Why hello, my fellow apes! I you enjoyed-or are enjoying-the video. This quality is the standard we're aiming to meet with every Rationality Rules video upload. If you're able and willing to help us acheive this, please consider supporting the channel: www.patreon.com/rationalityrules
Are you achieving this quality with Generative Ai Images and animations? EDIT: and if the answer is that you're buying Stock Assets: are you buying Ai Generated Stock Assets?
Aristotle's concept of matter is misrepresented here, because it meant to be abstract possibility, in this example: Matter is school, master, rock, warmth and light, food and political situation that let him does whatever you want, and Form is idea of statue. Matter of Aristotle is always abstract, but all real things are combinations of those (not two, but) four "reasons": possibility/probability, idea, motion that combines previous two, and purpose. Btw only thing that is equal to them all, as one in four hypostases, but same in them all.... Hmm, i heard this somewhere already...it is motion of planets, self dependent, self efficient, eternal, by his own existence making possible its existence, without beginning and end, for its own purpose.
This, milord, is my family's axe. We have owned it for almost nine hundred years, see. Of course, sometimes it needed a new blade. And sometimes it has required a new handle, new designs on the metalwork, a little refreshing of the ornamentation . . . but is this not the... axe of my family? - Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant
That’s fiction though. I have a irl example. On UA-cam there’s a very friendly and talkative Irishman called John Lord who makes videos about his garden. Once he showed a hoe that he was using and he said he had owned it for ages and he only had replaced the handle a few times and probably the blade too. 😅 IIRC I left a comment mentioning the ship of Theseus. 😅
@@pansepot1490 I would bet money that John Lord is in his 40's and probably remembers an old sitcom called 'only Fools and Horses' - there was a simple character called Trigger who once made the same joke about his broom.
To answer your question at the end of the video, personally I really liked this type of video, it was definitely nice to take a break from religion and hear some classic philosophy. Great stuff!
Agreed! Variety is the spice of life. Also helps avoid having to drum on the same issues with the same apologetics since they're a pretty one note group😅
I recently read a piece from a guy who'd been to Japan and had visited a monumental wooden temple that had stood for 700 years and was, according to his Japanese guide, still the same temple, in spite of having been destroyed multiple times in fires, earthquakes and other disasters. Apparently this conundrum is not a problem for the Japanese mentality. 🙂
The chosen best answer on Yahoo Japan知恵袋 as to whether or not Kinkakuji is the 'same building' as the original says "whether or not they are the same depends on whether the viewer perceives them to be the same.", and references the Ship of Theseus. A tour guide is not a particularly good source for an impartial view on whether the thing they're talking up is authentic and its philosophical implications. 'Japanese mentality' is not really any different from other cultures mentalities in this regard. Most people regard the form, composition, and function of a place or object to be the key definers of whether that thing is 'authentic', but the criteria often vary. As an example, if an 'exact replica' were made of a Masamune sword, and if it was known to be a modern creation, it wouldn't be recognized as authentic by Japanese, because it is specifically the age of the sword and the swordsmith who made it that is the key definers of its identity as a Masamune sword. A damaged, incomplete original would be considered more authentic than a replica made from the exact same materials and using the same methods. In everyday life, this 'conundrum' is not a problem for most people and animals. If my dog unquestioningly accepts that the identical replacement of their lost squeaky-toy IS the same squeaky-toy, they're just doing what creatures do.
@@chinkasuyaro8983 Well, the great paintings in our museums get "restored" on a regular basis. At what point does a Rembrandt stop being a "Rembrandt" as more and more of its paint gets replaced in succesive restoration projects?
Thank you for this wonderful little deep dive. The concepts clearly and concisely presented, beautiful graphics appropriately connected to the subject matter - what's not to love?! Videos like this are a welcome respite from the petty stresses of everyday life, an opportunity to look past the mundane and remember the deeper meanings of life. Thanks again.
Great video! Would love to see you do more videos like this and dive into many more paradoxes! Been on a kick lately and absolutely enjoy your perspective! Take care brother!
That was very interesting, indeed! As a greek, I have learned this paradox at school, but I was not aware of the more modern philosophical interpretations.
It's been a long hard day for me, and then I chanced upon your channel. It was intellectually an emotively invigorating! Thanks for your hard work in the preparation, And for the verbal and visual feast you presented🖖🏻
Thanks for this one. I bring up Theseus ship all the time. I just did not think it out like you did here. I really like the way you presented the problem.
Love your content and efforts! Thank you! I'm intrigued for you to explore and talk about Buddhist/Indian logic and world view. Specifically Madhayamika school. It's a vast treasure of thought, barely known in the western world and I will be delighted to watch a video from you about this. Keep up the good work!🙏
Thank you for this video! As much as I enjoy Casually Debunked, it’s good to see you back to more fundamental concepts. As my tiny contribution to the argument: if the purpose of the ship of Theseus was to be focal point of Athenian pride, you can imagine how the two versions of the ship (fully restored, fully original) both become competing stories leading to different purposes. Some could point to the fully restored and functioning ship to say ‘Embrace change, Athens is great!’ Others could look at the deteriorated ship and say ‘Athens is no longer what it was, Make Athens Great Again’. Both ships arguably fulfill their purpose, but in opposite directions.
I and my son had this "journey" about a year ago. He observed that "his computer" no longer had any single part left from when I bought it for him in 2015. Everything had been changed, slowly and over 7 years... In fact, that original computer is what I am using right now, except keyboard and display. And "his computer" was in daily use for 7 years, so how could I now have it, without him losing it? Nice to get the full evaluation of the Ship of Theseus in this format, short, sweet and to the point.
He did loose his computer because you now use all the parts. you use the identifier, 'His Computer' to denote The Computer that HE USES rather than, The Computer that he used in the past, and the idetifier 'Your Computer' to denote the computer that you now use. The actual physical computer components that either of you use are unsignified in this linguistic referential context/case. If your talking about a matter of ownership then that is another matter!
Even better. Your computer is never equivalent to his computer because the set of defining attributes of what make one and the other are always different. Like if two siblings have a toy box of their own toys and never share, but trade toys. Then the individual may have definative claim to 'my toys' as they denote ownership and are found in 'my toybox' when not in use. Even if both have owned all the toyes at different times, and even had both owning each toyboxes at different times.
@@gm2407 Yes, you seem to have described identity in terms of the attribute of ownership rather than the objects owned. The Ship of Theseus Paradox is not really very paradoxical at all, it's just a case of mistaking the identifier with the identified. Things get rather more intigueing where the concept or indeed possibility of a continuously incarnate entity of a person/psyche is concerned.
