What is a 'concrete entity using concrete visual marks and sounds?' — Wayfarer
your stand on the ship of Theseus paradox is still unclear to me. Kindly share your thoughts on the matter. — TheMadFool
It's just another way of saying a physical entity using physical marks and sounds. I mean, there's no way of conveying meaning other than by using physical mediums. — John
And meaning can only be known (so far as we know) by physically embodied entities, and knowing the meaning of something is physical; it's a physical experience involving certain feelings and sensations. — John
There are no mysterious, spooky abstract entities floating around in some realm. — John
As oxymorinic as it sounds it could be a case of reason-based convention, just not arbitrary convention. — TheMadFool
The point being that if the paradox has any worth i is the exposure of our poor understanding of identity. — TheMadFool
Well, one response is that the meaning of a sentence can be shown to be independent of both the language and the medium it is represented in. In other words, if I take a particular sentence, with a very specific meaning, that can be represented in a number of languages and retain the same meaning. It can even be represented in codes such as binary codes, or semaphores, or Morse code, and retain the same meaning. So, the physical signal or sign is one thing, but the meaning is another. — Wayfarer
Doing a mental calculation doesn't require or invoke a sensation. — Wayfarer
'Realm' is a metaphorical description. There is no literal realm or place, but there is nevertheless, for example, 'the domain of natural numbers' and numbers can only be apprehended by an intelligence capable of counting. They're not 'floating around' in a 'realm', that is an attempt to objectify the idea. — Wayfarer
I don't believe there absolutely strict determinable meanings; there are rather families of association due to commonalities in the forms of human life.
What kind of reality do you imagine meanings have outside their being understood by body/minds? — John
My experience is that mental calculation very definitely does involve bodily feelings and sensations; inner sounds, images or sensations of movement, for example. So, where do we go from here? — John
The question is whether number has any reality beyond its instantiations and/or its being perceived or apprehended by body/minds, and if so, what exactly that reality could consist in. You say "apprehended by an intelligence" which is a loaded way of putting it that evokes the notion of a free-floating disembodied intelligence — John
I'm trying to understand where these prejudices come from, and not just in you: they are widespread.. — John
Take scientific laws, formulas, plans, blueprints - any number of those things might have 'strict determinable meanings'. — Wayfarer
To your demonstration of how that is relevant, perhaps. — Wayfarer
Why do you say that when there's no way of proving it either way? — John
it is not as if I am articulating some incredibly radical standpoint. — John
No, you're just making 'concrete marks', based on 'sensations and feelings'. It's why you think that means something that is problematical. ;-) — Wayfarer
Wayfarer is more or less a substance dualist. — TheWillowOfDarkness
In this context, experience because material (or body, in the context of substance dualism)-- states of my mathematical thinking emerge out of state of bodily sensation, which in turn emerged out of my body. — TheWillowOfDarkness
I would hate to think of what a square root would feel like. — "Wayfarer
I designated 'Ship of Theseus' as a type, rather than as an individual instance - and so whether there is one, or more than one, of the Ship, is no longer problematical — Wayfarer
However, when the Greek's posed this question it was in the pre-Cartesian sense of identification. — Wolf
This "paradox" simply illustrates how identity is not an intrinsic aspect of macro-scale objects; it is something that we assign to them in accordance with our purposes. Strictly speaking, ship A at one time and place is not identical to ship A at another time and place, even if none of its planks have been replaced yet. Instantaneously replacing all of its planks just makes it more obvious that it is a different object.
