Han Solo and the Ship of Theseus

Malerin · 23rd December 2009, 12:36 PM

There must have been a Death Star canteen, yes? JK

So Han Solo is frozen in carbonite and given to Jabba the Hut. Let's call the time Han Solo is first put in suspended animation T1. Let's also suppose he's in stasis for 10 years. Long enough for all the atoms that made up Han at T1 to be replaced by other atoms. So the conventional wisdom is that, when Han is revived at T10, he's still Han Solo. This is true even though Han hasn't had an active mental state from T1 to T10 and none of Han's original atoms (at T1) make up Han anymore.

So let's suppose we "tagged" all of Han's original atoms at T1 and collected them over the years. We also did a complete scan of Han at T1 (and the carbonite he's encased in). Now, right before T10 rolls around, we take all of Han's original atoms that we've collected, and with the aid of the scan we made at T1, we make a perfect duplicate of Han at T9.999. We call this (O)Han (Original Atoms of Han). (O)Han is encased in the same carbonite as Han is. So when T10 rolls around, both Han and (O)Han are revived. Which is the real Han Solo?

Ysidro · 23rd December 2009, 12:45 PM

Yes.

Or alternatively "the color 12".

Twiler · 23rd December 2009, 12:56 PM

Both are equally real.

Zalbik · 23rd December 2009, 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by Malerin

There must have been a Death Star canteen, yes? JK

So Han Solo is frozen in carbonite and given to Jabba the Hut. Let's call the time Han Solo is first put in suspended animation T1. Let's also suppose he's in stasis for 10 years. Long enough for all the atoms that made up Han at T1 to be replaced by other atoms. So the conventional wisdom is that, when Han is revived at T10, he's still Han Solo. This is true even though Han hasn't had an active mental state from T1 to T10 and none of Han's original atoms (at T1) make up Han anymore.

So let's suppose we "tagged" all of Han's original atoms at T1 and collected them over the years. We also did a complete scan of Han at T1 (and the carbonite he's encased in). Now, right before T10 rolls around, we take all of Han's original atoms that we've collected, and with the aid of the scan we made at T1, we make a perfect duplicate of Han at T9.999. We call this (O)Han (Original Atoms of Han). (O)Han is encased in the same carbonite as Han is. So when T10 rolls around, both Han and (O)Han are revived. Which is the real Han Solo?

Both. Heck, I'd say both even if you used entirely different atoms for (O)Han, just as long as the configuration was the same.

Just of of curiosity, is this leading somewhere?

grayman · 23rd December 2009, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by Twiler

Both are equally real.

Until they are observed.

Twiler · 23rd December 2009, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by grayman

Until they are observed.

By whom?

Eyeron · 23rd December 2009, 01:08 PM

There is no such thing as real.

Xulld · 23rd December 2009, 01:23 PM

Fight to the death for the identity label Han Solo in 3 . . .2 . . .1

Malerin · 23rd December 2009, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by Twiler

Both are equally real.

No one's claiming Han and (O)Han aren't real. The question is, which has the best claim to being "Han Solo". It would be odd to say they both are Han Solo. "Han Solo" refers to one particular person. You would have to explain how the identity of one person can be split between two persons.

For example, if Han Solo had a job waiting for him when he unthaws, would both Han and (O)Han have to be hired? What if only one person could be hired? Who would get the job? What if Han goes and commites a robbery. Should law-abiding (O)Han be arrested too, if they're both Han Solo?

And if we had never made (O)han, wouldn't you agree that when Han wakes up at T10, he's the same Han Solo that was frozen at T1? Why does making a duplicate from discarded atoms negate Han's claim to being Han Solo?

In diagram form, it was originaly A------A
Your claim is that creating (O)Han makes the diagram become

A--------A
\
-------A
?

Xulld · 23rd December 2009, 01:58 PM

Labels are handy, but do not confuse epistemic representation with ontological existence.

In so far as a label represents a thing based on its components, both are equally able to represent the label if the components are identical.

fuelair · 23rd December 2009, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by Twiler

By whom?

Schrodinger and/or his cat.

Twiler · 23rd December 2009, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by Malerin

No one's claiming Han and (O)Han aren't real. The question is, which has the best claim to being "Han Solo". It would be odd to say they both are Han Solo. "Han Solo" refers to one particular person. You would have to explain how the identity of one person can be split between two persons.

For example, if Han Solo had a job waiting for him when he unthaws, would both Han and (O)Han have to be hired? What if only one person could be hired? Who would get the job? What if Han goes and commites a robbery. Should law-abiding (O)Han be arrested too, if they're both Han Solo?

And if we had never made (O)han, wouldn't you agree that when Han wakes up at T10, he's the same Han Solo that was frozen at T1? Why does making a duplicate from discarded atoms negate Han's claim to being Han Solo?

In diagram form, it was originaly A------A
Your claim is that creating (O)Han makes the diagram become

A--------A
\
-------A
?

Both have an equal claim to be Han Solo. After splitting, they become two separate versions of Han Solo, like twins.

The problem is a limitation of language. In philosophy, entities can have a numerical identity (assigned to a specific entity), and a qualitative identity (assigned to an entity with particular characteristics).

Conundrums like this demonstrate that the concept of numerical identity doesn't have an exact definition. You could give one reason or another why one Han Solo is the real one, but there's no definitive answer.

Dunstan · 23rd December 2009, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by Twiler

Both have an equal claim to be Han Solo. After splitting, they become two separate versions of Han Solo, like twins.

The problem is a limitation of language. In philosophy, entities can have a numerical identity (assigned to a specific entity), and a qualitative identity (assigned to an entity with particular characteristics).

Conundrums like this demonstrate that the concept of numerical identity doesn't have an exact definition. You could give one reason or another why one Han Solo is the real one, but there's no definitive answer.

Damnit, I had a whole long reply that got eaten by the Internet, but you did a more concise job of it. The situation only seems "odd" because we don't encounter it in real life and so our concepts of identity and our language haven't adapted to it, whereas we are quite comfortable of the notion of people sharing the same name or the same DNA.

Of course, I also had a reference to "Thomas" Riker from Star Trek: The Next Generation.

Third Eye Open · 23rd December 2009, 02:58 PM

They are both Han Solo. They both woke up with the same identity, and then diverged by having different experiences, small differences at first, such as seeing the room from a different angle when they awoke. These differences will build on each other until the two Han Solo's are more recognizably different people. But they will still both be Han Solo.

