What is The Scientific Solution for The Ship of Theseus

[Anonymous No.15339529]

>The ship of Theseus is a paradox regarding identity over time. One version, positing a scenario in which all the parts of a ship are replaced gradually and one at a time, poses this question: Is the vessel that exists after the replacements the same ship as the vessel that existed before the replacements?

[Anonymous No.15339533]

Paradoxes only exist due to faulty assumptions. The solution to the paradox is to abandon the faulty assumptions about identity, such that it's static.

[Anonymous No.15339577]

>>15339529
It's the same, just trust me bro

[Anonymous No.15339591]

I don't think philosophical questions like this are designed to be answered within the confines of science.

[Anonymous No.15339726]

>>15339529
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/problem-of-many/
"Nihilism" aka "stop reifying concepts that don't exist as real discrete entities jackass"
It will be the ship of theseus unless and until he fucking sells it. As >>15339533 says such "paradoxes" are due to faulty assumptions.
>>15339591
Sure they are. Science is just applied philosophy and epistemology. Quite clearly maps or built parts or things with many components only have a "whole" in appearance insofar as we conceive of them. It's simply a matter of scaling, a kind of emergence. One can test different concepts and their consequences and if anything "emergence" is clearly the single winner here.

[Anonymous No.15339735]

>>15339726
No, science is applied deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is based on phenomena not noumena. Value-mapping processes like language are noumena. Therefore, language is not scientific.

[Anonymous No.15339740]

>>15339529
it's not even that clever of a paradox. what happens when you make an exact replica and burn the original without telling anyone?

[Anonymous No.15339747]

>>15339529
>abandon the faulty assumptions about identity, such that it's static.
Troon detected.

[Anonymous No.15339755]

>>15339735
>deductive reasoning
You mean inductive reasoning.
>Value-mapping processes like language are noumena. Therefore, language is not scientific.
lol

[Anonymous No.15339762]

>>15339755
You're right, I was confusing myself by thinking of a different conversation.
Conclusion still applies. "Scientific" and "true"/"rational"/"logical" are not synonyms.

[Anonymous No.15339768]

>>15339762
>"Scientific" and "true"/"rational"/"logical" are not synonyms.
Did not suggest they are, but to the extent anything can be said to be in the real world it must follow from inference and hence science. Otherwise one can masturbate all day over infinitely many different propositions and axioms a priori with nothing to distinguish them but mere preference.

In any event as I already pointed out emergence pretty solidly suggests the "nihilism" response to the problem of the many, and other paradoxes related such as the ship of theseus, is the correct response. Faulty reifying of concepts of wholes that exist as features of language and concepts in minds, and local perceptions, creates the paradox.

[Anonymous No.15339771]

>>15339768
>anything can be said to be in the real world it must follow from inference and hence science
Elaborate. I don't believe there's anything in any definition of science which would say this is so.

[Anonymous No.15339776]

>>15339771
>Elaborate. I don't believe there's anything in any definition of science which would say this is so.
How else do you resolve the problem of criterion as applied to the real world and knowledge claims thereof? You have to test the model you propose represents it, whatever that model is, since it's induction that what one proposes will actually be the case. You have to see that it actually is the case in reality.
>any definition of science which would say this is so.
If there were some other way to do it that somehow didn't qualify as a science, and worked better, we'd be doing it instead.

[Anonymous No.15339785]

>>15339776
>How else do you resolve the problem of criterion as applied to the real world and knowledge claims thereof?
Why do you suppose science resolves it? Every indication I see is that it does not, and we frequently run into problems with misrepresentation, misunderstanding, and unintentionally inaccurate reporting despite the long-established tradition of scientific inquiry.
>If there were some other way to do it that somehow didn't qualify as a science, and worked better, we'd be doing it instead.
That supposes that scientific research converges to ideas which best propagate information, and not ideas which represent stable equilibrii for departments and individuals.

[Anonymous No.15339789]

>>15339785
>Why do you suppose science resolves it?
Justification. Just because it is not perfect and it involves uncertainty doesn't mean it isn't justification. "Better than chance" works well enough for a start, surely.
>and not ideas which represent stable equilibrii for departments and individuals.
You're equivocating personal value judgments as to the social elements of science not the concept we've been talking about. I don't care about your notions on that even a little true or false. They're not relevant.

[Anonymous No.15339792]

>>15339789
>Just because it is not perfect and it involves uncertainty doesn't mean it isn't justification.
It either resolves it or it doesn't. The fact that it is slightly closer to resolving this problem than other methods does not magically make the problem resolved, in the same way that getting to touch a pussy does not magically change you from a virgin to a non-virgin just because it's closer than you've ever gotten before.
>You're equivocating personal value judgments as to the social elements of science not the concept we've been talking about.
Well you made a statement that explicitly declared that we would select our philosophy of science based on its accuracy. It's not irrelevant to disagree and state that we select our philosophy of science based on value judgements.

