locke's socks

uselessness commented on the word locke's socks

John Locke once asked the following question: Would a sock of his with a hole in it would continue to be the same sock when patched? What if it developed a second hole, then was repaired by a second patch? What if, eventually, every original thread has come to be replaced by patches... is it still the same sock?

I played around with this thought experiment before I knew Locke's version (or before that, Plutarch's "Ship of Theseus" paradox) when I watched the movie Bicentennial Man. The main character is a mechanical man who desires to become human; over the course of the movie he adopts biological components. When the movie's over, he's (assumed to be) fully human. But I always wondered -- if nothing's left of the original robot, is the final product even the same being?

June 18, 2007

slumry commented on the word locke's socks

I am waiting with bated breath. . .perhaps it has to do with accepting all philosopies, "locke's socks and barrel"

June 18, 2007

uselessness commented on the word locke's socks

LOL... not quite!

June 18, 2007

slumry commented on the word locke's socks

In popular literature, people sometimes argue that individual are not the same people we were previously, because cells are continuously replaced, etc...I recently looked at a photo of myself as a two year old, and considered in what sense I still am that two year old. I recognize the expression on her face, and recognize the emotion that goes with that same expression now. These are the huge, huge questions

June 18, 2007

uselessness commented on the word locke's socks

That's true... I think I read somewhere that all the cells in your body are replaced in something like every seven years. Therefore, since I'm 22 years old, I'm in the beginning stages of my fourth identity. Weird.

June 18, 2007

oroboros commented on the word locke's socks

Remember Heraclitus' dictum: One can never step into the same stream twice. All is change, transformation. The only constant is flux. Yet note that these are pronouncements of and by the human brain, complete with consciousness (q.v.). Indeed, we should say: One can never step outside of consciousness; it is primordial, uncreated and supremely constitutive of All, yet unaffected throughout by All. So...we don't step into any stream...we step into consciousness, yet never were we separate from it.

If you can't understand this, or don't believe it, no matter. You do the work of Consciousness anyway.

(As the Mullah Nasreddin sat on the riverbank, someone shouted to him from the other bank, "Hey! How do I get across?" and the Mullah shouted back "You ARE across!")

June 19, 2007

uselessness commented on the word locke's socks

You are quite the philosopher, my friend. I would say I agree with what you've said, or at least what I understood of it. :-)

Though I would argue that flux is not constant, though its existence is constant (it never ceases). But flux is variable, depending on the level upon which one focuses. On the micro level, flux is rapid and chaotic. Zoom out, and flux continues... but at a slower rate. On the grand macro scale of the world and the cosmos as a whole, much is "timeless," or perhaps more accurately, its flux moves with imperceptible slowness.

June 19, 2007

oroboros commented on the word locke's socks

You're right! (Are you familiar with the Mullah Nasreddin Stories?)

Seems that the good Mullah was acting as judge in his village. He heard the arguments of each of the two plaintiffs and replied to each in turn: "You're right!". Puzzled, one of the plaintiffs said, "But Mullah, we can't BOTH be right?!" and the Mullah replied: "You're right!"

Ergo: flux IS constant!

:oP

June 19, 2007

uselessness commented on the word locke's socks

I wasn't familiar, but Wikipedia is my friend. :-) Those stories are great, thanks for the reference!!

June 19, 2007