NationStates Jolt Archive

Let us say that you have a paper plate. One person, for some reason, truly believes that it is a metal plate. He convinces everyone around him it's metal. They convince everyone around them it's metal. So on and so forth. With enough people truly believe the paper plate is metal, will the paper plate be metal?

Let us say you have an ax. Six months after you get the ax, you break the handle. So you go to the store and replace the handle. Six months later the blade breaks. So you replace the blade. Is the ax you have now the same you had twelve months ago? If not, when did it not become the same ax?

And now for a time paradox!

In 1945 a girl is dropped off at an orphanage. She grows up desolate, not know who her parents are. In 1963, she runs from the orphanage. In her travels, she meets a drifter, who she falls in love with and gets pregnant by. Nine months later, her life begins to spiral out of control. Firstly the drifter disappears. Then the doctors find out she had sexual organs from both genders, and must remove her female genitals in order for her to survive. Thirdly a mysterious stranger kidnaps her baby. So "he" now grows up living desolate again, and in 1970 he walks into Pop's Bar. There he finds an old bartender whom he tells his story to. The bartender sympathizes with him, and tells him he'll help him take revenge on the drifter on one condition: He join the time corps after he gets back. So they head back in time to 1963, where he finds an orphan girl, whom he falls in love with and gets pregnant. Nine months later the bartender takes the orphan girls baby, takes it to 1945 and drops it off at an orphanage. The bartender then takes the man to 1983, where the man joins the time corps. Later on when he becomes an old and respected member of the time corps, he goes back in time to 1970 and starts working at Pop's Bar. There he meets a drifter who, well, you know the rest.

Nah, it's still a paper plate, but hats off to the guy responsible for convincing the masses it was metal! Was it Adolf Hitler, Jim Jones, or David Koresh?

And now for a time paradox!

In 1945 a girl is dropped off at an orphanage. She grows up desolate, not know who her parents are. In 1963, she runs from the orphanage. In her travels, she meets a drifter, who she falls in love with and gets pregnant by. Nine months later, her life begins to spiral out of control. Firstly the drifter disappears. Then the doctors find out she had sexual organs from both genders, and must remove her female genitals in order for her to survive. Thirdly a mysterious stranger kidnaps her baby. So "he" now grows up living desolate again, and in 1970 he walks into Pop's Bar. There he finds an old bartender whom he tells his story to. The bartender sympathizes with him, and tells him he'll help him take revenge on the drifter on one condition: He join the time corps after he gets back. So they head back in time to 1963, where he finds an orphan girl, whom he falls in love with and gets pregnant. Nine months later the bartender takes the orphan girls baby, takes it to 1945 and drops it off at an orphanage. The bartender then takes the man to 1983, where the man joins the time corps. Later on when he becomes an old and respected member of the time corps, he goes back in time to 1970 and starts working at Pop's Bar. There he meets a drifter who, well, you know the rest.
I can see how this would work, but the problem is, after a few run throughs and new timelines created, you run into genetic problems. I think you can impregnate yourself only a few times before you start to become more and more prone to genetic diseases, eventually interrupting the chain as the character is no longer able to complete any sort of activity for one reason or another.

As for the axe, it changes within a few seconds due to molecular rearrangement. The molecules in an item do not actually remain the same from one second to the next, but change.

Or so I heard. I may be mistaken. In fact, I probably am.

When you replaced the handle, it became a new axe!

Let us say that you have a paper plate. One person, for some reason, truly believes that it is a metal plate. He convinces everyone around him it's metal. They convince everyone around them it's metal. So on and so forth. With enough people truly believe the paper plate is metal, will the paper plate be metal?

No. This can be illustrated with a simple example. Say I try to cut the plate with scissors. If it is truly metal, my attempt would fail. Since it is paper, however, it will succeed, whatever I believe about the plate's true nature.

Let us say you have an ax. Six months after you get the ax, you break the handle. So you go to the store and replace the handle. Six months later the blade breaks. So you replace the blade. Is the ax you have now the same you had twelve months ago? If not, when did it not become the same ax?

Since objects do not have responsibility, questions of personal identity in their respect are simply matters of convention, and thus insignificant.

I'm not interested in time paradoxes.

I demand more questions like the first two! They made me feel intelligent!! That last one blew my mind and now I'm dumb again!!! :(

No. This can be illustrated with a simple example. Say I try to cut the plate with scissors. If it is truly metal, my attempt would fail. Since it is paper, however, it will succeed, whatever I believe about the plate's true nature.


You can cut an aluminium plate with steel scissors easily.

I demand more questions like the first two! They made me feel intelligent!! That last one blew my mind and now I'm dumb again!!! :(

...