@@philflip1963 sentient beings going through the star trek transporter is the favoured one for that. I would refuse as to me it is the equivalent of destroying the original and keeping the faxed copy. Especially as the Kirk and Riker incidents show that energy can be used to recreate matter. Thus with the perfect pattern log a person can be constructed from energy to matter alone.
@@gm2407 That makes sense from a conventionally materialistic perspecive but if, 'souls', (individualities) rather than mere brains, psyches and personalities exist could they be, 'replicated' before one duplicate is destroyed? I might be willing to undergo a brain transplant but not if it involved a soul transplant!
A very good explanation, it can also be found in comedy. 'Triggers Broom' from Only Fools and Horses. This thought experiment is what lead me to Buddhism. What I learned from the thy Ship of Theseus and the Sorites paradox is the 'map is not the territory' Our language and ideas are not reality but point towards it. From this I learned further the meaning of Non Self, Dependant Origination and Emptiness from Buddhism
That tiny bit at the end YES IT'S LIKE TRIGGERS BROOM! Trigger replaced the bristlses, repainted the handle, used and changed so many parts of it so I believe that makes it more his broom than what he originally got from the hardware shop. With the replacement of planks and sails it became more and more the ship of Theseus, his crew and his carpenters. They made it what it is. Like as we age and cells renew we become more ourselves than the original.
While I love your regular contend on debunking Theistic arguments Stephan this was really fun for a change to deep dive into a philosophical question like this. I`d be up for seeing more videos like this!
@@Kelley_X Don`t be so pejorative on yourself if you found this video interesting and bothered to reply then I`d say that your opinion is worth something.
@@TheWatchernator Yes, the movie was based on the book, and surprisingly close to the book. I read the book after seeing the movie. And, yes, it was an axe in the movie, too. 😊🪓
Yeah, but the law isn’t the best when it comes to philosophy. Like, if you commit a crime, then hit your head and lose all your memories, is it still right to hold this amnesiac accountable for his former self’s actions?
@@connorgrynol9021 There is a _bit_ of a difference between objects and conscious beings... I agree that it becomes a very interesting and relevant question when it comes to conscious beings, but far, _far_ less so when it's "just" about non-living objects.
@@Wolf-ln1ml For the problem, there's no difference at all, but as people yes we put greater weight on the question when it comes to conscious beings, especially ourselves. A practical example is organ donation, where people who insist they want to remain 'intact' after death will say that their parts are what makes up their person, and opponents of that idea will point out how often our cells are replaced and that we're then a new person every few years.
I like the departure from all the discussion on religion and touching on some philosophical discussions! I like when things don't have a clear answer, it brings forth the possibility of different opinions and healthy discussions. I also loved the puns.
I usually hate AI art but I think it works well with the cerebral subject matter of your channel. Glad you've been able to use this tech to make your channels more engaging.
A similar discussion exists over the concept of "original document/record" when discussing electronic records management. I had no idea how old this problem was!!
That's a very interesting angle. Since data is 'soft' can any copy of the origonal data be considered origonal and can even the origonal file be considered origonal if it's moved around in memory/moved to another device?
@@lurch666 Sometimes the digital rendition is the source and not a copy (in the standard sense). For example, Have you ever been asked to provide a "a copy of your original bank statement" perhaps, like me, you no longer receive bank statements and have to download and print them. In that case, the printout could be considered the copy. However, if what you see on screen in dynamically generated (by combining a format with data from multiple sources) then the bank statement on screen isn't the original either, perhaps the print-out is. And that's just for starters.
@@swingstylez Thinking about it,is there even anything that can be considered the origonal copy when data is concerned since it doesn't actually physically exist? But then does a ship actually exist since it's just wood and metal recombined into a new shape? The wood and metal are the harddrive and the ship is the data.
@@lurch666 well yes, perhaps. You could argue that the first print-out is the original because it's a true snapshot in time. Or perhaps when you click "save to PDF" then certify that PDF with a digital signature, you've created the first original because the signature provides additional information that's required to make the document useful for the purpose it was generated for. Which is why I think all digital-born docs should be certified in order to become evidential... However, legislation in the UK stipulates different tests for what's considered evidence, and suggests different level of tests depending on the value of the information being certified. This is why to get a car loan you need to use docusign but to approve a cheaper agreement you can just copy'n'paste a scan of your signature. The legislation hasn't been tested in court so far as I know, and I can't wait until it is.
I loved it and it want to see more. I love the overview of different opinions on the matter. I personally think Hume got it mainly right, but not far enough. When we look at modern Physics, we understand that the world consists of elemental particles and there interactions. (or better just interactions of fields). However we as survival machines for genes have developed a view that the world consists of objects. Computer science has invented object oriented programming, because it is how humans learned to think. And humans think so, because it is a very good way to understand the world and interact with it. Now as to the ship. The object of "a ship" only exist in our mind. The ship of Theseus is an instance of a ship with certain properties and methods attached and they can change over time. As long as we don't deconstruct the original ship but only apply changes we think of it as a continuity and still as the same object. (As in a computer program, where you could create an object and over the runtime, it will change all it's properties, and occupying different space in memory, but as long as you never deconstruct it, the object is the same).
For myself, this question is ultimately about the concept of continuity and what is required to break the perception of it. For instance, what if the ship of Theseus is wrecked upon the rocks, but amazingly every individual piece is washed up on the shore. Every original piece is then used to make a perfect reconstruction. Is it the same ship? My answer is, no, this would be a new ship, despite the use of the same materials in the same form with the same purpose. This is because what makes a constructed thing a unique item (as we perceive it) is embodied in every aspect of it- not just its form and function, but also its creation. The second ship could be said to be a perfect replica, but it could never be the same ship because the original ship was made by certain people in a certain way in a certain place at a certain time. But if that original ship is repaired with new parts as per the initial thought experiment, then each new part becomes perceptually "absorbed" by the whole as time goes by, such that they would become integrated with the the original. And so, if a new rudder was attached, Theseus could coherently say, "My ship has a new rudder". The rudder itself is new and is a unique item in and of itself (as above, it was made by a certain person in a certain way at a certain place at a certain time) , but it is now part of the original conceptual whole. This does not break the perception of continuity, even were every piece to be replaced over time. But what happens if we take the same ship with all the original parts but remove the sails and add a motorized propellor? Is it still the same ship? Yes and no, I think. This is akin to, say, a 500 year old inn that adds a modern kitchen in the back; is it still the same inn? Most would say yes, I think; it's simply the original inn with a new kitchen. But it might not be if the inn became known as a place to get great bread cooked in a specific wood oven. In short, the question is ultimately about how the brain perceives, forms, and maintains patterns, and what is required to maintain or break those patterns is complex and context dependent.
