The Ship of Theseus is one of those old philosophical saws. It came up in conversation the other day, and so I skimmed the Wikipedia article, only to be surprised that none of the sources cited took the same attack to the problem that seemed intuitive to me
(
Read more... )
For example, take a shipworm, which devours wooden hulls. The wood that it bores into and consumes is really nothing more than a transient, local pattern in the cosmic stuff (just because I can't remember the names of the phenomena, don't assume I'm going mystical on ya!)
But that pattern being wood (and a particular kind and condition of wood) is essential to the shipworm's getting its home and dinner. The shipworm doesn't conceptualize ships or woodenness, but neither does its lack of concepts render it capable of making do with some other arrangement of subatomic bits and bobs.
Maybe that's just a matter of scale. Shipworms and ships are on the same scale (things big enough and slow enough that Newtonian physics is reasonably accurate at making predictions) so they are "real" objects to each other, and the four dimensional model has a certain utility for describing them.
Reply
I'd argue that it probably isn't object oriented, as much as a reactive system, aware of organizing events and inputs in terms of preferences. If you think about it, a shipworm's experience on Theseus's ship is one of an environment where the food supply is constantly replenished. The board it was eating yesterday is replaced by a new one. One day, the board it's sleeping in is replaced, and used for firewood, and the shipworm's world ends. The discussion of, "is this the same ship" is utterly without meaning to an intelligence focused on being a shipworm.
But I do agree, that being able to build an object model of the world and being able to philosophize are two very different things.
Reply
Leave a comment