Uh, it's not that hard to understand. It's just one guy in all of the situations. Or rather, one hermaphrodite, until he is turned into a male after giving birth to himself after being impregnated by his later self.

Lacadaemon: True. The metal was not specified. As such, lighting it on fire would be the best course of action.

No. This can be illustrated with a simple example. Say I try to cut the plate with scissors. If it is truly metal, my attempt would fail. Since it is paper, however, it will succeed, whatever I believe about the plate's true nature.

Now, if the plate were made of thin metal it could be cut. Perhaps your illusion would simply tell you that the plate was made of thin aluminum or tin and so could be cut without actually altering your perception of it as metal.

But isn't it also possible that you would perceive the plate as not being cut even though it really is? Your illusion would be so complete in this case that it would appear to you that thee plate was metal and unable to be cut with scissors even though it was being cut in "reality" (which is a whole other illusion in itself).

Since objects do not have responsibility, questions of personal identity in their respect are simply matters of convention, and thus insignificant.

Well, let's rephrase it in the context of a human being. Your cells on average replace themselves entirely over the course of 9-12 months; in this case, are you the same person you were a year ago even though your entire body is new?

If the answer is "yes", which it appears to be, then personal identity must exist independent of physical matter.

...

Uh, it's not that hard to understand. It's just one guy in all of the situations. Or rather, one hermaphrodite, until he is turned into a male after giving birth to himself after being impregnated by his later self.

Ohhh, is that all? Jeesh, you just sent me hurling from dumbass to spoontard...THANKS A LOT!!!

...
Lacadaemon: True. The metal was not specified. As such, lighting it on fire would be the best course of action.

What if the plate is magnesium then? It could both be cut and be burned.

The first is a question of semantics. If enough people call a paper plate metal, then the word "metal" changes to the definition previously held for "paper."

Let us say that you have a paper plate. One person, for some reason, truly believes that it is a metal plate. He convinces everyone around him it's metal. They convince everyone around them it's metal. So on and so forth. With enough people truly believe the paper plate is metal, will the paper plate be metal?
Well, if you mean metal as we know it, then obviously it's still paper.

Let us say you have an ax. Six months after you get the ax, you break the handle. So you go to the store and replace the handle. Six months later the blade breaks. So you replace the blade. Is the ax you have now the same you had twelve months ago? If not, when did it not become the same ax?
Nope, it's not. You replaced it, just not all at once. ;)

And now for a time paradox!

In 1945 a girl is dropped off at an orphanage. She grows up desolate, not know who her parents are. In 1963, she runs from the orphanage. In her travels, she meets a drifter, who she falls in love with and gets pregnant by. Nine months later, her life begins to spiral out of control. Firstly the drifter disappears. Then the doctors find out she had sexual organs from both genders, and must remove her female genitals in order for her to survive. Thirdly a mysterious stranger kidnaps her baby. So "he" now grows up living desolate again, and in 1970 he walks into Pop's Bar. There he finds an old bartender whom he tells his story to. The bartender sympathizes with him, and tells him he'll help him take revenge on the drifter on one condition: He join the time corps after he gets back. So they head back in time to 1963, where he finds an orphan girl, whom he falls in love with and gets pregnant. Nine months later the bartender takes the orphan girls baby, takes it to 1945 and drops it off at an orphanage. The bartender then takes the man to 1983, where the man joins the time corps. Later on when he becomes an old and respected member of the time corps, he goes back in time to 1970 and starts working at Pop's Bar. There he meets a drifter who, well, you know the rest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22All_You_Zombies%E2%80%94%22
:D

...Lacadaemon: True. The metal was not specified. As such, lighting it on fire would be the best course of action.

Magnesium?

You can cut an aluminium plate with steel scissors easily.

The point holds, though - a simple empirical test can determine whether or not it is actually paper, whatever you think it is initially.

But isn't it also possible that you would perceive the plate as not being cut even though it really is? Your illusion would be so complete in this case that it would appear to you that thee plate was metal and unable to be cut with scissors even though it was being cut in "reality" (which is a whole other illusion in itself).

Why would your mind do that?

What if you couldn't distinguish between the properties of paper and metal? Wouldn't it appear to have the properties of metal, then? If it did, doesn't that show that there is something other than our conviction of what the object is that determines its properties?

Well, let's rephrase it in the context of a human being. Your cells on average replace themselves entirely over the course of 9-12 months; in this case, are you the same person you were a year ago even though your entire body is new?

If the answer is "yes", which it appears to be, then personal identity must exist independent of physical matter.

Indeed; it is connected somehow to continuity of consciousness.

The first is a question of semantics. If enough people call a paper plate metal, then the word "metal" changes to the definition previously held for "paper."

