Ship of Theseus Paradox Debate - Is It The Same Ship Or Different One?

The most intellectually stimulating film in Indian history, ever. To those who haven't watched it yet, take some time off your busy schedule, and watch it here- #-Link-Snipped-# . Believe me, you won't regret this. Rather, it'll be an enriching experience.

Now over the main idea-

The paradox poses a question on material identity.
While removing individual parts of the ship, the transition of the ship is from existential to non-existential, and the ship is no more a ship.

Now when you replace these very parts one by one, say with parts made different wood, the ship changes its identity part by part.

Now it's totally how you assume things to be - whether you consider it a ship based on its structure, or by the wood with which it's built. Or rather, its past.


Now consider a human in place of the ship : A human is constantly evolving - mentally, spiritually, emotionally - at several different levels. But still we believe ourselves to be the same creatures, with slight difference in our thoughts. But our identity remains the same. Say that you lose a thumb - your structure changes, but still the identity remains same.

I believe that the same conclusion can be reached with this paradox - in actuality it has undergone many transitions, but it's just that its identity held on to it.
The ship is different.

The question really is - can you define the ship in first place? If you can't, there is no paradox.

If you define it as the structure, then if you replace the structure - one part at a time or at once - it is a different ship. And again, there is no paradox.

Extending the same logic to the owner of the ship can explain the same thing with respect to human being. Replacing pieces of the ship doesn't change owner of the ship. Same goes for human body - the owner being our mind which is conscious and aware of it's surrounding.

I haven't seen the movie, but will do sometime over the weekend, if the time permits. Now let's get back to the original paradox.

As Anand said, we need to define what all comprises of 'ship' and secondly we'll have to define 'the same'. Once those definitions are in place, we can think about approaching the paradox with a clearer head.

For me, the ship itself is a sum-total of its body and all the things it's carrying. Because once in the sea - it's a total entity. The ship will have to be defined as 'the body of the ship & all the things it's carrying at point X in time'.

If you simply replace the parts of the ship, it's still the same ship!
Because only the parts have been replaced; but whatever the ship carried with it at point 'X' in time is still with the ship.

'The same' -> would be defined with respect to the time X; which we considered as our reference point.

-------------------------

Applying it to humans:-

I think the whole paradox sums up with the changes in a few things that change over time:-

• Body (hardware)
  
• Thoughts (software)

...and both can be defined with reference to point X in time. I may give up my thoughts, I may assume a new body structure - which means I'm a 'new' person at every moment of time.

Above two examples may not be equated for the purpose of understanding/decoding this paradox because the ship itself is all 'hardware' and the humans are (hardware+software). The software continues to to be in the form of electrical pulses, which is 'energy' -> which remains constant in the Universe.

We have two very contradicting views here.
According to @#-Link-Snipped-# The ship IS now different.
and from what I can draw from the statements of @#-Link-Snipped-# and @#-Link-Snipped-#, the ship remains the same.

PS: How do we come to a conclusion on this? Looks like since it is a paradox it is meant to contradict itself.

@#-Link-Snipped-# Waiting for your comments.

Ambarish GaneshThe most intellectually stimulating film in Indian history, ever. To those who haven't watched it yet, take some time off your busy schedule, and watch it here- #-Link-Snipped-# . Believe me, you won't regret this. Rather, it'll be an enriching experience.

I've just started watching the movie, and I'm loving it. 👍 Thanks for the link.

Now over the main idea-

The paradox poses a question on material identity.
While removing individual parts of the ship, the transition of the ship is from existential to non-existential, and the ship is no more a ship.

Now when you replace these very parts one by one, say with parts made different wood, the ship changes its identity part by part.

Now it's totally how you assume things to be - whether you consider it a ship based on its structure, or by the wood with which it's built. Or rather, its past.

The Ship is just a Personification of the deal. The deal however is the title/art/craft/caliber of the ship for which it was built.
eg: war-ships, cargo ships, etc.

Say: For example: Every electronic item on earth comes with an instruction manual. The instruction manual clearly states the parts of the product and the purposes for which it is built. But once you modify that to an extend where it is completely unrecognized as the actual product yet performs the similar function with some add-ons, it has changed its form, but not its identity or functionality (, and is still the same old Bumble Bee even-though it transformed into the newer Chevrolet varient.)

And you have NOT modified the ship at once to create a new item, but you've done the changing of parts eventually, thus giving each plank, mast and sail time to blend into the realm of the actual ship.

So what happens if you had modified the entire ship at once?
eg: turn a cargo ship into a war-ship?

