Ship of Theseus (film) Puns

Like, let's just say in theory, I want to make a copy of Shrek Forever After, for free (no selling it), but I don't mean a copy copy, I mean redoing the entire thing. If an entire team of animators, voice actors, and etc were to remake every single piece of content in the movie while still keeping the plot the same, is it illegal?

Also, is it illegal if the script is exactly the same, or the cinematography is the same, or...

If you want an idea of what I'm talking about, I'm effectively thinking a platonic ideal Shrek Retold where all the stuff is the same but the general idea is too.

At what point does it become infringement?

After the final episode of WandaVision mentioned the Ship of Theseus, I feel it's time to replace that tired philosophical example with the clearly superior version from Only Fools and Horses.

Reasons:

• Clarity: It's simpler. A broom has a head and a handle. A ship has 'planks' in the example, but also much more critical timbers that probably can't be replaced easily. For example, if replacing the main keel wood requires the whole ship to be dismantled, then it's a complete rebuild which ruins the example. Replacing a piece of an object that doesn't involve dismantling the residual object, so is a better example. The fact that there is only one other piece makes it even more beautiful.

• Semantics: It's Trigger's Broom. The broom that belongs to Trigger. He wears it out while sweeping roads, and when he replaces the head or the handle then it still his broom. Whether it is the same 'Trigger's Broom' is the debate, but it is definitely a 'Trigger's Broom'. Theseus was long dead when the planks of his ship were all replaced. They never sailed on the sea, which brings questions about whether something can be considered a ship if it's never sailed, rather than an ornament in the shape of a ship.

• Subject matter: Theseus wasn't famous for using the same ship for a long time and needing to replace lots of it. The fact it ended up in a museum for a long time is not relevant to the deeds of Theseus directly. Odysseus would have been a better example, with his ship needing many repairs during his Odyssey. Trigger is a street sweeper who used a broom for a very long time. He wore out his broom a lot, and needed to replace parts.

I'm sure you'll all agree that this is a pretty strong case, and I'd be grateful if you would refer to Trigger's Broom in all future philosophical discussions along these lines. Thanks Dave.

I just watched Ship of Theseus and now I am cursing myself for delaying it for far too long. Spent the last few hours reading about the interpretations of the movie and I am in awe. If you too haven't watched it yet, leave everything and go watch it. I would say it is one of the best Indian movies ever made.

Title.

View Poll

Ok, so this is just for fun and hopefully you might enjoy the concept a little.

Today a coworker admired my bag (a Gucci soho, and fantastic quality for context) now, I’m proud of my reps and don’t mind stating it is one.

She admired it and said, it’s lovely and exactly the same as mine but I would just know it wasn’t ”real” in that tone. We all know that tone.

Now, this made me think of the ship of Theseus.

A short summary is this;

In ancient Greece, there was a legendary king named Theseus who supposedly founded the city of Athens. Since he fought many naval battles, the people of Athens dedicated a memorial in his honor by preserving his ship in the port. This “ship of Theseus” stayed there for hundreds of years. As time went on, some of the wooden planks of Theseus’ ship started rotting away. To keep the ship nice and complete, the rotting planks were replaced with new planks made of the same material. Here is the key question: If you replace one of the planks, is it still the same ship of Theseus? (https://www.utne.com/mind-and-body/ship-of-theseus-identity-ze0z1311zjhar)

To quote Wikipedia ...

In the metaphysics of identity, the ship of Theseus is a thought experiment that raises the question of whether an object that has had all of its components replaced remains fundamentally the same object.

So to break it down, if our reps of 1:1 quality are of the same materials , right down to the box it comes in. Who is to call it ‘fake’?

Of course we know where we sourced it, and we know it is recreated to as close to the item as possible, but I just thought this was a cool idea to throw out there when people are being a little judgey or condescending. Whipping out such a little titbit of trivia could be a bit fun and throws the questions back to them, rather than to you. 🤷‍♀️ it makes them justify themselves, rather than you justifying your purchase.

I also pointed out that though my friends Michael Kors bag was authentic, it was a copy or a stolen design from Prada. Then the next designer below Michael Kors would copy right down to cheaper bags from budget high street stores - so in the end - can anything be original ?

