I’m aware of Penrose and his position relative to Hawking.
When I wrote psychologists or philosophers, note I didn’t write psychologist or philosopher. It’s great work Penrose did to be sure, but I’d prefer not to rely on a foundation of thought laid by a single mind, no matter their intellect or dedication to science.
With respect to you, I made a quick joke about whether human rights would be applied to cyborgs in the future, I was not questioning the fundamental nature of what it is to be.
Well at least until we reach a ‘body of Theseus’ point in technological augmentation. Then we may need to rebrand ‘human rights’ to ‘consciousness rights’ or something more catchy.
It’s gotta be 100% replacement to be Theseus but arguably even just a preserved brain in a robot like fallout wouldn’t still be “you”.
So I took it as replicating a brain, which for a long time was built on the assumption we just needed to replicate an amount of neurons. So that’s why I went off on a tangent. We don’t know 100% how it works, just that replicating neurons alone won’t replicate a consciousness.
Interesting viewpoint. I disagree the Theseus argument requires total replacement, but that’s minutiae not worth getting into at the minute.
I always considered the more complex question of the thought experiment not being if the whole is different when the components are replaced, but when that change would occur if you assume change occurs in the first place.
Difficult to think about. I might need a bigger brain.
Seems to me the misunderstanding was my joke being interpreted as an opening to a semantics debate when it was merely an offhand remark loosely connected to the subject matter of this post.
However I’ve checked the clock just now and it does appear to be minutiae time.
I don’t consider the literal tale of Theseus to be the only point of valid argument when invoking his name. Had the man returned with 85% of the ship boards replaced, the same philosophical argument about the ship not returning with him could be had.
Mentioning his name in relation to an issue communicates a concept. Similar to a child suddenly spouting a detailed piece of factual information being called Einstein. The concept being communicated is that Einstein was a genius, not that he was a mathematician.
To frame this with an analogy, when I’m at the grocers looking for salted peanuts, I go to the section where I also find almonds, hazelnuts, and pistachios. I wouldn’t berate management if I couldn’t find them around the chickpeas and lentils.
I’m aware of Penrose and his position relative to Hawking.
When I wrote psychologists or philosophers, note I didn’t write psychologist or philosopher. It’s great work Penrose did to be sure, but I’d prefer not to rely on a foundation of thought laid by a single mind, no matter their intellect or dedication to science.
With respect to you, I made a quick joke about whether human rights would be applied to cyborgs in the future, I was not questioning the fundamental nature of what it is to be.
It’s gotta be 100% replacement to be Theseus but arguably even just a preserved brain in a robot like fallout wouldn’t still be “you”.
So I took it as replicating a brain, which for a long time was built on the assumption we just needed to replicate an amount of neurons. So that’s why I went off on a tangent. We don’t know 100% how it works, just that replicating neurons alone won’t replicate a consciousness.
Interesting viewpoint. I disagree the Theseus argument requires total replacement, but that’s minutiae not worth getting into at the minute.
I always considered the more complex question of the thought experiment not being if the whole is different when the components are replaced, but when that change would occur if you assume change occurs in the first place.
Difficult to think about. I might need a bigger brain.
It’s …
It’s literally the whole point. Not just to the saying, but the miscommunication that led here, it’s literally and figuratively the point.
Tldr:
Thesus leaves on a ship
Has to replace 50% of components
Replaces the other 50%
Returns home.
People welcome his ship back, but no piece of his ship has ever been to his homeland, the ship hasn’t returned, it’s the ships first arrival.
If it’s not completely replaced, Thesus isn’t relevant.
It can be made a lot simpler, if you use something like an axe than a whole ship:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNOk4yyxE38
Seems to me the misunderstanding was my joke being interpreted as an opening to a semantics debate when it was merely an offhand remark loosely connected to the subject matter of this post.
However I’ve checked the clock just now and it does appear to be minutiae time.
I don’t consider the literal tale of Theseus to be the only point of valid argument when invoking his name. Had the man returned with 85% of the ship boards replaced, the same philosophical argument about the ship not returning with him could be had.
Mentioning his name in relation to an issue communicates a concept. Similar to a child suddenly spouting a detailed piece of factual information being called Einstein. The concept being communicated is that Einstein was a genius, not that he was a mathematician.
To frame this with an analogy, when I’m at the grocers looking for salted peanuts, I go to the section where I also find almonds, hazelnuts, and pistachios. I wouldn’t berate management if I couldn’t find them around the chickpeas and lentils.
Oh, would you look at the time.