[Anonymous No.15339795]

>>15339529
Yes, the scientific answer is that the question is dumb.

[Anonymous No.15339800]

yes
because "sameness" is a state function
because I said so

[Anonymous No.15339806]

>>15339792
>It either resolves it or it doesn't.
Certainty is not required for knowledge. Hence "justified" in "justified true belief". Whether it is ultimately the case it hits upon some "ultimate resolution" is totally irrelevant to epistemology unless you've got some magical solution there. You're confusing ontology with epistemology.
>Well you made a statement that explicitly declared that we would select our philosophy of science based on its accuracy.
Since we're talking about epistemology and matters of truth, yes, "we" abstractly would.
>It's not irrelevant to disagree and state that we select our philosophy of science based on value judgements.
Which is why this is irrelevant. If you feel otherwise too damn bad go circlejerk with someone else over it.

[Anonymous No.15339893]

>>15339529
We are already the ships of Theseus's anon. Even if our brain cells don't divide after a certain point it doesn't mean they become static. Almost every single molecule within each cell will be replaced in a small ammount of time.
I suppose the nucleus is the exception, although I'm not really knowledgeable in the subject right now. If someone knows more about what parts of the cell are replaced at what speed, please let me know.
I'll look into it myself later if I remember
https://www.cell.com/fulltext/S0092-8674(11)00828-2

[Strange Love No.15340189]

>>15339776

>You have to see that it actually is the case in reality.

Haha, hold mein Bier ... :D

>>15339529

Does it maintain the same functionality? If so, it is still of the same use to Theseus.

[Strange Love No.15340192]

>>15339893

>I suppose the nucleus is the exception

Must assume a certain level of DNA repair, (mostly silent) mutations, changes in chromatin status and folding, dis- and reassembly of transcription factor complexes ... won't notice ofc so long as functionality is maintained.

[Anonymous No.15340254]

>>15340192
Yeah of course, just at a slower rate since it needs to be disentangled for the process and the repair process intentionally includes a margin of error.

[Strange Love No.15340280]

>>15340254

Correct. And even if we ignore certain Theseus-like effects here for a sec we are still dealing with rearrangements of the DNA superstructure, changes in expression patterns according to incoming signals, etc. ... still a dynamic, oscillating, fluid pattern.

[Anonymous No.15340308]

>>15340280
Yeah. Epigenetics in the brain is a young field
We don't know much

[Strange Love No.15340312]

>>15340308

Sadly thus far, but we'll get there. Seems there is a lot of HERVs involved, kind of a regulatory transcriptional superstructure, at least they do get very active during embryogenesis in the nascent brain. Funny to think how these do play an equally important role in the germ line btw.

[Anonymous No.15340573]

>>15340312
Could you elaborate a little on the germ line thing? I wasn't aware of that

[Strange Love No.15340677]

>>15340573

Look up syncytin and its role in placentation. Afaik only expressed from the male side alleles (typical case of sex-specific epigenetics, expression is also high in the testes). Essential for human pregnancy and syncytins have independently evolved in a beautiful display of parallel evolution in several mammalian clades (in mice for example, different syncytin than we got but exact same function). Transcribed from a HERV, it is effectively nothing but the receptor protein of a former retrovirus, now stably integrated into our genome. Two functions: triggers cell fusion in the outer layer of the placenta (the part touching the uterine wall), creating a syncytium impervious to the maternal immune system ... and also drives parts of the placenta to literally invade the uterine wall like a malign cancer and rip open maternal blood vessels to provide better nutrient exchange for the embryo. The latter part likely occurs through partial cell fusion with maternal immune cells (afaik unproven yet however, might also be the reason for microchimerism after pregnancy). Fyi, HIV for example does the same with immune cells attacking its host cell (syncytia formation via its receptor protein) to knock out the immune response. Funny thing with the malign cancer comparison here ... accidental activation of syncytin in a pre-cancerous cell is likely THE reason for metastasis, fusion of cancer cells with immune cells invading the (usually badly vascularized and "stressed") tumor, creating Frankenstein cells with the immune cell's ability to escape its tissue niche and migrate into other parts of the body.

[Anonymous No.15340782]

>>15340677
Yes, I was aware of that though not in that ammount of detail.
I was under the impression that you said something about the same adaptation also being important in the world of bacteria and viruses themselves, or am I mistaken?

