[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 116 KB, 1024x779, safeforwork.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3075710 No.3075710 [Reply] [Original]

well, /sci/? is he?

>> No.3075721

That's a really gay way to bring up the problem of identity. Did you get that from a Myspace post or something?


"I have an axe. The handle breaks, and I replace it. Then the head breaks, and I replace it. Is it the same axe?"

There. Done.

>> No.3075725
File: 115 KB, 480x360, 1305425867114.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3075725

>>3075710

>> No.3075736
File: 6 KB, 225x225, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3075736

>not putting your axe in the fridge

>> No.3075743

>>3075721
how the hell do you break an axe head, it's a solid lump of steel

>> No.3075760

>>3075743
Eh, I wanted to keep it short. But they eventually need replacing.

>> No.3075764

>>3075743
It was really cold that day. Like.... surface of Pluto cold.

>> No.3075768

>>3075764
Hence, the axe had been in the fridge like I suggested.

>> No.3075769

>ax

Anyway, the ship of theseus is pretty much a non-problem. Functionalism. There, sorted.

>> No.3075775

>>3075760
I meant to reply to the OP

>> No.3075822
File: 3 KB, 300x57, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3075822

wtf?

(image: my captcha)

VII nceitic

>> No.3075827

He replaced both parts, meaning he replaced the entire axe. So no, he was not correct.

>> No.3075861

>He replaced both parts, meaning he replaced the entire axe. So no, he was not correct.

Not OP, but I suppose the follow up question would be at exactly what point does it stop being the same axe?

>> No.3075874

My answer:

Imo, whenever you replace a percentage of an object with new object, you lose that said percentage of the original axe. It's simple.

For example, let's say your axe head has been replaced. It's not the original axe, obviously. It's also obviously not a new axe either. In fact, it is FIFTY PERCENT your old axe (or whatever amount the axe head would actually be), and fifty new axe. There is no sudden point at which your old axe becomes a new axe as you replace it's parts, because it GOES ALONG A GRADIENT OF ORIGINAL TO NEW.

>> No.3075880

>Never heard of the Ship of Theseus Problem

It's like Xeno's paradox. Hang on, this will take some time.

>> No.3075885

>>3075710
>He's also got a new head attached'

>implying the new head would have any memories of an axe beheading the body it is on.

Clearly, a second man died, and his head was moved from Body 2 to Body 1 (which you beheaded). Assuming the first (man's) body really does become reanimated, the second (man's/woman's/it's) head is reattached, several situations are possible.

A: Head 2 was killed before Man 1 (The axe is not the same, or was not killed by the axe at all)
B: Head 2 was beheaded (or killed) after Man 1, by you, but before the axe head breaks, in which case the head of the axe is the same, and functionally the reanimated man is correct.
C: Head 2 was beheaded (or killed) after Man 1, not by you (the axe may or may not be the same, dependent upon how Man 2 was killed, and whether the killer was able to ascertain your axe)
D: Head 2 was beheaded after Man 1, by you, and after the axe head is replaced (the axe is different in both substance and identity)

I don't believe there is enough information to discriminate which answer is most correct.

>> No.3075899

>>3075874
but molecules of your body are replaced all the time.

>> No.3075907

>>3075899
Right.

What, did you expect simplistic notions of self to escape this discussion unscathed?

>> No.3075910

>>3075880

I like to apply Aristotles 4 causes to this.

From the Material Cause, the axe is not the same as it has completely new parts

From the Formal Cause, the axe is the same, it is the same shape and structure.

From the Efficient Cause, the axe is different. The first axe was made in a factory, the new one was constructed piecewise by you.

From the Formal Cause the axe is the same. It's function is still to allow you personally to cut up wood.

And by Xeno's paradox I mean that people ask this not knowing how well known it is.

>> No.3075924

>>3075710
but but but
>useless philosphy from the 200th century.

>> No.3075925

Yes, and in that sense I'm not the "same" me, from a strictly materialistic sense, even if the general arrangement of the new atoms in my body is like how the old one is.

But, you can take the argument further, and say that I am, in "essence", still me. Just as how the axe, even completely replaced, is still "in essence" the old axe. But that's taking things to a whole new level.

