Almost 21 centuries since its inception

>AND maintain a continuity between the original brain's reactions and the new medium's (the bit-by-bit replacement concept), then you have the same person in the sense that their continuity of experience WILL continue in the new medium
Why would you have to do bit-by-bit replacement? If you just pause all reactions, and continue those same reactions 1000 years later, the resulting information content and processing of the new brain will still be subjectively a continuation of the old one. Sure, this kinda fucks with your head when you consider making 1000s of copies and shit, but that's all the more reason to accept that the continuity of your identity is merely a useful illusion.

Not an argument
>posts something retarded
>gets called on posting something retarded
>DURRR I WAS MERELY PRETENDING
Ok user

I'm and , not

Ontological problems are semantic problems, my man. That was my entire point.

Fucking materialists, when will they learn?

What is there to learn when you are already 100% right?

>There is no soul you mongoloid. All there is is electrical and chemical reactions inside a meatchunk.
This is the most reddit thing I have read all day

The arrogance with which you defend your shallow and misconceived claims is actually really sad and if I were your mother I would wish you had never been born.

>has no argument
>unironically thinks this is an argument
Lmao

Of course it's the same ship. The question was written on clay, animal hides, papyrus, paper, and now it's on my screen. It's been in the mouths and ears of Greeks and Persians and such, now it is in mine. All of this variation is meaningless, it's the same question.

Regardless of Material entropy, any effort to PRESERVE aspects of its Material formalism would loosen the ship's tether to its of Theseusness in the Consciousness that spawned it.

It is why this question is still this question and why ships today are functionally analogous to ships from Ancient Greece.

Materialists drink diarrhea.

Defending your position with a reddit accusation is pretty shallow.

>There never was a ship
Never? You cannot cut relations like that. There was a ship after it was built and before it was destroyed. Both in your mind and out.

DUDE
LIKE
WHAT IF
LIKE
FOLLOW ME HERE GUYS
WHAT IF
LIKE
YOU LISTENING?
GUYS
WHAT IF
GUYS
WHAT IF MAGIC LMAOOOOOOO

>There is no soul
So why pretend that being wrong is wrong? Machines do what machines do. Why interact? You want them to be your gratification machines?
Oh wait, no. Your body operates as if there was a you that did want that.

All these pseuds are salty but this is objectively probably correct desu

Technology is magic. You put numerical values on things, then act as if it were true, and it becomes true.

>So why pretend that being wrong is wrong?
Morality (or, in truth Ethics) does not require extrasensory compulsion you giant retard. It is a false dichotomy to equate biological life in even the most material sense to machinery that is explicitly designed with a limited and concrete series of commands and an explicit purpose
>inb4 dude but like Jesus God programmed humans lmao

...

>Technology is magic. You put numerical values on things, then act as if it were true, and it becomes true.

>being an actual Luddite
>[Current Year]

Not an argument.

>Morality
So falsehood is evil? Ha! Nonsense. It is another pattern among patterns of things. You act on it if you can't do otherwise. Does it activate your "feel-good" parts? How great that must be!

Falsehood is viable. It is a strategy among others. You merely have a preference based on instinct. What a slave.

>hating magic
Captcha is made for you
>Pedestre TAXI

>1 up'd
Congratulations! Now you get to pretend that you were right for the next 5 years. Congratulations!
youtube.com/watch?v=1Bix44C1EzY

I forgot to say, but falsehood does not exist. It's all a signal, after all.

ITT: fedorafag STEMtards pretending that being a smartass with loopholes and technicalities == actually answering the question

Is Theseus sailing the ship? If so, it is the Ship of Theseus. If not, it is not the Ship of Theseus. Since Theseus has been dead for thousands of years, he has not been able to sail a ship - therefore, no ship is the Ship of Theseus.

>so falsehood is evil
Neat strawman sempaitachi
>le STEM meme
>a serious biological answer to Ship of Theseus as it relates to the human consciousness is "strawmans and loopholes"
Stay triggered

>Neat strawman sempaitachi
How do you justify morality over amorality? I did construct something, it happens to be the construct that humans have used forever.

Trick question, the ship never belonged to Theseus because property is a spook.

My answer to the ship problem.
The ship is a 'huge thing', it includes all its forms where it had been perceived in, and possibly even those it wasn't.
Don't let your thoughts be limited by time/Kronos. Same for your actions.

I'm a dumb pseud, so my response is probably horrible, but like all people I feel the urge to respond to stuff.