But here's the question: Do people see it objectively as a paper plate, or as a metal one? If the object in question still appears the same as it did when it was called "paper", then this is true. However, if the plate looks different than it did when it was paper then the actual perception of the plate has changed and not just the terminology.

The first is a question of semantics. If enough people call a paper plate metal, then the word "metal" changes to the definition previously held for "paper."

When Naalitr said "paper" and "metal," I would assume he meant the meanings of "paper" and "metal" - not the words themselves.

The point holds, though - a simple empirical test can determine whether or not it is actually paper, whatever you think it is initially.


O rly?

I mean, I can think of one, but it isn't a simple empirical test.

O rly?

I mean, I can think of one, but it isn't a simple empirical test.

Well, you could weigh it, you could try to break it, you could cut it with scissors that wouldn't cut metal so easily, you could try to burn it, you could taste it, you could try to fold it, you could do all sorts of things.

And it really doesn't matter as long as there is some empirical test, simple or not.

Well, you could weigh it, you could try to break it, you could cut it with scissors that wouldn't cut metal so easily, you could try to burn it, you could taste it, you could try to fold it, you could do all sorts of things.

And it really doesn't matter as long as there is some empirical test, simple or not.

Develop a reaction scheme, testing the plates with different chemicals to see which the plate is made of.

Why would your mind do that?

Minds can have very strange properties; an illusion can be strong enough to actually alter your perception of reality to a point where the perception of actions is changed to reflect that reality. It's why some of the more potent hallucinogenic drugs can be so dangerous.

What if you couldn't distinguish between the properties of paper and metal? Wouldn't it appear to have the properties of metal, then? If it did, doesn't that show that there is something other than our conviction of what the object is that determines its properties?

Well, I don't know. It would appear to be metal to us, even though it is actually paper to a person who could distinguish them; it's a question of subjective reality vs. consensus reality. Of course, at the same time you have no idea what the other person's perception of "paperness" is; I mean, what they see as paper might be the same as what you consider metal. You both might see the plate as made of a metal even though one calls it metal and the other paper.

In that case, the objective nature of it is unknowable.

Indeed; it is connected somehow to continuity of consciousness.

Obviously, it poses a huge problem to the concept of physicalism as an explanation for consciousness. Also, it raises the question of how memory can be transferred without constant wiping despite the fact that many of the biological components related to it will die and divide in to new components multiple times within our lives.

After all, given that our brains are presumably memoryless when we are born it simply makes no sense that an almost identical process for producing new cells would not have the same effect on memory.

Let us say that you have a paper plate. One person, for some reason, truly believes that it is a metal plate. He convinces everyone around him it's metal. They convince everyone around them it's metal. So on and so forth. With enough people truly believe the paper plate is metal, will the paper plate be metal?

No. Science trumps opinion.

Let us say you have an ax. Six months after you get the ax, you break the handle. So you go to the store and replace the handle. Six months later the blade breaks. So you replace the blade. Is the ax you have now the same you had twelve months ago? If not, when did it not become the same ax?

No and when the last parts of it were replaced.

Funny time paradox story BTW.

Minds can have very strange properties; an illusion can be strong enough to actually alter your perception of reality to a point where the perception of actions is changed to reflect that reality. It's why some of the more potent hallucinogenic drugs can be so dangerous.

Tis true. I once got so pissed off at a kid in a hockey game that I saw him with the puck just so I could lay the bugger out. I absolutely annihilated the guy.

And it really doesn't matter as long as there is some empirical test, simple or not.

Well, yes, it is possible. It's just not open to instant inspection.

Tis true. I once got so pissed off at a kid in a hockey game that I saw him with the puck just so I could lay the bugger out. I absolutely annihilated the guy.

It's rather unnerving to realize that it's not the physical world that shapes the mind, but rather the mind that shapes the physical world. Our reality is primarily a product of our minds, and it ultimately raises the question of what exactly our mind is; that's a question that has become more and more bizarre especially as new discoveries start to shatter the more mechanistic interpretations of the past.

There are some huge metaphysical questions that come from this trait, and most of them are pretty damning against ideas like eliminative materialism or physicalism.

It's rather unnerving to realize that it's not the physical world that shapes the mind, but rather the mind that shapes the physical world.

Our reality is entirely a product of our minds, and it ultimately raises the question of what exactly our mind is; that's a question that has become more and more bizarre especially as new discoveries start to shatter the more mechanistic interpretations of the past.

There are some huge metaphysical questions that come from this trait, and most of them are pretty damning against ideas like eliminative materialism or physicalism.

I was just re-establishing my dominance so that I could bag a mate afterwards.

I was just re-establishing my dominance so that I could bag a mate afterwards.

:D

Philosophy of mind breaks down once sex gets involved.