I think it's a good reminder that language, and for that matter reality, can be complex and messy things. Describing them is an imperfect process. If we were to somehow create a definition of identity that was maximally precise, I don't think that it would apply to anything in reality.
I think Hume is underrated in (popular) philosophy, as well as the remarkeble philosophical golden age of Scotland. Adam Smith, Hobbes, Locke, Hume. James Hutton, one of the pioneers of modern geology. Quite a list!
I'm with Hume. Identity is a conceptual framework, not an objective quality. The ship of Theseus is so because of its conceptual relationship with Theseus, not of anything necessary to the ship itself. As long as something exists that fits the concept of "the Ship of Theseus," it doesn't matter how much the object changes, it's still "the same" ship.
I see this whole topic as just a mild curiosity when it comes to non-living objects. It's all a question of definition, purpose, and/or perspective - _all_ views are valid under certain circumstances. Only when it comes to conscious beings does the question of identity and continuity/copying/... become actually interesting.
@@Wolf-ln1ml I don't see much of a distinction. Just like with objects, the Identity of persons is a mental construct, not a quality of any part of objective reality. There's nothing about us that persists over time except for our experience of being "the same person," and others' recognition of that, which are based on conceptual frameworks imposed on reality. Who we are is essentially a list of properties and qualities that are continuously updated in real time as incremental changes occur and are incorporated into the whole. The more profound and/or rapid the change, the more unstable the concept is, until the person becomes unrecognizable. For instance, you accept your past and future self as the "same person" because you can see the through-line between them, and have time to adapt to the changes. If you went to sleep as your 8 year old self and woke up as your current self (with no memory of the time between), would you consider yourself to be the same person, or would you believe you had swapped bodies with a stranger?
@@chameleonx9253I kind of agree with both of you. For me, a mug is a mug only because it serves a purpose as a mug. We learn that when a mug is on a table, it's distinct from the table, even though a table could be shaped just like a mug. There's something we think of as "mugness" about a mug. That's different to the mug changing, but explains why I'm only mildly curious about the ship of Theseus. The "shipness" gives it its identity, which could mean different things for different people. Humans, we can identify as our relationship to ourselves, or as our relationship with others. Incremental change we can work through just as you said, but if everyone suddenly started identifying me as a beach umbrella I might have problems.
@@chameleonx9253 The difference is that *_I_* care about having the same identity/consciousness tomorrow (which is why I'd refuse to get "beamed" in Star Trek for example). An object doesn't, and I don't care all that much about it either.
@@Wolf-ln1ml Well, the you that appeared would consider itself to be you, and presumably everyone else who doesn't agree with Dr. McCoy. So in that sense, your consciousness and identity would continue, just not in your original body. But yeah, I get what you're saying. Star Trek doesn't really grapple with this issue as much as it probably should.
As much as I like your apologists debunk content, this is better. I wish I had been told of such questions in philosophy class, I would have been more interested in the stuff. Please do more of these.
On the Bluebell railway, there is a locomotive called Stepney that has been working on the railway since the 1960s. Every original part has been replaced. And every original part has been kept. Now it has become two, a working locomotive made out of replacement parts and a non working original. The essence lives on in the working loco of cause. Likewise the Flying Scotsman, only has a few panels of the original loco which rolled out in the early 20s. But she is still the Flying Scotsman full of history.
More like this please. Never got philosophy and this I can understand. I have to wonder how the thinking follows the history of property rights (also a bundle of things)
Nice interesting stuff which is slightly beyond me, in terms of how this all helps make sense of the world. So… my tongue in cheek response ‘Theseus- is this your ship?’ Theseus - ‘yes’
This was a very educational and precise video. I didn't know about all those conceptions of identity. It resonated a lot with my understanding of some of the Buddhist philosophers on the topic. In the Questions of Milinda, there's the parable of the flames. A torch is put up regularly through the night to keep a room lit. The first torch is about to go extinct. The guards use its flame to lit up the second one then the first one is turned off. Is that the same flame that burns both torches?
My job is configuration management which relates specifically with this issue. It's all a matter of how you specify the configuration item. If you don't specify the components/characteristics of the ship it is technically unchanged. As you progressively specify (constrain) characteristics then every subordinate change (upgrade/update) is a change to the whole (ship). The key is how the ship is physically and functionally specified/described. ❤
Authors sometimes talk about what they would say to their younger self. This acknowledges that the younger self is different from the older version. Some of the matter has changed, and so has the life experience and the learning that goes with it. They are indeed subtly different people.
We project meaning onto objects, whether or not they are literally made of the same materials over time. As long as that meaning stays consistent, it's the same object. The original object can even change shape, colour etc and it would still be the same, because the meaning is consistent and there is a historical connection from the original object to now.
Another aspect of the ever-changing river that affects biology and humans, is the gain and loss of function. When was my grandmother her 'true' form? as a baby, a girl, a young woman, a mother, a doctor, a retiree, or when she was barely able to communicate and living in assisted living? Her form and function were constantly changing, and her sense of self may not have even existed at the end - does that make her something other than my grandmother? If consciousness defines the object, then if she was alive but no longer able to remember her experiences, was she now the Ship of Theseus built from the parts of my former grandmother, but now only a 'grandmother shaped' object? If we are 'fearfully and wonderfully' made as the Christians claim, then what did their god intend as her form, function, and consciousness all eroded? Thanks, Stephen!
Rash old son, I was disappointed not to see an image of a parrot on it's bottommost perch, as the aforementioned would have made a fine addition to all the other low polly images featured in this video.......
Proud to be a Patron. Yes, I loved this philosophical comparison of Theseus’ ship. I would like to see more philosophical videos. I would like to see a comparison of views of gods (or God). Hmmm…Is god always the same? Has god undergone a replacement of worn planks (or ideas)? Has god’s (or gods’) function(s) changed? Of course god is not made of planks, but of ideas…or is it? Perhaps this type of comparison is irrelevant, since god is irrelevant. I am going down a philosophical rabbit hole at this time, and this video was most welcome. Thanks. Always thinking.
