- Suppose your great-grandfather built the house that you now live in. Most people would naturally refer to it as "the house that your great-grandfather built." But now let us further suppose that over a long period of time, certain sections of the house needed to be repaired and replaced. Maybe the roofing leaked and needed to be re-shingled. Maybe some rowdy boys were wrestling and accidentally knocked a hole in a wall. Whatever. And after so many maintenance projects over such a long period of time, suppose that there is nothing left of the original materials that your great-grandfather used to build the house. Everything looks exactly the same, but the materials are not original. Should you still refer to it as the house your great-grandfather built? If not, what if it was only the roof that was replaced?
- What if a tornado destroyed the original house in one fell swoop, and the entire house had to be re-built in one large job. The house is built exactly as your great-grandfather built it, but the materials are all new. Should you still refer to it as the house your great-grandfather built?
- Suppose that your great-grandfather was a famous person, and a historical society moves the entire house into a museum. Each brick is individually numbered as it is carefully taken down, and everything is re-assembled in the exact same same positions, using the original materials, but in a different city. Does location have anything to do reference? Is that house "the house your great-grandfather built?"
- Does the discourse change when we are talking about a living being? For example, a person's physical appearance changes over the course of his or her life. Skin cells alone have been replaced, and replaced, and replaced thousands of times. Your body can change so drastically that a person who has not seen you since you were four-years-old may not be able to even recognize you, let alone refer to you by your name. Are we referring to the same person when we talk about the four-year-old version of you and the current version of you?
- Does the discourse change when we are talking about a living being? For example, a person's physical appearance changes over the course of his or her life. Skin cells alone have been replaced, and replaced, and replaced thousands of times. Your body can change so drastically that a person who has not seen you since you were four-years-old may not be able to even recognize you, let alone refer to you by your name. Are we referring to the same person when we talk about the four-year-old version of you and the current version of you?
11 comments:
I can't imagine repairs that would eventually cause every single piece of material to be replaced. If the roof was replaced, it would still be "the house my great-grandfather built".
If the house had to be rebuilt w/ new materials after a tornado it would not, since he didn't actually build that house. Same goes if the historical society takes it down and rebuilds it.
Skin and body does not make the person. The soul, mind, and personality do. While the mind and personality may change over time, it is still you.
The house is just an hypothetical example, it could be anything. How about a classic car from the 60's? The example is questioning how (and the reasons why) we refer to an object if the object was replaced slowly over time, and comparing that with the object being replaced all at once.
And just to play devil's advocate,...If you think different, act different, look different, etc., etc., why aren't you a different person from a semiotic point of view. The point of the question was to examine what(who?) I am referring to when I say "Adam" or "Kevin."
For example, say that you and Mike are talking baseball and refer to Miguel Cabrera. What is the object Miguel Cabrera? Are you referring to his soul?
I think you should still refer to it as the house your great-grandfather built.
I think with anything, person or house, one just assumes that changes will take place, whether they be repairs or personality.
I think the bottom line is that no matter how many changes something goes through, the foundation is still there, from the literal foundation of a house to the foundation of the human self, our unique DNA.
So your examples:
1) Repairs- Still the house your grandfather built.
2) Tornado- If the house is rebuilt, and not repaired- not the house your grandfather built. Take a human case, for example. If someone kills me, my parents just can't have another baby and call it Mike and that be the same me. No matter how similar, it's not the same.
3) Location- Tricky. I'm not sure on this one. I will have to think more.
4) 4-Year Old You and Now- Still you! Your core foundation is still there, despite any outside changes. Again, I think people expect change, and wouldn't be surprised if they hadn't seen you in twenty years to see that you were different.
This is moving from a semiotic focus to more general philosophy, but I'll go with it.
Try to generalize the example into an object that doesn't have a foundation. (Maybe a house was a poor choice for the example) Perhaps think of just the shingles on the roof. Or maybe a car or a motorcycle.
As for the human example, DNA is not always constant throughout your life. Cosmic rays are constantly bombarding the Earth, and they occasionally cause mutations. (changes in DNA) I would argue that a person's "core foundation" is not the DNA, because even that is changeable. Or what about cloning? You and your clone would have the exact same DNA, yet still remain distinct individuals.
But like the old adage goes, "there's only one original".
How about we throw out another example =)? Let's say you have a family recipe for, I don't know, your great grandmother's world famous brownies. You would make the recipe, just like your grandmother did, and you would serve your brownies saying "these are my great grandmother's world famous brownies".
They are not actually your great grandmother's world famous brownines, though. Yes, they have all the same ingredients types, but they weren't THE original brownies made by your great grandmother.
To take it even further, even the ingredients you use aren't the same. Let's say you make the brownies in the year 2000, while your great grandmother made them in 1900. In the recipe it may call for 1/4 cup flour, and you both use it to make your brownies. But because you didn't use the same 1/4 cup flour your great grandmother did, your recipe is not the same.
I think that's how I feel with the cloning. Yes, your DNA is exactly the same, but it's not the original. It's not MY DNA. It's duplicated, much like the ingredients in my great grandmother's brownie recipe, but no matter how similar, they'll never be the original me.
I suppose we could have a whole debate on cloning from that last paragraph, but let's save that for another day or another post =).
I still think your house example was still good. You say DNA changes with mutations, well a house's foundation can still go under repair as well. A flooded basement needs repairs. Even with the changes DNA or a foundations undergoes, it's still unique. You're still you, and the house is still your grandfather's.
My question is WHY is it still you, when your clone is exactly the same? Or conversely, why is it still your grandfather's house or your grandmother's brownies, when everything is different?
I agree with you, but I'm having troubling reconciliing what I believe with what I learn. And it's especially difficult when what I learn is that such-and-such can be false, without any indication towards what is true.
Maybe it's an unanswerable question. Another example of the paradox of reality. But I still have to ask the question.
Your clone is not the same as you, unless he uses your DNA (your exact DNA, not a copy!). Just like the brownies you make cannot be grandma's unless you use the exact cup of flour that grandma used back in 1900, which is impossible.
Why do we refer to the brownies we make today as grandma's? Because in essence, they are virtually the same. Just like your clone, and just like your grandfather's house, there isn't enough significant difference to change the naming or describing of the object. I think it's a matter of convenience, really. But at the heart of the matter, they are different, despite how ridiculously similar they are.
Does one cell in your body have "your" DNA, and the DNA in the rest of the cells have DNA that are "just copies?" I don't understand what you mean by that.
Your cells are your cells. Your unique DNA is found in each. A clone's cells will never be your cells, no matter how similar, because your cells are found on your body.
I think one could make a good arguement that your clone's cells are your cells. If I chop off your arm, the cells of the arm are no longer on your body, but I think we can agree that they are still your cells.
However, the DNA (your unique DNA) used to create the clone was once part of your body too. What is the difference between the cells on your severed arm, and the cells on your clone?
And just to throw another philosophical question our there, let's say I take a skin cell off of your finger, and I take a skin cell off of your clone's finger, and put your clone's cell in your finger. Would you still be you? How many cells would have to be swapped before the "you" changes to "your clone?"
And (to get back into the intent of the post) from a semiotic standpoint I completely argee with you. We can definitely refer to one individual X (skin cell, roof shingle, brownie etc) out of infinite exact copies. We don't even have to know what the object is to be able to refer to it. (And this can even lead to the odd case of referring to an object that doesn't exist) But how do we do it? The phenomenon of reference remains a mystery.
Post a Comment