>> No.3075929

>>3075925
>>3075899

Sorry that was in response to this.

>> No.3075930

>>3075910
The functional approach makes the most sense to me.

Why do I care about any of the other notions? I still have an equivalently functional "axe".

>> No.3075933

>>3075899
>>3075925

I meant to respond to this

>> No.3075934 [DELETED] 

>>3075910
The functional approach makes the most sense to me.

Why do I care about any of the other notions? I still have an equivalently functional "axe"; that's the end of my concerns.

>> No.3075939

>>3075924
neat, I don't think I've ever seen a poster from the grim darkness of the future.

>> No.3075946

Ugh the boards are kinda sluggish atm

>> No.3075950

>>3075710
IS IT STILL AN AXE?

>yes

>THEN IT IS AN AXE

>> No.3075960

>>3075950
but is it THE axe?

>> No.3075963

>>3075960
Unask the question. It's meaningless.

>> No.3075971

>>3075963
It does so have meaning. If the axe was never changed, I could answer the question easily.

It's with the addition of the change in the axe that the question becomes nontrivial.

>> No.3075973

>>3075939
shoulda been in the last thread with the same damn philosophical question.

>the question was answered once the 300th century learned how to built asymmetrical robots

>> No.3075986

Physically it's not the same axe. Of course it's not. And physically that man isn't the same man he used to be. Just like you're not the same person on a molecular level you were 10 years ago. And if you're going to define a person's identity purely on their physicality then there's your answer.

>> No.3075995

>>3075986
True, but there is more than just the strict material causes.

>> No.3075996

>>3075971
Just because a question is easy to answer in one case, does not mean it is valid across a wider space.

I hold the question is meaningless, and that the only identity that matters is functional.

>> No.3076003

>>3075996
Explain how it's a meaningless question.

>> No.3076021

>>3076003
Demanding that I identify what happened to THE axe is already invalid if I deny that there is any expectation of continuous identity.

I guess it comes down to whether we've agreed on a basis for identity. Materially, it's not the same axe, and almost can't be (it changes). Functionally, there is still an axe in your possession, and you should stop worrying.

>> No.3076029

>>3075996
But is the identity really the same?

A man goes to the store and buys an axe, puts it in his garage.

One month later, he thinks he lost it/it got stolen. He goes to the store, buys another axe (the same brand/type of axe).

He goes home to put it in his garage, and finds the axe he bought in the first month. He now has 2 axes.

By your definition, both of these axes are exactly the same.

I contend that this is not the case: one is the axe he bought a month ago, the other he just bought. They each have separate identities (he axe bought a month ago, the axe bought today), else there would be no point at all in differentiating between them.

>> No.3076037

>>3076021
>I deny that there is any expectation of continuous identity.

If that's the case then, yes, it is meaningless. But you haven't demonstrated the lack of continuous identity.

>> No.3076041

>>3076029
No, by my definition he has two axes. If they aren't identical in function/properties, then you can differentiate. If you are, then you can't.

>> No.3076060

>>3076037
The hypothetical situations brought up already call that into question. The Ship of Theseus makes it clearer (basically showing how flawed the material definition is). Which is the ship, the one reassembled of the original parts, or the one which has been continuously transformed from the original?

The functional approach resolves just about every issue I've run into with mind/body replication, etc. I'll stick to it until I find a better one.

On a related note, my favorite interpretation of QM is quickly becoming "shut up and calculate", as the interpretations make no functional difference to the theory.

>> No.3076070

>>3076041
*if THEY are (identical), then you can't (differentiate)

>> No.3076072

>>3075710

You simply need to ask yourself to what characteristic are you identifying the object with?

So suppose these are my definitions:

1) The identity of the axe is defined as that in which beheaded the man.

Man is correct.

2) The identity of the axe is defined by its function. It chops. It is an axe.

Man is correct.

3) The identity of the axe is defined by the sum of its parts. It has been entirely replaced.

Man is wrong.

Suppose you attribute each of these definitions as the identity of the axe.

1) "The Manslayer"

2) An axe.