Minds can have very strange properties; an illusion can be strong enough to actually alter your perception of reality to a point where the perception of actions is changed to reflect that reality. It's why some of the more potent hallucinogenic drugs can be so dangerous.

And when you recover from the hallucinogen, does reality appear the way it seemed in your illusion?

Well, I don't know. It would appear to be metal to us, even though it is actually paper to a person who could distinguish them; it's a question of subjective reality vs. consensus reality.

That's not exactly what I meant. Let me demonstrate the point with a thought experiment.

Everyone has been convinced that the paper plate is really metal, but there's a skeptic in the room who, as an intellectual exercise, insists that you prove it. You decide on the following procedure: you will do something to the plate that will result in one thing if the plate is metal, and something else if the plate is paper. No one knows which reaction corresponds to which.

You perform the experiment, and something happens to the plate. It seems obvious to me that however strongly you believe the plate to be paper, the plate will react as the metal plate that it is, and you will perceive it as such. You have no reason to perceive it otherwise.

What determines the effect? The objective nature of the plate, independent of your belief. It still exists, however gullible you are.

In that case, the objective nature of it is unknowable.

Objects as they actually are are always unknowable, unless we adopt a conception of truth that differs from the conventional one.

Obviously, it poses a huge problem to the concept of physicalism as an explanation for consciousness.

Not really. Physicalists can easily say that as long as there is continuity of consciousness, whether physically transfered or not, personal identity remains.

The question itself does pose something of a challenge to mind-brain identity, though, because continuity of consciousness can be challenged on a few grounds.

No offense, Nal, but those aren't particularly interesting philosophical questions...

The paradox is good, though.

You break it by just pointing out that they never specify that it is the same person with whom he meets, just that similar occurances happen.

Philosophy of mind breaks down once sex gets involved.

Only for those of you who would rather have fun than think.

The plate is paper, no matter how may people say its metal, its still paper. The entie world can say its metal but its still paper.

And when you recover from the hallucinogen, does reality appear the way it seemed in your illusion?

Sometimes, yes, particularly if you've used it for long periods of time or use too much.

That's not exactly what I meant. Let me demonstrate the point with a thought experiment.

Everyone has been convinced that the paper plate is really metal, but there's a skeptic in the room who, as an intellectual exercise, insists that you prove it. You decide on the following procedure: you will do something to the plate that will result in one thing if the plate is metal, and something else if the plate is paper. No one knows which reaction corresponds to which.

You perform the experiment, and something happens to the plate. It seems obvious to me that however strongly you believe the plate to be paper, the plate will react as the metal plate that it is, and you will perceive it as such. You have no reason to perceive it otherwise.

What determines the effect? The objective nature of the plate, independent of your belief. It still exists, however gullible you are.

Oh, okay; that's a misunderstanding on my part. I would say that this objective nature is unknowable even though its effects are going to appear to us as we perceive them rather than necessarily as they actually are.

Objects as they actually are are always unknowable, unless we adopt a conception of truth that differs from the conventional one.

That's what I feel.

Not really. Physicalists can easily say that as long as there is continuity of consciousness, whether physically transfered or not, personal identity remains.

The question itself does pose something of a challenge to mind-brain identity, though, because continuity of consciousness can be challenged on a few grounds.

Yes, that's more along the lines of what I was getting at.

Only for those of you who would rather have fun than think.

And, sadly, that's a lot of people.

The plate is paper, no matter how may people say its metal, its still paper. The entie world can say its metal but its still paper.

That's only meaningful if you know the difference between metal and paper.

Oh, okay; that's a misunderstanding on my part. I would say that this objective nature is unknowable even though its effects are going to appear to us as we perceive them rather than necessarily as they actually are.

Its objective nature as an object independent of our perception is unknowable - again, assuming conventional notions of truth, which have undergone serious criticism.

Its nature as we perceive it is perfectly knowable, and to some degree is independent of our beliefs.

:D

Philosophy of mind breaks down once sex gets involved.

Yet, my mind is here to ensure I last long enough to spread my Levis.

And, sadly, that's a lot of people.

Sadly? Why sadly?

Having fun is far more important than thinking, at least insofar as not thinking doesn't detract from our moral obligations to others (and the questions we are discussing here aren't really relevant there.)

Now, me, I chose "thinking" back in middle school, and have regretted the choice ever since.

Its objective nature as an object independent of our perception is unknowable - again, assuming conventional notions of truth, which have undergone serious criticism.

I would say our perception of reality itself has undergone criticism; frankly, it seems like the entirety of reality and the entailing philosophical ideas are unraveling rather than becoming more unified. What that will mean is a question in to itself beyond even what we are discussing here.

Its nature as we perceive it is perfectly knowable, and to some degree is independent of our beliefs.