- The ship's purpose is new! Although we don't recognize it in it's new clothes at once. It's still the same old ship in a newer/brighter/better costume.

Now consider a human in place of the ship : A human is constantly evolving - mentally, spiritually, emotionally - at several different levels. But still we believe ourselves to be the same creatures, with slight difference in our thoughts. But our identity remains the same. Say that you lose a thumb - your structure changes, but still the identity remains same.

No human being can be compared to anything materialistic. The wooden ship might have been built for many purposes - say fishing, transportation, passenger user, etc, and these stages are interchangeable depending on the need put forth by the owner.

But human beings on the other hand have the edge - we evolve with time. Every human has to go through various stages of life - we live the pampered baby, the innocent childhood, the rebellious teenage, the stubborn adulthood and the experienced oldage all in one body. Our body forms, grows, breaks, deforms and enlarges with time, but that does not affect who we are.

( eg: #-Link-Snipped-#l the Gollum from Lord of the Rings was actually a Hobbit, still remained an exceptional Hobbit till his death; only thing is that he's turned himself into a creature unrecognizable as Smeagol, because of his change of mindset/lifestyle. )

In reality I'll still be Anoop Mathew even if I lived like a peasant once, live like a king now and die like a pauper.

And like we all know, each ship has to go through various stages of its built as well - as a stock product, as a company product, an old product and in the end either as a memoir in a museum or as a part of a scrapyard... (I know #-Link-Snipped-#, which was restored and converted into a restaurant.)

I believe that the same conclusion can be reached with this paradox - in actuality it has undergone many transitions, but it's just that its identity held on to it.
The ship is different.

In the end #-Link-Snipped-# was converted into a #-Link-Snipped-#, which does not stop it from being called a ship (although it was moved ashore). So it is still the same ship which once sailed the oceans!

Ankita KatdareLet us first understand what the Ship of Theseus Paradox is all about.
The paradox raises the question of whether an object which has had all its components replaced remains fundamentally the same object.

Let me explain - Theseus set to sail in a ship that needed repair. It was rebuilt plank by plank. Suppose that, eventually, every plank was replaced; would it still have been the same ship?
Moving further let us assume that while tearing the Ship apart, you decide to replace every wooden piece you removed with an aluminum piece of the exact same dimensions. So, when you start, you have a completely wooden Ship, but at the end, you have a completely aluminum Ship.
Now at each discrete stage of time, you only have a ship that is one piece different than it was in the previous moment.

Here is a short explanation in a video to further illustrate this.-

If you look at the Ship of Theseus video shared by Ankita, the ship which Ankita assumes to have been built entirely of wood, gets restructured - plank, mast and sail into something entirely different in the end - made of aluminium - built for a stronger purpose, or may even be strengthened for the actual purpose itself
- It's still the same ship with a slightly altered attitude
(FOR THE BETTER: if it was made into a passenger ship, or FOR THE WORST: if it was converted into a war-ship)!.

P.S.: Two hours into this debate, and at quarter-time of the movie, I've found myself stuck in this explanation. Two more hours in front on this question and I'd have come up with a stupider explanation. But that doesn't change the fact that I still did the explanation. Or does it?

What if I come back to this same question fifty years from now, and give a totally different explanation based on experience? Does that make me a changed person?

I think it does change my attitude towards the question, but it doesn't change who I am.😒

P.P.S: THE SHIP FROM SHIPS SCENARIO 😁👀:

What if two ships were merged into one? What is the identity of this new ship?

eg: What would be the identity of the Limousines that were constructed by merging two old cars as seen in the Top Gear videos below? 👀:-



P.P.P.S: I believe in examples! 😛

Humans have egos. Ego has a continuity through all diseases and age and changes to the hardware. That entity has a continuity till death.
A ship on the other hand has no consciousness. If all parts are changed, it ceases to be the original ship.
Ultimately this is more semantics than a real question. Each of us may be arguing about what we understand the words mean to us, which need not be the other person's understanding.

There is a deeper question.
Who am I?
#-Link-Snipped-#

Even I am nodding my head to the fact that it is wrong to compare non-living things with human beings.
Why do then such paradoxes get created and discussed? Don't they complicate matters?

PS: That PDF you've shared @#-Link-Snipped-# is a gem. "That awareness that alone remains that - I am."

Would love to read your comments on this - @#-Link-Snipped-# @#-Link-Snipped-# @#-Link-Snipped-#

if a person gets a gender change or gets a facial plastic surgery, then will they be a new different person??? I can't agree. Since this question has philosophical angle , I would rather state that the person is same . People's nature and characteristics change over time ,but they are attributes , not the object as it is..