3) An axe made from specific metal and wood.

This makes it simpler.

In saying: "That is the same axe that killed me"

Did he mean: 1) "That is The Manslayer"

or did he mean: 3) "That is an axe of the same specific wood and metal as the one that had slain me before."

By Occam's razor, the man is correct.

Fuck all of you.

>> No.3076075

>>3076041
>If they aren't identical in function/properties
>identical in function/properties
>identical in ... properties

So they aren't identical in property, like, say, a handle or axe head? (or both?)

>> No.3076080

>>3075960
yes. Its still the axe.
axe axe
axe axe

Would you say it's not an axe?

>> No.3076094

>>3076060
All the argument is about whether the integral of a derivative is the same as the the function from which is derivated.

YOU ARE ARGUING ABOUT A CONSTANT.

It's
>C C C

>> No.3076100

>>3076075
Not sure what you mean. I meant physical properties - like if one has a handle with a different color of paint, or handle is plastic while the other is wooden with varnish.

It's pretty much impossible for two macroscopric objects to truly be identical, but they can be close enough for any human concerns.

Basically, the idea of "axe" was always an abstraction, and need not have continuous identity or even existence. The atoms all go somewhere, sure. But if I bleed the axe away one atom at a time, when does it stop being an axe? Should I even care?

>> No.3076103

>>3076072

/thread

>> No.3076114

>>3076072
>By Occam's razor, the man is correct.

Wow, wait, explain yourself!

>> No.3076115

>>3076094
You're saying that two things are equivalent and that isn't being recognized.

Just not sure what things you're referring to.

>> No.3076123

>>3076114

That the simplest explanation is the most likely.

In this case, it is that the man had meant 1) "That is The Manslayer"

>> No.3076127

>>3076123
I'd just ignore his comment as pointless and kill him again.

>> No.3076134

>>3076123
>That the simplest explanation is the most likely.

Durp, no fucking duh. Explain how Ockhams Razor applies.
>In this case, it is that the man had meant 1) "That is The Manslayer"

That's not the question. The question is "Is the man right?"

>> No.3076139

>>3076134
He said that the axe was "The Manslayer", but I'm not sure what he means or how he comes to that conclusion.

>> No.3076146

>>3076072

This is bullshit.

The man is incorrect. It is not the same axe. Correctness is not arbitrary, he is wrong.

understandably wrong, but still wrong.

>> No.3076153

>>3076146
Explain how.

>> No.3076163

>>3076100
Why do physical properties stop at the shape or composition of the axe?

I wanted to focus on the fact that he has 2 axes, both equally capable of functioning as an axe, with the same purpose, but one is the axe he bought a month ago, and the other is the axe he bought that day. Functionally, there is no way to discriminate between them.

In fact, the only way to discriminate between them would be through arbitrary identity: the axe bought a month ago and the axe bought today.

Or in another way: generally, they are the same axe, specifically they aren't.

>> No.3076169

>>3076153

It is not the same axe. The head and handle have both been replaced. It is completely different made of completely different parts.

If you mean why is what that guy said bullshit then you have no place here. He was just bullshitting and what he said is wrong.

>> No.3076173

>>3076163
If they ARE identical, the I think that pretending you can tell them apart is lunacy. You can say "I bought an axe a month ago, and an axe yesterday, and I have two axes". But if they're identical and someone asks me which is which, I'll just raise an eyebrow.

>> No.3076183

>>3076169
>If you mean why is what that guy said bullshit then you have no place here.

>DRRR I don't want to explain! Go away!

Telling me to leave does not relieve you explaining your ideas!

>> No.3076185

>>3076134

Bloody hell, you are fucking thick.

"The Manslayer" is a simplified definition of:

An axe having been ascribed the characteristic that is "Having killed (Man) at specific time".

In having beheaded (Man), the axe has a new property, and that is "Having killed (Man) at specific time".

To which I simplified it by defining in

>Suppose you attribute each of these definitions as the identity of the axe.

1) "The Manslayer"

1) = 1)

READ THE FUCKING POST

>> No.3076196

>>3076146

I have covered that. You have not understood my post.