It's possible to take Hume's reasoning further, and in so doing to incorporate elements of perspectives that appear to conflict with it. Identity is not an intrinsic essence, but neither is it a fundamentally-arbitrary bundle of perceptions with no real meaning. It is, instead, _a matter of perspective_ - we use different definitions of identity for different purposes, all the time. That's not because there's no such thing, but because the language we use causes us to equivocate several concepts, _all_ of which are meaningful in their appropriate place. What many philosophers seem to reject, and wrongly so in my opinion, is that this is a fine, even a good thing. Sometimes we care about we're dealing with "the same person" in terms of a continuity of consciousness, and sometimes we care in terms of whether there have been shifts in personality, and those are _both_ valuable questions. Sometimes we care whether a car component is precisely the material instance installed at the factory (eg, judging its likely condition over time) and sometimes we just care whether it was last registered to the same identifier (eg, determining whether it was stolen). The most important question was _never_ "how do we define identity, in the abstract, perfectly consistently". It's "how do we define it most usefully for what we're talking about, and how do we make sure we're on the same page about that".
One twist on this that I've been unable to try and bring myself to actually read since discovering it yet still it fascinates me: the Unwind Dystology. It's a YA book series where, in a ridiculous world that buggers disbelief, kids aged 13 through 17 can be "unwound" in a surgical process where their body is cut up for spare parts and distributed as organ and tissue donations. The rule is nothing gets thrown away, and worse yet they're apparently awake through the entire process (according to the fan wiki). There was one weird incident apparently where all recipients of a kid got together and spoke for the kid, and there was a new kid created like a Frankenstein, and it just sounds absurd yet it lives rent-free in my head lol
The first time I came across this philosophical concept was shortly after playing Fallout 4 and asking how much of a gun I could modify before it became a totally different gun. Someone then mentioned The Ship of Theseus, and I went looking through the arguments.
A mate of mine who has worked on numerous vintage aircraft, particularly Spitfires, says that as far as he and the rest of his associates are concerned, if there is just one original rivet left on the aircraft after everything else has been replaced, it's still the original aircraft. Once that rivet has gone, it's a new build and has an association with but isn't the original aircraft.
@@lrwerewolf and what’s the point of that? Eliminative materialism was disproven same with physical reductionism so what now? Neither can explain consciousness or emergent phenomenon.
When it comes to humans, I like to think of it more like a whirl pool, where the specific molecules of water that allows the whirlpool to have form is rapidly replaced and kind of inconsequential to the whirlpools identity, it's the continuous dynamic system that makes up the essence of the whirlpool.
It's like going to see Foreigner or The Guess Who. I don't think either band has any original members left on the tour, but they put on great shows and the music remains.
My interpretation of theseus's ship is that his ship is all of the wood nails men on the ship and life experience of Theseus on that ship. It isn't the wood, or the crew, or the weather that they run into. It's EVERYTHING involved in Theseus's experience of traveling on that ship.
The internet is where religions go to die, and religion is where philosophy goes to die. Keep up the good work, stimulating open minds and talking circles around apologists.
I have never heard it referred to as a paradox. It's just the trolley problem for identity. A thought experiment to examine views of identity and their implications. See also: The transporter problem, or why I'll always take the shuttle.
I think Locke's answer would be closest to my own, but not quite the same. For me what defines the identity is the continuity of the process. If at any point in time people who work on the ship are convinced it is the ship of Theseus, that's enough for me to consider it as the ship of Theseus, even if in say 2000 years it becomes metal instead wood and has on it's board restaurants serving fries. It doesn't matter to me what it looks like at any point in time for the purposes of identity as long as that transformation was gradual enough for people to consider it as the ship of Theseus. As for the Hume challenge when rebuilding the ship slowly from parts, there were definitely points in time where people would agree what they have in front of them isn't even a ship, let alone the ship of Theseus, hence the reconstructed ship for me is a copy, while the one upon which the planks were changed is the "modified" ship of Theseus.
This makes me think of Wandavision and the battle at the end between the two versions of Vision - starting with a fight and ending in a philosophical debate
![The 'Ship of Theseus' Problem [Illustrated]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/iVlIZJTwgyQ/mqdefault.jpg)
![The 'Ship of Theseus' Problem [Illustrated]](/img/tr.png)
Why hello, my fellow apes! I you enjoyed-or are enjoying-the video. This quality is the standard we're aiming to meet with every Rationality Rules video upload. If you're able and willing to help us acheive this, please consider supporting the channel: www.patreon.com/rationalityrules
A 2day old post on a video that has been released for an hour?
@@markcostello5120Patreon . Pre-public release.
Are you achieving this quality with Generative Ai Images and animations?
EDIT: and if the answer is that you're buying Stock Assets: are you buying Ai Generated Stock Assets?
I'm not watching this. Stop using plagiarized AI art.
Aristotle's concept of matter is misrepresented here, because it meant to be abstract possibility, in this example: Matter is school, master, rock, warmth and light, food and political situation that let him does whatever you want, and Form is idea of statue. Matter of Aristotle is always abstract, but all real things are combinations of those (not two, but) four "reasons": possibility/probability, idea, motion that combines previous two, and purpose.
Btw only thing that is equal to them all, as one in four hypostases, but same in them all.... Hmm, i heard this somewhere already...it is motion of planets, self dependent, self efficient, eternal, by his own existence making possible its existence, without beginning and end, for its own purpose.
This, milord, is my family's axe. We have owned it for almost nine hundred years, see. Of course, sometimes it needed a new blade. And sometimes it has required a new handle, new designs on the metalwork, a little refreshing of the ornamentation . . . but is this not the... axe of my family? - Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant
Isn't it "Thud"? Always wonderful..
That’s fiction though. I have a irl example. On UA-cam there’s a very friendly and talkative Irishman called John Lord who makes videos about his garden. Once he showed a hoe that he was using and he said he had owned it for ages and he only had replaced the handle a few times and probably the blade too. 😅
IIRC I left a comment mentioning the ship of Theseus. 😅
A man of culture. And no this was not in Thud! I recently reread that.
@@pansepot1490
I would bet money that John Lord is in his 40's and probably remembers an old sitcom called 'only Fools and Horses' - there was a simple character called Trigger who once made the same joke about his broom.
@Anglomachian ah! Ages since I read them, sorry!
This. Is. EXCELLENT. Concise, educational, gorgeous, succinct, thoughtful... Very, very fine work.
To answer your question at the end of the video, personally I really liked this type of video, it was definitely nice to take a break from religion and hear some classic philosophy. Great stuff!
Agreed! Variety is the spice of life. Also helps avoid having to drum on the same issues with the same apologetics since they're a pretty one note group😅
One of my very favorite thought experiments! Thanks for covering.
It’s a waste of time
@@Darkloid21so is writing UA-cam comments...
