|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 12:04 pm
It can be said that in a way change does not exist. The first arguement is that when something changes it becomes different, however, theres a problem to this. If something becomes different you consider two things. The original thing and the new and different one. So couldnt it also be argued that the thing doesnt "change" but is replaced? The second arguement is that the thing doesnt change ENTIRELY, that it is only altered and retains most of it's constituants. It would still be the same thing, but that controdicts the first arguement because it wouldnt be different. Also some things DO change entirely. An acorn changes into a tree and retains none of its original properties.
Using basic principles of logic:
(inductive reasoning- therefor ensuring a sound arguement)
If something changes then it becomes different.
It changes,
therefore it is different.
OR
If something is only altered, It remains the same thing.
It is only altered,
Therefore it remains the same thing.
What is your position on change?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:24 am
Well, let's first put up some limits. How's about... the planet Earth. And let's limit the focus to concrete object (so no love or emotions, etc). Earth is composed of elements. These elements were here when the planet formed, and--aside from certain minute circumstances of rapid decay-- are still here. What sets apart everything on this planet are which elements objects are composed of, the quantity of said elements in those objects, and the elements' configuration.
Humans are naturally inclined to sort things into catagories; it's what we do. Each human does this differently, and that is where conflict arises. Today, scientists are constantly arguing about which species a specimen belongs to, or if it is it's own species, because they cannot agree on where to draw the line for the amount of difference (how different do they have to be to be considered a new species). It is also questioned whether two things are different at all.
I'm not sure if I've really addressed your questions at all. My view is: change and difference depends on what subject matter or question is being asked. Scientists catagorize living things both morphologically (similar appearance) and biologically (ability to reproduce in nature), which concept they use depends on the situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 4:24 pm
Pinkpod Well, let's first put up some limits. How's about... the planet Earth. And let's limit the focus to concrete object (so no love or emotions, etc). Earth is composed of elements. These elements were here when the planet formed, and--aside from certain minute circumstances of rapid decay-- are still here. What sets apart everything on this planet are which elements objects are composed of, the quantity of said elements in those objects, and the elements' configuration. Humans are naturally inclined to sort things into catagories; it's what we do. Each human does this differently, and that is where conflict arises. Today, scientists are constantly arguing about which species a specimen belongs to, or if it is it's own species, because they cannot agree on where to draw the line for the amount of difference (how different do they have to be to be considered a new species). It is also questioned whether two things are different at all. I'm not sure if I've really addressed your questions at all. My view is: change and difference depends on what subject matter or question is being asked. Scientists catagorize living things both morphologically (similar appearance) and biologically (ability to reproduce in nature), which concept they use depends on the situation. Im asking where you draw the line. Im not a scientist, I didnt mean to put limits on the question. It was a question about the nature of change itself. Not how different species are catagorized. I wanted some different oppinions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:58 am
Quote: If something changes then it becomes different. It changes, therefore it is different. OR If something is only altered, It remains the same thing. It is only altered, Therefore it remains the same thing. What is your position on change?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 9:49 pm
This reminds me a lot of Zeno's paradoxes, in which the ancient philosopher Zeno of Elea challenges the concept of motion (which is change in space). He views time as an infinite series of "nows," so that if you look at something in the present "now" and then see it in a future "now" it will be a different object -- in a different place, or composed of different material, or something like that. That seems to be the first position you present. (It's the foundation for a great book by Robert Silverberg called "The Gate of Worlds" or something like that.)
The second position is akin to Aristotle's refutation of Zeno. By denying that time is a series of "nows" he strips the very foundation of Zeno's argument. Time, motion, and change must all be viewed relative to other points of reference and so cannot be isolated into a specific "now." Change occurs relatively, even if not absolutely. This seems like the second position you're describing.
I think that both of them are useful for various things, but... the latter is more generally useful, and seems to connect more to personal experience. While we may not be able to prove change in the absolute, Zeno-ite sense, I certainly perceive changes, and that's proof enough for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 2:38 am
You might answer this by looking at properties as either essential or non-essential. If you alter a non essential property, then the thing is still the same thing, it simply differs a little in its (non essential) properties. But if you alter an essential property, then the thing ceased to be that thing at all.