Now, when you say "we" do you mean as collective individuals or the consensus reality produced by humans interacting as part of a society?

I would say our perception of reality itself has undergone criticism;

Well, I am ignoring the radical skeptic arguments. They may be solid, but they aren't very productive.

What I am referencing is the arguments centered around the idea that the reality we perceive, the reality we interact with, is the only meaningfully real reality.

Now, when you say "we" do you mean as collective individuals or the consensus reality produced by humans interacting as part of a society?

I mean as human beings. We seem to perceive things in more or less the same ways, meaning that even if perception is somehow subjective, it is nevertheless also rather universal.

Sadly? Why sadly?

Because it shouldn't be a choice. They should be mutually pursued and encouraged; personally, I think having fun helps me to think better and more deeply, as well as provides a distraction from all of it when the time comes to take a break.

Having fun is far more important than thinking, at least insofar as not thinking doesn't detract from our moral obligations to others (and the questions we are discussing here aren't really relevant there.)

I think they're equally important; people who aren't happy and who don't have fun tend to not produce ideas or cultivate the creativity necessary to have a positive impact on the world, and their moral obligations tend to be weakened. It seems that miserable people tend to cause the kinds of moral problems that worsen their condition; after all, unhappy people tend to focus on something to fill that void with the result often being something horrible like greed, extremism, fanaticism, or some other negative.

I think ultimately that we all need fun in order to maximize our potential, and we all need to seek to maximize our potential in order to have fun. After all, we tend to have the most fun whenever we put effort in to whatever it is we're doing even if we're not talented at it.

Now, me, I chose "thinking" back in middle school, and have regretted the choice ever since.

Me? I never chose.

Well, I am ignoring the radical skeptic arguments. They may be solid, but they aren't very productive.

Yeah, I find them interesting more than productive.

What I am referencing is the arguments centered around the idea that the reality we perceive, the reality we interact with, is the only meaningfully real reality.

The existential viewpoint does make sense, particularly given that subjectivity tends to be the rule rather than the exception.

I mean as human beings. We seem to perceive things in more or less the same ways, meaning that even if perception is somehow subjective, it is nevertheless also rather universal.

Some of that might be reflected in Jungian psychology, particularly the "collective unconscious". Perhaps there is some innate "human-ness" that equips us with a basic, universal perception of reality that is shaped by us as individuals through subjective experience.

Look people in the past thought the earth was flat, but it was round and it still was round when so many people thought it was flat. but the actual fact it

.....
It is still round!!!

Its the same with this paper thing

Look people in the past thought the earth was flat, but it was round and it still was round when so many people thought it was flat. but the actual fact it

.....
It is still round!!!

Its the same with this paper thing

It's not round.

Because it shouldn't be a choice. They should be mutually pursued and encouraged; personally, I think having fun helps me to think better and more deeply, as well as provides a distraction from all of it when the time comes to take a break.

Thinking should be encouraged only as a means to having fun and to solving real, practical problems. When it becomes an end in itself, there is a problem.

The same is not true of fun. Fun, synonymous with (or close enough, anyway) to pleasure, is a worthy end in itself.

I think they're equally important; people who aren't happy and who don't have fun tend to not produce ideas or cultivate the creativity necessary to have a positive impact on the world, and their moral obligations tend to be weakened. It seems that miserable people tend to cause the kinds of moral problems that worsen their condition; after all, unhappy people tend to focus on something to fill that void with the result often being something horrible like greed, extremism, fanaticism, or some other negative.

Absolutely. Fun is important to developing a moral character and essential to living a good life.

Solving problems of personal identity is not.

I think ultimately that we all need fun in order to maximize our potential, and we all need to seek to maximize our potential in order to have fun. After all, we tend to have the most fun whenever we put effort in to whatever it is we're doing even if we're not talented at it.

The problem is when the effort put into it detracts from other, more worthy objectives.

Me? I never chose.

You're wiser than I am.

Look people in the past thought the earth was flat, but it was round and it still was round when so many people thought it was flat. but the actual fact it

.....
It is still round!!!

We perceive it as round, but there is no actual proof that it is. For the purposes of our reality, it is useful to consider the Earth an oblate spheroid orbiting a main sequence star in one arm of the Milky Way galaxy. However, it's equally possible that we're really living on a disk that is supported by elephants on the back of a turtle swimming through space but we perceive it as a planet orbiting the sun according to the laws of gravity we developed and tested.

Thinking should be encouraged only as a means to having fun and to solving real, practical problems. When it becomes an end in itself, there is a problem.

Well, unless you see thought in and of itself to be fun or having an impact on real, practical problems. I mean, sometimes abstraction can have effects on practical problems, albeit in an indirect way.