It is the same with each decision you make in your day to day life. Each choice makes you a 'different person' than each other choice, you would be a different you if you made some other choice, but still you. This scenario would allow us to see the same persons life unfold in two different ways.

Sledge · 23rd December 2009, 03:38 PM

Isn't the whole point of freezing someone that cell activity ceases or at least slows down?

Oh, and the rate of cellular replacement in Corellians might be vastly different from Terrans.

I Ratant · 23rd December 2009, 04:15 PM

The toss-up itself is flawed.
In carbonite, the life processes must needs be suspended.
Nothing occurs.. no inspiration, no exhalation, no feeding, no excreting.
The cells existing at the encapsulation are the cells that exist at the decanting.
Then the processes of life which replace cells can recommence activity.

Pup · 23rd December 2009, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by Malerin

So Han Solo is frozen in carbonite and given to Jabba the Hut. Let's call the time Han Solo is first put in suspended animation T1. Let's also suppose he's in stasis for 10 years. Long enough for all the atoms that made up Han at T1 to be replaced by other atoms.

As the posters just above have implied, stop right there. What's your evidence--uh, I mean for some value of "evidence"--that the atoms in a body in suspended animation are replaced at the same rate as normal? By the very definition of "suspended animation," I'd say they're not replaced, any more than the atoms in a rock are replaced.

I can't believe I just asked for evidence concerning a hypothetical question about a fictional world.

I Ratant · 23rd December 2009, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by Pup

...

I can't believe I just asked for evidence concerning a hypothetical question about a fictional world.

.
Ever thought about getting a life?

Many of us here have thought about it, and yet haven't found one yet.

Too much effort.

Cynic · 23rd December 2009, 05:28 PM

They both have equal claim. Our identities are based on the arrangement our of atoms, not the atoms themselves. If you performed the same sort of thing on the Mona Lisa, the one you copied it from could be said to be the original, but they would still be identical in every way except in the disposition of the atoms themselves, same as with Han Prime and Han Double-prime.

In other words, it depends on how you want to judge the disposition of each atom, I guess. But I personally think it's a useless aspect to look at for the most part and that they are effectively identical

steve s · 23rd December 2009, 08:29 PM

Put....the bong...down.

Steve S.

blobru · 24th December 2009, 06:19 AM

Originally Posted by Malerin

... Which is the real Han Solo?

Nice variation on the Ship of Theseus, one of the classic philosophy puzzlers. You might extend the parallel to the original by having the Millenium Falcon parked meanwhile in a hangar where it is disassembled, each removed bit replaced by an identical; then the original bits reassembled in another hangar. The choice is the same as in many versions of the puzzle -- which is the real thing: the continuous structure, or the reassembled constituents? -- except now there are two wholes to consider.

With the space-ship, I'm inclined to say the reassembled MF is the "real" thing: in a sense, it's just been moved bit by bit from one hangar to another; whereas, the continuous structure in place is an identical copy. But that's a purely philosophical distinction: practically, they're identical, and I suppose one should be indifferent.

Having the ship a person, though, raises another question: if you were the frozen Han Solo, where would you (the original pov) wake up? Here it seems to me the continuous structure is the real thing, assuming being frozen in carbonite hasn't killed HS, only put him into suspended animation sleep. In this case, HS, both pov and mind, is Han; (O)Han is revived as a new pov, with a mind identical to HS'.

If HS hasn't survived the carbonite freezing, then he's just a perfectly preserved corpse that is reanimated after ten years. Both Han and (O)Han would be new pov's with minds identical to HS' at the moment he was frozen and killed; neither would have much basis for claiming to be the "real" HS, in the sense of preserving his pov; the choice would be the same as between the inanimate ships.

shemp · 24th December 2009, 06:53 AM

I am ~~Spartacus~~Han Solo!

Malerin · 24th December 2009, 08:28 AM

Originally Posted by blobru

Nice variation on the Ship of Theseus, one of the classic philosophy puzzlers. You might extend the parallel to the original by having the Millenium Falcon parked meanwhile in a hangar where it is disassembled, each removed bit replaced by an identical; then the original bits reassembled in another hangar. The choice is the same as in many versions of the puzzle -- which is the real thing: the continuous structure, or the reassembled constituents? -- except now there are two wholes to consider.

With the space-ship, I'm inclined to say the reassembled MF is the "real" thing: in a sense, it's just been moved bit by bit from one hangar to another; whereas, the continuous structure in place is an identical copy. But that's a purely philosophical distinction: practically, they're identical, and I suppose one should be indifferent.

Having the ship a person, though, raises another question: if you were the frozen Han Solo, where would you (the original pov) wake up? Here it seems to me the continuous structure is the real thing, assuming being frozen in carbonite hasn't killed HS, only put him into suspended animation sleep. In this case, HS, both pov and mind, is Han; (O)Han is revived as a new pov, with a mind identical to HS'.

If HS hasn't survived the carbonite freezing, then he's just a perfectly preserved corpse that is reanimated after ten years. Both Han and (O)Han would be new pov's with minds identical to HS' at the moment he was frozen and killed; neither would have much basis for claiming to be the "real" HS, in the sense of preserving his pov; the choice would be the same as between the inanimate ships.

I can see two plausible scenarioes that support either Han or (O)Han's claim to being Han Solo. In the first scenario, we simply don't assemble (O)Han out of Han Solo's original atoms. Han wakes up at T10 and goes on his merry way as Han Solo (maybe this doesn't support Han's claim to being Han Solo, though. Maybe this is just a case where Han, being the only candidate for Han Solo, is the best candidate).

In the 2nd scenario, let's say instead of being encased in carbonite, Han Solo was simply broken down into his consituent atoms and teleported around space for 10 years. Then, at T10, his atoms are reasembled. If that happened, (O)Han looks like the best candidate for Han Solo. Is there a fundamental difference between being encased in carbonite for 10 years vs. being disassembled and teleported?

Also, suppose we assemble (O)Han at T9.9, and then change our minds about the whole thing. Is junking (O)Han murder? Would it be any different than destroying Han right before he thaws out?

Malerin · 24th December 2009, 08:36 AM

There's four ways this could go.

1. They're both Han Solo
2. Neither of them are Han Solo
3. One of them is Han Solo
4. Our notions of personal identity are unreliable for these kind of thought experiments.

I don't think (1) or (2) make much sense. That leaves figuring out who the real Han Solo is or refining what personal identity across time means .

Cynic · 24th December 2009, 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by Malerin

There's four ways this could go.

1. They're both Han Solo
2. Neither of them are Han Solo
3. One of them is Han Solo
4. Our notions of personal identity are unreliable for these kind of thought experiments.