Just food for thought for when people get up in our business 😂

E

This is literally a thought I had in the shower this morning, but I'm just curious what the collective hivemind of Reddit thinks. The biggest barrier to uploading of a human mind to a computer besides the whole "We don't have hardware that can run it" part is that the brain, being an electrochemical mess of squishy bits isn't very good at converting itself into a simple electronic (Or even quantum-electronic) computer program for us to run on existing frameworks. This leads, inevitably, to the Transporter Problem where gaps of consciousness occur and the thing you get on the other side may not even be considered the same person as before.

So I just had a thought of using another philosophy of science conundrum to overcome it, namely by replacing the brain itself in small discrete chunks possibly using nanites operating slowly. Eventually, you'll have a brain that is now purely electronic and a mind that is purely software only by replacing it bit by bit and allowing that new brain to be uploaded and essentially making it indistinguishable from an Artificial Intelligence.

Could such a concept be viable? Lemmie know.

Come here.

So I took a step back to look at my system today and realized that I no longer recognize it. I started with d20 as my baseline, and I've methodically gone through and altered it to make it into a system I want to play. Classes as they normally exist went first, and skill checks were based on the characters history instead of their being purchased in ranks.

Next the combat system including HP, weapons, armor and turns got replaced. With that, the 6 attributes and saving throws got tossed as well as they were no longer doing anything. This leaves... 1-20 levels as about the only part that is still recognizably d20 from a mechanical standpoint (well, that and I use a d20 still I guess). By changing what I found to be flawed, I've ended up with something completely unrecognizable from where I started.

This wasn't the intent when I started work. I genuinely wanted to just build a dnd clone with a few twists. It was the slow replacing of each part that brought me to where I am today. It is the 'Ship of Theseus' of game design. I wonder now if it is even the same system to when I started. If every single part of the system has changed, is it still the same system?

I'm curious if other people have run into this when designing and their thoughts on the matter. Have you ever sat back to take a look at your system and realized you no longer recognize what it has become? Does it ever bother you?

I thought I understood what it was about, "if you replace all the parts of a ship with new identical parts, is it the same ship?". But the more I think about it, the less I understand why this is a question. It can't be the same ship, it doesn't have the original parts. But everyone says it's one of the greatest philosophical questions. So maybe I'm misunderstanding it?

This is a comment reply from another thread, but I put enough work into it that I'm willing to try it as its own post.

But first, a definition. The Ship of Theseus:

>First, suppose that the famous ship sailed by the hero Theseus in a great battle has been kept in a harbour as a museum piece. As the years go by some of the wooden parts begin to rot and are replaced by new ones. After a century or so, all of the parts have been replaced. Is the "restored" ship still the same object as the original?

>Second, suppose that each of the removed pieces were stored in a warehouse, and after the century, technology develops to cure their rotting and enable them to be put back together to make a ship. Is this "reconstructed" ship the original ship? And if so, is the restored ship in the harbour still the original ship too?

Preach actually released a video in July outlining all the problems we're seeing with Azerite right now. The building out of players' specs with rental gear, the boring traits, necessity of filling one's bags to overflowing, this is all stuff that he's been preaching (sorry) about since beta.

July, 2018: "Azerite Armor - Good or Bad?"

^ Everything below this line is a rant. ^

Look, I'm big on giving people the benefit of the doubt, I really am. "Maybe Blizzard knows something the players don't." "Maybe the grand scheme is real." "Maybe these are just growing pains from a new system." Fool me once, twice, three times, shame on you, fool me a fourth time - won't get fooled again. So many of these problems were specifically called out during alpha and beta that I can't honestly say what's going on anymore.

Is it hubris? Is Blizzard so proud of their solution that they can't see its problems?

Is it that it's literally too late to change Azerite because it's so integral to the expansion?

Is this one more example of "You think you do, but you don't?"

The expansion pack is so visually and melodically beautiful that I'm tempted to say that all their resources went into the art design... but then someone had the time to build and "balance" more than two hundred Azerite traits.

