Engineers banned from philosophy conferences

[CopperBrompton]

Then they would fight to the death.

Not me, I'd try to send my clone out to do my work while I snuck off cycling. Mind you, the bastard would probably have the same plan - he's like that.

 

[benb]

Not me, I'd try to send my clone out to do my work while I snuck off cycling. Mind you, the bastard would probably have the same plan - he's like that.

You could split it 50/50.

 

[CopperBrompton]

I suppose it's down to palate. Mine isn't all that refined

I can appreciate the difference between a £4 bottle and a £8-10 bottle, and appreciate again a £30 bottle, but wouldn't have any chance at all of telling a £30 bottle apart from a £300 bottle. I am profoundly grateful for this fact.

 

[marinyork]

Then they would fight to the death.

It all seems a bit cut and dried to me. If you were able to create exactly the same person with the same memories and feelings (which you would never be able to anyway), then obviously you wouldn't be able to tell them apart because they would be identical, and both of them would be convinced that they are the original and the other is the copy. They would both have exactly the same knowledge so you wouldn't be able to test them on that. It's obvious really, like making an identical copy of a coin. Can you tell which is the original? No. You made an identical copy, that's what identical means.

But is it what identical means at all? Is not the 'original' a 'copy' in itself? What about universals? What about change outlined earlier, even if they were identical at time t what happens after that?

 

[taxing]

But is it what identical means at all? Is not the 'original' a 'copy' in itself? What about universals? What about change outlined earlier, even if they were identical at time t what happens after that?

I'm sure you know what identical means. The original is a copy in the sense that cells renew themselves constantly. The only universals I know about are linguistic universals and I can't see how they apply here, enlighten me? I'm not sure what change you mean either, do you mean what would happen directly after the copy was made? They'd start to diverge as they experienced the world differently.

 

[marinyork]

I'm sure you know what identical means. The original is a copy in the sense that cells renew themselves constantly. The only universals I know about are linguistic universals and I can't see how they apply here, enlighten me? I'm not sure what change you mean either, do you mean what would happen directly after the copy was made? They'd start to diverge as they experienced the world differently.

I don't know what identical means, that is what this debate is about in a way, I regard it as a fairly open question. I know very well what the 'common sense' meaning of identical means, dig a little deeper and it becomes quite hard. The original does renew themselves constantly but then we're back to Heraclitus's river. We agree that they diverge, but are they the same or not?

The universals I'm talking about are in philosophy. I suppose you could say they are ideas of things, what they have in common, what they are loosely. Do they exist? An engineer would probably say no. A philosopher might well say yes. How are things the same? How do they become the same? How does it relate to 'reality'/the physical world? Is a clone the same even though it is the same yet on the other hand is loosely a particular version of someone? What the cartoon is humourously making fun of is that engineers do not spend a great deal of time worrying about universals/forms/metaphysics.

 

[marinyork]

How many engineers does it take to change a light bulb?
None. According to my calculations the problem doesn't exist.

How many Hericlitans does it take to change a light bulb?
None - it's never the same light bulb anyway.

How many philosophers does it take to change a light bulb?
It depends how you define change.

How many mathematicians does it take to change a light bulb?
n.

 

[Yellow Fang]

How many engineers does it take to change a light bulb?
None. According to my calculations the problem doesn't exist.

How many Hericlitans does it take to change a light bulb?
None - it's never the same light bulb anyway.

How many philosophers does it take to change a light bulb?
It depends how you define change.

How many mathematicians does it take to change a light bulb?
n.

How many computer programmers does it take to change a light bulb?
None - it's a hardware problem.

How many electronic engineers does it take to change a light bulb?
None - it's a software problem.

 

[taxing]

I don't know what identical means, that is what this debate is about in a way, I regard it as a fairly open question. I know very well what the 'common sense' meaning of identical means, dig a little deeper and it becomes quite hard. The original does renew themselves constantly but then we're back to Heraclitus's river. We agree that they diverge, but are they the same or not?

The universals I'm talking about are in philosophy. I suppose you could say they are ideas of things, what they have in common, what they are loosely. Do they exist? An engineer would probably say no. A philosopher might well say yes. How are things the same? How do they become the same? How does it relate to 'reality'/the physical world? Is a clone the same even though it is the same yet on the other hand is loosely a particular version of someone? What the cartoon is humourously making fun of is that engineers do not spend a great deal of time worrying about universals/forms/metaphysics.

Where does it become harder? The dictionary definition of 'identical' refers to thinks being the same, being exactly equal and alike, etc., so this is one case where I would consider the common sense and the technical definitions to be very similar. I guess you could say that two identical objects are made of different atoms and so are not the same, but as no two separate objects could ever share atoms then it's not a meaningful distinction to bring up. Heraclitus's river and the human body are both examples of the same thing, while we would say that it is the same river or the same river, obviously the component parts (water, cells) are always changing. We accept this because we need to name things, and it's easier to say 'Dave' than 'The Ever-Renewing Dave' or 'The Dave of Ever-Changing Cells'.

Judging by the quick look up that I just did of universals I'd have thought that an engineer would have thought that they do exist and a philosopher would have said yes, so maybe I'm not understanding the idea properly. I do get the cartoon, but I don't think that most people understand the limitations of cloning. Real cloning that scientists can do now, or could realistically do in the future. Hollywood's fault, I reckon.

 

[theclaud]

Not me, I'd try to send my clone out to do my work while I snuck off cycling. Mind you, the bastard would probably have the same plan - he's like that.

There's a fab Calvin and Hobbes strip based on this idea. I used to use it to teach English degree students the concept of focalization.

 

[twentysix by twentyfive]

Not me, I'd try to send my clone out to do my work while I snuck off cycling. Mind you, the bastard would probably have the same plan - he's like that.

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

 

[ufkacbln]

Slightly OT, but in a thread on the lady who put the cat in the wheelie bin came.........


How come Schrodinger never had this hassle?

 

[marinyork]

Where does it become harder? The dictionary definition of 'identical' refers to thinks being the same, being exactly equal and alike, etc., so this is one case where I would consider the common sense and the technical definitions to be very similar. I guess you could say that two identical objects are made of different atoms and so are not the same, but as no two separate objects could ever share atoms then it's not a meaningful distinction to bring up. Heraclitus's river and the human body are both examples of the same thing, while we would say that it is the same river or the same river, obviously the component parts (water, cells) are always changing. We accept this because we need to name things, and it's easier to say 'Dave' than 'The Ever-Renewing Dave' or 'The Dave of Ever-Changing Cells'.

Judging by the quick look up that I just did of universals I'd have thought that an engineer would have thought that they do exist and a philosopher would have said yes, so maybe I'm not understanding the idea properly. I do get the cartoon, but I don't think that most people understand the limitations of cloning. Real cloning that scientists can do now, or could realistically do in the future. Hollywood's fault, I reckon.

**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.

 

[marinyork]

Slightly OT, but in a thread on the lady who put the cat in the wheelie bin came.........


How come Schrodinger never had this hassle?

He probably chatted up some lady who put the cat in the box and let her take all the blame.

 

[Shadow]

I can appreciate the difference between a £4 bottle and a £8-10 bottle, and appreciate again a £30 bottle, but wouldn't have any chance at all of telling a £30 bottle apart from a £300 bottle. I am profoundly grateful for this fact.

I understand your gratitude. And yet, I am willing to bet you can tell the difference, especially as you can tell the diffeence between £4 and £10 bottles. (And I'm willing to bet Arch can too). Unfortunately, I don't have a spare £300 to conduct the experiment.

The point I was attempting to make was that this guy could not accept there was a difference.