I don't think (1) or (2) make much sense. That leaves figuring out who the real Han Solo is or refining what personal identity across time means .

Why doesn't option 1 makes sense? It's not as if a year if a year our either one of the Hans will have the same assortment of atoms as when you first asked the question. From year to year, we're all "different" in the way you seem to be concerned about than we were before.

I think that "personal identity" is entirely within the realm of the individual -- not others. Both would naturally claim to be Han Solo and both would be correct. (So I guess I just voted for 4 there by reason of defending 1.)

Inanimate objects like paintings or ships don't have a "personal identity" because they lack their own perspectives. For authentication purposes, the difference comes down to the degree of exactitude one chooses to apply. If they are the exact same arrangement of atoms, then they are exactly identical if that's the rule you're using. If you want to break that tie, you can get into other things, like quantum entanglement (if any), state of decay, etc. It's an arbitrary decision, but no less real for that.

But of course, your scan and reassembly method might also provide that level of specificity as well. If you provide a method copying that is exactly accurate, the question of which is the original becomes moot, except to say that one was copied from the other. And that is easy to judge if you only know which came first.

rocketdodger · 26th December 2009, 08:37 AM

Originally Posted by Malerin

Also, suppose we assemble (O)Han at T9.9, and then change our minds about the whole thing. Is junking (O)Han murder? Would it be any different than destroying Han right before he thaws out?

Murder is defined socially, not objectively.

If there are people who want to see him again, then it would probably be a bad idea to junk (O)Han.

theMark · 26th December 2009, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by Malerin

So Han Solo is frozen in carbonite and given to Jabba the Hut. Let's call the time Han Solo is first put in suspended animation T1. Let's also suppose he's in stasis for 10 years. Long enough for all the atoms that made up Han at T1 to be replaced by other atoms. So the conventional wisdom is that, when Han is revived at T10, he's still Han Solo. This is true even though Han hasn't had an active mental state from T1 to T10 and none of Han's original atoms (at T1) make up Han anymore.

So let's suppose we "tagged" all of Han's original atoms at T1 and collected them over the years. We also did a complete scan of Han at T1 (and the carbonite he's encased in). Now, right before T10 rolls around, we take all of Han's original atoms that we've collected, and with the aid of the scan we made at T1, we make a perfect duplicate of Han at T9.999. We call this (O)Han (Original Atoms of Han). (O)Han is encased in the same carbonite as Han is. So when T10 rolls around, both Han and (O)Han are revived. Which is the real Han Solo?

a) It has been mentioned: Stasis. Nothing happens. No exchange of atoms in the first place. For perfect stasis, we wouldn't have any atoms to build (O)Han from, so Han is the real Han Solo.

b) Let's assume for the sake of this example that it's more of a "hibernation" process where life signs carry on and some external process is necessary to supply food/energy/whatever. In this case, Han is still the original. His "geometry", i.e. the arrangement of the atoms making up Han at any given time, is continuous, even though the building blocks keep on changing. The clone/re-assembled (O)Han is something of a "sibling", real, but replicated by external intent, not by internal biological/mechanical/whatever processes that we call "life".

c) Which means that Star-Trek-style "beaming" means "kill and clone back". Now here's a weird thought ... Attack of the Zombie Kirks!

Oh, and what was the point of this, again?

PingOfPong · 27th December 2009, 03:40 PM

Which one deserves to be called Han? They'll just have to learn to share. Or, they could both try to shoot first like Han did originally in that crazy space bar before George Lucas took full creative control and ruined the character by having Greedo shoot first because George Lucas is an incompetent story teller and one has to conclude that George Lucas could not possibly be responsible for all the greatness of the original three movies and it must have been the creative force of the people working around him that made the movies great until George Lucas became too powerful and fat to be questioned by any subordinates. Also, did you know that Lucas' original idea for Luke Skywalker was to give him a robot head and have him commit genocides and rape (of his sister Lea)?

Wait, what were talking about? Oh yeah, there is going to be an inevitable split between people depending on how they identify a person. Some tend to think of their body, face, clothes, etc. as being a strong part of identity. Some will tend to think that memories, thoughts, and attitudes are more identifying. I'm in the latter group. They're both Han at first, although with time, they will become different people as they have different experiences.

AkuManiMani · 28th December 2009, 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by Malerin

There must have been a Death Star canteen, yes? JK

So Han Solo is frozen in carbonite and given to Jabba the Hut. Let's call the time Han Solo is first put in suspended animation T1. Let's also suppose he's in stasis for 10 years. Long enough for all the atoms that made up Han at T1 to be replaced by other atoms. So the conventional wisdom is that, when Han is revived at T10, he's still Han Solo. This is true even though Han hasn't had an active mental state from T1 to T10 and none of Han's original atoms (at T1) make up Han anymore.

So let's suppose we "tagged" all of Han's original atoms at T1 and collected them over the years. We also did a complete scan of Han at T1 (and the carbonite he's encased in). Now, right before T10 rolls around, we take all of Han's original atoms that we've collected, and with the aid of the scan we made at T1, we make a perfect duplicate of Han at T9.999. We call this (O)Han (Original Atoms of Han). (O)Han is encased in the same carbonite as Han is. So when T10 rolls around, both Han and (O)Han are revived. Which is the real Han Solo?

Han's atoms get replaced over the years just by being alive. Every living critter is a ship of Theseus.

Malerin · 28th December 2009, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by AkuManiMani

Han's atoms get replaced over the years just by being alive. Every living critter is a ship of Theseus.

I think this is true of all physical objects, alive or not. I've read the Mona Lisa's original atoms have long been dispersed and replaced by other atoms.

But anyway, the argument would go that Han is Han Solo at T1, then at T1.1, Han is still Han Solo, even though a few atoms have migrated out and been replaced... so there is continuity of identity to the point where Han is Han Solo at T10 even though none of the atoms that made up Han at T1 are present.

I see two problems with this:
1. It's not clear why an incremental change should make any difference. Suppose at T1.1 we destroyed Han completely. Then at T9.9, we changed our minds and rebuilt Han with different atoms. It's clear, to me at least, that Han Solo was killed at T1.1 and what you have now is a copy of Han Solo. I don't see why doing it piece-by-piece is any different than doing it all at once.
2. If we teleported Han at T1 instead of putting him in suspended animation, there's no incremental change at all. Han comes back at T10 with all his original atoms and is Han Solo. This would make (O)Han the best candidate for being Han Solo. Why should a 10 year teleportation be different than 10 years of suspended animation?

