as being "neither" of the original ships, and yet it very clearly was. (same materials [mostly the same specific ones too], same country [Britain], same design intent [be a destroyer], but the names and crew were different)
I was born in 76, and my first exposure to Star Trek was the movies. I had the opposite problem when viewing the Cartoon and now retroactive TV series. I kept asking myself, why is everything tubes?
Another point in favor of it being the same ship by "the intent", was that (according to the semi-canon books) the refit wasn't originally intended to be so extensive. They upgraded the warp nacelles, and found that the struts and power systems weren't quite able to handle the new ones, which then required rebuilding the secondary hull and "gooseneck". This caused them to have to rework the impulse engines. Then they found that the old computer couldn't keep up, and the newer primary computer would require a major refit of the saucer.
At each step, the "intent" was to keep as much of the original ship as possible.
I've read that too.
Yup, like when I wanted to upgrade my old computer with new RAM; the old motherboard couldn't handle modern RAM cards, so I had to upgrade that, but it didn't have the right cable ports for my old IDE hard and optical drives, so I had to upgrade those, but then the old power supply wasn't up to the task of powering all those new components so that also had to get an upgrade, then my old graphics card had a blowout because it couldn't handle the strain of the new motherboard so I had to replace that too. Then, the new motherboard didn't have PS/2 ports for my mouse and keyboard and it was easier to just get USB ones than order USB to PS/2 converters online, but that also required upgrading the old USB 1.0 ports to 2.0 ports.
So what started as a simple RAM upgrade ended up with me replacing nearly everything except the case.
"How do you like the new refit Enterprise? We replaced the nacelles, the neck, the saucer and the secondary hull. 100% new parts."
"Why didn't you just build a whole new ship?"
"Oh, we didn't have the budget for a NEW ship."
:)
The explanation for the Klingon being so different was given on the Enterprise with Scott Bakula.
And I despise that explanation.
@@snate56 This is the first time i've ever seen someone openly despise it. members of my house found enjoyment in the story arc. We like continuity.
I hear that sailors have decided to resolve the Ship of Theseus problem by agreeing to the convention that a ship's identity is located entirely in its bell.
Well the Enterprise did have the same Bill. :D
So the Edmund Fitzgerald isn't under water then?
It might still have to be attached to something, but if they put that bell on a different ship, that would then be the Edmund Fitzgerald.
Actually, the "identity" of a maritime vessel is on her keel. The lay down of the keel is the first major event on a ship building contract, and when it happens, the ship starts to be considered as an existing vessel so the appropriate documents that will accompany the vessel during her "life" are drafted, signed and stamped by the necessary authorities. So, as long as it has the same keel, it is, in fact, the same vessel whether you've changed everything else on the ship. Once the keel is sunk, destroyed or unable to keep functioning as such, the vessel as a unit is considered to have the same fate. That fixes the greek vessel's problem. It is the same ship, because it is still the same keel.
For the Enterprise's problem though, there are other things to discuss ... Generally speaking, if it were the same ship, it would have retained the same name and the same Naval Construction Contract's number, since they added the "-A" to both, that implies is a totally different ship that has been commissioned paying homage to a previous famous ship. That was what happended when the following "Enterprise" ships were commissioned, each one of them belonging to a different vessel class, but retaining the base construction contract number with the addendum letter added to it, signifying the new vessel is a sidestep of the original contract, instead of a totally new and different construction project.
Nonetheless, if what they did was to "retrofit" the ship, meaning taking apart an existing vessel and reassembling her components, with the necessary upgrades and/or changes where necessary, they it would indeed still be the same vessel, although the name it would had remained the same, not bloody A, B, C, or D ...
The refit DID have the same number... NCC-1701. The -A was only given to the second Constitution(refit) class Enterprise.
The original Enterprise's destruction is sad and all, but for me no ship destruction is sadder than the destruction of the Enterprise-D in Generations. Taken down by a mere warbird for the sake of switching to a studio model more suitable for film, only for them to switch to CGI models just one film later.
343 Guilty Spark bird of prey
There's sad in a touching way (search for spock) and there's sad in a groan-inducing way. Like... how the Enterprise-D was taken down.... that was just sad. Like how the ship got taken over by Ferengi so easily in "Rascals" (TNG). That was pretty sad too.