The same is not true of fun. Fun, synonymous with (or close enough, anyway) to pleasure, is a worthy end in itself.

I'd have to agree.

Absolutely. Fun is important to developing a moral character and essential to living a good life.

Solving problems of personal identity is not.

No, it isn't. Frankly, I find the knowledge that such problems appear to be either unsolvable or solvable only to us to be quite comforting, especially when I see how well it fits in to my other beliefs. I think it would be a more frightening world if everything could be solved, personally.

I don't worry about it because I know the answers I get will either be speculation or only workable in my situation.

The problem is when the effort put into it detracts from other, more worthy objectives.

Ultimately, it comes down to what we believe to be most meaningful. After all, the worthiest objective is the pursuit of whatever is meaningful to us.

You're wiser than I am.

Well, if only in the sense that I never thought about there being a choice between them.

Thinking should be encouraged only as a means to having fun and to solving real, practical problems. When it becomes an end in itself, there is a problem.

The same is not true of fun. Fun, synonymous with (or close enough, anyway) to pleasure, is a worthy end in itself.

Out of curiosity, why is fun a worthy end?

We perceive it as round, but there is no actual proof that it is. For the purposes of our reality, it is useful to consider the Earth an oblate spheroid orbiting a main sequence star in one arm of the Milky Way galaxy. However, it's equally possible that we're really living on a disk that is supported by elephants on the back of a turtle swimming through space but we perceive it as a planet orbiting the sun according to the laws of gravity we developed and tested.

Dont be difficult you all know what i mean.........


And if you dont, go bury yourselves

Out of curiosity, why is fun a worthy end?

Is there any other end?

Is there any other end?

Erm... Boredom?

Well, unless you see thought in and of itself to be fun

It is, but not pursued exclusively.

or having an impact on real, practical problems. I mean, sometimes abstraction can have effects on practical problems, albeit in an indirect way.

I don't think publishing papers on the Ship of Theseus will ever have much of an effect on practical problems.

Questions of human personal identity can be important to ethics, though.

No, it isn't. Frankly, I find the knowledge that such problems appear to be either unsolvable or solvable only to us to be quite comforting, especially when I see how well it fits in to my other beliefs. I think it would be a more frightening world if everything could be solved, personally.

I think I would sleep more often if I could solve all the problems, and looking at the time, I see that my suspicion is confirmed by empirical reality.

I don't worry about it because I know the answers I get will either be speculation or only workable in my situation.

I do worry about it, because I'm stubborn like that. :)

If not an answer, I want to come to an understanding... and I can't reach that until I've made sure there is no answer.

Well, if only in the sense that I never thought about there being a choice between them.

Most people don't seem to. In most cases, though perhaps not in yours, I think it's because they don't think enough.

Out of curiosity, why is fun a worthy end?

Because pleasure and happiness are goods.

(Please don't ask why they are... I have no objective answer.)

Because pleasure and happiness are goods.

(Please don't ask why they are... I have no objective answer.)

See, that's what bugs me. I like being happy (I guess), but I don't know if that justifies seeking happiness. I see it as a reflexive desire, but not all reflexive desires are good things.

Erm... Boredom?

Not really a worthwhile pusuit though is it?

Life should be fun. If it isn't - on balance - either stop, or change the way you live it.

See, that's what bugs me. I like being happy (I guess), but I don't know if that justifies seeking happiness. I see it as a reflexive desire, but not all reflexive desires are good things.

Well, look at it this way.

If the answer to whether or not happiness is good is subjective, then no matter what, you cannot be objectively wrong.

You can only be subjectively wrong - that is, you can only be wrong if you aren't examining your own intuitions on the subject closely enough. So if it genuinely seems to you that happiness is a good, then you cannot be contradicted legitimately.

Well, look at it this way.

If the answer to whether or not happiness is good is subjective, then no matter what, you cannot be objectively wrong.

You can only be subjectively wrong - that is, you can only be wrong if you aren't examining your own intuitions on the subject closely enough. So if it genuinely seems to you that happiness is a good, then you cannot be contradicted legitimately.

So all that remains is to proove that happiness is value-neutral, which may as well be a given, I suppose.

It is, but not pursued exclusively.

True. But then again, a lot of things pursued exclusively can have the same problem.

I don't think publishing papers on the Ship of Theseus will ever have much of an effect on practical problems.

Questions of human personal identity can be important to ethics, though.

Well, ironically the Ship of Theseus may have a huge role in developing fields like nanotechnology and bioenhancement, and as a result could have a major impact on the bioethics of body enhancement. So, it's got some use, albeit limited.

Contrived? Possibly, but there are few ideas without some kind of practical application.