AkuManiMani · 28th December 2009, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by Malerin

I think this is true of all physical objects, alive or not. I've read the Mona Lisa's original atoms have long been dispersed and replaced by other atoms.

But anyway, the argument would go that Han is Han Solo at T1, then at T1.1, Han is still Han Solo, even though a few atoms have migrated out and been replaced... so there is continuity of identity to the point where Han is Han Solo at T10 even though none of the atoms that made up Han at T1 are present.

I see two problems with this:
1. It's not clear why an incremental change should make any difference. Suppose at T1.1 we destroyed Han completely. Then at T9.9, we changed our minds and rebuilt Han with different atoms. It's clear, to me at least, that Han Solo was killed at T1.1 and what you have now is a copy of Han Solo. I don't see why doing it piece-by-piece is any different than doing it all at once.

Which means that what makes Han Han, isn't the particular atoms that hes composed of at any given moment, but whatever the organizing process is that causes those atoms to conform to the entity we identify as Han.

Originally Posted by Malerin

2. If we teleported Han at T1 instead of putting him in suspended animation, there's no incremental change at all. Han comes back at T10 with all his original atoms and is Han Solo. This would make (O)Han the best candidate for being Han Solo. Why should a 10 year teleportation be different than 10 years of suspended animation?

I tend to think that it would be of great importance to know what memories are [physically speaking], how brains store memories, and how those memories are accessed. Even recreating your desktop, atom-for-atom, wont necessarily transfer it's software. Infact, theres a good chance that the hypothetical teleporter would produce a wiped hard drive.

theprestige · 28th December 2009, 04:47 PM

Wow, the "ship of Theseus" sounds really awsome until you realize it's already been done to death by both Star Trek and The Sixth Day.

Third Eye Open · 28th December 2009, 05:39 PM

Originally Posted by AkuManiMani

.... Infact, theres a good chance that the hypothetical teleporter would produce a wiped hard drive.

Really? That is interesting, any chance you could explain your reasoning behind this for a layman?

AkuManiMani · 28th December 2009, 06:49 PM

Originally Posted by Third Eye Open

Originally Posted by AkuManiMani

.... Infact, theres a good chance that the hypothetical teleporter would produce a wiped hard drive.

Really? That is interesting, any chance you could explain your reasoning behind this for a layman?

If the 'teleporter' in question is simply reconstructing the structure of the hardware [the arrangement of its atoms] without regard to the information stored on the magnetic tape of the drive, then none of the software on it will be on the recreated hardware. Some provisions would have to be made to either; [.a.] ensure that the transference method reproduces exactly the same magnetic state of the original disk, or [.b.] to copy the software from a back-up source.

Third Eye Open · 28th December 2009, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by AkuManiMani

If the 'teleporter' in question is simply reconstructing the structure of the hardware [the arrangement of its atoms] without regard to the information stored on the magnetic tape of the drive, then none of the software on it will be on the recreated hardware. Some provisions would have to be made to either; [.a.] ensure that the transference method reproduces exactly the same magnetic state of the original disk, or [.b.] to copy the software from a back-up source.

I am not understanding how the information stored on the magnetic tape could be a property of anything other than the arrangement of it's atoms. Again, layman here.

ETA: I thought that in most of these thought experiments it was granted that the copy was an exact copy.

athon · 28th December 2009, 08:36 PM

Originally Posted by Malerin

It would be odd to say they both are Han Solo. "Han Solo" refers to one particular person.

You're entire argument lies in how you feel about this, not how you think about it. It feels weird or odd...like it shouldn't work. So? That's the whole point of philosophy - to put odd feelings aside and use reason to figure it out.

Quote:

You would have to explain how the identity of one person can be split between two persons.

This would only be strange if you assumed identity was some metaphysical entity which was subject to physical rules. If it was an abstract way of describing a person's perspective of their memories as well as their behaviours, there's no reason you couldn't have two people reflect on the same memories and both have equal rights to think of themselves as 'Han Solo'.

Athon

AkuManiMani · 28th December 2009, 09:22 PM

Originally Posted by Third Eye Open

I am not understanding how the information stored on the magnetic tape could be a property of anything other than the arrangement of it's atoms. Again, layman here.

Think of it this way. You could have two iron bars that had the same number of atoms arranged in exactly the same structure. However, one could be completely magnetized while the other is not. The structural arrangement of the bars' atoms are the same but their magnetic states may still vary.

The same is true of our computer hard disks. Their structure and composition are the same regardless of what software is stored on them. Software is a magnetic field pattern 'written' on the atoms of the computer hardware; they aren't tangible material objects.

Originally Posted by Third Eye Open

ETA: I thought that in most of these thought experiments it was granted that the copy was an exact copy.

Yea, thats generally the basic assumption of these thought experiments, but Malerin made it a point to emphasize that in this scenario 'teleportation' meant that atoms were being replaced. I suspect that the point of his thought experiment was to suggest that a person's identity is something intangible.

Andrew Wiggin · 28th December 2009, 10:38 PM

Originally Posted by steve s

Put....the bong...down.

Steve S.

What he said...

A

Soapy Sam · 29th December 2009, 01:31 AM

This whole thread is based on ridiculous suppositions about a work of fiction.

The "Death Star" was the size of a small moon for any sake.

There had to be dozens of canteens!

Guybrush Threepwood · 29th December 2009, 01:46 AM

Originally Posted by Malerin

I think this is true of all physical objects, alive or not. I've read the Mona Lisa's original atoms have long been dispersed and replaced by other atoms.

Slight derail, but surely this is total nonsense? What is the mechanism for a titanium or lead atom to leave the Mona Lisa, and be replaced in the exact same position by another atom of the same element?

23rd December 2009, 12:36 PM	#1
Malerin Banned Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,341	Han Solo and the Ship of Theseus There must have been a Death Star canteen, yes? JK So Han Solo is frozen in carbonite and given to Jabba the Hut. Let's call the time Han Solo is first put in suspended animation T1. Let's also suppose he's in stasis for 10 years. Long enough for all the atoms that made up Han at T1 to be replaced by other atoms. So the conventional wisdom is that, when Han is revived at T10, he's still Han Solo. This is true even though Han hasn't had an active mental state from T1 to T10 and none of Han's original atoms (at T1) make up Han anymore. So let's suppose we "tagged" all of Han's original atoms at T1 and collected them over the years. We also did a complete scan of Han at T1 (and the carbonite he's encased in). Now, right before T10 rolls around, we take all of Han's original atoms that we've collected, and with the aid of the scan we made at T1, we make a perfect duplicate of Han at T9.999. We call this (O)Han (Original Atoms of Han). (O)Han is encased in the same carbonite as Han is. So when T10 rolls around, both Han and (O)Han are revived. Which is the real Han Solo?
Malerin Banned Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,341

23rd December 2009, 12:45 PM	#2
Ysidro I'm watching you Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 5,334	Yes. Or alternatively "the color 12".
Ysidro I'm watching you Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 5,334	__________________ This is a sig file. Does anyone even read this stuff?