On a more philosophical level: Why does Blizzard think that they need to rely on these gimmicks at all? I understand that they want each new expansion pack to feel shiny, like something players have never experienced b

I'm looking for feedback on this build since I'm pretty rusty on the whole PC building process. It should be mostly cookie cutter, pieced together from a bunch of recent posts and a build guide on PC Part Picker. I'm sourcing mostly from Amazon because I got a lot of amazon credit for Xmas, but the CPU+Mobo is a combo package from Microcenter ($180 after tax) and the 240 GB SSD and 2 TB HDD will be reused from my current PC. Budget is $700-800, up to $1000 but I don't think I need to spend that much given my current needs. I'm not so sure about the case and GPU.

For the GPU I don't do a lot of hardcore gaming, maybe Monster Hunter is the most intensive game I play right now. I do like to play some MMOs and browse the web at the same time on 2 monitors.

For the case I value neat cable management and don't care about looks too much. I do want to transfer the optical drive from my current system.

Let me know your thoughts! Thank you!

PCPartPicker Part List

**Power Su

Basically a band whose original members have all been replaced with new members.

Earlier today, u/MadameIronMouse, put up a great post that got me to thinking.

Jimmy's transformation into Saul is an interesting take on Sorites Paradox in philosophy. I'm by no means a philosophy expert.... I just enjoy learning and exploring the implications.

The way I understand the paradox, it deals with the idea of boundaries with the famous example: when does a grouping of objects become a heap (or pile, etc.). Here's a succinct explanation I saw on the interwebs:

> The Paradox (restated)
>
>Suppose that you have a full head of hair. That means that you probably have around 100,000 individual hairs. Now pull one of them out. Does that make you bald? Of course not. A single hair doesn’t make any difference. 99,999 hairs still make a full head of hair. If you carry on long enough, you will have none left and you will definitely be bald. You have moved from a state of unquestionable non-baldness to a state of unquestionable baldness by taking a series of steps that can never on their own have that effect. But when did the change come about?
>
>...
>
> The (Original) Paradox
>
>⇒ 1 grain of sand does not make a heap.
⇒ If 1 grain does not make a heap, then 2 grains do not.
⇒ If 2 grains do not make a heap, then 3 grains do not.
[and so on until … ]
⇒ If 99,999 grains do not make a heap, then 100,000 grains do not.
⇒ So 100,000 grains of sand do not make a heap.
But at some point we will acknowledge that we do in fact have a heap of sand!

So with Jimmy: when do his accumulated actions make him Saul?

The thought-experiment proposed by the paradox illustrates the vague boundaries of classification. We can see Jimmy and we can see a later version of him that is Saul, but it is difficult to discern when the transformation occurs.

Another cool thought-experiment that deals with this issue is The Ship of Theseus. A ship is replaced one peace at a time over 1000 years and the question is: once all of the pieces are replaced, is it still the "Ship of Theseus." If it is no longer the "Ship of Theseus" when did it stop being so? If it still is the "Ship of Theseus" what

(for those who haven't heard of it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus)

I was thinking about consciousness and it really messed with me trying to wrap my head around what it really was. Like what if a long time after I die someone recreates my brain exactly using some kind of machine and puts it in a body. Would that be the same consciousness that I am now? This also applied to stuff like teleportation and cloning.

Also, how far can you replace parts of the brain before you stop being 'you'? I know we don't have that technology yet but theoretically? I guess replacing a couple bits and bobs here and there should be fine. Like the amygdala. But what about say the hippocampus or something?

Let's say, for example, you first shipped Harry/Luna, then somehow it became Luna/Neville, but now you find yourself shipping Neville/Hermione?

What constitutes the magazine? If the box breaks, can I buy a new box of the same size (high capacity) to put around the follower and spring and baseplate?

If those three fail and the box is intact, can I buy all those and put them in?

And in either case is this replacement of PART of the LCM constituting normal repair and not "constructing new LCM"?

Do you own the actual parts, or do you own the metaphysical "LCM"?

In this short piece I'll try to explain first what Theseus ship is, then some other theories, and then my own theory of Relatioism, and how this solves the paradox. The main thesis here is not to prove relativism -this would require much more inquiry- but just that it has applications, which I see as a necessity before considering any type of theory.

