Engineers banned from philosophy conferences

[taxing]

**Philosophy hat on (as it is a philosophy thread)** The dictionary definition of identical doesn't get us very far. You can talk in terms of things being identical in a mathematical sense but it is 'reality' or the physical word that is the problem as we've already discussed (and in many other similar questions). For everyday things, sure the dictionary definition is fine but we're talking philosophy. As you've already said there are arguments for both sides in things being identical despite being individual and regarding them as not identical (or not individual depending on when in time you use the word).

The thing about the ever-renewing Dave is that what is the property of Dave is it that makes Dave, Dave? It's not just about naming stuff, it's about identity and whether things actually exist. If Dave saw another Dave, how would that impact on how he views himself? Would Dave change? Say we were to define Dave in terms of a particular configuration of atoms, does the idea of Dave actually exist even if that configuration has never happened/will never happen? Or is it the other way round and reality makes things possible in them happening and it's just our minds interpreting it? To simply name stuff is the other end of the scale and is saying 'stuff' is there or 'stuff' works, let's use that as it's practical, but that's wandering into the realms of engineering. It's like when people just say numbers are names for stuff rather than the actual idea. I quite agree that the actuals of cloning spoil the discussion, but that's one discipline taking a different slant on things from another. Despite the limitations it doesn't get us much closer to answering the philosophical question about whether it is meaningful, something that's been round as a question for a very long time.

The bit I've bolded is the interesting question, to my mind. Of course if Dave saw another Dave that would cause a massive impact in how he views himself, but that's more psychology than philosophy. The confusing bit is asking what property it is that makes something what it is, and if that property actually exists or if we're imagining it or reinterpreting something else that is there. It's difficult to think about that using people as an example though, it's all very emotive. If Dave loses a leg, is he still Dave? Yes. If Dave has a brain tumor causing him to lose his short term memory, I think most would agree that he's still Dave. But if Dave has brain damage that causes him to live the rest of his life in a vegetative state, is that still Dave? You'd have to agree that it is for the sake of people who are affected by this, but actually, if we're working on the assumption that Dave can lose his arms and legs and still be Dave because it's not the body that makes the person, it's the mind, then we're in a bit of a sticky situation.

That's gone completely off topic, I realise. My mind just took me there.

 

[jimboalee]

There's Dave and Dave ja vu. I don't watch either.

 

[CopperBrompton]

I think some identical twins have been known to do something similar involving attending class at school.

Coincidentally, there were two identical twins in a local shop rather foolishly confessing in public to having sat exams for each other.