What are your thoughts on the Ship of Theseus? https://en.w

Your neurons and cells are entirely replaced every seven years.

>>9135812
Do you complain about your McDonald's fries tasting the same, but having a slightly different molecular composition from those when you ordered?

Do you complain about your one beer out of a six pack tasting any different than the other five, even though the alcoholic, mineral and sugar content are most likely minutely different?

Does the exact atomic composition and position need to be exactly the same to satisfy your elemental reductionism, so you feel good sentimentally?

Is any of this anything other than just making yourself feel good about not losing something that has unique intrinsic value, and whether you can replace that value through replication?

Maybe the real value arises from the fact that it is a unique item, and its replication is what devalues it.

Mathematical models of human neurons already exist. The field of Machine Learning deals heavily with this.

>>9135859
If you can replicate something exactly, can you use it to replace the original? And if so, is it still the same thing?

I remember reading something about artists in China that attempt to replicate the exact same brush strokes that painters such as Picasso may have taken on a canvas.

If somehow, someone was able to replicate Starry Night using the exact same canvas, oil paint, brush strokes, and somehow managed to age it all in some fashion, is it equivalent to the one hanging in the Museum of Modern Art in New York?

>>9135887
> If you can replicate something exactly, can you use it to replace the original? And if so, is it still the same thing?

Yes, you are capable of replicating pretty much anything these days, given the correct method and understanding.

If it serves the same meaning or function that you gave it before, and it can be successfully implemented in that facet to produce the same results then I would say yes, it is for all ostensible means, the same thing.

> I remember reading something about artists in China that attempt to replicate the exact same brush strokes that painters such as Picasso may have taken on a canvas.

The value of being the same in this instance is the value of being a unique and one of a kind item. You can replicate it to the effect that it produces the same pleasant feelings upon viewing it - and as far as I'm concerned, that's all I really care for, but you cannot replicate the sentimental value of owning the original.

>>9135908
But if one day the original went missing and then eventually, presumably resurfaced (without anyone knowing that there are one or multiple "perfect" replicas now floating around) is the object considered destroyed or was it successfully recovered? Does it manage to retain the sentimental value?

>>9135812
>Are two computers with the exact same parts list fungible?
Computer parts even when made on the same machine can have tiny, unintended differences that make them behave differently

>>9135921
Objectively, the sentimental value was neither lost nor gained, due to the saturation of availability of ostensibly identical copies, given we are incapable of differentiating between the two, and we were unaware the original became unavailable for a while.

That said, the subjective value assigned by an individual is still retained, even if they're able to replace it, due to their unique interaction, history and memories that were had with that object, and the unique value that was attributed to that replica, no matter how identical it was.

The question you're asked to beg from this is whether there is any value in assigned value to one identical item, from a plethora of others.

>>9135950
I talked to a neuroscientist a while ago and they told me that when we visualize things in our mind we build our own mental version of it. He said that you can trace structures in your brain that when in context can represent what you think of your pet dog as you are looking at it, for example.

But the dog you have built in your head and the dog sitting in front of you may be different. And the dog that you built in your head is different than the one that your sister or your neighbor may have built in their minds. They're all mental pointers to the same physical object, but the sentimental value is different for each.

I guess it is a form of information transfer that is asymmetric. Because you'd recreate two different dogs if you were able to build them from the memories of two separate people.

Do any authors discuss transhumanism or AI or whatever I'm trying to discuss here?

>>9135972
> Do any authors discuss transhumanism or AI or whatever I'm trying to discuss here?
The only thing I've encountered in my life that broaches this is the anime movie Ghost in the Shell. Which, isn't exactly the espousal I imagined you had in mind.

Here's an example of 'transhumanism', where a man uploaded a replica of his 'consciousness' digitally, that was capable of controlling the hardware it 'occupies'. It purports that the evolutionary adaptation of self consciousness and situational awareness, both tangentially and simultaneous to information stimulus are not unique to organisms, but are capable of being replicated mechanically as well, challenging the currently unique aspect of humanism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZX58fDhebc

The following is an example of "transhumanism" integrating back into an organism in order to reproduce, due to the in-viability of identical replication to adapt to changing physical environments.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJkxQkGxAsE

Hope you might find that interesting.

>>9135812
Well it is the same object if you define "same" as simply the category of object that has a specific utility.

I mean, a ship is a general category, which has a specific utility and function, and whether is not it is the "exact same" ship obviously doesn't matter as long as it serves it's function.

I mean, you could say the same thing about humans too. The most true thing about you as a human is that you are in fact human, not that you are a specific human called John.

File: 5bf.jpg (16KB, 480x318px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 480x318px

As long as their is a kind of structural integrity or some method or order, on an atomic level, then there can be no change.

>>9135844
This. Everything will be replaced until it can't be replaced no more. The object itself is not the same at two points in time as long as it is exists and interacts with other systems (like animal aging). Unless one deliberately tries to break the order, the natural way of things is constantly adapting to the environment my niggers.

everybody ITT needs to read this article:
http://bostonreview.net/alex-byrne-philosophy-personal-identity-afterlife

>>9135844
Neurons in the cerebral cortex are not replaced when they die

I don't understand why the Ship of Theseus is still considered a problem. It was solved by both Heraclitus and the Buddha 2000+ years ago.

>>9136762
its not a ""problem"" its an interesting concept, the essence of which can be applied to other areas of thought (see: OP)