>> No.3076197

>>3076173
The question is not whether or not someone can tell the difference, the question is whether or not there is a difference. One is the axe from a month ago, and the other from today, despite whether or not I can tell them apart.

>> No.3076202

>>3076183

You simply need to ask yourself to what characteristic are you identifying the object with?

So suppose these are my definitions:

1) The identity of the axe is defined as that which beheaded the man.

>this is essentially the same as 3, and you dont need the word 'in'

2 is a bad definition

3) The identity of the axe is defined by the sum of its parts. It has been entirely replaced.

Man is wrong.

Suppose you attribute each of these definitions as the identity of the axe.

1) "The Manslayer"

2) An axe.

3) An axe made from specific metal and wood.

This makes it simpler.

In saying: "That is the same axe that killed me"

Did he mean: 1) "That is The Manslayer"

or did he mean: 3) "That is an axe of the same specific wood and metal as the one that had slain me before."

By Occam's razor, the man is incorrect

Fuck all of you.

>you're welcome

>> No.3076204

>>3076185
>Suppose you attribute each of these definitions as the identity of the axe.

You have to justify attributing "Having killed (Man) at specific time" to this particular axe. I don't see you doing that.

>> No.3076212

>>3076197
I agree that your distinction is possible if you have kept a careful track of their continuous location over time. But functionally, I think asking the question is asinine.

>> No.3076222

>>3076197
Don't ever get into QM then, because you'd have to abandon the universality of that idea. There you have to deal with things that truly ARE identical and indisinguishable, and it changes your expected outcomes. I.e., electrons.

>> No.3076234

>>3076204

WELL, i was HOPING that you'd have the fluid intelligence capable to link the first point "1)" with the second point "1)"

Thereby linking

> 1) The identity of the axe is defined as that in which beheaded the man.

with

> 1) "That is The Manslayer"

jesus

>> No.3076247

>>3076234

I'm tired of this occam's razor post being cited. The post is not logically consistant, 1 and 3 are the same, 2 is discounted (quite aptly) and the post incorrectly assumes that number 1 would have the man be right when it would clearly have him be wrong.

Shit post is shit

>> No.3076248

>>3076234
Not that guy, but back off the arrogance.

You have not explained why you believe that the axe at the end of the story should be labeled as (identified with) "The Manslayer", i.e., the axe that killed the man.

IMO the question is moot.

>> No.3076255

>>3076234
>>3076234
>1) The identity of the axe is defined as that in which beheaded the man.

Oh, I think I was taken aback by how you DIDN'T justify this definition. You are just asking us to accept this, without any reason.

>> No.3076261

>>3076212
And that's where this argument ends. Been a pleasure. (Actually made me look up the definition of asinine. I had a functional knowledge of what it meant, but not a specific definition ;) )

>> No.3076266

>>3076248

Because it is most likely??

Jesus derping christ, if a reanimated zombie of the man you killed is in your fucking house, why the fuck do you suppose hes there????

In the context of vengeance and the act of beheading him, the man is most likely commenting on the fact that "That is The Manslayer" instead of "DERP, THAT AXE IS IDENTICAL IN COMPOSITION TO THE ONE THAT HAD BEHEADED ME"

>> No.3076267

>>3076255

>1) The identity of the axe is defined as that in which beheaded the man.

This is the same as

>3) The identity of the axe is defined by the sum of its parts. It has been entirely replaced.

They both make the person incorrect

>> No.3076269

>>3076261
Likewise; it's been a pleasure.

>> No.3076274

wow that is one shitty axe, why would you go back to the same store?

the question of identity isn't very interesting to me. a more complex example would be a human. A human regerates its cells every X days/years whatever depending on the cell.
IS IT STILL THE SAME PERSON?
>obviously its just a dumb question

>> No.3076276

>>3076266

YES BUT IT DOESNT MATTER YOU MORON! ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED YOUR OCCAMS RAZOR POST MADE NO SENSE! IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT THE MAN MEANS! WHAT MATTERS IS THE FUCKING FACT THAT THE AXE IS NOT THE SAME, IT HAS BEEN COMPLETELY REPLACED. "THE MANSLAYER" REFERS TO THE BROKEN AXE OF THE PAST! HE IS STILL INCORRECT! HE MEANT TO REFER TO THE AXE THAT BEHEADED HIM, SADLY IT HAS BEEN REPLACED, THUS HE IS WRONG NO MATTER THE INTENT. THIS IS NOT A BIG PHILOSOPHICAL DILEMMA, ITS OBJECTIVE AS FUCK

>> No.3076278

>>3076266
lol
I'd like you to know that I find your post both angry and nonsensical enough to only merit this reponse.