23rd December 2009, 12:56 PM	#3
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,494	Both are equally real.
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,494

23rd December 2009, 12:59 PM	#4
Zalbik Scholar Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 93	Originally Posted by Malerin There must have been a Death Star canteen, yes? JK So Han Solo is frozen in carbonite and given to Jabba the Hut. Let's call the time Han Solo is first put in suspended animation T1. Let's also suppose he's in stasis for 10 years. Long enough for all the atoms that made up Han at T1 to be replaced by other atoms. So the conventional wisdom is that, when Han is revived at T10, he's still Han Solo. This is true even though Han hasn't had an active mental state from T1 to T10 and none of Han's original atoms (at T1) make up Han anymore. So let's suppose we "tagged" all of Han's original atoms at T1 and collected them over the years. We also did a complete scan of Han at T1 (and the carbonite he's encased in). Now, right before T10 rolls around, we take all of Han's original atoms that we've collected, and with the aid of the scan we made at T1, we make a perfect duplicate of Han at T9.999. We call this (O)Han (Original Atoms of Han). (O)Han is encased in the same carbonite as Han is. So when T10 rolls around, both Han and (O)Han are revived. Which is the real Han Solo? Both. Heck, I'd say both even if you used entirely different atoms for (O)Han, just as long as the configuration was the same. Just of of curiosity, is this leading somewhere?
Zalbik Scholar Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 93

23rd December 2009, 01:07 PM	#5
grayman Happy-go-lucky Heretic Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Casa del Whacko Posts: 6,142	Originally Posted by Twiler Both are equally real. Until they are observed.
	__________________ Stupidity is a condition. Ignorance is a choice. - Wiley All great truths begin as blasphemies. - George Bernard Shaw God is evil. As soon as you accept that, it all makes sense. - Sledge

23rd December 2009, 01:08 PM	#6
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,494	Originally Posted by grayman Until they are observed. By whom?
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,494

23rd December 2009, 01:08 PM	#7
Eyeron Guest Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,774	There is no such thing as real.
Eyeron Guest Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,774

23rd December 2009, 01:23 PM	#8
Xulld Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 1,113	Fight to the death for the identity label Han Solo in 3 . . .2 . . .1

23rd December 2009, 01:40 PM	#9
Malerin Banned Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,341	Originally Posted by Twiler Both are equally real. No one's claiming Han and (O)Han aren't real. The question is, which has the best claim to being "Han Solo". It would be odd to say they both are Han Solo. "Han Solo" refers to one particular person. You would have to explain how the identity of one person can be split between two persons. For example, if Han Solo had a job waiting for him when he unthaws, would both Han and (O)Han have to be hired? What if only one person could be hired? Who would get the job? What if Han goes and commites a robbery. Should law-abiding (O)Han be arrested too, if they're both Han Solo? And if we had never made (O)han, wouldn't you agree that when Han wakes up at T10, he's the same Han Solo that was frozen at T1? Why does making a duplicate from discarded atoms negate Han's claim to being Han Solo? In diagram form, it was originaly A------A Your claim is that creating (O)Han makes the diagram become A--------A \ -------A ?
Malerin Banned Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,341	Last edited by Malerin; 23rd December 2009 at 01:42 PM.

23rd December 2009, 01:58 PM	#10
Xulld Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 1,113	Labels are handy, but do not confuse epistemic representation with ontological existence. In so far as a label represents a thing based on its components, both are equally able to represent the label if the components are identical.

23rd December 2009, 02:03 PM	#11
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,932	Originally Posted by Twiler By whom? Schrodinger and/or his cat.
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,932	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space! We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!

23rd December 2009, 02:30 PM	#12
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,494	Originally Posted by Malerin No one's claiming Han and (O)Han aren't real. The question is, which has the best claim to being "Han Solo". It would be odd to say they both are Han Solo. "Han Solo" refers to one particular person. You would have to explain how the identity of one person can be split between two persons. For example, if Han Solo had a job waiting for him when he unthaws, would both Han and (O)Han have to be hired? What if only one person could be hired? Who would get the job? What if Han goes and commites a robbery. Should law-abiding (O)Han be arrested too, if they're both Han Solo? And if we had never made (O)han, wouldn't you agree that when Han wakes up at T10, he's the same Han Solo that was frozen at T1? Why does making a duplicate from discarded atoms negate Han's claim to being Han Solo? In diagram form, it was originaly A------A Your claim is that creating (O)Han makes the diagram become A--------A \ -------A ? Both have an equal claim to be Han Solo. After splitting, they become two separate versions of Han Solo, like twins. The problem is a limitation of language. In philosophy, entities can have a numerical identity (assigned to a specific entity), and a qualitative identity (assigned to an entity with particular characteristics). Conundrums like this demonstrate that the concept of numerical identity doesn't have an exact definition. You could give one reason or another why one Han Solo is the real one, but there's no definitive answer.
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,494

23rd December 2009, 02:35 PM	#13
Dunstan Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Sunnyvale Trailer Park Posts: 4,292	Originally Posted by Twiler Both have an equal claim to be Han Solo. After splitting, they become two separate versions of Han Solo, like twins. The problem is a limitation of language. In philosophy, entities can have a numerical identity (assigned to a specific entity), and a qualitative identity (assigned to an entity with particular characteristics). Conundrums like this demonstrate that the concept of numerical identity doesn't have an exact definition. You could give one reason or another why one Han Solo is the real one, but there's no definitive answer. Damnit, I had a whole long reply that got eaten by the Internet, but you did a more concise job of it. The situation only seems "odd" because we don't encounter it in real life and so our concepts of identity and our language haven't adapted to it, whereas we are quite comfortable of the notion of people sharing the same name or the same DNA. Of course, I also had a reference to "Thomas" Riker from Star Trek: The Next Generation.