Everything is subject to change. The cells in my body die and regenerate, and within a few years all of my original cells are gone. Even on a sub-atomic level we see incredible changes in an entity's physical structure. A can of soda is fundamentally different from the 'same' can of soda sitting there a second ago, but for practical reasons we call them the same. So we see a conscious acceptance of these two being the same; not through any form of reasoning, but from an innate understanding that an object sitting there is the same as the one there a moment ago. From this perspective one could argue that it is self-evident that the objects are the same 'being.'

But is it self-evident that the ship is the 'same'? Lets look at it from the opposing point of view. One might argue that no level of consciousness accepts that the two objects are the same, and it is merely a sensory issue. We cannot detect any differences, so the goldfish your parents buy to replace the one that just died is exactly the 'same' as the old one. This is an argument against that route of reasoning, as suddenly our psyche cannot confirm accurately that it is the same. Unless there is some kind of sub-conscious recognition that it is not the same, but that is treading into an area of metaphysics of which I don't have enough experience. Though there are many educated men who would argue in favor of this kind of 'psychic' phenomena.

So now we are at a stage where we can argue that it is self-evident that it is the same object, so long as one has no prior knowledge of the 'transformation' taking place. I think this is my final answer. We can never really experience that goldfish, we can only observe, or even touch it. I know this is beating a dead, and often abused horse; but I'm reminded of the double-split experiment, which shows that observing a particle could actually change it. So this may be solipsistic to say, but we can only confirm that we exist, and anything else is only a construct of sensory information fed to us. This is more of an individual approach rather than an abstract one, and this may upset people, but I can't think of a good abstract proof or disproof of the ship's identity.

First off you need to separate Morality, which is interpersonal and subjective, from Ethics which is built on a definable authoritative relationship.
Morality is in and of itself pretty much unprovable and equally unfalsifiable in its merit, while Ethics (which many throughout history have used to substitute morality within groups, see Christians with their Golden Rule and Ten Commandments) can be falsified at least insofar as an Ethical concept either is or is not intrinsically correct within the internal logic of a set of principles.

The correlation of varying principles of Ethics (alongside a healthy dose of natural pareidolia on the part of humans) gives rise to what people like you deem to be metaphysical patterns, in the same way that an ant colony expresses desires, needs and moods beyond that of individual ants. This does not require Grand Design on the part of the Queen.

>First off you need to separate Morality, which is interpersonal and subjective
It's objective and personal. Tied to the species behavior. Why behave like my species would prefer me to behave?
Ie. if they prefer truth, why should I? If they prefer falsehood, why should I?
>from Ethics which is built on a definable authoritative relationship
Why care about those authorities or that relationship?

STEMfags should learn that their world view has removed all intellectual reason to take their world view seriously. It is tasteless and bland.

If anybody asks why nobody takes Veeky Forums seriously, direct them to this thread.

>Seriousness is serious business
What did the fleshbag mean by this?

Demonstrate that the soul exists, then.

The only conclusive response to the Theseus paradoxon is mereological nihilism.

Demonstrate that thoughts do. We can demonstrate movement and physical change. Little else.

basic language usage contradicts the idea that the total replacement of an object's constituents destroys that object

this, except the thought that there is a problem to begin with is the mistake

the ship persists, and those who reject its persistence are imposing an artificial external constraint which should be the real object of our puzzlement

read Wittgenstein

I would not consider it as a solution per se, but we have already re-framed this question under the guise of emergence (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence).

Consider the ship of Theseus itself. No individual piece belonging to it is a ship, so ontologically AND literally speaking, the ship is not the sum of its parts, it is something functionally more than each of the wood carvings and rope knots constituting it (because none of these alone would function as the ship does). It is also not a linear combination of these things in the sense that you can just put them together. You must follow specific orders of operations (e.g tying, grinding, cutting, nailing) applied to specific particulars, in order to eventually acquire what will be known as the ship.

In light of this, one could argue that, the properties of pieces being more or less the same, and the order of operations being more or less the same, that every ship built will be simply the "emergent effect of being a ship", while others could also argue that being the same type of emergence does not equate being the same aggregate thing (e.g two ships are clearly different from each other, and clearly if you change the pieces the emergent property cannot ever be realistically unchanged). If you care about input from the natural sciences, a collection of particles we switch to another collection, changing one by one by modifying its energy ever so slightly and preserving the switching energy, does not actually change its overall state, but that's because subatomic particles are (so far) de facto indistinguishable, unlike everything we have in our day-to-day ontological considerations.