I never shed a tear for the Enterprise-D crashing, because how she was taken down left a bad taste in my mouth. The only tears I shed were at the moment Data found Spot and started crying. THAT was touching.
If Star Wars charatcers have adamantium plot armor, The Ent D seemed to have anti-plot armor for Generations. I can't think of a more blatant example of ludicrous nerfing for the sake of plot than how The Ent D couldn't roflstomp one BoP. Esp when you see what kind of firing rate it has against the Borg cube and Husnock warship. Although I really love the score they made for the destruction of the Ent D.
worse....it wasn't a warbird at all...it was a century old rustbucket B'rel (or D-12)-class BoP. If it was taken down by a D'deridex-class Romulan warbird I could've lived with that as the D'deridex is about equal in abilities to a Galaxy-class
should read my above comment as to how I would've ended the Enterprise-D if I'd written that movie
Everybody is talking about how the bodies cells are gradually replaced over time, but they tend to forget that brain cells aren’t replaced, the same cells you were born with you keep throughout your life with some extra thrown in during childhood
Same class, same registry, same configuration, in film explanation, audience acceptance (generally), same self-destruct code from the original series, same ship. Great job relating this to the ship of Thesius problem and the four causes...totally awesome.
People have most or all of their planks replaced over time. Our brains constantly change with new experiences, our skin flakes off and is regenerated with new skin cells, and the same goes for the rest of us... we're broken down and built back up a little at a time throughout our lives. In fact, we're ultimately what we eat, breathe, and experience. So I think it depends on how we approach it and what answer we're looking for. There's the practical/physical aspect and there's the mental/emotional aspect. Physically and practically, the Enterprise is mostly different. However, even in that sense, it may not be too different if you consider Starfleet's recycling technologies, replicators, and whatnot. Many of the new parts could have literally been created directly from the old, either on a component basis or molecular basis. Hull panels could have been broken up and reapplied. And I'm pretty sure at the very least, pieces of structural framework were included, either altered or unaltered. The bones of the ship. If you're looking at it mentally and emotionally, the ship is representational of the original and a part of it's history and continuity. And if actual components, structural members, and constituent molecules are included, then it's literally the last bits of her that still exist, and more importantly exist with the same general configuration and purpose, and for the same people. Just like a person will gradually swap bits of themselves out, the ship will similarly swap out parts whether it's a major or minor refit, or even if a panel gets replaced. It all carries the same spirit, represents the same thing, and has the same continuity despite the practical physical changes. None of this really matters though, because in the end, Kirk and his crew believed it was the same ship, with the same spirit made up of their own collective history poured into her. That was their ship that went down in flames, and that's all that matters, in and out of universe. I know I'll always cry at that scene, because these implications are what matter the most.
Biological organisms are constantly changing, but in distinct, different ways. Firstly they adapt to the conditions they are exposed to, whether than be getting a tan when exposed to the sun, growing body hair when exposed to hormones, or growing obese when excess food is consumed. Secondly, they repair themselves when damaged. Thirdly, the molecules and atoms are turned over, recycled, lost and replaced. Unlike a sheet of metal in the hull of a spaceship, our material being is dynamically changing at the molecular level. Despite all of these things happening we are considered to be the same person the whole time and feel like there is continuity in our own heads (even with regular gaps during sleep).
This is far more complicated than refitting a spaceship, and if we are still the same individual now that we were when we were born, then the much smaller changes to the Enterprise can't sensibly be considered to have turned it into a different ship - at least in terms of identity. Even more simply though: since the original ship was never destroyed and there was never a point in time when it wasn't there, it has the continuity of physical existence in addition to any philosophical continuity of identity. It would be a different story if it had been dismantled into its constituent parts and then a new ship constructed using some of the same parts.
After reading your response; I'd love to have you join our writer's group. Could you email me, please? "scott.king@icloud.com"
He was thinking,
1, other than stealing it iv now blown it up. Wednesdays are always shit boys. Right who speaks Klingon
The Enterprise never has existed. It wasn't in TOS, it isn't in the movie.
