Ship of Theseus Paradox Isn't

[airportkid]

It's the classic conundrum of identity:  is an object which over time has had all of its components replaced until none that were original remain still the original object?

I think the essential error in thinking this is a paradox is failing to recognize that no object matches its former composition a nanosecond earlier, that across time every object undergoes a complete changeover, often multiple times.  Moreover, many objects undergo configuration changes, as well as straight replacements.

There are no objects, in other words, instead every object is a process.  Every moment, elements of composition change, right down to the transit of electrons from one atom to the next.  Cumulatively over time, nothing original remains, insofar as particular bits of mass are considered.  But the process, and the characteristics that identify the process, remains intact.

Fixing attention on the original composition as defining identity is therefore as mistake.  The Ship of Theseus began losing constituent identity the moment it was launched.  But as a process called Theseus it could endure until totally rotted to nothing on the sea floor.

Are we as human beings identified by the molecules of our anatomy?  Nope, and never have been.  Our identities are the characteristics of our own process, often described as personality.  We are not the same object we were when younger, but we are the same process, itself changing over time.  There is no "soul".

[Alan V]

Religious people tend to think in terms of a false dichotomy: either humans are material objects in a reductive sense or we are spiritual beings or souls inhabiting material bodies. They don't understand that there is another alternative, that we are emergent properties of complex systems, both of which can be sustained over time regardless of how many component parts are swapped out in the duration.

However, I would add that not all material objects have such emergent properties. Life, consciousness, and similar emergent properties would seem to be the exceptions rather than the rule, since there are no unifying systems or unique wholes formed within most material objects. That is aside from the fact that even what appear to be stable material objects change from moment to moment.

In the case of the ship of Theseus, since it is a material object without a unifying internal system, the paradox remains. When it has changed completely, we identify it as the same specific thing only because of the relatively arbitrary symbolic attributes of function and possession which we attribute to it.

Or at least those are my opinions on the subjects.

[Paleophyte]

However, I would add that not all material objects have such emergent properties.  Life, consciousness, and similar emergent properties would seem to be the exceptions rather than the rule, since there are no unifying systems or unique wholes formed within most material objects.  That is aside from the fact that even what appear to be stable material objects change from moment to moment.

In the case of the ship of Theseus, since it is a material object without a unifying internal system, the paradox remains.  When it has changed completely, we identify it as the same specific thing only because of the relatively arbitrary symbolic attributes of function and possession which we attribute to it.

I beg to differ. A ship is a complex system with emergent behaviours, they simply aren't as interesting to us as life, psychology, or society so we tend to overlook them. No nail, plank, or rope of the ship has properties that would cause them to act like a ship. It's only when they're all assembled in the correct pattern that the attributes that we associate with being a ship emerge from the whole. Airportkid has it right, you can replace every part of that ship and so long as you retain the general pattern of a ship its emergent properties remain unchanged.

You can illustrate this reasonably well by doing the opposite of the Ship of Theseus thought experiment. Keep all of the original components but give them a new arrangement. What you have now is not a ship despite having all the same materials as the original. We could keep going and rearrange the atoms into water, ammonia, diamond, and trace elements. It won't even be wood now. Or we could even rearrange the subatomic structure and turn the whole thing into a big lump of molybdenum, or lead, or sodium (albeit very briefly if it's still floating in water). Emergence typically runs several layers deep, many of which aren't obvious at first glance. We tend to miss them because they're all around us and seem pretty mundane.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Surely there's paperwork on this. You gotta document repairs.

[SYZ]

It's the classic conundrum of identity:  is an object which over time has had all of its components replaced until none that were original remain still the original object?  [...]

Yes, some things never change in and of themselves.
Think of the sodium chloride ionic compound.  Each of
the sodium and chlorine elements retain exactly identical
properties, unchanged over time.

The atomic number of an element is equal to the number
of protons present in the nucleus of an atom. The number
of protons for the same element never changes, and
always remains the same.  (Sodium = 11 and chlorine = 17)

IMHO,  Theseus' paradox, is nothing more than a thought
experiment... or a philosophical question.  And as I've said
before, philosophy is bullshit.

[Alan V]

IMHO,  Theseus' paradox, is nothing more than a thought
experiment... or a philosophical question.  And as I've said
before, philosophy is bullshit.

I think philosophical answers are often time-centered historically and therefore less than adequate.  The information available for accurate premises has increased exponentially, so philosophers couldn't keep up beyond a point  Scientists are now in the vanguard.

However, philosophical questions are often quite interesting.  And philosophical thinking tools are very useful, like logical fallacies for instance.