For example, you might say it is an essential property of water that it is liquid. You can heat it or cool it a little bit and have it remain liquid, so it's the same thing. But heat it or cool it enough and it's either a vapour or a solid - it has ceased to be water and is now steam or ice.
That example might be contentious, depending on the definition of water. If you define water as H2O, then the essential property you're looking at will be "that it have the molcular structure H2O", in which case evaporation or freezing it only alter non essential properties, so the result is still water. But even now we can alter the essential property by chemical readtion and break that chemical structure, and the result after such a change will be something other than water.
Of course, we then have to consider what the essential properties of any given thing are, so you might not be any better off than when you started.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 7:41 am
Quote: You might answer this by looking at properties as either essential or non-essential. If you alter a non essential property, then the thing is still the same thing, it simply differs a little in its (non essential) properties. But if you alter an essential property, then the thing ceased to be that thing at all. For example, you might say it is an essential property of water that it is liquid. You can heat it or cool it a little bit and have it remain liquid, so it's the same thing. But heat it or cool it enough and it's either a vapour or a solid - it has ceased to be water and is now steam or ice. That example might be contentious, depending on the definition of water. If you define water as H2O, then the essential property you're looking at will be "that it have the molcular structure H2O", in which case evaporation or freezing it only alter non essential properties, so the result is still water. But even now we can alter the essential property by chemical readtion and break that chemical structure, and the result after such a change will be something other than water. Of course, we then have to consider what the essential properties of any given thing are, so you might not be any better off than when you started.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 5:06 pm
I suppose you could look for essential properties of that tree specifically, then. I have no idea what those might be. It's probably fairly difficult to look at identity in the case of a tree - from one day to the next you could say that because basically all of the actual atoms that make up the tree remain the same, it's the same tree, but in a year, who knows how much that's changed around.
There are similar questions to be asked of people - are you the same person as the you of ten years ago? You probably don't have many atoms at all that you had then, and you almost definitely have different atoms from the ones you had when you were born. At least in the case of people you can call on memory or consistency of personality across time - the tree may not have these. Is there anything continuous between the two trees?
It's also like the question of the boat - There's a wooden boat, and sometimes they replace a plank with a new one. After however long, every single plank has been replaced. Is it the same boat or another boat? What would you say if, as they took the old planks out, they were reconstructing them such that at the end of the process, there were two boats - one made of the reconstructed old planks and one made of the new planks that replaced the old? And if you want to say that the new-planks boat is a different boat, at what point does this become the case?
So, yes - what I'm saying is that I don't have an answer. In the case of the tree, I'd intuitively want to say that it's the same tree, and I think it might be explainable through it's history (it has a continuous history from seed to the current tree). In the case of living things (the boat is a bit different) I'd also be inclined to say something about a continuous experience, although that would be hard to argue for in the case of a tree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 10:32 pm
Do you think that this possibly an argument for some form of "being". Whether that would be like a platonic essence, consciousness, or spirit etc?
_Pearl.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 11:15 pm
SneakyPope Do you think that this possibly an argument for some form of "being". Whether that would be like a platonic essence, consciousness, or spirit etc?_Pearl. Not necessarily. More like a time-based argument - if two things are temporal slices of the same thing and that thing is continuous through time, then those two things can be said to be the same 'thing'. So if there is a thing through time that is a particular individual tree, extending from seedhood to the tree's death, then the tree now and the tree a year from now can be said to be the same tree if they are both temporal slices of that continuously existing tree - time slices; that tree at that time. The idea of some kind of 'essence' comes up more with the continuity of experience idea, which can be applied to people and maybe we can extend it to trees. With consciousness, this is exactly what I meant. But, there will be problems here too - first, is there continuity of experience? Intuitively we say yes (in the case of people), but it may not be so (there could be successive experiencers with access to the same memories, for instance). And, if there is continuity of experience and we use this as the argument, then how do we account for the fact that we don't remember every experience we've ever had? For instance, you may not at this time have any memories of experiences you had when you were one (i.e. there is no mental content that is the same between you-at-one and you-now), but we still feel inclined to say that you are the same person. So, I don't know. Rather than saying anything about essence or spirit, I think analysis this way says more about the way humans represent ideas of things internally - in some way we intuitively think "same tree", connecting the two stimuli internally - whether this is actually grounded in any fact about the tree/s is another matter (but interesting to think about!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 6:40 am
I don't really have an "answer" as such but this reminded me of something i read a while back - can't remember the source sorry
Basically if we imagine a boat that has one of its planks of wood making up the boat replaced generally we are inclined to say it is still the same boat. However what if gradually over time all the planks in the boat are replaced - where do we draw the line?