As they said in Monty Python and the Holy Grail of Camelot "It's just a model"
Joseph Dickson shh!
Fascinating and intelligent discussion. Our human body changes daily but we imagine ourselves the same person. Perhaps our difficulty with this concept of change is a barrier to other understanding. Good topic.
Just found your channel. Love Trek Actually. Your commentary is great! Keep it up!
I got surprisingly emotional near the end of watching this. I think you got a new sub, just for the thoughtful way you put this together.
Another great episode with well reasoned and researched arguments - keep up the great work!
there was a TNG-era book in the 1990s that touched on this. Scotty is visiting a TOS-era Constitution-Class ship in a museum and he notices the Enterprise's dedication plaque on a wall on the bridge and recalls that during the refit, the original bridge module from the Enterprise was removed as a whole and replaced with a new bridge module (with the old module being installed on a museum ship)
It's called Crossover and it's the USS YORKTOWN he steals it to rescue Spock IIRC.😊
Actually if you read interviews with Andrew Probert who designed the refit Enterprise for the motion picture he says, quote: it's a totally NEW Enterprise built from the keel up. it's not a refit in the sense that the old ship was just converted it's a whole new ship. when Scotty says redesigning and refitting the Enterprise he actually means they rebuilt a new Enterprise to a new design and refitted it with new equipment so she is a totally new ship.
but because they used the term refit in the movie writers took it as they just pealed away the old and added and rebuilt onto it. as that is usually what the term refit implies. and Roddenberry never corrected them on it. so it was dunned as a refit. but according to Probert who designed it. it was a new ship built from the keel up with all new parts to a new design. which means Kirk's old Enterprise and lets face it if you go by the story line. April had it first. so that was one five year mission, the Pike had it for two, there is 10 more years, then kirk hard it for 2 five year missions if you go by the novel Roddenberry wrote. where he said Kirk like pike commanded Enterprise for two five year missions before accepting promotion to Admiral. that would had made the old Enterprise 25 years old before Star Trek the motion picture. and it has to be correct as in tos Kirk was 34 years old. in the wrath of Khan Kirk turns fifty which he had only been of operations as an Admiral for 2 and a half years. which means kirk spent more than one 5 year mission in command of the Enterprise. So yes I would say the refitted Enterprise was in fact a new ship. and that the old one was decommissioned and either is the Museum ship Picard refers too in Relics. when he tells Scotty there's a Constitution class ship in the fleet museum. or it was scrapped.
It would be funny if, during some emergency, a group of officers desperately need a ship, and think, "Let's check the museum!" And getting there they find several mothballed ships but one stands out, and old connie by the name of Enterprise. "Oh, dudes, THAT'S the one we gotta try...!"
iirc there are some traits from the Phase 2 design that are still part of Andy's refit Enterprise design the only difference that seperates Andrew Probert's design from the Phase2 model is the position of the glow in the nacells from that of the buzzards that being the Buzzard glow dropped in favor for glow in the grill of the Nacell grills.
The ship in the fleet Museum is the USS YORKTOWN,Original Connie,check our a book called Crossover TNG, it's a good read and Scotty visits said ship,decides to install a cloaking device and takes it to Romulus to save Spock who has been kidnapped by opposes of Unification.
Greg Egan made an excellent argument for the continuity version of the Ship of Theseus problem in Schild’s Ladder: if you as an adult can see exactly how you changed from you as a child, no matter how different you are now and no matter how little of your original components are still in place, then you are still the same person. I think the same is true of the Enterprise.
but what happens if adamantium claws hit a vibranium shield
Didn't expect to well up during this video. Good stuff man, well done.
Honestly, this may still be my personal favorite video in this entire series. It is the one that, when I'm talking about your videos with friends, I cite as a perfect example of WHY I enjoy your videos.
And that last observation is... chef's kiss perfect!
In a human being's life, we completely shed and grown fresh, new skin several times. Our hair follicles are not as the ones we are born with. We loose apendages, organs are replaced or just removed... Aren't we still us despite all that?
Gret video Steve, love how you bring these topics up
Not if you define your identity as those physical parts-which some people do.
