Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Tue Sep 19, 2023 12:26 pm
That's the Ship of Theseus issue.
Well, it is if you hold to the Doctrine of Internal relations. If you believe relations are external it's not the same issue. Ship of Thebes deals with an actual replacement of what usually would be consider internal. You are not changing who is the captain of the ship. The shipping routes. If the Ship of Thebes is sailing fast or not. In the Ship of Thebes issue you are replacing the pieces of the ship. In fact all you have left are the relations, if you do. IOW that ship might have the same owner, the same crew, the same routes, but every bit of matter in it is replaced. Is it the same? That's the Ship of Thebes scenario.
Do note that the question is not "If John changes his profession, would he be the same?"
The question is "If John changes his profession, would he still be John?"
In order to answer any question of the form "Is X the same?", you must already have an answer to the question "The same what? The same in what aspects?"
Obviously, if John is a carpenter, and he changes his profession to something else, e.g. if he becomes an Uber driver, he will no longer be a carpenter. He will change in that regard. But will he change in EVERY regard? Of course not. To change in every regard would mean that he's no longer a man but a woman; no longer a human but something else, an animal perhaps; no longer alive but dead; and so on. But he'll still be a man, he'll still be a human being, he'll still be alive, etc. In other words, he won't change in every regard. Even if every particle that constitutes his body changes, he still won't change in every regard.
Here, the question is, is he still John?
yes, I agree that's the question. John is short hand for a lot of qualities componenents behaviors processes roles physical stuff etc. When has it changed enough to not be the same?
The name "John" is a name given to a particular human baby born at particular point in time in particular place as well as to a being that has evolved from that baby within certain limits. There's no requirement for the person to remain physically the same. In fact, there is no requirement for that person to be a human being. Even if John becomes a unicorn, he'd still be John.
I doubt most people would go with you on that last one. John was a homosapien and for most no longer being one would make John no longer John. Transhumanists might go along with you, just as some seem, for reasons I can't understand, to think that an uploaded copy of their brain patterns would be them. In fact we could have two sentient creatures that are still John. But that's a tangent.
I am aware of the normal habit of regarding continuity of identity in this way. Here in the philosophy forum, we may question that.
Ultimately, whether or not a being can be called "John" depends, first of all, on the state of that being and potentially on some or all of the history of the world, and then, on the meaning that we assign to the name "John".
Sure. Though it seemed like you could directly rule out a change in profession meaning he is not longer the same person. I appreciate the complexification of the issue. It didn't seem that way before.
So, what changes would lead you to think they are no longer the same.
Given that Ship of Thebes issues are present - matter and cells are being replaced ongoing. And then also relations are changing and these can be considered internal, when would it be warrented to say John is no longer John? When would it be warrent for him to disidentify with what could be called a past version of John.
To some extent we are copies of ourselves over time. Are copies the same person? And then our relations can change a little or alot. When can we consider these internal?