>> No.3076283

>>3076267
>1 is equivelent to 3

I must be really thick, because I just don't see how those two mean the same thing. Please explain how they are the same.

>> No.3076296

>>3076276

DO YOU NOT SEE THE FUCKING STRAWMAN IN YOUR FUCKING LOGIC????

IN ESSENCE NOTHING IS THE SAME AS IT WAS A MOMENT AGO. AN AXE ONE SECOND AGO IS ONE SECOND YOUNGER AND NOW IT IS ONE SECOND OLDER. THESE ARE ALL PROPERTIES OF THE FUCKING AXE.

IN THE CONTEXT OF THE QUESTION. THE MAN IS CORRECT.

IN THE CONTEXT OF THE QUESTION.

IN

THE

FUCKING

CONTEXT

>> No.3076301

>>3076276
>>3076296
Now all we need to do is wait for the thread to hit critical mass. Then BOOM!

>> No.3076303

>>3076296
I can't tell who's trolling whom anymore.

>> No.3076309

>>3076276
I think someone needs to question his faith is gods

>> No.3076314
File: 118 KB, 294x371, Immanuel_Kant_(painted_portrait).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3076314

>>3076296

time is not a property of an object. it is the form of an object, just like space.

pic related.

>> No.3076315

>mfw I have no need to spend so much of my time and thought capacity on such complicated and useless things that contribute nothing to the betterment of humanity

>> No.3076316

>>3076276

is retarded.

if a judge asks you: did you commit that murder.

your best defense would be: no, because at the time of the murder i was at a different location and was of a slightly different age.

lolololol

>> No.3076324

>>3076315
Eh, I'm just here to relax. I'll contribute something to humanity in the morning.

>> No.3076325

Best book I've read in a while. Ending made me crying face.

>> No.3076329

>>3076314

True, but the position of an object that takes up a certain space at a certain point of time is unique to the object as no two objects can occupy the same space at the same time.

Hence, the object can now be ascribed a property based on that. i.e. having a history of occupying that particular space at that particular time, in this case, occupying the space where the mans head should be at the point of the behading.

>> No.3076336

>>3076314
>Time is a form

Are you referring to Aristotelian forms? Because I don't remember Kant referring to forms.

>> No.3076339

>>3076316

Thank you. That was my point about contextual reasoning.

>> No.3076356

>>3076329

just because two things have commonalities does not make them the same thing. also, at the time the man uttered his phrase, he had not been beheaded a second time, so both (or the same, whatever you prefer to call it) axes did not have a shared history at that time.

>> No.3076372

>>3076316

>IMPLYING THATS WHAT MY POST MEANS

Also, no YOU did not commit murder. who YOU are changes every second of every day. but you still need to be held accountable for your actions by courts for the functioning of society.

Your analogy fails because its just completely different criteria. and meanings involved.

Its a different axe, its been replaced.

>1) The identity of the axe is defined as that which beheaded the man.

>3) that which beheaded the man is defined by the sum of its parts. It has been entirely replaced.

number 1 needs a definition added to it to explain what you mean by the use of a term. THe best thing to add is number 1. 1=/=3 but they have the same implication

he is objectively wrong

You say its asked in context? THE QUESTION IS ASKED TO THE READERS our context includes the knowledge that it has been replaced and no longer is composed of the same constituent parts.

We're privy to special knowledge of a more objective nature than the zombie

To the zombie does it matteR? no. Is he incorrect from our perspective? Yes.

>> No.3076380

>>3076356

The property assigned an object that is:

Being at (specific location) at (specific time) is unique only to that that object.