In an attempt to out-nerd Steve Shives, I'll note that the TOS Enterprise was not just one ship. They used two different models, one with pointy things on the nacelle caps, a taller bridge module, and a grill at the back of the nacelles, while the other had spinning-lights on the nacelle caps and a round bump at back of the nacelles. These two models were used interchangeably in exterior shots during TOS' three year run (look for the grill on the nacelle backs during the final shot of many shows).
So TOS had a kind of ongoing retcon-reretcon going on the whole time!
Manly Stranger It wasn't two models at the same time. The hero model was actually updated (more than once) but because Trek was on a shoestring budget, they reused used stock footage shot with the older versions of the model.
I loved how the CGI version of TOS Enterprise also kept all those little changes intact throughout the early episodes. Though, it really makes me cringe when I watch "The Cage" and see the glaringly obvious rendering error they did connecting the "neck" to the primary hull in the opening shot.
I literally LOVE you for making this video!!
After the five year mission, Enterprise went through an eighteen month refit. Under the instruction of Mr. Scott and the Starfleet Corp of Engineers, she was given an enlarged saucer section and more sleek a space frame. Essentially, like stripping a house down to it frame and starting over with new materials. 1701-A was entirely new ship. Originally, the Lexington, she was renamed Enterprise and Kirk was given command as a small thank you for saving Earth.
This is indeed the most nerdy thing to talk about...... and I love it
There is a much more recent real life example of this than ancient Greece: the former US Navy warship Constellation in Baltimore harbor. For years the foundation and city was telling tourists that the ship was the original frigate Constellation built in the 1790s, dating it to the beginning of the US Navy. In 1853 the ship was "repaired" and what came out of the yard was not quite the same Constellation. What actually happened was that the Navy or the contractor had built a new ship, using some of the timbers from the old one, while breaking up the old one. The old Constellation was never struck from the Navy list, and all her registry paperwork history and was transferred to the new one. I've heard this was done as a scam or a way to get around the fact that Congress had authorized a budget for repair or refit, but not for building a bran new ship. In the early 1990s there was a huge argument about it, even in the Navy's professional journal Proceedings, and it was decided to stop telling everyone it was the original Constellation. Today it is acknowledged as an 1853 warship, and still a very cool museum ship to visit.
Cool story I didn't know. It's one of the few things I made sure I saw while stationed up there. The same issue is in all things preserved. Cars, guns, airplanes, you name it.
USS Constitution. And it is, technically at least, a commissioned United States Navy ship. Also, it's Boston.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Constitution But, indeed. However, reading further, "The detachment estimates that approximately 10-15 percent of the timber in Constitution contains original material installed during her initial construction period in the years 1795-1797." Am I having fun? LOL.
@@duster0066 :I agree. I had a 71' cuda' 340. Not the orig engine, date coded 1970, auto changed to 4spd, replaced rear quarters, outer wheel tubs, complete trunk floors, 1 floor pan, grill, repaint. Does that mean it wasn't a 71' cuda'? Sounds to me like you could call it a "Re-Fit" instead of a "Restoration", like the Enterprise NCC-1701 to the NCC-1701A! The NCC-1701A had several upgrades which changes the shape, at least of the engine nacelles. We have to take into context the re-Fit equipment. It would be like taking a 1971 Dodge Challenger and doing a re-Fit to 2019 technology, look at what would have to be changed. I didn't have any problem with the way the Enterprise looked in Star Trek:The Motion Picture. The only issue I had with the film was the way they made Cpt. Kirk look like an idiot.
@@glennfalzo3718 I had no problem with the way the ship looked in the Motion Picture, in fact I like the aesthetics of it more than the TOS version. I just find fault with them saying that it's a refit when there is no sign of ANY original ship in it. The engineering hull is larger and rounded, rather than cylindrical, the saucer is a whole new saucer, as are the nacelles and pylons, etc. Even the systems were new and not fully tested yet in how they would all work together. Most of the new parts and systems were tested on various other ships in small quantities, not all together, thus, frankly, I see her as a whole new ship, much as the A was technically a whole new vessel, despite being a Constitution class ship (1964 1/2 Mustang vs newer Mustang Fastback or Mach 1 - newer, more advanced parts and components, better, more efficient power system (or engine in the Mustang's case), sleeker design, etc).