23rd December 2009, 02:58 PM	#14
Third Eye Open Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Washington state, USA Posts: 1,402	They are both Han Solo. They both woke up with the same identity, and then diverged by having different experiences, small differences at first, such as seeing the room from a different angle when they awoke. These differences will build on each other until the two Han Solo's are more recognizably different people. But they will still both be Han Solo. It is the same with each decision you make in your day to day life. Each choice makes you a 'different person' than each other choice, you would be a different you if you made some other choice, but still you. This scenario would allow us to see the same persons life unfold in two different ways.
	__________________ "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."- Friedrich von Schiller "I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." - Thomas Jefferson "Let all your troubles go, cling to the joy of living..." - Heavenly

23rd December 2009, 03:38 PM	#15
Sledge Grammaton Cleric Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Swingin' on a star Posts: 7,123	Isn't the whole point of freezing someone that cell activity ceases or at least slows down? Oh, and the rate of cellular replacement in Corellians might be vastly different from Terrans.
	__________________ "The perfect haiku would have just two syllables: Airwolf" ~ Ernest Cline "Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop" ~ Dara O'Briain.

23rd December 2009, 04:15 PM	#16
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	The toss-up itself is flawed. In carbonite, the life processes must needs be suspended. Nothing occurs.. no inspiration, no exhalation, no feeding, no excreting. The cells existing at the encapsulation are the cells that exist at the decanting. Then the processes of life which replace cells can recommence activity.

23rd December 2009, 04:54 PM	#17
Pup Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 3,589	Originally Posted by Malerin So Han Solo is frozen in carbonite and given to Jabba the Hut. Let's call the time Han Solo is first put in suspended animation T1. Let's also suppose he's in stasis for 10 years. Long enough for all the atoms that made up Han at T1 to be replaced by other atoms. As the posters just above have implied, stop right there. What's your evidence--uh, I mean for some value of "evidence"--that the atoms in a body in suspended animation are replaced at the same rate as normal? By the very definition of "suspended animation," I'd say they're not replaced, any more than the atoms in a rock are replaced. I can't believe I just asked for evidence concerning a hypothetical question about a fictional world.
Pup Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 3,589

23rd December 2009, 05:12 PM	#18
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	Originally Posted by Pup ... I can't believe I just asked for evidence concerning a hypothetical question about a fictional world. . Ever thought about getting a life? Many of us here have thought about it, and yet haven't found one yet. Too much effort.

23rd December 2009, 05:28 PM	#19
Cynic Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Posts: 1,331	They both have equal claim. Our identities are based on the arrangement our of atoms, not the atoms themselves. If you performed the same sort of thing on the Mona Lisa, the one you copied it from could be said to be the original, but they would still be identical in every way except in the disposition of the atoms themselves, same as with Han Prime and Han Double-prime. In other words, it depends on how you want to judge the disposition of each atom, I guess. But I personally think it's a useless aspect to look at for the most part and that they are effectively identical
	__________________ The slackjaw gaze of true profanity feels more like surrender than defeat -- if culture is the curse of the thinking class. -- Neil Peart Last edited by Cynic; 23rd December 2009 at 05:29 PM.

23rd December 2009, 08:29 PM	#20
steve s Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 3,661	Put....the bong...down. Steve S.
steve s Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 3,661	__________________ "Nature abhors a moron." -- H. L. Mencken

24th December 2009, 06:19 AM	#21
blobru Philosopher Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 6,590	Originally Posted by Malerin ... Which is the real Han Solo? Nice variation on the Ship of Theseus, one of the classic philosophy puzzlers. You might extend the parallel to the original by having the Millenium Falcon parked meanwhile in a hangar where it is disassembled, each removed bit replaced by an identical; then the original bits reassembled in another hangar. The choice is the same as in many versions of the puzzle -- which is the real thing: the continuous structure, or the reassembled constituents? -- except now there are two wholes to consider. With the space-ship, I'm inclined to say the reassembled MF is the "real" thing: in a sense, it's just been moved bit by bit from one hangar to another; whereas, the continuous structure in place is an identical copy. But that's a purely philosophical distinction: practically, they're identical, and I suppose one should be indifferent. Having the ship a person, though, raises another question: if you were the frozen Han Solo, where would you (the original pov) wake up? Here it seems to me the continuous structure is the real thing, assuming being frozen in carbonite hasn't killed HS, only put him into suspended animation sleep. In this case, HS, both pov and mind, is Han; (O)Han is revived as a new pov, with a mind identical to HS'. If HS hasn't survived the carbonite freezing, then he's just a perfectly preserved corpse that is reanimated after ten years. Both Han and (O)Han would be new pov's with minds identical to HS' at the moment he was frozen and killed; neither would have much basis for claiming to be the "real" HS, in the sense of preserving his pov; the choice would be the same as between the inanimate ships.
blobru Philosopher Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 6,590	__________________ "Say to them, 'I am Nobody!'" -- Ulysses to the Cyclops "Never mind. I can't read." -- Hokulele to the Easter Bunny Last edited by blobru; 24th December 2009 at 06:26 AM.

24th December 2009, 06:53 AM	#22
shemp Timothy, Timothy, where on earth did you go? Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: trapped in a cave-in with Joe Posts: 12,885	I am ~~Spartacus~~Han Solo!
	__________________ Church on Sunday, sleep and nod Tryin' to duck the wrath of God Preacher's fillin' us with fright Tryin' to tell us what he thinks is right He really got to be some kind of nut (I can't use it!) Tryin' to make it real - compared to what?

24th December 2009, 08:28 AM	#23
Malerin Banned Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,341	Originally Posted by blobru Nice variation on the Ship of Theseus, one of the classic philosophy puzzlers. You might extend the parallel to the original by having the Millenium Falcon parked meanwhile in a hangar where it is disassembled, each removed bit replaced by an identical; then the original bits reassembled in another hangar. The choice is the same as in many versions of the puzzle -- which is the real thing: the continuous structure, or the reassembled constituents? -- except now there are two wholes to consider. With the space-ship, I'm inclined to say the reassembled MF is the "real" thing: in a sense, it's just been moved bit by bit from one hangar to another; whereas, the continuous structure in place is an identical copy. But that's a purely philosophical distinction: practically, they're identical, and I suppose one should be indifferent. Having the ship a person, though, raises another question: if you were the frozen Han Solo, where would you (the original pov) wake up? Here it seems to me the continuous structure is the real thing, assuming being frozen in carbonite hasn't killed HS, only put him into suspended animation sleep. In this case, HS, both pov and mind, is Han; (O)Han is revived as a new pov, with a mind identical to HS'. If HS hasn't survived the carbonite freezing, then he's just a perfectly preserved corpse that is reanimated after ten years. Both Han and (O)Han would be new pov's with minds identical to HS' at the moment he was frozen and killed; neither would have much basis for claiming to be the "real" HS, in the sense of preserving his pov; the choice would be the same as between the inanimate ships. I can see two plausible scenarioes that support either Han or (O)Han's claim to being Han Solo. In the first scenario, we simply don't assemble (O)Han out of Han Solo's original atoms. Han wakes up at T10 and goes on his merry way as Han Solo (maybe this doesn't support Han's claim to being Han Solo, though. Maybe this is just a case where Han, being the only candidate for Han Solo, is the best candidate). In the 2nd scenario, let's say instead of being encased in carbonite, Han Solo was simply broken down into his consituent atoms and teleported around space for 10 years. Then, at T10, his atoms are reasembled. If that happened, (O)Han looks like the best candidate for Han Solo. Is there a fundamental difference between being encased in carbonite for 10 years vs. being disassembled and teleported? Also, suppose we assemble (O)Han at T9.9, and then change our minds about the whole thing. Is junking (O)Han murder? Would it be any different than destroying Han right before he thaws out?
Malerin Banned Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,341