My idea of enjoyment. I don't consider time spent enjoying myself a waste.
@@benholroyd5221 irrelevant comment
@@Darkloid21 What's use of time darkloid21 telling others that's waste of time?if it's waste of time for you why bother to comment to it?
Props to the script writters dedication to martime terminology.
Wonderful episode. I love having these puzzles explained across different philosophies- I typically find them hard to follow. Excellent overview!
Definitely my favorite philosophical concept, anytime anyone asks me who I am and what I do I just tell them “depends on the time and day”.
I recently read a piece from a guy who'd been to Japan and had visited a monumental wooden temple that had stood for 700 years and was, according to his Japanese guide, still the same temple, in spite of having been destroyed multiple times in fires, earthquakes and other disasters. Apparently this conundrum is not a problem for the Japanese mentality. 🙂
this is also known as "triggers broom"
Every 20 years, they renew the wood on some temples. When there, I naively wondered how they managed to preserve the wood so well!
Well, zen philosophers want to have a word with you.😂
The chosen best answer on Yahoo Japan知恵袋 as to whether or not Kinkakuji is the 'same building' as the original says "whether or not they are the same depends on whether the viewer perceives them to be the same.", and references the Ship of Theseus. A tour guide is not a particularly good source for an impartial view on whether the thing they're talking up is authentic and its philosophical implications.
'Japanese mentality' is not really any different from other cultures mentalities in this regard. Most people regard the form, composition, and function of a place or object to be the key definers of whether that thing is 'authentic', but the criteria often vary.
As an example, if an 'exact replica' were made of a Masamune sword, and if it was known to be a modern creation, it wouldn't be recognized as authentic by Japanese, because it is specifically the age of the sword and the swordsmith who made it that is the key definers of its identity as a Masamune sword. A damaged, incomplete original would be considered more authentic than a replica made from the exact same materials and using the same methods.
In everyday life, this 'conundrum' is not a problem for most people and animals. If my dog unquestioningly accepts that the identical replacement of their lost squeaky-toy IS the same squeaky-toy, they're just doing what creatures do.
@@chinkasuyaro8983 Well, the great paintings in our museums get "restored" on a regular basis. At what point does a Rembrandt stop being a "Rembrandt" as more and more of its paint gets replaced in succesive restoration projects?
Thank you for this wonderful little deep dive. The concepts clearly and concisely presented, beautiful graphics appropriately connected to the subject matter - what's not to love?! Videos like this are a welcome respite from the petty stresses of everyday life, an opportunity to look past the mundane and remember the deeper meanings of life. Thanks again.
Great job! I now have a new favorite Rationality Rules.
Great video! Would love to see you do more videos like this and dive into many more paradoxes! Been on a kick lately and absolutely enjoy your perspective! Take care brother!
Definitely want more of these. Perfect way to start the day having this over breakfast.
Great video. I would watch more like this.
Thank you❣️ This type of video is what keeps me a patreon.
I'm more of a "Pay, try on".
Excellent once again, Stephen! I learn more philosophy from you than anywhere else. I'd like more, please!
I've had this broom 20 yrs.. I've maintained it for 20 yrs... It's had 17 new heads and 14 new handles.
Is that you trigger. 😂
Did you watch all the way through? The clip's in the video.
@rogerkearns8094 ohhhh your funny yaarrrr long time.
@@rogerkearns8094 oooo, is it someone's time of the month 😜
@@restorationofidentity
I think you might misunderstand me, but never mind. (Original commenter, too.)
Or perhaps I missed something, sorry.
That was very interesting, indeed!
As a greek, I have learned this paradox at school, but I was not aware of the more modern philosophical interpretations.
It's been a long hard day for me, and then I chanced upon your channel. It was intellectually an emotively invigorating! Thanks for your hard work in the preparation, And for the verbal and visual feast you presented🖖🏻
Thanks for this one. I bring up Theseus ship all the time. I just did not think it out like you did here. I really like the way you presented the problem.
Love your content and efforts! Thank you! I'm intrigued for you to explore and talk about Buddhist/Indian logic and world view. Specifically Madhayamika school. It's a vast treasure of thought, barely known in the western world and I will be delighted to watch a video from you about this. Keep up the good work!🙏
Thank you for this video! As much as I enjoy Casually Debunked, it’s good to see you back to more fundamental concepts. As my tiny contribution to the argument: if the purpose of the ship of Theseus was to be focal point of Athenian pride, you can imagine how the two versions of the ship (fully restored, fully original) both become competing stories leading to different purposes. Some could point to the fully restored and functioning ship to say ‘Embrace change, Athens is great!’ Others could look at the deteriorated ship and say ‘Athens is no longer what it was, Make Athens Great Again’. Both ships arguably fulfill their purpose, but in opposite directions.
I and my son had this "journey" about a year ago. He observed that "his computer" no longer had any single part left from when I bought it for him in 2015. Everything had been changed, slowly and over 7 years... In fact, that original computer is what I am using right now, except keyboard and display. And "his computer" was in daily use for 7 years, so how could I now have it, without him losing it? Nice to get the full evaluation of the Ship of Theseus in this format, short, sweet and to the point.
He did loose his computer because you now use all the parts. you use the identifier, 'His Computer' to denote The Computer that HE USES rather than, The Computer that he used in the past, and the idetifier 'Your Computer' to denote the computer that you now use. The actual physical computer components that either of you use are unsignified in this linguistic referential context/case.
If your talking about a matter of ownership then that is another matter!
Even better. Your computer is never equivalent to his computer because the set of defining attributes of what make one and the other are always different. Like if two siblings have a toy box of their own toys and never share, but trade toys. Then the individual may have definative claim to 'my toys' as they denote ownership and are found in 'my toybox' when not in use. Even if both have owned all the toyes at different times, and even had both owning each toyboxes at different times.
@@gm2407 Yes, you seem to have described identity in terms of the attribute of ownership rather than the objects owned.
The Ship of Theseus Paradox is not really very paradoxical at all, it's just a case of mistaking the identifier with the identified.
Things get rather more intigueing where the concept or indeed possibility of a continuously incarnate entity of a person/psyche is concerned.
@@philflip1963 sentient beings going through the star trek transporter is the favoured one for that. I would refuse as to me it is the equivalent of destroying the original and keeping the faxed copy. Especially as the Kirk and Riker incidents show that energy can be used to recreate matter. Thus with the perfect pattern log a person can be constructed from energy to matter alone.
@@gm2407 That makes sense from a conventionally materialistic perspecive but if, 'souls', (individualities) rather than mere brains, psyches and personalities exist could they be, 'replicated' before one duplicate is destroyed?