Came here for a light video about the Enterprise to watch on my lunch break and got an engaging, thought provoking philosophical discussion instead. Nicely done!
"My God, Bones, what have I done?" That line is my answer.
Even the systems were different in the motionless picture. Yet here is my predicament, how did kirsty alley get refitted into robin kurtis lol
It was a 'minor refit'. As in, a total rebuild from the ground up.
It was a dark time when we nerds were still scorned as jobless virgins. Now nerd is the new cool. But we must never forget our roots or how we had to fight for our acceptance.
That's Great! lol
Touche!
@@darwinxavier3516 You're soooooooo right! I was bullied in school for being a nerd, as many others were. We should never forget that.
You shut your face, Steve Shives! The Enterprise is REAL!!!
Great video! Loved it.
What a great video! I loved the way you approached the subject.
Dude, I never expected deep philosophy, from a UA-cam video. So thank you for exceeding my expectations by a considerable margin. In it's simplest form, the discussion is about whether you're preserving a symbol, or a physical object. The former is why there is an Enterprise-E. The later, however is why you can't create a Ming vase in 2018, because one of the identifiers of a genuine Ming, is it's extreme age.
Those new uniforms desperately need to be worn with a dance belt.
If Scotty says she's the same, then that's good enough for me.
On a related note, if our cells are always regenerating and dying, aren't we all Theseus's ship?
Agumentum ad Scotty: what he says goes.
Exellent and well argued episode! One good example for the continuity of identity is that of sports teams: the LA Lakers who won the 2020 NBA title are the same team (in a way) that had legendary battles with the Celtics when Bird was playing Magic, even if none of these players are still active. That is why a meeting of those two teams in the playoffs is of special significance even today.
Delightfully thoughtful and erudite presentation. Much more than I expected when I clicked. My philosophy class in college 40 years ago could have used this video. Thank you.
This was such an interesting video! It is fascinating how the identity of a thing is so much up to the interpretation of the identifier...
I was actually sitting here getting physically & emotionally agitated as I watched, literally saying out loud, "Of course, it's the original Enterprise!"
This fictional ship, created in the collective imagination of so many folks, has so much significance in my own consciousness... to me, the Enterprise was 'real'. My heart ached, right along with Kirk's, when I saw it disintegrate in the planet's atmosphere.
And, I guess, that just supports the actual point of your entire video!
(Lots of fun to watch; thanks!)
Nerdy questions are good :)
The Enterprise has been (very comprehensively) re-furbished, but it is the same ship. If the crew of the Enterprise A say the ships are the same, they are the same. They should know - it’s their ship. Not ours. The ship is greater than the sum of its components; what it is *made of* is not the same as what it *is* - its identity cannot be reduced to its materiality. Bringing in Aristotelian categories was an excellent idea.
The Enterprise *is* a real ship, in the feigned universe within which it exists. Questions about the Enterprise, are valid questions, because if people construct feigned histories which contain starships, and so forth, these things are going to have effects. Asking about these effects does the writers the compliment of taking their stories seriously.
One of the best, most intelligent monologues about Star Trek and this philosophical debate I’ve ever seen. Brilliant. Thank you!
Good video. Love you mixed philosophy with Trek. Finally someone else is doing this, I don’t feel so alone.
My god, Bones, what have I done?
Turned death into a fighting chance to live.
What you always do.
Look at the new films then watch these
You know something is missing
Heart
....... Yeah, What he said..... The JJ films have NOTHING to do with Star Trek other than the name of the characters and a vague resemblance of what Enterprise looks like.
Steve, you were recommended by UA-cam based on content i consume. While UA-cam has many problematic issues, they got this one right. Glad i saw this . . . Subbed.
My heart broke the day I saw that in the theatre...I did cry. Her frame was the same and that means her spirit or soul is the same.
Always a joy to hear an intelligent and well thought out argument. Such a great channel.
Loved it, Steve! Great and nerdy video! I am not a trekkie, but I still love the idea of the show and I particulary have a love of the special effects and designs of the ships. I recall watching STTMP in the theater slack jawed with wonder at what some reviewers call a needlessly long scene as Kirk and Scotty took a tour of the outside of the refit Enterprise. I could have sat riveted for an hour of that reveal. As for the whether or not it is the same ship...I tend to agree with the final point, Kirk's expression said it all. That was the true Enterprise that died in the atmosphere.
