"The Original Ship" or "Shippy II"?

[twonine29]

Suppose there was a ship, lets call it "The Original Ship", which sailed across the Atlantic numerous times and became very famous for it's voyages .

Over the course of time the planks on this ship had to be replaced one by one (suppose this occurs over the course of 6 years), until eventually the ship has no material left that was there in the beginning.

1.) Is the ship that is there now still "The Original Ship"?
or is it something new, like "Shippy II"?

If yes, it is still "The Original Ship", then what if we took all the old parts that were removed over the course of maintanence and created a ship with it. This new ship has the exact same makeup of material as "The Original Ship"'s makeup in the beginning (i.e. the same planks that traveled on those voyages that made it famous.) Which ship would be "The Original Ship" now?

If no, it's not "The Original Ship", than at what point did it transform from "The Original Ship" into something else entirely? When the first plank was removed...the 51st percentile plank...the last plank?


*This topic was discussed in my Philosophy class @ Madison. It partly stems from the book "Reasons and Persons" by Parfit.

*I hope the wording of this question and it's assumptions makes sense...I wrote it all once and hit continue but forgot to label the subject and it was all erased when I hit the Back button /images/graemlins/blush.gif(.

[Borodog]

It doesn't matter.

[51cards]

There is no ship, only planks.

[51cards]

You could use the same idea to show there are no planks either.

Also 'you' don't exist. Better be careful with this stuff...

[luckyme]

Since categorization is arbitrary, you'll have to define 'original ship' so we can apply it to the current object and see if it fits the specifications.
As it stands, it's obviously functionally the original ship but materially not. Even changing the 1st nail makes it not the original ship.

Treating all parts as identical twins then they are identical ships ( but I just created that definition). In practice they're not identical so...

luckyme

[Skidoo]

To the extent the ship is merely the sum of its parts, it's a new ship. Otherwise, it's the original.

[twonine29]

I agree that these kind of thought experiments can lead a person to go mad if they go too deep with it. I've scared myself a couple of times getting lost in my own mind, and had to force myself to stop. A "you" example of this story goes something like this:

Hypothetically, if John was teletransported from Planet A to Planet X by a machine located on Planet A, which processed your genetic makeup and recreated it on Planet X(while destroying the make-up of John on Planet A), and when John arrived on Planet X, John had all the same psychological and physical continuity and make-up of John. Would it really be John?, would John be having the experience of being on Planet X(it would sure seem that way to everyone else and the 'John' on Planet X(John would remember being transported from Planet A (and all his past memories) and now John would suddenly be on Planet X and continue on with his life.)

Does the answer change if the John on Planet A does not get destroyed during the process?

(It shouldn't, since it's extrinsic to the situation..., but it sure seems like it does...)

[DonkBluffer]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that these kind of thought experiments can lead a person to go mad if they go too deep with it. I've scared myself a couple of times getting lost in my own mind, and had to force myself to stop. A "you" example of this story goes something like this:

Hypothetically, if John was teletransported from Planet A to Planet X by a machine located on Planet A, which processed your genetic makeup and recreated it on Planet X(while destroying the make-up of John on Planet A), and when John arrived on Planet X, John had all the same psychological and physical continuity and make-up of John. Would it really be John?, would John be having the experience of being on Planet X(it would sure seem that way to everyone else and the 'John' on Planet X(John would remember being transported from Planet A (and all his past memories) and now John would suddenly be on Planet X and continue on with his life.)

Does the answer change if the John on Planet A does not get destroyed during the process?

(It shouldn't, since it's extrinsic to the situation..., but it sure seems like it does...)

[/ QUOTE ]
This just challenges the belief that we are individual, unique, seperate 'souls' or personalities or bodies or whatever.

What makes you you?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
To the extent the ship is merely the sum of its parts, it's a new ship. Otherwise, it's the original.

[/ QUOTE ]
'Otherwise' is a pretty gigantic word in this post. Care to elaborate?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree that these kind of thought experiments can lead a person to go mad if they go too deep with it. I've scared myself a couple of times getting lost in my own mind, and had to force myself to stop. A "you" example of this story goes something like this:

Hypothetically, if John was teletransported from Planet A to Planet X by a machine located on Planet A, which processed your genetic makeup and recreated it on Planet X(while destroying the make-up of John on Planet A), and when John arrived on Planet X, John had all the same psychological and physical continuity and make-up of John. Would it really be John?, would John be having the experience of being on Planet X(it would sure seem that way to everyone else and the 'John' on Planet X(John would remember being transported from Planet A (and all his past memories) and now John would suddenly be on Planet X and continue on with his life.)

Does the answer change if the John on Planet A does not get destroyed during the process?

(It shouldn't, since it's extrinsic to the situation..., but it sure seems like it does...)

[/ QUOTE ]
This just challenges the belief that we are individual, unique, seperate 'souls' or personalities or bodies or whatever.

What makes you you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Memory. Thats my best guess. Some would say the pattern of information but of course that changes subtly every second as well. Its the continuity of these changes, and more importantly your current ability to RECALL the continuity of these changes, that makes you think that you are you. Does that sound reasonable?

[DonkBluffer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree that these kind of thought experiments can lead a person to go mad if they go too deep with it. I've scared myself a couple of times getting lost in my own mind, and had to force myself to stop. A "you" example of this story goes something like this:

Hypothetically, if John was teletransported from Planet A to Planet X by a machine located on Planet A, which processed your genetic makeup and recreated it on Planet X(while destroying the make-up of John on Planet A), and when John arrived on Planet X, John had all the same psychological and physical continuity and make-up of John. Would it really be John?, would John be having the experience of being on Planet X(it would sure seem that way to everyone else and the 'John' on Planet X(John would remember being transported from Planet A (and all his past memories) and now John would suddenly be on Planet X and continue on with his life.)

Does the answer change if the John on Planet A does not get destroyed during the process?

(It shouldn't, since it's extrinsic to the situation..., but it sure seems like it does...)

[/ QUOTE ]
This just challenges the belief that we are individual, unique, seperate 'souls' or personalities or bodies or whatever.

What makes you you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Memory. Thats my best guess. Some would say the pattern of information but of course that changes subtly every second as well. Its the continuity of these changes, and more importantly your current ability to RECALL the continuity of these changes, that makes you think that you are you. Does that sound reasonable?

[/ QUOTE ]
Sounds reasonable to me. Pretty much everything we think we are(personality/beliefs/habits/etc) is based on memory of some kind. But memory is not 'someone'. I think you can't say that (a memory or thought) is what I am. It's just something I am conscious of.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To the extent the ship is merely the sum of its parts, it's a new ship. Otherwise, it's the original.

[/ QUOTE ]
'Otherwise' is a pretty gigantic word in this post. Care to elaborate?

[/ QUOTE ]

Any capacity in which the ship functions that does not depend on the unique identity of its original materials.

[madnak]

Identity is an illusion. Two physically identical "mes" are both equally "me," regardless of other conditions. Of course, each "me" will respectively believe he has the greater claim on "meness," but I never claimed to be all that sane.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To the extent the ship is merely the sum of its parts, it's a new ship. Otherwise, it's the original.

[/ QUOTE ]
'Otherwise' is a pretty gigantic word in this post. Care to elaborate?

[/ QUOTE ]

Any capacity in which the ship functions that does not depend on the unique identity of its original materials.

[/ QUOTE ]

But that doesnt solve or address the problems. How many 'originals' can there be? Infinite?