I might be willing to undergo a brain transplant but not if it involved a soul transplant!
A very good explanation, it can also be found in comedy. 'Triggers Broom' from Only Fools and Horses.
This thought experiment is what lead me to Buddhism.
What I learned from the thy Ship of Theseus and the Sorites paradox is the 'map is not the territory'
Our language and ideas are not reality but point towards it.
From this I learned further the meaning of Non Self, Dependant Origination and Emptiness from Buddhism
Great explanation of the topic! Bringing philosophy to the common masses!
Wonderful video. And for me, at least, it’s hard to go wrong when you stick with Hume.
That tiny bit at the end YES IT'S LIKE TRIGGERS BROOM! Trigger replaced the bristlses, repainted the handle, used and changed so many parts of it so I believe that makes it more his broom than what he originally got from the hardware shop. With the replacement of planks and sails it became more and more the ship of Theseus, his crew and his carpenters. They made it what it is. Like as we age and cells renew we become more ourselves than the original.
Enjoyed this one quite a bit. It was a nice departure from the norm.
While I love your regular contend on debunking Theistic arguments Stephan this was really fun for a change to deep dive into a philosophical question like this. I`d be up for seeing more videos like this!
Agree. For what little my opinion is worth, I would like that too.
@@Kelley_X Don`t be so pejorative on yourself if you found this video interesting and bothered to reply then I`d say that your opinion is worth something.
I first learned about this idea through the movie John Dies at the End. Love that movie.
@@TheWatchernator Yes, the movie was based on the book, and surprisingly close to the book. I read the book after seeing the movie. And, yes, it was an axe in the movie, too. 😊🪓
According to insurance companies that cover ships, it's still the same ship after a complete restoration.(so I've heard)
Insurance companies are about object permanence.
Yeah, but the law isn’t the best when it comes to philosophy. Like, if you commit a crime, then hit your head and lose all your memories, is it still right to hold this amnesiac accountable for his former self’s actions?
@@connorgrynol9021 There is a _bit_ of a difference between objects and conscious beings... I agree that it becomes a very interesting and relevant question when it comes to conscious beings, but far, _far_ less so when it's "just" about non-living objects.
@@connorgrynol9021 Depends on what you believe the purpose of the accountability is. Retributive justice is still a thing.
@@Wolf-ln1ml For the problem, there's no difference at all, but as people yes we put greater weight on the question when it comes to conscious beings, especially ourselves. A practical example is organ donation, where people who insist they want to remain 'intact' after death will say that their parts are what makes up their person, and opponents of that idea will point out how often our cells are replaced and that we're then a new person every few years.
I like the departure from all the discussion on religion and touching on some philosophical discussions! I like when things don't have a clear answer, it brings forth the possibility of different opinions and healthy discussions. I also loved the puns.
I was just familiarizing my 9 year old son with this thought experiment last night!
I usually hate AI art but I think it works well with the cerebral subject matter of your channel. Glad you've been able to use this tech to make your channels more engaging.
Marvel, Wanda-Vision…touches on this in the finale of season one.
This was, indeed, fun! Doctor please, some more of these! 🎉
A similar discussion exists over the concept of "original document/record" when discussing electronic records management. I had no idea how old this problem was!!
That's a very interesting angle.
Since data is 'soft' can any copy of the origonal data be considered origonal and can even the origonal file be considered origonal if it's moved around in memory/moved to another device?
@@lurch666 Sometimes the digital rendition is the source and not a copy (in the standard sense). For example, Have you ever been asked to provide a "a copy of your original bank statement" perhaps, like me, you no longer receive bank statements and have to download and print them. In that case, the printout could be considered the copy. However, if what you see on screen in dynamically generated (by combining a format with data from multiple sources) then the bank statement on screen isn't the original either, perhaps the print-out is.
And that's just for starters.
@@swingstylez Thinking about it,is there even anything that can be considered the origonal copy when data is concerned since it doesn't actually physically exist?
But then does a ship actually exist since it's just wood and metal recombined into a new shape?
The wood and metal are the harddrive and the ship is the data.
@@lurch666 well yes, perhaps. You could argue that the first print-out is the original because it's a true snapshot in time. Or perhaps when you click "save to PDF" then certify that PDF with a digital signature, you've created the first original because the signature provides additional information that's required to make the document useful for the purpose it was generated for. Which is why I think all digital-born docs should be certified in order to become evidential... However, legislation in the UK stipulates different tests for what's considered evidence, and suggests different level of tests depending on the value of the information being certified. This is why to get a car loan you need to use docusign but to approve a cheaper agreement you can just copy'n'paste a scan of your signature. The legislation hasn't been tested in court so far as I know, and I can't wait until it is.
Yes please, more of this.
This was great! Sent it to my kid to help with an American Identity history question.
Great video! Love this style and format!
Love this narrative framework-its like Carl Sagan’s cosmos but for a philosophical topic
Thanks Stephen, I appreciate the Humes' solution a lot.
I loved it and it want to see more.
I love the overview of different opinions on the matter. I personally think Hume got it mainly right, but not far enough. When we look at modern Physics, we understand that the world consists of elemental particles and there interactions. (or better just interactions of fields). However we as survival machines for genes have developed a view that the world consists of objects. Computer science has invented object oriented programming, because it is how humans learned to think. And humans think so, because it is a very good way to understand the world and interact with it.
Now as to the ship. The object of "a ship" only exist in our mind. The ship of Theseus is an instance of a ship with certain properties and methods attached and they can change over time. As long as we don't deconstruct the original ship but only apply changes we think of it as a continuity and still as the same object. (As in a computer program, where you could create an object and over the runtime, it will change all it's properties, and occupying different space in memory, but as long as you never deconstruct it, the object is the same).
I like how they kinda took up this in Futurama, S7E7: "The Six Million Dollar Mon" where Hermes slowly replace all bodyparts with cybernetics.
For myself, this question is ultimately about the concept of continuity and what is required to break the perception of it. For instance, what if the ship of Theseus is wrecked upon the rocks, but amazingly every individual piece is washed up on the shore. Every original piece is then used to make a perfect reconstruction. Is it the same ship? My answer is, no, this would be a new ship, despite the use of the same materials in the same form with the same purpose. This is because what makes a constructed thing a unique item (as we perceive it) is embodied in every aspect of it- not just its form and function, but also its creation. The second ship could be said to be a perfect replica, but it could never be the same ship because the original ship was made by certain people in a certain way in a certain place at a certain time.