That characteristic is shared by no other. How can it be common with any other object?

The entity may have changed in composition, but it is still by definition of having been at that particular place at that particular time, the same thing.

>> No.3076382

>>3076336

from cambridge companion to kant, in quotation marks in the book:

"space is nothing but the form of all appearances of outer sense"

someone needs to brush up on their kant. you should, its a phenomenal experience. *ba-dum tissss*

>> No.3076415

Inanimate objects are defined in general by two things

1)the matter that constitutes them
2) its novel arrangement
3) our mental conceptions of them

1 has been removed, 2 is dependent on 1, the 2 criteria have been removed. New #1 has been but in place that is functionally identical to 2, but as 2 depends on 1 it doesnt matter.

Number 3 is personal opinion and doesnt matter, we're /sci/ this is to be objective. Mine for example changed, it went from 'ax' to 'broken axe' to 'axe with replaced handle' to 'axe with replaced handle and head'

I dont care if your mental definitions changed, 1 and 2 are all that matter in this context, as readers.

the ax referred to by the story is an important character that changes over time, and atleast in my mind ends up at the end of the story very different from how it was at the begining. Not the same ax

>> No.3076417

>>3076380

object has a history of being at location x

is being attributed to 2 objects. they need not be the same object. if time is brought into the proposition ie:

objects y and z have a history of being in location x at time w

then x=y, if x is sufficiently restrictive. if x be something like "in such and such room" then no, they need not be the same object.

>> No.3076420

>>3076372

I do not believe that you are under the influence of any substance that is temporarily impairing your cognitive functions, I believe that you really are that fucking stupid.

From the readers perspective, we had just seen a man wield an axe to behead a man. The rest of what happened to the axe are just additions to its history or additions to its properties that it continues to possess. It is for lack of better term, character growth of the axe.

Is a frog the same entity as the tadpole it once was? Strictly, NO.

But in the context of the HISTORY of the frog, is this frog the same entity that had been born from its mother as the tadpole?

FUCKING YES.

>> No.3076435

>>3076417

Nope. I defined it clearly as occupying a specific location AND time. Only one object in the universe could have that property.

While many objects can share the property of having been at a specific location, they each occupy that position at different times.

Only one object in the history of time, can have the property of being at a specific position at a specific point in time.

>> No.3076437

>>3076420

>strictly, NO

you've just agreed with me. Thank you, i'll take the victory.

>But in the context of the HISTORY of the frog, is this frog the same entity that had been born from its mother as the tadpole?

Strictly, NO.

STRICTLY NO.

Practically, sure, strictly NOOOOOO

>say i'm stupid
>agree with me

>you're stupid

>> No.3076454

>>3076417

Oh wait sorry, I did not finish reading your post lol.

Yes, yes I agree, that x=y if the parameters are restrictive enough. I believe that in my original post I had made it sufficiently so, I am not clear on your stance as to whether you agree?

>> No.3076463

>>3076437

see

>>3076296

STRAWMAN

>> No.3076469

you must look at the commonalities in the two axes, but having certain commonalities is a sufficient condition for 2 objects to be the same object, not a necessary condition. simply because they share the commonalities of existing at similar times and share the history of occupying such and such a space does not grant them necessarily the attribute of being equal. other commonalities are required.

take an inventory of commonalities.
1.the constituents of both object exist at (time of original beheading).
2. constituents of both objects exist at (time of second beheading)
3. both objects were used to behead (man who was beheaded)
4. both objects were used by (man who beheaded other man)
et cetera

contingent constituents are:

1. both objects were used to behead (man who was beheaded) at time (time of original beheading)
2. both objects were used to behead (man who was beheaded) at time (time of original beheading)

we are trying to figure out if (axe used to behead man during original beheading)=(axe used to behead man during second beheading)

and attributes distinct to the two objects
(axe used to behead man during first beheading) does NOT contain the same constituents as (axe used to behead man during second beheading)

therefore they do not have all attributes in common, and therefore they are not the same object.

QEfuckinD

>> No.3076471

>>3076463

Its not a strawman.

Your post claiming a strawman is in and of itself, a strawman.