Done Dennison is right, cells in your body are replaced as your body ages. Roughly every 7-10 years. The only exception are the brain cells.
So, if you argue that the Enterprise has been thoroughly replaced with little of the original parts being present, the senior crew members (Kirk, Spock, Uhura, Sulu, Chekov, McCoy and Scotty) can be considered the ship's brain. So even though every part of the original ship was replaced, the ship's mind, heart and soul (the crew) were there until the end of the movies.
Even Sulu came back after *FINALLY* getting his own ship.
ACtually... there is nowadays some proof that we DO create replacement-cells for our Brain-cells as well - there's even multiple drugs in development that enhances this process - neurogenesis - extensively. As such... even our brains are eventually slightly replaced by our bodies as we age.
this is the comment i was looking for. well said
Yes and even more importantly, the causes of ourselves is completely different too. The material cause as argued above. The formal cause, we grow taller, smarter, more hair, less hair, etc so our appearance changes. The efficient cause, we never can change our parents or our pasts. The final cause, what our purpose is/was.
People change over time. Are you doing the occupation you wanted to do when 5 years old. Do you vote the same way you did when you were first able to vote. When you were an infant you were comfortable to sit in sh*t, when you sh*t your pants now as an adult do you feel comfortable ?
We used to be impressed in the 1960's with bare grey walls, red swishing doors and dials and flashing lights as technology of a futuristic interstellar vessel. In the 1980's we weren't and needed, burnished steel walls, airlocks, cathode ray tube monitors displaying wireframe visuals of the futuristic interstellar vessel.
Now we need darkly lit corridors, lens flares, holograms, cast-iron pumps and pipes in the engine room, 90's music and instead of heroic professionals, we need anti-heroes with conflicted pasts that are too cool to follow rules.
Give me heroic professionals and a sleek design. After over a century of spaceship design, they should be able to not expose all the wiring. (Voyager actually showed how they did it: The plates in the corridors are removable for easy access) And nobody would hire people that act like spiteful kids to run a ship in a (somewhat) militaristic organisation. People have their flaws and are different, that should be represented, but keep it reasonable. (Another good example from VOY is when Janeway explains to the Borg that they work better because of their differences and individuality, as different minds can have different ideas and solutions) And let them be heroic because they can live with their conflicted past without having it interfere with their job.
Oh, and keep the holograms, they are lit.
The Ship of Theseus problem should definitely have been a major ongoing theme of Voyager. Both in terms of the ship, and personal growth of the crew.
I know that this video is comedy, but there was actually something really beautiful about the way you explained that
I'm wondering what it would have been like if they replaced that reaction shot from Kirk in TSFS with him delivering the line, "Yeah, whatever... I couldn't even find the turbolift on that ship."
"This is going to be so much paperwork."
You could argue the moment the enterprise was destroyed was the moment Kirk no longer felt like it was his
and from the moment he couldn't find the turbolift he was just looking for a way to put it out of its misery.
Thomas Kirkness-Little I think at that point Kirk would be “F*** paperwork.”
Fellow mockish nerd here! lol Your last point about it not being real is the main reason why I'm not flipping out about DIS's "continuity errors" and also why I was able to enjoy the Kelvin films. It's fun entertainment, even the films and shows that were subpar. Wacky futuristic technologies, crazy species that still look human-ish, sounds in the vacuum of space, all the effects; I enjoy it all. There are portions of the fan base that take sci-fi too serious and sap the fun out of the experience. I enjoy the fact that you can have fun with these topics. Extreme nerdism yet still in touch with reality. Heck, you got yourself another sub. Looking forward to the content, you mockish nerd you.
Completely agree!!!!! THIS!!! +1 (ad infinitum)
"Proto-Riker" had me on the floor. Love it!🤣
In the end all that matters is that, that imaginary ship (that was on my seventh birthday cake in 1967) carried so many hopes and dreams for our species into a plausible and successful future. What the Enterprise symbolises is truly beyond words.