24th December 2009, 08:36 AM	#24
Malerin Banned Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,341	There's four ways this could go. 1. They're both Han Solo 2. Neither of them are Han Solo 3. One of them is Han Solo 4. Our notions of personal identity are unreliable for these kind of thought experiments. I don't think (1) or (2) make much sense. That leaves figuring out who the real Han Solo is or refining what personal identity across time means .
Malerin Banned Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,341

24th December 2009, 09:27 AM	#25
Cynic Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Posts: 1,331	Originally Posted by Malerin There's four ways this could go. 1. They're both Han Solo 2. Neither of them are Han Solo 3. One of them is Han Solo 4. Our notions of personal identity are unreliable for these kind of thought experiments. I don't think (1) or (2) make much sense. That leaves figuring out who the real Han Solo is or refining what personal identity across time means . Why doesn't option 1 makes sense? It's not as if a year if a year our either one of the Hans will have the same assortment of atoms as when you first asked the question. From year to year, we're all "different" in the way you seem to be concerned about than we were before. I think that "personal identity" is entirely within the realm of the individual -- not others. Both would naturally claim to be Han Solo and both would be correct. (So I guess I just voted for 4 there by reason of defending 1.) Inanimate objects like paintings or ships don't have a "personal identity" because they lack their own perspectives. For authentication purposes, the difference comes down to the degree of exactitude one chooses to apply. If they are the exact same arrangement of atoms, then they are exactly identical if that's the rule you're using. If you want to break that tie, you can get into other things, like quantum entanglement (if any), state of decay, etc. It's an arbitrary decision, but no less real for that. But of course, your scan and reassembly method might also provide that level of specificity as well. If you provide a method copying that is exactly accurate, the question of which is the original becomes moot, except to say that one was copied from the other. And that is easy to judge if you only know which came first.
	__________________ The slackjaw gaze of true profanity feels more like surrender than defeat -- if culture is the curse of the thinking class. -- Neil Peart

26th December 2009, 08:37 AM	#26
rocketdodger Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Hyperion Posts: 6,669	Originally Posted by Malerin Also, suppose we assemble (O)Han at T9.9, and then change our minds about the whole thing. Is junking (O)Han murder? Would it be any different than destroying Han right before he thaws out? Murder is defined socially, not objectively. If there are people who want to see him again, then it would probably be a bad idea to junk (O)Han.

26th December 2009, 09:38 AM	#27
theMark Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Stuck in Old Europe and the 80s, where the music is better than today Posts: 310	Originally Posted by Malerin So Han Solo is frozen in carbonite and given to Jabba the Hut. Let's call the time Han Solo is first put in suspended animation T1. Let's also suppose he's in stasis for 10 years. Long enough for all the atoms that made up Han at T1 to be replaced by other atoms. So the conventional wisdom is that, when Han is revived at T10, he's still Han Solo. This is true even though Han hasn't had an active mental state from T1 to T10 and none of Han's original atoms (at T1) make up Han anymore. So let's suppose we "tagged" all of Han's original atoms at T1 and collected them over the years. We also did a complete scan of Han at T1 (and the carbonite he's encased in). Now, right before T10 rolls around, we take all of Han's original atoms that we've collected, and with the aid of the scan we made at T1, we make a perfect duplicate of Han at T9.999. We call this (O)Han (Original Atoms of Han). (O)Han is encased in the same carbonite as Han is. So when T10 rolls around, both Han and (O)Han are revived. Which is the real Han Solo? a) It has been mentioned: Stasis. Nothing happens. No exchange of atoms in the first place. For perfect stasis, we wouldn't have any atoms to build (O)Han from, so Han is the real Han Solo. b) Let's assume for the sake of this example that it's more of a "hibernation" process where life signs carry on and some external process is necessary to supply food/energy/whatever. In this case, Han is still the original. His "geometry", i.e. the arrangement of the atoms making up Han at any given time, is continuous, even though the building blocks keep on changing. The clone/re-assembled (O)Han is something of a "sibling", real, but replicated by external intent, not by internal biological/mechanical/whatever processes that we call "life". c) Which means that Star-Trek-style "beaming" means "kill and clone back". Now here's a weird thought ... Attack of the Zombie Kirks! Oh, and what was the point of this, again?
	__________________ ^{"I may not know what's right / but I know this can't be it. I'm never satisfied / when the answers could be real." Title: Unsatisfaction - by: Men Without Hats}

27th December 2009, 03:40 PM	#28
PingOfPong Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 421	Which one deserves to be called Han? They'll just have to learn to share. Or, they could both try to shoot first like Han did originally in that crazy space bar before George Lucas took full creative control and ruined the character by having Greedo shoot first because George Lucas is an incompetent story teller and one has to conclude that George Lucas could not possibly be responsible for all the greatness of the original three movies and it must have been the creative force of the people working around him that made the movies great until George Lucas became too powerful and fat to be questioned by any subordinates. Also, did you know that Lucas' original idea for Luke Skywalker was to give him a robot head and have him commit genocides and rape (of his sister Lea)? Wait, what were talking about? Oh yeah, there is going to be an inevitable split between people depending on how they identify a person. Some tend to think of their body, face, clothes, etc. as being a strong part of identity. Some will tend to think that memories, thoughts, and attitudes are more identifying. I'm in the latter group. They're both Han at first, although with time, they will become different people as they have different experiences.
	Last edited by PingOfPong; 27th December 2009 at 03:41 PM.