So, in sum, this would be akin to asking if your conscience would be the same if you changed to a new brain. The short answers can be either yes or no to a good measure really, depending on how far you are willing to stretch the notion of a "thing" (oh_boy_here_we_go.kant) but the long answers should always start with "the emergence can be the same, with the objects being different, so..." . Of course, you can see I'm taking a materialist (transcendental at most?) view here, and I wouldn't be able to properly come up with a more idealist answer myself, but I'd love to read some.

>morality is objective
>lmao things that don't fit with my worldview have no value
>continuing le STEM meme
Every time you post you sound more idiotic, despite trying so evidently to sound intelligent.

>demonstrate that thoughts do
What is an MRI machine, Alex.
Only intelligent argument itt. Don't agree at all but at least your basic point is tangible.

This. Its the same basic Aristotelian logic as ever was, now with better distinction.
Though I would argue that objects in and of themselves do not present Emergence, but rather our notion of what an object and its functions are fall within our own Emergent properties.

Suppose I made an exact copy of you with a machine which has atomic precision. Further suppose that this copy is standing right in front of you.

Would you say that you are the person standing in front of you? Would it matter if the older version of you was annihilated and the copy was permitted to continue living?

Ask Deleuze: ontology is always a matter of a temporal capture of forces and materials in order to make an assemblage (which can be either material or conceptual). When we talk about the Ship of Theseus as an object, what we're really referring to is an abstract machine that selects things like wood, canvas, ropes, sailors, and even words to create an assemblage of a boat capable of routing flows of energy into itself. It does not matter that there is no stable material that makes up this 'object' (really, an assemblage) because what persists is the principle of selection behind which all the material and cultural forces creating "the Ship of Theseus" revolve.

Pshh. The answer is easily no. A more modern variant would be like downloading your consciousness to a machine. Guess what, a copy of your brain map isn't you.

No because you aren't maintaining the continuity of experience you fucking retard
>durr if I make ANOTHER ship is it the same as the first ship hurrr
Humans are a continuity of reactions inside the brain. If you make the same set of reactions in a different brain, you have a copy and not the original. It may be a perfect copy but its still a duplicate.
This is basic damn logic.

It's not the same.

The first (You) is the real one, the prime. Without it any future ones would not be able to be made. If the prime was annihilated and the copy lived on in the prime's place, you could say that for everyone else in that (You)'s life it won't matter, but to the copy it will matter because the copy has knowledge of the truth. The copy knows it's the copy even if it's identical to the prime.

look at this nigga thinkin denotation is bound to connotation in proper names LEL

And if he doesn't know that he's the copy? If neither of you know who's the copy? Why can't you make copies from the copy?
>yfw a fucking Nolan movie is more philosophically-literate than half of Veeky Forums

Who gives a fuck?

Firstly the problem means more or less to people depending on how you're translating it onto real life scenarios. For instance if you're a hardcore old car collector then eventually replacing all of the parts is going to make your car meaningless. However, if you don't give a shit and just use your car to get from point A to point B then it literally does not matter if you replace all or none of the parts, because you don't care about whether it's the original or not. Eventually it WILL be different, so if you care about the original do something about it and if not then do whatever. Sitting around and arguing as to if and when it becomes different is meaningless. It's getting caught up in abstractions rather than practicality.

I know a few leftists who have tried to use something similar when talking about immigration. They try to wrap people who are critically thinking about it up in shit like "oooh, but WHEN is it too much hmmm? 10 percent, 20 percent, 80 percent? where do you draw the line?". They don't actually care about the answer because they see it as irrelevant; they're arguing in bad faith from the beginning. The entire point of the argument is to get people wrapped up in specifics and argue amongst themselves as to the exact point at which something is no longer itself. It doesn't matter! We know that eventually it will no longer be the original country you had, this whole exercise is meant to time waste while the border remain open. Not just immigration either, they apply this kind of tactical nihilism to anything that we on the right try for. It's all bad faith and pointless. Eventually it's not going to be the original so if you care about it you should do all you can to preserve it.

>And if he doesn't know that he's the copy?
Then what? I mean you tried to pose the question in a realistic manner, so then what? If the copy doesn't know, and the prime is killed, the copy just lives the life of the prime because he thinks he is the prime and in that situation, for all intents and purposes, he is the prime. But we know he isn't. To us talking about this scenario, we know he isn't the prime. That's the problem of this, once you "observe" it it's different.

Is this a new copypasta?

