h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I've just had another read through this fine entry, and noticed the final sentence: "A sock that is indefinitely a sock is paradoxically not a sock."

I have two pairs of socks which by that definition could be heading toward non-sockness. I was given them in 1981, and I wore them at least once a week for 15 years (twice if laundry day fell in the middle of the week) for work, which means that they got some pretty hard wear. They still show little in the way of wearing out.

Perhaps the people who made them had some premonition when they named them 'HJ Indestructibles'

"A sock that is indefinitely a sock is paradoxically not a sock."

That's deliberate. Like life, it has to expire at some point to prove it was life. Indefinite life is by definition not life.

So the sock has to wear out. If it's indestructible, it's not a real sock.

"A sock that is indefinitely a sock is paradoxically not a sock."

That's deliberate. Like life, it has to expire at some point to prove it was life. Indefinite life is by definition not life.

So the sock has to wear out. If it's indestructible, it's not a real sock.

Interesting and profound stuff. However, I really think that this is so close to the old philosophical problem of 'Theseus' boat' that the latter really deserves a mention here. See http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/theseus.html for a discussion.

Cor. The Theseus' Boat story stitched me up completely, especially the bit about the scaveneger who remade the original boat. It brings us back to cloning ... A884306

Are you going to link to the Theseus Boat, then, DMT?

Yes. And something about George Washington's chopper.

Ooer!

Maybe a link to a picture.

Or a video clip of young George using it - that seems to be the latest thing.

Gone south for the winter of our discontent. F57153?thread=236066

It's updated now.

Go here F57153?thread=236066

Thanks for all your input.

DMT

Not sure who noted this, maybe Michael Crichton in _Travels_, maybe DNA himself, but the author of some memoir or another visited a Chinese temple, which the tour guide told him had stood for such-and-such thousands of years. Of course, it had been burned down, rebuilt, laid to ruin, rebuilt, ad nauseum, but it was essentially the same temple quite matter-of-factly. The author considered this a refreshingly Eastern viewpoint.

I do take issue, however, with the axe. If the identity under debate is "this axe" rather than "an axe", then I can comprhend only one view: that the broken head continues to be part of "this axe," even if it's pulverized, subatomically deconstructed, or sent into a black hole. The new head is part of "this axe Mk. II", and the handle is part of both "this (separated) axe" and "this (new) axe."

I suppose the root of my contention with physical identity is my position as a dualist. I believe in a non-physical part of the human soul, not resting in the brain. This, of course, has all sorts of intriguing (exciting, even) ramifications on my view of artificial intelligences/consciousnesses.

I'd love to hear more on artificial consciousness in particular, as tenuous as the connection is to this actual post. But why let that get in the way?

That's precisely the issue. Does an artificial consciousness know that it's artificial?

What was that sentimentalist Steven Spielberg crap ... AI? The kid wanted to be real even though he was cloned/manufactured/whatever. He convinced himself he was real even though he was just made.

But if he looked real, felt real, smelt real and in himself believed he was real, why wouldn't he be real?

What if he didn't actually feel? He only appeared to feel real. He was programmed to appear as such.

And the difference between you, me and him is ... ?

We (human) are also 'programmed' to feel and believe that we are real.

In fact we are just a bunch of proteins and hydrocarbons and s**t like that. Just like an artificial being would be.

Ah, that's where I differ. I believe that consciousness is in fact only obtained in human beings. I'm a dualist.

Only human beings ... not other life forms?

Indeed. A theist dualist. A thinking Christian.