Theseus Ship

Theseus ship is a thought experiment first proposed by Theseus (shocker, I know). It goes like this: If I'd have a ship with which I'd travel the world. In every harbor, I'd change a plank of wood until the entire ship has no original wood left. Is this then a new ship? (Given that ships back then were made mostly out of wood). If it is at what point became it a new ship, and if not why not? This can also be broadened by adding that when all the original planks are removed, and with these, a new ship is built, which of these ships was the original ship?

Resolutions

First, you might have the most 'common sense' resolution supposed by Heraclitus. He said that just as you could step in the same river twice, even though all the water, and even the place changes, one would also keep the same boat. However, a river can never be duplicated like the boat in this example, so to the numeric relation, it has no answer.

Aristoteles said that an object can be perceived the same in multiple ways: the design of a thing(Formal Cause), the end of a thing(Final Cause), how a thing is made(Efficiency Cause), and of what a thing is made(Material Cause). By dividing 'the same' up some the word became less ambiguous, still, the teleological worldview can be seen through this, and this view in this form would thus not be applicable to humans in the post-God era. A more applicable form people have divided 'the same' in the present age, going on what Aristotle said, is to divide it into the 'numeric relation'(Which one was the first?) and 'qualitative relation'(Do they do the same thing as well?). However just establishing where the problem seems to lie, does not solve the problem, therefore this view lacks in applicability.

My solution

This brings us to my proposal. I'll first express my problem with the way in which the question is asked, then how I suppose to solve this. Then I'll proceed to formulate my answers.

the question

As is shown by the example of water, people tend to see water and planks of woods differently in the context of a river and a boat. This is because people don't think of water a

The Ship of Theseus paradox (where you have a boat and you slowly replace each piece of the boat until every piece is replaced) asks if afterwards is the ship still itself. Most people say no, but since birth every cell in your body has died and been replaced (assuming you’re an adult) but most people would say they are still themselves.

https://youtu.be/Ui-ArJRqEvU

An 11 minute video... with a transcript!!!

http://innuendostudios.tumblr.com/post/173479828992/the-newest-installment-of-the-alt-right-playbook

> The newest installment of The Alt-Right Playbook: The Ship of Theseus, about the ways people will lie without lying, misleading you with statements that will stand up to cursory scrutiny. > > As ever, you can keep this series and all my other videos coming out regularly by backing me on Patreon. Transcript below the cut. > > Say, for the sake of argument, there’s this guy, Theseus. We’ll get to him in a minute. (People who know this story, please don’t spoil the ending.) > > Imagine you’re bouncing around Twitter - a damn fool thing to do, but who am I to judge? - and you come across someone claiming “[Public Figure X] doxxed me.” > > You’re thinking, “Oh no, I’m a fan of Public Figure X! I find their work very inspiring.” So you look a little deeper into the story, and you come to understand a few things. First, it turns out, by “Public Figure X” they mean an employee of Public Figure X. Well, employees are often acting on behalf of their employers; if your campaign staff meets with Russians, it’s reasonable to say you are in contact with Russia, so maybe this is something like that. Also, it turns out that, by “employee” they mean a contractor that Public Figure X hired several years ago. Well, OK, if a contractor does something on behalf of a client, that’s often basically the same as an employee doing it. And, apparently, by “doxxed” they don’t mean Public Figure X - or Public Figure X’s contractor - personally hacked anyone’s computer, they mean Public Figure X’s people shared information that had been acquired by someone else. Well, that’s fair, if someone posts your home address on a forum and then the forum spreads it all over the internet, it’s reasonable to say the forum doxxed you. Oh, but it wasn’t a home address or a private email, it was the person’s name. Well, if you’re anonymous for safety reasons, having your name revealed can lead to threats or silencing, so, depending on why you’re anonymous, having your name leaked can be a kind of doxxing. Oh, and by “leaking a name,” they mean, liked a tweet that had the name in it. > > Hmm.

Episode six brings up questions of self  Like who is the real Chase. If there is another you out there are you you or is the copy you. I want to relate this to the ship of theseus but it almost to the opposite the ship is not the same but the same crew on both ships that believe they are the real crew. I almost want to say that nemesis is the real Chase because there is no time missed by his mind but that mind has seemingly been corrupted so you could say that the Chase we knows mind is not so he is the real chase