I think I would sleep more often if I could solve all the problems, and looking at the time, I see that my suspicion is confirmed by empirical reality.

My lack of sleep is caused more by a pot of coffee made from the espresso roast I bought on sale earlier today...

I do worry about it, because I'm stubborn like that. :)

If not an answer, I want to come to an understanding... and I can't reach that until I've made sure there is no answer.

It's a difficult task, and one that you might never find an answer to. However, if you do find that understanding you will be immeasurably changed for the better.

Most people don't seem to. In most cases, though perhaps not in yours, I think it's because they don't think enough.

Mine was primarily because I've always taken a holistic approach to myself; very rarely do I single out a particular concept and focus on it but prefer to examine it in the context of everything else. It also has a lot to do with why I tend to take an anti-reductionist stance on philosophical issues...

Let us say that you have a paper plate. One person, for some reason, truly believes that it is a metal plate. He convinces everyone around him it's metal. They convince everyone around them it's metal. So on and so forth. With enough people truly believe the paper plate is metal, will the paper plate be metal?

Let us say you have an ax. Six months after you get the ax, you break the handle. So you go to the store and replace the handle. Six months later the blade breaks. So you replace the blade. Is the ax you have now the same you had twelve months ago? If not, when did it not become the same ax?

And now for a time paradox!

In 1945 a girl is dropped off at an orphanage. She grows up desolate, not know who her parents are. In 1963, she runs from the orphanage. In her travels, she meets a drifter, who she falls in love with and gets pregnant by. Nine months later, her life begins to spiral out of control. Firstly the drifter disappears. Then the doctors find out she had sexual organs from both genders, and must remove her female genitals in order for her to survive. Thirdly a mysterious stranger kidnaps her baby. So "he" now grows up living desolate again, and in 1970 he walks into Pop's Bar. There he finds an old bartender whom he tells his story to. The bartender sympathizes with him, and tells him he'll help him take revenge on the drifter on one condition: He join the time corps after he gets back. So they head back in time to 1963, where he finds an orphan girl, whom he falls in love with and gets pregnant. Nine months later the bartender takes the orphan girls baby, takes it to 1945 and drops it off at an orphanage. The bartender then takes the man to 1983, where the man joins the time corps. Later on when he becomes an old and respected member of the time corps, he goes back in time to 1970 and starts working at Pop's Bar. There he meets a drifter who, well, you know the rest.

1) The fact is, no matter how many people think it is metal, it's not metal.
2) It's not the same ax- different blade, different handle, different ax.
3) Dear God..... that's too confusing. :headbang:

Let us say that you have a paper plate. One person, for some reason, truly believes that it is a metal plate. He convinces everyone around him it's metal. They convince everyone around them it's metal. So on and so forth. With enough people truly believe the paper plate is metal, will the paper plate be metal?
No. The earth wasn't flat either even when most people believed it to be.
Let us say you have an ax. Six months after you get the ax, you break the handle. So you go to the store and replace the handle. Six months later the blade breaks. So you replace the blade. Is the ax you have now the same you had twelve months ago? If not, when did it not become the same ax?
Well, first of all, there's a 2 year warranty on every item, so the store will have to replace or repair my ax free of charge.
I'd say that the ax will become "another" ax when I'll have to replace the blade. That's what makes it an ax. I could use one and the same handle on different other tools, but the tip is what makes it "the" ax.
With a new handle, it's still the same ax - only with a new handle.
And now for a time paradox!
http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/explode.gif

Let us say that you have a paper plate. One person, for some reason, truly believes that it is a metal plate. He convinces everyone around him it's metal. They convince everyone around them it's metal. So on and so forth. With enough people truly believe the paper plate is metal, will the paper plate be metal?

"Platitude: an idea (a) that is admitted to be true by everyone, and (b) that is not true." - H. L. Mencken.

Let us say you have an ax. Six months after you get the ax, you break the handle. So you go to the store and replace the handle. Six months later the blade breaks. So you replace the blade. Is the ax you have now the same you had twelve months ago? If not, when did it not become the same ax?

It is an axe until you break the handle, and it is an axe once again when you replace it. Same with the blade. An axe, generally composed of two parts, ceases to be the same axe when one of its two components is replaced. After six months you still have an exe, just one with a different component. Again, same with the blade.

And now for a time paradox!