But if that original ship is repaired with new parts as per the initial thought experiment, then each new part becomes perceptually "absorbed" by the whole as time goes by, such that they would become integrated with the the original. And so, if a new rudder was attached, Theseus could coherently say, "My ship has a new rudder". The rudder itself is new and is a unique item in and of itself (as above, it was made by a certain person in a certain way at a certain place at a certain time) , but it is now part of the original conceptual whole. This does not break the perception of continuity, even were every piece to be replaced over time.
But what happens if we take the same ship with all the original parts but remove the sails and add a motorized propellor? Is it still the same ship? Yes and no, I think. This is akin to, say, a 500 year old inn that adds a modern kitchen in the back; is it still the same inn? Most would say yes, I think; it's simply the original inn with a new kitchen. But it might not be if the inn became known as a place to get great bread cooked in a specific wood oven. In short, the question is ultimately about how the brain perceives, forms, and maintains patterns, and what is required to maintain or break those patterns is complex and context dependent.
I think it's a good reminder that language, and for that matter reality, can be complex and messy things. Describing them is an imperfect process.
If we were to somehow create a definition of identity that was maximally precise, I don't think that it would apply to anything in reality.
Thank you for a very enjoyable video.
That was supper fun, best thing you have done in a while>
Very well done more of this please
nice format. Id love more breakdowns of specific concepts like this.
Brilliant, thanks 👍👏
Unsurprisingly, Hume nails it.
I think Hume is underrated in (popular) philosophy, as well as the remarkeble philosophical golden age of Scotland. Adam Smith, Hobbes, Locke, Hume. James Hutton, one of the pioneers of modern geology. Quite a list!
I'm with Hume. Identity is a conceptual framework, not an objective quality. The ship of Theseus is so because of its conceptual relationship with Theseus, not of anything necessary to the ship itself. As long as something exists that fits the concept of "the Ship of Theseus," it doesn't matter how much the object changes, it's still "the same" ship.
I see this whole topic as just a mild curiosity when it comes to non-living objects. It's all a question of definition, purpose, and/or perspective - _all_ views are valid under certain circumstances. Only when it comes to conscious beings does the question of identity and continuity/copying/... become actually interesting.
@@Wolf-ln1ml I don't see much of a distinction. Just like with objects, the Identity of persons is a mental construct, not a quality of any part of objective reality. There's nothing about us that persists over time except for our experience of being "the same person," and others' recognition of that, which are based on conceptual frameworks imposed on reality.
Who we are is essentially a list of properties and qualities that are continuously updated in real time as incremental changes occur and are incorporated into the whole.
The more profound and/or rapid the change, the more unstable the concept is, until the person becomes unrecognizable. For instance, you accept your past and future self as the "same person" because you can see the through-line between them, and have time to adapt to the changes.
If you went to sleep as your 8 year old self and woke up as your current self (with no memory of the time between), would you consider yourself to be the same person, or would you believe you had swapped bodies with a stranger?
@@chameleonx9253I kind of agree with both of you. For me, a mug is a mug only because it serves a purpose as a mug. We learn that when a mug is on a table, it's distinct from the table, even though a table could be shaped just like a mug. There's something we think of as "mugness" about a mug.
That's different to the mug changing, but explains why I'm only mildly curious about the ship of Theseus. The "shipness" gives it its identity, which could mean different things for different people.
Humans, we can identify as our relationship to ourselves, or as our relationship with others. Incremental change we can work through just as you said, but if everyone suddenly started identifying me as a beach umbrella I might have problems.
@@chameleonx9253 The difference is that *_I_* care about having the same identity/consciousness tomorrow (which is why I'd refuse to get "beamed" in Star Trek for example). An object doesn't, and I don't care all that much about it either.
@@Wolf-ln1ml Well, the you that appeared would consider itself to be you, and presumably everyone else who doesn't agree with Dr. McCoy. So in that sense, your consciousness and identity would continue, just not in your original body.
But yeah, I get what you're saying. Star Trek doesn't really grapple with this issue as much as it probably should.
As much as I like your apologists debunk content, this is better. I wish I had been told of such questions in philosophy class, I would have been more interested in the stuff. Please do more of these.
On the Bluebell railway, there is a locomotive called Stepney that has been working on the railway since the 1960s. Every original part has been replaced. And every original part has been kept. Now it has become two, a working locomotive made out of replacement parts and a non working original. The essence lives on in the working loco of cause.
Likewise the Flying Scotsman, only has a few panels of the original loco which rolled out in the early 20s. But she is still the Flying Scotsman full of history.
More like this please. Never got philosophy and this I can understand.
I have to wonder how the thinking follows the history of property rights (also a bundle of things)
When I was sectioned I wrote that I had "Ship of Theseused myself" basically all over the place.
I'm finally recovering and this is uploaded, how odd.
Nice interesting stuff which is slightly beyond me, in terms of how this all helps make sense of the world. So… my tongue in cheek response
‘Theseus- is this your ship?’
Theseus - ‘yes’
This was a very educational and precise video. I didn't know about all those conceptions of identity. It resonated a lot with my understanding of some of the Buddhist philosophers on the topic.
In the Questions of Milinda, there's the parable of the flames.
A torch is put up regularly through the night to keep a room lit. The first torch is about to go extinct. The guards use its flame to lit up the second one then the first one is turned off.
Is that the same flame that burns both torches?
Yessssssss❤
Absolutely love to see more of this content, great video thanks
This was a fantastic walk through for this metaphore. ❤
My job is configuration management which relates specifically with this issue. It's all a matter of how you specify the configuration item. If you don't specify the components/characteristics of the ship it is technically unchanged. As you progressively specify (constrain) characteristics then every subordinate change (upgrade/update) is a change to the whole (ship). The key is how the ship is physically and functionally specified/described. ❤
Authors sometimes talk about what they would say to their younger self. This acknowledges that the younger self is different from the older version. Some of the matter has changed, and so has the life experience and the learning that goes with it. They are indeed subtly different people.
Thank you. Great video.
Most excellent! I do appreciate your work. More please.
We project meaning onto objects, whether or not they are literally made of the same materials over time. As long as that meaning stays consistent, it's the same object. The original object can even change shape, colour etc and it would still be the same, because the meaning is consistent and there is a historical connection from the original object to now.