I mean, your first paragraph makes is agreeable (to side-step the issue as it usually does not have real life applications), but where did that second paragraph come from? And why is arguing specifics about some complex issue considered "wasting time"?

im not sure. it is 90% made up of a former copypasta that functioned almost identically, although most of the words in this one are slightly different

>what is physical change

Don't take the bait.

My bad. Poe's law and all.

If you wanna use it as such then go ahead, but my points remain the same.
The second paragraph is because this whole kind of reasoning and argumentation is so blisteringly leftist it hurts. It's tactical nihilism that never even pretends to have some kind of practical, meaningful outcome. It's poisonous to society.

You mean Plutarch was a leftist nihilist? That's weird.

No problem. I was actually about to take the bait myself.

Morality is an inbuilt structure humans have and apply on things. As a structure it is objective and it seeks the same things all over the board.
Why value it?

>What is an MRI machine, Alex.
It's probably a physical machine operating on physical grounds measuring physical things.

Here's the (You) my friend.

>implying ontology isn't just overblown semantics

nigger what?

why is it that noone can disagree with this post without fedoras or reddit ad hominem, holy fuck im at a loss for words

Demonstrate that thoughts exist.

If it has no soul, it can't understand it. It's like talking to a wall. The STEMfags are robots without thought, even and especially by their arguments. See ,

easy, when more than 50% of the ship are replaced, it's a different ship.

>As a structure it is objective and it seeks the same things all over the board.
Except morality observably does not. You might say that individual concepts of morality exist to the same extent as all human ideas do exist in the minds of those who posit them. But this is distinct from capital-M Morality itself, which is chiefly subjective and unfalsifiable.
This is the entire basis of Ontological questions, is a thing the same as the Thing we say it is.

>Except morality observably does not.
How come? It seeks survival via approved methods.

Which, again, is both a property of Human Emergence AND misconstrued from Ethical principles.

What about right at the 50% mark

>if I repeat tired talking points and STEM memes I don't have to face burden of proof!
>I literally don't even know what a Turing test is! Things that talk have souls lmao
Just stop my dude

think of a banana

Thoughts and physics exist in separate realm, when it comes to proof.
Sure, I can think. It's you who claim to be limited.

Then, it's Schrödinger's ship :^)

>Turing test
Is that what they call reductionism?

>There is no thought you mongoloid. All there is is electrical and chemical reactions inside a meatchunk. If one can copy down the medium in which those reactions happen AND maintain a continuity between the original brain's reactions and the new medium's (the bit-by-bit replacement concept), then you have the same person in the sense that their continuity of experience WILL continue in the new medium.
>We know this works because the brain and all other parts of the body continuously replace their own atoms, with total atomic replacement estimated to happen around once every 7 years in adults. Now, the nature of whatever the new brain medium is and how its sensory, locomotive and mood-regulating systems will interact can and almost definitely would change the personality of the individual whose mind was copied, but that's no more creating a new person than is blowing a railroad spike through someone's skull. The person before and after the change are not physically different.

Yes, and this does not answer to my point. Why care about morality or the ethical principles? Why the fuzz? I mean, you justified your disdain for falsehood or error with morality. However, you do not justify your morality any way.

Honestly, what is wrong with absolute reductionism? I'm not saying that it is necessarily useful in everyday life, but it certainly appears to be reasonable.

Cogito ergo sum.

What separates chemical and electrical signals in the brain from thought? Your position hinges on this dichotomy you have yet to demonstrate
When no more substantial argument exists, its what we have to work with

>you justified your disdain for falsehood or error
I said literally nothing on that topic, you invented that strawman, were called out on it and are still running with it.
I also explicitly delineated Ethics and Morality and why the distinction is important way back in
Which you were too preoccupied constructing strawmen to read.

>What separates chemical and electrical signals in the brain from thought?
Brain is a perceived thing. It's not a real thing like the soul.

>I said literally nothing on that topic,
What's this? You react to "false information", why? You brought it up. Unless it's a different user.

>Soul is a perceived thing. It's not a real thing like the brain.
Now which of these positions is actually falsifiable?

Well, I suppose that is a problem when it comes to reducing humans - if we assume that systems made up of matter couldn't achieve consciousness.

But in the case of Theseus' ship, what is wrong with reducing the ship to the parts of the ship, so that there never actually was a ship? Of course we would need to keep that reduction going, but not doing that seems to be a matter of complexity more than anything else.

Cogito ergo sum. I exist, being the soul. If I am something else, fine. Let non-existant things non-exist. But I do. The physical world is secondary or tertiary.
>Existence
>Metaphysics
>Physics