You've agreed with me already i dont know why you're still here. hell, i'm leaving.

>> No.3076485

>>3076469

woops, under contingent "constituents" (should be commonalities), for number 2 it should say "(time of second beheading)

>> No.3076521

>>3076469

Alas, the identity of an object is not the sum of all its parts.

If it were, you would not have an identity at all.

You are right in the sense that, strictly, Bob at T1 (time=1) is not the same as Bob T2.

But in the context of identifying him as Bob, the guy accountant, or Bob, the guy across the street, or Bob the Manslayer, then despite the fact that Bob T1 not equal to Bob T2, he still possess the identity that is Bob.

Hence, even though the axe T1 not equal to axe T2, it still retains the quality of (being the axe that beheaded Man), and in the context of the Man's comment on "That is the axe that killed me", he is correct.

>> No.3076557

>>3076469

Furthermore, by your definition (which strictly i do not disagree with) Nothing will have all the attributes in common with another object.

An object one second ago has for example the property : (existing up to T-1s) and the object now would have the property: (existing up to T), one second later it would have (exiting up to T +1s)

>therefore they do not have all attributes in common, and therefore they are not the same object.

Strictly yes.

But in the case of being identified as having beheaded Man, then they are one and the same.

>> No.3076561

>>3076521

you are dealing with an entirely different issue, namely continuity of personality. i am talking about x=y

so let x be original axe, y be second axe.

(x=y)-->(x<-->y), correct?

(x<-->y)-->(Ox<-->Oy)&(Sx<-->Sy)

let O be "comprised of constituents at time of original beheading", and S "comprised of constituents at time of second beheading".

clearly (Ox<-->Oy)&(Sx<-->Sy) is false, so (x<-->y) must be false, so x=y must be false.

>> No.3076606

>it becomes clear by the end of the book that the axe is merely a metaphor for a much stranger supernatural incident he was involved in, relating to a number of ordinary people who were killed and replaced by artificial substitutes nearly indistinguishable from the originals.

>> No.3076617

THIS IS THE NINTH THREAD ON THIS EXACT TOPIC SO FAR TODAY

>> No.3076622

>>3076617

but are they nine different threads? or the SAME thread?

>> No.3076629

>>3076561

Yes, yes, I understand what you are trying to say. Your definition and conclusion is true assuming an absolute degree of accuracy.

However we can accept the null hypothesis also at a level of significance that deviates from absolute accuracy.

Let me put it this way,

Null hypothesis: Axe is the same.

At the absolute level of significance, we reject the null hypothesis.

However the context allows for a level of significance in which (this is arbitrary) i feel allows us to accept the null hypothesis.

It is highly likely that the beheaded man had meant it that way in saying what he said.

>> No.3076633

>>3076617
Next up on /sci/: can one step into the same river twice?

>> No.3076647

>>3076629

In other words: to say that it is NOT the same axe is to be trivial and insignificant, though correct.

To say that it IS the same axe, is to be less accurate, but more applicable to the context where the parameters of specificity were not defined.

>> No.3076653

>>3076629

relating to continuity of personality, a person is not a body. a person is a pattern in the brain/hardrive/whatever your AI view is. "agent" is a better view.

pattern x is more or less contained within both persons over different periods of time. really, the difference between a person at two different times is that the person at the later time has had more experiences than the person at the earlier time. it is analogous to taking an ax and putting a sticker on it. would you consider it to be the same ax? yes, they both contain the same constituents, just the ax at the later time has extra constituents.

>> No.3076665

>>3076653
term, i mean. god damn i am just herping and derping all over the place today with my words.

>> No.3076668

The thing is, axes don't "really" exist. I put "really" in quotes, because of course they exist at the level of our experience - but there is no natural kind that represents "axe"

What has happened in that story is you have a contiguous space-time volume filled with matter. The particular particles (heh) that it is filled with happen to have changed over time. You can argue the semantics every which way you like, and as such this is a perfect troll thread.

>> No.3076676

>>3076647

By the way, accepting the null hypothesis at the appropriate level of significance is actually the more scientifically accurate approach rather than being trivial about specificity.