[Strange Love No.15340799]

>>15340782

>I was under the impression that you said something about the same adaptation also being important in the world of bacteria and viruses themselves, or am I mistaken?

Which particular one? Sorry, currently not sure what you mean there ...
Btw wanted to also point out one more thing here ... if this "unrestricted" HERV (after all such sequences are usually heavily suppressed in cells, usually through epigenetic means) did allow for higher nutrient draw by the embryo it did perhaps open up a "double door" the degree of cognition humans are capable of, first by allowing more rapid (and larger) embryonal brain growth and by repressing the balance of HERV suppression in the genome overall, allowing for more evolutionary dynamism and more flexible gene regulation in other tissues, in our case the neuronal one.

[Anonymous No.15340826]

>>15340799
Forget about that, I just misunderstood it seems.
Interesting theory, but corvids and octopusses are capable of cognition on the level of some mammals so I'm not sure it's essential for that to occur

[Strange Love No.15340848]

>>15340826

>but corvids and octopusses are capable of cognition on the level of some mammals so I'm not sure it's essential for that to occur

Indeed, and it is a very good point here which we cannot ignore! Especially with the birds, who both got very complex communication (even the "stupid" ones do have highly complex and individualized songs after all) and with some a problem solution capability easily en par with the smartest apes. Gotta admit here ... I got no answer for that. Back in the lab days I did once try to find out if these examples you've mentioned also have some form of unusually "active" mobile elements in their genomes, maybe even their own ERVs. Sadly didn't find much on it. Or to put it differently perhaps, whether these animal clades do possess some form of similar genetic "fluidity", a different yet similar door. Compare a bit here to another general mechanism such as the neoteny we do see in tamed animals (and humans as well) which does make more sociable and in many cases more lernfähig.

[Anonymous No.15340861]

>>15340848
Honestly I think you might be right but it's just that there are more than one way to achieve high cognitive ability
If I were to go on a limb I would say that if you consider an ant colony as one superorganism then it's also very intelligent,the highest form achieved by the Arthropods
For the Cephalopods it would be the octopus
For the Avia corvids and parrots
For the Artiodactyla the dolphins
And some other mammals including us
Sorry if my taxonomy is all over the place, I'm not good at it

[Strange Love No.15340887]

>>15340861

>but it's just that there are more than one way to achieve high cognitive ability

Well YOU are certainly right on that! Good argument with the ant colony, well organized, create highly advanced structures ... another general consideration here, most of them are sterile, almost like they're just extentions of the queen's body so to speak. Btw reminds me for some reason of a good book, A Mote in God's Eye by Niven ... in case you don't know it already.

>Sorry if my taxonomy is all over the place, I'm not good at it

Heh, like I myself do still remember all of this ... :)
Dolphins and whales too ofc, although allow me to be lazy here and lump them up as mammals, could be the earliest of our ancestors here did already carry some nascent potentiality here which then "crosses the threshold" in some derived species. Leaves us with the birds ... although don't ask me right now how close their ancestors were to those of the mammals, perhaps this gap can still be bridged. The cephalopods, those would maybe be the most interesting as they are the farthest examples from ourselves and afaik got a much more "distributed" nervous system, also in regards to their camouflage abilities.

[Anonymous No.15340901]

>>15340887
Yeah, facinating stuff.
Too bad really getting in on this would require a team of experts from different biological fields and that doesn't happen too often.
You would need a neurolobiologist, and ornithologist who works with corvids, two marine biologists with the focus on dolphins for one and cephalopods the other, an entomologist with the focus on ant behaviour structures, and maybe some more people like an AI expert to spice things up

[Strange Love No.15340919]

>>15340901

>You would need a neurolobiologist, and ornithologist who works with corvids, two marine biologists with the focus on dolphins for one and cephalopods the other, an entomologist with the focus on ant behaviour structures, and maybe some more people like an AI expert to spice things up

Wanna assemble a team there? ;)
Cursory literature research might she a bit of light here but it would likely miss the crucial details. Pity that the specialization these days has kind of created a lot of distance between the classical biologist and the geneticist so to speak. Say you need people for this who got their minds both out in the jungle and in the laboratory to use a figure of speech.

[Anonymous No.15340931]

>>15339529
>Is the vessel that exists after the replacements the same ship as the vessel that existed before the replacements?
For all practical purposes, yes. An object is not merely a particular set of atoms, it can also be a particular configuration of atoms.
Virtually none of the atoms that constituted your newborn body are still inside you - they are in other organisms, or in the ground, or in the air, or in the ocean. But you are still the same person, in a practical sense, as your newborn sense. The passage of time means you are larger, more intelligent, wiser, etc, but you are the "latest version" of that newborn baby, even though you're built from different atoms.