Same Ship Theseus

Ship of Theseus: If all the parts of a ship are changed, will it remain the same ship? - A question on identity and change. The question is of philosophy, not fundamental physics. same as the question of free will, which is of philosophy, not fundamental physics. But do these questions hold authenticity if answered through the philosophical means of physics?

Well, by the sheer biological process, you and I are not the men we used to be a year ago. Not physically, because every cell has been replaced by the body itself. A new body created by the old body! A process of which you are not even aware and which continues throughout life.

Then how do you say that you are the same as you were yesterday? Or the body is not the same now! If you are not the body then what are you?

Also, not emotionally, since you have accumulated new ways, experiences, and new means of understanding the world, society, and reality around you. So does all this mean that 

  • you are not you but another version? 
  • If you are not you, then who are you? 
  • If you are not you, then who were you a year ago? 

This strong sense of identity is what drives most of us.

Imagine an individual with Dissociative Identity Disorder cause the sense of "I" is not there. But a profound sense of “We” exist within that vessel. Ask a psychiatrist about that man and they will tell you every or any "WE" in that man is not pseudo or false when they drive the vessel by their own sets of rules. 

The blossoming of multiplicity within one body. This is natural but not healthy! one vessel but more then one captains each as authentic as they can be. 

  • So if everything is about the ship and not the crew, does the ship hold meaning in being the same? 
  • If it’s all about the crew, does it matter which ship is in use -old or new?

Image : Dall-E
_____________________________________

If Ship of Theseus is a philosophical question, it has been studied by both the West and the East as an incomplete question. 

  1. The West holds accountability to the vessel, knowing if the captain can steer or notice if the ship is replaced by every known trait of its physical identity. At what point does he know it is not the same ship? 
  2. The East ignores the vessel and emphasises the captain—when does he understand that it's not about the ship? It's about himself. It's about knowing that the vessel does not matter—the journey does. So eventually, one can enjoy the path toward the destination and detach from the vessel.

Both forget that one is incomplete without the other and that one can only know half of the equation by knowing the other side. 

Without a ship, the captain is just mare being standing on the shore. And without a captain, the ship is just a wooden structure that destined to corrode and sunk in the salty water.

____________________

  • Biology says parts of the vessel are replaced every second. 
  • Physics says vessel and captain hold no command over the water of the sea, the air they sail, turn, and steer. They have to predict, and the weather they know can be brutal without sign. 
  • Psychology says the captain gains more experience, more influence, more nuance, and skill throughout the journey. He can call it wisdom, but it must be compared to the previous version of himself. 

He often forgets, with the ageing vessel, what it’s like to be a child, a teen in love, an adult with responsibility, and old with experience. Each session grows on the previous version. But each, in Eastern philosophy, is denounced and claimed as non-linear—as if one can somehow just jump to the next phase. 

Eastern philosophers knew this. That’s why they emphasised experiencing rather than knowing. 

  • To know abstinence, one must know lust. 
  • To know peace, one must know boiling anger. 
  • To know fearlessness, one must know the fear of even existing. 

its the The dichotomy of both . one seek accountability and other one seek detachment.

So the question remains, but I have rephrased it: Does the captain know when he and the ship are not the ones they began with?

— m. dinesh

______________________________

-Dinesh Mandora     

Dinesh Mandora All rights reserved ©

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

( This article is not for copying. It is prohibited to use the above text anywhere else without the permission of the author.)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

इतिहास से सीखा ?

Image
मुझे नहीं लगता है भारतीयों को अपना इतिहास लिखना भी आता है और इसीलिए जनमानस को इतिहास पढ़ना भी नहीं आता है।  ज्यादातर तो मैंने यही पाया है की किसी भी करैक्टर के बारे में बात करते समय तथाकथित भारतीय इतिहासकारों ने अधिकतर समय उनका बस mythologization ही किया है। यहाँ तक की राजा अपनी माँ के गर्भ से सीधा अपनी माता और पिता के बीच संभोग से नहीं किसी ना किसी प्रकार के Divine Intervention से ही पैदा होते है।  ये Divine इंटरवेंशन का  एक कारण  यह भी है की सामान्य बुद्धि यह समझने में विफल है की असामान्य लोग कुछ नहीं होते है।  राजा-रंक, आम- खास, चपरासी -अधिकारी, संत-शैतान सब एक ही समाज में एक साथ विचरते है और इस बात की प्रबल सम्भावना भी है की आप एक दूसरे के पड़ोसी है। 16वी सदी में जापान में एक तोयोतोमी हिदेयोशी(Toyotomi Hideyoshi) नाम का एक बड़ा सामंती राजा हुआ।  वो एक Daimyo था जो की एक बड़ा ओहदा होता है। अपने जन्म के मूल रूप से वो एक सामान्य आदमी था जिसने लार्ड ओडा नोबुनागा के पास एक सैनिक के रूप में अपना सफर शुरू किया लेकिन काबिलियत के दम पर ऊपर पंहुचा। Daimyo बनने के लिए...
Read more

My Logic is Undeniable

Image
Question: If human morals are an extension of biological intelligence and social adaptation, might digital intelligence eventually develop its own morals? Digital intelligence does not need moral and ethical code, It never falls for these conundrum. Our moral and ethical codes aren't natural they are just artificial construct to survive. Its all the survival of the sentient brain. Why do a machine need and moral obligation to Kill or Nurture? The more higher the IQ and intellect the more ignorant it becomes for the lesser life form. Lets say we have created a legit artificial intelligence. As I have said previously. If its artificial it can not be intelligent and vice versa. So in it's natural state if that intelligence seek all human knowledge and value unworthy of its existence there is no moral or ethical code stopping it to wipe us out overnight. Someone will says laws like Asimov’s Law of Robotics will hold but they are for mindless machines not brainless machines. Asimov’...
Read more