Depending on how anal you are, I would think that most people would feel that it is more accurate to say that it IS the same axe rather than it is NOT the same axe, in the context of the question. (this is an opinion)

>> No.3076689

He was dead when both axe parts were replaced, so to him, it is.

>> No.3076690

>>3076676

i could possibly agree with you if the second ax contained ANY constituents of the first ax (ie if the first ax had been modified). but it has none, and so i must entirely reject your "null hypothesis"

>> No.3076695

>>3076653

Agreed. I relate to my earlier post about "character growth" of the axe.

>> No.3076703
File: 117 KB, 604x453, 1296701605699.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3076703

>>3076689

>> No.3076707

>>3076690

Physically, it does not.

But it has so so so so much more in common metaphysically.

Remember that both objects contain the same set of histories, up to the point between the first and second beheading.

>> No.3076709
File: 72 KB, 600x346, 1301276150333.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3076709

>>3076703

Go on.

>> No.3076719

>>3076707

but they do not; namely that the first ax has killed a man, and the second has not. and to say that "but they are both the same ax, so they have both killed a man" is begging the question

>> No.3076736

>>3076709

not passive-aggressive. i just couldnt really tell.

how are they the same ax because the man simply did not know? suppose i give you a certain amount of information pertaining to a subject of which you have no knowledge, and leave out one fact. i then ask you a question about this topic, pertaining to the fact i left out, which, if you had known that fact prior to my asking the question, may or may not have made you change your answer. you give me the incorrect answer. is your answer right, or wrong?

>> No.3076738

>>3076719

Let me work this out for you:

Let entity that beheaded man be AXE.

I replace the head of AXE, the new axe head is now part of AXE.

I now replace the stock, the new stock is now part of AXE.

Though AXE has physically changed entirely, it is merely in essence the growth of AXE.

The changing of parts is just part of the experiences in the history of AXE.

Heres something to think about: Is a frog the same entity as it were when it were a tadpole?

>> No.3076752

>>3076736

Oh, Jesus. First summer /v/ and now summer /sci/? Goddamn.

>> No.3076758

>>3076738

nominally they are the same. the elements constituting AXE are different. the sense is the same, but not the referent. word, but not object.

>> No.3076762

>>3076738

What I was agreeing to earlier was that AXE T1 not equal to AXE T2, but I see now that is not what you had meant.

>> No.3076794

>>3076758

Good. Now lets go back to my previous posts.

What is the context here?

What did the beheaded man mean when he said "That is the axe that killed me"

Is he referring to the sense of AXE, what the new form symbolizes? (i.e. the beheading)

or is he referring to the the physical form of AXE? (i.e. its constitution)

Think about it.

Now are we justified in saying that the man is correct? Yes, given the context.

>> No.3076822

>>3076762

yeah, i mean lets say we have the set of all objects belonging to me. lets define this set as class "my belongings". over time, the class is the same. pointing to the set at time T1 and asking, "is this all your belongings?" would yield an affirmative answers. the same response would be given at T2. however, the elements are different.

same with "is this your ax".

>> No.3076869

>>3076794

well, it is dependent upon what he meant. i have no idea what he meant.

>> No.3076876

>>3076822

Agreed, because in the context of your question "is this your ax?", I do not automatically assume you have set the parameters of the question to absolute specificity. Rather, I would assume you would allow for a degree of inaccuracy that would be significant and appropriate for the situation.

>> No.3076902

>>3076869

Where we are in a setting of blood thirsty vengeance from beyond the grave. I think it most probable that he meant the first definition of AXE, in relation to the act of beheading rather than the in relation to the physical constituents of AXE.

Really, I do not think it would be logical to assume otherwise. (opinion)

>> No.3076911

well, look at it this way:

case 1: he means "is this ax composed of the same constituents as before?" answer is no

case 2: "is this ax your ax?" answer is yes

in case 1, i can easily draw this meaning from his question.

in case 2, why didn't he just ask "is this your ax?" it would have been much simpler. of course, he might have become much dumber as a result of being dead. i hear that happens when people die.

>> No.3076946

im out of here

see >>3076072

for /thread