Identity is a story we tell ourselves, not an intrinsic property of objects.
So true.
A self consistent story we tell to remind ourselves of who we are from moment to moment.
Can you make a Trek, Actually about the character evolution of Damar?
Great suggestion! I'll add it to my list of future topics. Thanks!
This was a wonderful and thought provoking video. Good job.
I will never forget that day, in the theater, watching the Enterprise self destruct. I didn't know whether to scream or to cry, I was just frozen with my mouth dropped and I could here loud gasps and shouts of "NO!!" and "OH MY GAWD!!!" throughout the theater. It was like watching a beloved friend get stabbed to death and the get dismembered.
One of the important aspects of the Ship of Theseus problem is the gradual nature of the change. The ship isn't taken completely apart and rebuilt using all new components in a single "upgrade". Instead, small, individual pieces and components are replaced, as needed, over the course of years. The ship operates with new pieces co-existing with the original pieces, and later on, newer pieces co-exist with the new pieces that co-existed with the original pieces, etc.. The real issue of the Ship of Theseus problem (and the thing that makes it a mind-boggling problem to answer) is that, even IF you decide that the new Ship of Theseus is NOT the same ship, then the question becomes: "at what point did it stop being the original ship?"
In the context of the Enterprise, this may be an easier question to answer. If the Enterprise enters space dock as it existed in the original series, and comes out the other side as it exists in TMP, then we have a pretty strong case for the ship being a "new" ship. All the original components are stripped out relatively simultaneously and replaced with new components, and the ship never sees active duty while in the state of transition. This may also resolve the Aristotelian definition of identity, since the Enterprise never functions under its purpose (its "final case") while it is in a state of transition between the two identities.
However, the history of the ship after the original series is not strictly defined, and here's where we have room for debate. We have a better case for the Enterprise remaining as the original ship if we assume that the ship underwent multiple smaller refits between TOS and TMP. At 11:08, you show a concept image of a half/half TOS/TMP Enterprise in which SOME components of the TOS design co-exist with some elements of the TMP design (such as the torpedo launcher, nacelles, and parts of the saucer). There's also the Phase II design, which retains more elements of the original TOS design. If the ship gradually transitioned from being the TOS ship to being the TMP ship, while still remaining in service, then the case for it being the same ship is much stronger, especially if Kirk and crew are still operating the ship during this period of transition.
Again, if the ship enters spacedock after Turnabout Intruder, and exits spacedock 15 years later for TMP, then we've probably got a whole new ship. In fact, the reality seems to be closer to this case than to the gradual transition case, as Decker says in TMP: "This is a whole new Enterprise, and you don't know her a tenth as well as I do."
What remained of the TOS Enterprise was the frame. The skeleton if you will, modified but the same beams. An extensive refit but only a refit.
TMP isn't 15 years after Turnabout Intruder, it's only about 5ish years. The slightly over decade time jump is between TMP and Wrath of Khan.
Two and a half years, according to TMP. 18 months were spent refitting the Enterprise alone.
So it's Trigger's Broom then?
Yeah!! I've been scrolling through these comments hoping someone would mention Triggers Broom (17 new heads and 14 new handles) :-) :-)
Hey Steve. This was very interesting. I came to see some of your stuff on a lark, admittedly I had only seen you and your work in passing on... other... channels. Keep your head up and keep teaching sir. THIS is where you shine... Dont let people pull you away from it.. anyone.
This video was surprisingly good. Thanks.
Thank you for these great questions, and going deep into philosophy. This is why I love Science Fiction!