28th December 2009, 11:32 AM	#29
AkuManiMani Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: On the crumbly edge of Is and Maybe Posts: 3,089	Originally Posted by Malerin There must have been a Death Star canteen, yes? JK So Han Solo is frozen in carbonite and given to Jabba the Hut. Let's call the time Han Solo is first put in suspended animation T1. Let's also suppose he's in stasis for 10 years. Long enough for all the atoms that made up Han at T1 to be replaced by other atoms. So the conventional wisdom is that, when Han is revived at T10, he's still Han Solo. This is true even though Han hasn't had an active mental state from T1 to T10 and none of Han's original atoms (at T1) make up Han anymore. So let's suppose we "tagged" all of Han's original atoms at T1 and collected them over the years. We also did a complete scan of Han at T1 (and the carbonite he's encased in). Now, right before T10 rolls around, we take all of Han's original atoms that we've collected, and with the aid of the scan we made at T1, we make a perfect duplicate of Han at T9.999. We call this (O)Han (Original Atoms of Han). (O)Han is encased in the same carbonite as Han is. So when T10 rolls around, both Han and (O)Han are revived. Which is the real Han Solo? Han's atoms get replaced over the years just by being alive. Every living critter is a ship of Theseus.
	__________________ "Better is a poor and a wise child than an old and foolish king, who will no more be admonished."

28th December 2009, 12:05 PM	#30
Malerin Banned Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,341	Originally Posted by AkuManiMani Han's atoms get replaced over the years just by being alive. Every living critter is a ship of Theseus. I think this is true of all physical objects, alive or not. I've read the Mona Lisa's original atoms have long been dispersed and replaced by other atoms. But anyway, the argument would go that Han is Han Solo at T1, then at T1.1, Han is still Han Solo, even though a few atoms have migrated out and been replaced... so there is continuity of identity to the point where Han is Han Solo at T10 even though none of the atoms that made up Han at T1 are present. I see two problems with this: 1. It's not clear why an incremental change should make any difference. Suppose at T1.1 we destroyed Han completely. Then at T9.9, we changed our minds and rebuilt Han with different atoms. It's clear, to me at least, that Han Solo was killed at T1.1 and what you have now is a copy of Han Solo. I don't see why doing it piece-by-piece is any different than doing it all at once. 2. If we teleported Han at T1 instead of putting him in suspended animation, there's no incremental change at all. Han comes back at T10 with all his original atoms and is Han Solo. This would make (O)Han the best candidate for being Han Solo. Why should a 10 year teleportation be different than 10 years of suspended animation?
Malerin Banned Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,341

28th December 2009, 02:43 PM	#31
AkuManiMani Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: On the crumbly edge of Is and Maybe Posts: 3,089	Originally Posted by Malerin I think this is true of all physical objects, alive or not. I've read the Mona Lisa's original atoms have long been dispersed and replaced by other atoms. But anyway, the argument would go that Han is Han Solo at T1, then at T1.1, Han is still Han Solo, even though a few atoms have migrated out and been replaced... so there is continuity of identity to the point where Han is Han Solo at T10 even though none of the atoms that made up Han at T1 are present. I see two problems with this: 1. It's not clear why an incremental change should make any difference. Suppose at T1.1 we destroyed Han completely. Then at T9.9, we changed our minds and rebuilt Han with different atoms. It's clear, to me at least, that Han Solo was killed at T1.1 and what you have now is a copy of Han Solo. I don't see why doing it piece-by-piece is any different than doing it all at once. Which means that what makes Han Han, isn't the particular atoms that hes composed of at any given moment, but whatever the organizing process is that causes those atoms to conform to the entity we identify as Han. Originally Posted by Malerin 2. If we teleported Han at T1 instead of putting him in suspended animation, there's no incremental change at all. Han comes back at T10 with all his original atoms and is Han Solo. This would make (O)Han the best candidate for being Han Solo. Why should a 10 year teleportation be different than 10 years of suspended animation? I tend to think that it would be of great importance to know what memories are [physically speaking], how brains store memories, and how those memories are accessed. Even recreating your desktop, atom-for-atom, wont necessarily transfer it's software. Infact, theres a good chance that the hypothetical teleporter would produce a wiped hard drive.
	__________________ "Better is a poor and a wise child than an old and foolish king, who will no more be admonished."

28th December 2009, 04:47 PM	#32
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,576	Wow, the "ship of Theseus" sounds really awsome until you realize it's already been done to death by both Star Trek and The Sixth Day.
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,576

28th December 2009, 05:39 PM	#33
Third Eye Open Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Washington state, USA Posts: 1,402	Originally Posted by AkuManiMani .... Infact, theres a good chance that the hypothetical teleporter would produce a wiped hard drive. Really? That is interesting, any chance you could explain your reasoning behind this for a layman?
	__________________ "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."- Friedrich von Schiller "I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." - Thomas Jefferson "Let all your troubles go, cling to the joy of living..." - Heavenly

28th December 2009, 06:49 PM	#34
AkuManiMani Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: On the crumbly edge of Is and Maybe Posts: 3,089	Originally Posted by Third Eye Open Originally Posted by AkuManiMani .... Infact, theres a good chance that the hypothetical teleporter would produce a wiped hard drive. Really? That is interesting, any chance you could explain your reasoning behind this for a layman? If the 'teleporter' in question is simply reconstructing the structure of the hardware [the arrangement of its atoms] without regard to the information stored on the magnetic tape of the drive, then none of the software on it will be on the recreated hardware. Some provisions would have to be made to either; [.a.] ensure that the transference method reproduces exactly the same magnetic state of the original disk, or [.b.] to copy the software from a back-up source.
	__________________ "Better is a poor and a wise child than an old and foolish king, who will no more be admonished."

28th December 2009, 08:29 PM	#35
Third Eye Open Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Washington state, USA Posts: 1,402	Originally Posted by AkuManiMani If the 'teleporter' in question is simply reconstructing the structure of the hardware [the arrangement of its atoms] without regard to the information stored on the magnetic tape of the drive, then none of the software on it will be on the recreated hardware. Some provisions would have to be made to either; [.a.] ensure that the transference method reproduces exactly the same magnetic state of the original disk, or [.b.] to copy the software from a back-up source. I am not understanding how the information stored on the magnetic tape could be a property of anything other than the arrangement of it's atoms. Again, layman here. ETA: I thought that in most of these thought experiments it was granted that the copy was an exact copy.
	__________________ "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."- Friedrich von Schiller "I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." - Thomas Jefferson "Let all your troubles go, cling to the joy of living..." - Heavenly Last edited by Third Eye Open; 28th December 2009 at 08:30 PM.