[brewerb]

Surely there's paperwork on this. You gotta document repairs.

Most of my documentation is scar tissue.

[Dānu]

It's the classic conundrum of identity:  is an object which over time has had all of its components replaced until none that were original remain still the original object?

I think the essential error in thinking this is a paradox is failing to recognize that no object matches its former composition a nanosecond earlier, that across time every object undergoes a complete changeover, often multiple times.  Moreover, many objects undergo configuration changes, as well as straight replacements.

There are no objects, in other words, instead every object is a process.  Every moment, elements of composition change, right down to the transit of electrons from one atom to the next.  Cumulatively over time, nothing original remains, insofar as particular bits of mass are considered.  But the process, and the characteristics that identify the process, remains intact.

Fixing attention on the original composition as defining identity is therefore as mistake.  The Ship of Theseus began losing constituent identity the moment it was launched.  But as a process called Theseus it could endure until totally rotted to nothing on the sea floor.

Are we as human beings identified by the molecules of our anatomy?  Nope, and never have been.  Our identities are the characteristics of our own process, often described as personality.  We are not the same object we were when younger, but we are the same process, itself changing over time.  There is no "soul".

How do you define a process without reference to the material involved?

[Minimalist]

I first heard this one in an Anthropology class long ago.  The prof said "this axe is 5,000 years old....of course the handle broke so I replaced it and then the head broke so I replaced that but the axe is 5,000 years old."  The class laughed and pretty much agreed that the argument  was silly.  The "axe" WAS 5,000 years old....now it is just a modern replica.

[SteveII]

It's the classic conundrum of identity:  is an object which over time has had all of its components replaced until none that were original remain still the original object?

I think the essential error in thinking this is a paradox is failing to recognize that no object matches its former composition a nanosecond earlier, that across time every object undergoes a complete changeover, often multiple times.  Moreover, many objects undergo configuration changes, as well as straight replacements.

There are no objects, in other words, instead every object is a process.  Every moment, elements of composition change, right down to the transit of electrons from one atom to the next.  Cumulatively over time, nothing original remains, insofar as particular bits of mass are considered.  But the process, and the characteristics that identify the process, remains intact.

Fixing attention on the original composition as defining identity is therefore as mistake.  The Ship of Theseus began losing constituent identity the moment it was launched.  But as a process called Theseus it could endure until totally rotted to nothing on the sea floor.

Are we as human beings identified by the molecules of our anatomy?  Nope, and never have been.  Our identities are the characteristics of our own process, often described as personality.  We are not the same object we were when younger, but we are the same process, itself changing over time.  There is no "soul".

It does not follow from any of that that there is no soul (a mind, understood as immaterial, that persists). In fact, it better describes what you called "a process" and ties up the identity question quite nicely.

[Minimalist]

There is no soul because it is a silly argument by primitives who didn't understand much of anything...... very much like modern theists who are almost equally primitive.

[airportkid]

How do you define a process without reference to the material involved?

You don't.  Describing a process describes changes to material.

[SYZ]

...It does not follow from any of that that there is no soul (a mind, understood as immaterial, that persists). In fact, it better describes what you called "a process" and ties up the identity question quite nicely.

Oh dear!  Of course there is no such imaginative thing
as a "soul"—or a persistent, immaterial mind.

I'm beginning to wonder why you waste so much of your
time here Steve, posting and repeatedly reposting all this
sort of philosophical and/or metaphysical bullshit.

Surely by now you've noticed (or have you not?) that everyone
here disagrees with and/or ignores the hundreds of posts
you've flooded this forum with.    Apparently you think that
quantity speaks to quality.    It surely doesn't mate.

[Paleophyte]

It does not follow from any of that that there is no soul (a mind, understood as immaterial, that persists). In fact, it better describes what you called "a process" and ties up the identity question quite nicely.

Nautical superstition aside, why anybody even think that a ship had a soul?

[Thumpalumpacus]

It does not follow from any of that that there is no soul (a mind, understood as immaterial, that persists). In fact, it better describes what you called "a process" and ties up the identity question quite nicely.

Nautical superstition aside, why anybody even think that a ship had a soul?

Sailors are noted for their superstitions.

[SYZ]

...Sailors are noted for their superstitions.

As per the "golden rivet".

[Edible crust]

It does not follow from any of that that there is no soul (a mind, understood as immaterial, that persists). In fact, it better describes what you called "a process" and ties up the identity question quite nicely.

Nautical superstition aside, why anybody even think that a ship had a soul?

Or is female.