If we say it is now a different boat - when did it become different? why should the same step (replacing a plank of wood) at one point in time create a new boat when the same step at other times did not.
If we say it is the same boat
what if someone then rebuilds the boat from all the discarded original planks - which boat is then the original?
I may have some ideas at answers to this but it would take a while to explain - maybe i will try another day.
anyway i think it is interesting in showing that there is not a clear cut line between small changes and changes to the essence of something.
Edit: sorry just realised fogwolf used the same example earlier but um...yes still interesting.
slaps own hand for only skim reading the rest of the thread before posting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 8:58 pm
I believe changes is when matter changes its position, or loses, or gains a quality, attribute, and so on. I believe if you chose one of two or more optoins you have changed the outcome, or the object, or the situation, etc. Without change nothign would happen, their woudl be no thought, no movement, no time, nothing at all. Change is recognized in two ways. One is through preception/instincts. BOTh animals and huans have this. They can, hear, feal, taste, see, or smell when most things around them change. Then they react accordingly in a basic way. IF an animal sees the change of an empty erea to an erea with prey in it, it attacks, and vise versa when it sences a threat. Humans also experience this but we have worded thought, which means that we can also think about change. Some might say that it is another reason that animals arn't as smart as humans, but then how come cocoa the ape has fealings now that she knows sign language. She might have had fealings before, but not very complex ones. It can affect us not only physically but emottionally and mentally. Emmotional and mental change comes in three forms, in wich I will list from most common to least common. Dissapointment, satisfaction, and indifference. People react to each one differently depending on the person. Now they don't allways react the same way because they can chose their reaction to each form in most cases, but don't realize it. Most people in my opinion are kind of asleap. THey are surrounded by people who are dissapointed, angry, depressed, blaming, and selfish, and naturally assume that is what is normal. MOst people want to be normal for reasons that don't really make sence to me, and act accordingly to blend in. As they all act apon what they think others think they would act like, so do others. It interchanging, and very complex.
That is pretty much my veuw on some of the natures of change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 10:46 am
perhaps the only thing that really changes is perspective or a matter of perspective. first lets consider the opposite of change or the static state. we say things do not change when we can observe no change, from that perspective solid matter, say a rock, is going to be a rock tomorrow, but a glass of water left in the sun will be vapor tomorrow. we think the water has changed and the rock has not, but is it true? from the perspective it could be said to be true. from an atomic perspective however we would see obviously that the water molecules are moving constantly and in the heat of the sun moved apart until they seem to be a new thing, but consider the atoms in a rock, they too are moving all of the time electrons are shared atoms are bouncing off of each other so by the time tomorrow comes around the rock too has changed. so change is inescapable it happens without effort. nothing is ever the same, today is not yesterday and never again will be. this constant change though not always observable occurs all of the time on all levels.
now we can examine a more metaphysical perspective. on some level it has been theorized, all things are made of the same substance. the current theory in quantum physics calls this universal building block a string, and the theory is the string theory. though i cannot say i understand or agree with the fullest extent of the string theory i do think superficially it makes some sense. this building block of matter is made of something that can twisted and manipulated, in different circumstances it behaves differently but in essence is always the same thing. from this perspective all of the known existence is composed of a fluctuation of behavior in the the string matrix. from this perspective nothing can change.
but when we really get down to it change is a word and to say that something changes is an expression of our perception of the thing that changes or does not change and a reflection of our expectations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