So ship A becomes ship B, but remains "the ship of Theseus" because people continue to call it that, despite the replacement of all its planks. As apokrisis would say, echoing Bateson, for most people having one new plank - or a lot of new planks, or even all new planks if they are replaced gradually - is not a difference that makes a difference for the purpose of referring to the ship. Hence I suspect that most people would call the reconstructed ship A something like "the original ship of Theseus" to distinguish it from ship B as "the current ship of Theseus." — aletheist
If this is described as a continuity of existence of the object, then it becomes part of the object's identity, as per the description. — Metaphysician Undercover
If the act is described as an annihilation, and the rebuilding of a new object, then there is no such continuity of existence, as per the description. There is a description of one object ceasing to exist, and a new one coming into existence. — Metaphysician Undercover
So for instance, if you break a drinking glass, and collect the pieces, melt and remould them into a drinking glass, we would describe this as one object being annihilated and a new one coming to be. — Metaphysician Undercover
The point is, that identity, as a continuity of existence is something which is assumed. Continuity of existence has never been proven, so you hear things like people wondering if an object continues to exist if it is not being looked at. Since continuity of existence, and therefore the "identity" which is associated with it, is just an assumption, then what constitutes continuity of existence, in our beliefs, depends on how we define it. — Metaphysician Undercover
It's not so much about description, but about how identity is assigned. If a group of people think of it in the way that you describe above, and assign identity accordingly, then that is the practical meaning of identity for that group of people. — Sapientia
There can be no annihilation of an object and a rebuilding of it. That is impossible. It would have to be something else which is annihilated, or something else which has ceased. Your example of the glass is not an example of an object being annihilated and rebuilt. The object is just broken, melted and reformed, not annihilated. — Sapientia
Any attempted solution which priorities one way of speaking and rules out others will always have to compete with the opposing proposed solutions which it rules out, rather than reconcile these proposed solutions under a broader encompassing theory which avoids the kind of problems that these proposed solutions face. There are more sophisticated and less problematic proposed solutions to this problem. — Chief Owl Sapientia
As I said, it's a matter of convention. I think that when a drinking glass has been broken into a whole bunch of bits, it has been annihilated, you don't. — Metaphysician Undercover
Problems like this are the reason why we developed a second sense of identity, which I call logical identity. In this sense, we have a defined term, and as long as the object meets the conditions of the definition, it has been identified accordingly. So we could agree on a definition of "drinking glass" and we could agree on a definition of "annihilate", and determine whether or not the drinking glass has been annihilated. — Metaphysician Undercover
Logical identity has its own problems though. The object is identified through a definition, so it is more likely that a "type" is identified, and unless the description is extremely thorough, it doesn't properly single out a particular identified object. There could be more than one object which fits the description. — Metaphysician Undercover
Following the Leibniz principle, identity of indiscernibles, some effort has been made to define temporal continuity, such that we could determine logically whether something maintained its identity as the same thing through a period of time, but we have no such principles. — Metaphysician Undercover
Why do you think that it has been annihilated, rather than just broken? Is it just an exaggeration? Or something else? Although, if it was just an exaggeration, then you wouldn't really mean what you say, and you wouldn't really think that it has been annihilated. — Chief Owl Sapientia
Then let's see if we can do that, because I want to understand your point of view, which seems to differ from my own. It seems to me like you might be moving the goalposts by referring to a "drinking glass". The drinking function ceased, but that is just a subject's way of seeing the object. The drinking part is not a part of the object. — Chief Owl Sapientia
If a certain structure is an essential part of the existence of an object, and that certain structure is destructed, then the object would cease to exist. Is that your thinking? — Chief Owl Sapientia
But one can identify the object in different ways, so as to identify a particular. We're talking about this cup, not that cup, or any other cup. I could point to it or give it a unique name or specify its time or location with enough precision to differentiate it from others. — Chief Owl Sapientia
When something is destroyed we can say that it is annihilated. The drinking glass no longer exists, it has been broken, destroyed, therefore I say it has been annihilated. There is no exaggeration. If something comes to its end without being destroyed we might not say it has been annihilated, such as when a human being simply dies we wouldn't say that person was annihilated. But if the human being is blown to bits, like what happens to the drinking glass, we can say that it was annihilated. — Metaphysician Undercover
"Drinking glass" has a particular meaning, that's why I used it instead of just saying "glass", so there would be no ambiguity. There is no moving the goalpost, because I intentionally used "drinking glass" from the beginning to avoid such ambiguity. A drinking glass is a glass which is used for drinking out of. Annihilate means to destroy. When the drinking glass is broken to bits, why do you not agree that it has been annihilated? — Metaphysician Undercover
I don't think it's a case of being a "certain structure", it's a case of fulfilling the conditions of the definition of the word. We have certain expectations of what any word refers to, and it could be a certain structure, but in many cases, like "drinking glass" it is mostly a purpose, a use. If the object no long fulfills the conditions expected of the word, it should no longer be referred to by that word. And since the object was broken to bits, we can say it was annihilated. — Metaphysician Undercover
In many cases one can point to the object, though right now it would do me no good if you pointed to the object. But what is at issue here is if it is still the same object which you pointed to, after you point to it. Say you point to the object, and this acts as our defining of the object, if we leave and come back later, how do we know that it is the same object we are looking at? — Metaphysician Undercover
Why would you think that completely annihilating an object, and then completely rebuilding a copy of the original object, with the same parts, constitutes having the same object? — Metaphysician Undercover
In the case of something being disassembled and then reassembled, its period of "non-wholeness" is part of its history, and cannot be considered a "destruction". — John
What if we use a simpler example? You and I each have an axe. We swap axe-heads. Do we each have the same axe we started with? Have we swapped axes? Or do we each have a new axe, with the old axes having been "destroyed"? If we each have the same axe we started with, what if we then swap handles?
Does the time between the swapping of axe-heads and the swapping of handles matter, such that if we did this within the space of a few minutes then we've switched axes but if we did this within the space of a year then we've retained our original axes? Does the proportion of the change matter, such that if we swap 10% of each axe at a time then we've retained our original axes but if we switch 60% (and then 40%) of each axe then we've switched axes? — Michael
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.