Another aspect of the ever-changing river that affects biology and humans, is the gain and loss of function. When was my grandmother her 'true' form? as a baby, a girl, a young woman, a mother, a doctor, a retiree, or when she was barely able to communicate and living in assisted living? Her form and function were constantly changing, and her sense of self may not have even existed at the end - does that make her something other than my grandmother? If consciousness defines the object, then if she was alive but no longer able to remember her experiences, was she now the Ship of Theseus built from the parts of my former grandmother, but now only a 'grandmother shaped' object? If we are 'fearfully and wonderfully' made as the Christians claim, then what did their god intend as her form, function, and consciousness all eroded? Thanks, Stephen!
Rash old son, I was disappointed not to see an image of a parrot on it's bottommost perch, as the aforementioned would have made a fine addition to all the other low polly images featured in this video.......
I would like more of these
Good. You're getting them 😁
Very well made! Thank you!
Great video on an always fascinating topic. More, please!
Proud to be a Patron. Yes, I loved this philosophical comparison of Theseus’ ship. I would like to see more philosophical videos. I would like to see a comparison of views of gods (or God). Hmmm…Is god always the same? Has god undergone a replacement of worn planks (or ideas)? Has god’s (or gods’) function(s) changed? Of course god is not made of planks, but of ideas…or is it? Perhaps this type of comparison is irrelevant, since god is irrelevant. I am going down a philosophical rabbit hole at this time, and this video was most welcome. Thanks. Always thinking.
This meshes nicely with a biblical anthropology. Since we are ontologically body and soul, the physical may change yet we remain the same person.
The ‘triggers broom’ episode of only fools and horses now makes sense 😉
I was just thinking that, Aristotle would agree with Trigger 😁 RIP RLP
@@tug_van_tuggles So why do they call you Dave, is it a nickname?
It's possible to take Hume's reasoning further, and in so doing to incorporate elements of perspectives that appear to conflict with it.
Identity is not an intrinsic essence, but neither is it a fundamentally-arbitrary bundle of perceptions with no real meaning. It is, instead, _a matter of perspective_ - we use different definitions of identity for different purposes, all the time. That's not because there's no such thing, but because the language we use causes us to equivocate several concepts, _all_ of which are meaningful in their appropriate place. What many philosophers seem to reject, and wrongly so in my opinion, is that this is a fine, even a good thing. Sometimes we care about we're dealing with "the same person" in terms of a continuity of consciousness, and sometimes we care in terms of whether there have been shifts in personality, and those are _both_ valuable questions. Sometimes we care whether a car component is precisely the material instance installed at the factory (eg, judging its likely condition over time) and sometimes we just care whether it was last registered to the same identifier (eg, determining whether it was stolen). The most important question was _never_ "how do we define identity, in the abstract, perfectly consistently". It's "how do we define it most usefully for what we're talking about, and how do we make sure we're on the same page about that".
Loved this! A refreshing thought experiment
Enjoyed that one...more please!
The ship of Theseus helped me a lot thinking about the idea of the evolution of culture and multicultural society 🤌🏾🤌🏾 excellent presentation
One twist on this that I've been unable to try and bring myself to actually read since discovering it yet still it fascinates me: the Unwind Dystology. It's a YA book series where, in a ridiculous world that buggers disbelief, kids aged 13 through 17 can be "unwound" in a surgical process where their body is cut up for spare parts and distributed as organ and tissue donations. The rule is nothing gets thrown away, and worse yet they're apparently awake through the entire process (according to the fan wiki). There was one weird incident apparently where all recipients of a kid got together and spoke for the kid, and there was a new kid created like a Frankenstein, and it just sounds absurd yet it lives rent-free in my head lol
The first time I came across this philosophical concept was shortly after playing Fallout 4 and asking how much of a gun I could modify before it became a totally different gun. Someone then mentioned The Ship of Theseus, and I went looking through the arguments.
Thanks!
MORE OF THIS PLEASE!!
More of this please
Brilliant. Thank you for this video!
Trigger's Broom - forever in the minds of the philosophers of Peckham 😀
A mate of mine who has worked on numerous vintage aircraft, particularly Spitfires, says that as far as he and the rest of his associates are concerned, if there is just one original rivet left on the aircraft after everything else has been replaced, it's still the original aircraft. Once that rivet has gone, it's a new build and has an association with but isn't the original aircraft.
mereological nihilism is one of the most useful tools for deconstructing everything in a coherent and consistent fashion
Then it’s not very useful is it
Especially combined with eliminative materialism and physical reductionism. Toss in a dose of methodological naturalism and voila! You have SCIENCE!
@@lrwerewolf and what’s the point of that?
Eliminative materialism was disproven same with physical reductionism so what now? Neither can explain consciousness or emergent phenomenon.
@@Darkloid21 Neither have been disproven.
@@lrwerewolf They have though. Consciousness is one example among others such as the presence of optical illusions.
When it comes to humans, I like to think of it more like a whirl pool, where the specific molecules of water that allows the whirlpool to have form is rapidly replaced and kind of inconsequential to the whirlpools identity, it's the continuous dynamic system that makes up the essence of the whirlpool.
It's like going to see Foreigner or The Guess Who. I don't think either band has any original members left on the tour, but they put on great shows and the music remains.
Hume knocked it out the park as usual
Rationality Rules, Stephen, Great stuff. 👍💙💙💙🥰✌
Really enjoyed this one. More please!!
My interpretation of theseus's ship is that his ship is all of the wood nails men on the ship and life experience of Theseus on that ship.
It isn't the wood, or the crew, or the weather that they run into. It's EVERYTHING involved in Theseus's experience of traveling on that ship.
The internet is where religions go to die, and religion is where philosophy goes to die. Keep up the good work, stimulating open minds and talking circles around apologists.
I have never heard it referred to as a paradox.
It's just the trolley problem for identity. A thought experiment to examine views of identity and their implications.
See also: The transporter problem, or why I'll always take the shuttle.
I think Locke's answer would be closest to my own, but not quite the same. For me what defines the identity is the continuity of the process.
If at any point in time people who work on the ship are convinced it is the ship of Theseus, that's enough for me to consider it as the ship of Theseus, even if in say 2000 years it becomes metal instead wood and has on it's board restaurants serving fries. It doesn't matter to me what it looks like at any point in time for the purposes of identity as long as that transformation was gradual enough for people to consider it as the ship of Theseus.
As for the Hume challenge when rebuilding the ship slowly from parts, there were definitely points in time where people would agree what they have in front of them isn't even a ship, let alone the ship of Theseus, hence the reconstructed ship for me is a copy, while the one upon which the planks were changed is the "modified" ship of Theseus.
This makes me think of Wandavision and the battle at the end between the two versions of Vision - starting with a fight and ending in a philosophical debate
AWESOME EPISODE ❤🤘🏻