Now this is interesting. First off I loved the TMP. It's genius. And instead of saying yeah we put that old ship out to pasture.. here's a shiny new one .. would not been enticing to fans. But to say it's the same ship just heavily upgraded... Your keeping the essence of the enterprise alive. And it's entirely common. To give some facts the enterprise is away from base for 5 years. Although they'd visit star bases that's not the same.. in those 5 years can u imagine the upgrades that's happening to star ship engineering? Hell look at us now .. your cell phone or lap top is obselete in year. And this is the 23 century. And most likely when the enterprise was designed it was designed to be eventually upgraded.. it has been happening for decades with cars... Look at the car mod culture. And no doubt after 5 years Kirk, Spock, and Scotty, have had input on deficiency in the performance and design of the ship..and what it needed to be a better ship. Again we still do it now... Look at the 9th generation Honda accord. It came out in 2008 and replaced in 2018. During that time it was being constantly refreshed and upgraded every 2-3 years. By 2018 it was almost a different car... Yet still pinned by the same chassis..or in the enterprise case the superstructure or bones of the ship. No doubt is the enterprise stayed close to home base it would get upgrades every so often that would be the same... New warp engines.. new nacelles to support that engine.. new design for the struts.. larger secondary hull to support it.. new design for the defector dish.. etc. To Me saying it is the same enterprise is totally believable.. and why blowing up in search for Spock so sad. Now in the newer movies it gets destroyed every so often there's to attachment or connection to the ship. But that's another story.
Just an amazing video! Plain and simple.
One of the things, from a nautical standpoint, in regards to a ships identity is the Keel. When the keel of a ship is laid, there is a ceremony where the ship is "named" as the keel is basically the soul of the ship, since its the first bit of it that is made. As long as they kept the keel, it is the same ship.
This problem applies to our very own bodies, as we take in food, lose and replace cells and cells themselves take up nutrients and rid themselves of waste. So you better hope the ship of Theseus is still that ship.
I'm also thinking of lawns.
Every time someone mows their lawn they're destroying the old grass and it gets replaced by new grass... yet if you're a proud gardener, you might boast of how you've been maintaining your lawn for years.
Unless they're tearing out the grass by the roots when they mow it, they're not destroying the old grass. Just the leaves. The lawn is made up of the same plants. Therefore it's the same lawn.
Kirk: My god bones what have I done, Bones: What you had to do what you always do turn death into a fighting chance to live. To all the trek fans out there when you quote star trek 3 make sure you get it right the first time as it burns me up when you get it wrong and by the way it is the same ship
I think this is my most favorite of all of your videos I've seen so far Shives! From one mawkish nerd to another. I thoroughly enjoyed how how you rolled so much deep thoughtful deep concepts into it. I saw all of the TOS films in the theater back in the day with friends & fanily and loved it all! When I saw the Enterprise at the end of Discovery's first season my jaw hit the floor! Myself I tend to take a more Zen approach to the franchise: What is the essence of Star Trek? If it says Trek, makes me smile and think about a possible better future then damn the cosmetics!
Excellent exposition, well put.
Interesting video, thank you Steve. You just gained a new sub. While watching, you reminded me of an article I read a few years ago stating that except for the cerebral cortex almost all human cells are replaced every 7 to 10 years. Does this mean that we aren't the same person that our mothers spit out? Just thinking out loud.
That's what I was thinking.
Your heart muscles and brain cells are the only cells in your body that are never replaced from the day you were born. They can grow bigger and cells added while your body matures into an adult but the ones you were born with stay with you your whole life. Some parts are more important than others and I say the brain and heart are perhaps the most important parts that make you you.
Your HISTORY makes you and will forever be a part of you. That is the part that never changes. That is the part that is truly you, both the good and the bad of it.
Kirk touches on this in the fifth film when He rejects Sybok and tells Bones that He needs His history the way it was: "They're the things we take with us, the things that make us who we are... If we lose them, we lose ourselves... I don't want my pain taken away, I need my pain!"
Even if you don't recall your past, it is what makes your present. It continues to exist despite your ability to observe or remember it. This applies to ships as well. It's history, it's legend is the part that is never replaced.
So, replaced every seven to ten years? That means I'm my own great great great great great grandson. I feel so old, and and and when I'm really still less than 10 years old. Awesome!
God, I'd prefer if the Cerebral Cortex cells did get replaced to a greater degree. That brings up all kinds of ideas of how we are trapped in a core conditioning/programming out of which we can never really break out of. And if our initial conditioning is bad or problematic......
Winner of the most random niche reference is Steve Shives for Igor Marić!
+Steve Shives. Well done! And thank you!
What a great analogy. I had never heard of the ship of Theseus, but it's one of several things that have come out lately that suggest the Greek heroes were real people. Another is the story that Alexander went to the tomb of Achilles and opened it, and tried on his armor.