In 1945 a girl is dropped off at an orphanage. She grows up desolate, not know who her parents are. In 1963, she runs from the orphanage. In her travels, she meets a drifter, who she falls in love with and gets pregnant by. Nine months later, her life begins to spiral out of control. Firstly the drifter disappears. Then the doctors find out she had sexual organs from both genders, and must remove her female genitals in order for her to survive. Thirdly a mysterious stranger kidnaps her baby. So "he" now grows up living desolate again, and in 1970 he walks into Pop's Bar. There he finds an old bartender whom he tells his story to. The bartender sympathizes with him, and tells him he'll help him take revenge on the drifter on one condition: He join the time corps after he gets back. So they head back in time to 1963, where he finds an orphan girl, whom he falls in love with and gets pregnant. Nine months later the bartender takes the orphan girls baby, takes it to 1945 and drops it off at an orphanage. The bartender then takes the man to 1983, where the man joins the time corps. Later on when he becomes an old and respected member of the time corps, he goes back in time to 1970 and starts working at Pop's Bar. There he meets a drifter who, well, you know the rest.

The fact that this made perfect sense to me is both worrying and very satisfying. :D

Mind if I borrow this to send to a friend? She has a thing for hermaphrodites…

Lacadaemon: True. The metal was not specified. As such, lighting it on fire would be the best course of action.

Na?

It's rather unnerving to realize that it's not the physical world that shapes the mind, but rather the mind that shapes the physical world. Our reality is primarily a product of our minds, and it ultimately raises the question of what exactly our mind is; that's a question that has become more and more bizarre especially as new discoveries start to shatter the more mechanistic interpretations of the past.

There are some huge metaphysical questions that come from this trait, and most of them are pretty damning against ideas like eliminative materialism or physicalism.

Rly?! How do you prove that? Or, assuming that is true, how do you prove anything?

1-thats retarded.

2-it is the same axe if you refere it as your axe. not if you had a collection of axes.

3-i'm against the idea that time paradoxes could exist. i hate sci-fi's that have them included. i hate donnie darko.

Let us say that you have a paper plate. One person, for some reason, truly believes that it is a metal plate. He convinces everyone around him it's metal. They convince everyone around them it's metal. So on and so forth. With enough people truly believe the paper plate is metal, will the paper plate be metal?

Let us say you have an ax. Six months after you get the ax, you break the handle. So you go to the store and replace the handle. Six months later the blade breaks. So you replace the blade. Is the ax you have now the same you had twelve months ago? If not, when did it not become the same ax?

And now for a time paradox!

In 1945 a girl is dropped off at an orphanage. She grows up desolate, not know who her parents are. In 1963, she runs from the orphanage. In her travels, she meets a drifter, who she falls in love with and gets pregnant by. Nine months later, her life begins to spiral out of control. Firstly the drifter disappears. Then the doctors find out she had sexual organs from both genders, and must remove her female genitals in order for her to survive. Thirdly a mysterious stranger kidnaps her baby. So "he" now grows up living desolate again, and in 1970 he walks into Pop's Bar. There he finds an old bartender whom he tells his story to. The bartender sympathizes with him, and tells him he'll help him take revenge on the drifter on one condition: He join the time corps after he gets back. So they head back in time to 1963, where he finds an orphan girl, whom he falls in love with and gets pregnant. Nine months later the bartender takes the orphan girls baby, takes it to 1945 and drops it off at an orphanage. The bartender then takes the man to 1983, where the man joins the time corps. Later on when he becomes an old and respected member of the time corps, he goes back in time to 1970 and starts working at Pop's Bar. There he meets a drifter who, well, you know the rest.

Plate is still paper. Definition of metal may have changed in hypothetical to accomodate new designation of "paper" plate, but from objective standpoint plate has not changed into metal.

Axe is different. It changed when you replaced the handle. Once you replace a part--this must be a physical, observable change, not simply realigning theoretic atomic particles--the item is no longer the same. It is still an axe, but not the same axe you were using before. Similar to ship problem.

Not even going to try to mess around with the time travel.

1-thats retarded.

2-it is the same axe if you refere it as your axe. not if you had a collection of axes.

3-i'm against the idea that time paradoxes could exist. i hate sci-fi's that have them included. i hate donnie darko.

1--Great argument!

2--simply referring to something does not make it as such. The axe undergoes a change, and is thus different. Not sure what having more than one axe (collection) is about...?

3--I couldn't agree more.

1. No.
2. It was never the same axe. Everything changes moment by moment. Nothing is ever the same.
3. I believe this is the plot to a Heinlein short story . . .

Rly?! How do you prove that? Or, assuming that is true, how do you prove anything?

You can't, and nothing can be proven absolutely true.

1) The plate is metal according to the language. All we have is the redefinitions of words and reality doesn't change.

2) It becomes a different axe when the last piece of the old ax leaves. When the handle broke and was replaced it was a continuation of the old axe but when the blade broke and was replaced nothing remained of the old and it is now just the new axe.

3) I believe that this is an impossibility. Not only is time travel impossible but the original time event could never have happened in the first place. He/She would never travel back in time if he/she had never traveled back in time so the event would never occur.