Discussion History VisualNovel / KissedByTheBaddestBidder

There are multiple problems with this claim--first among these, that hbi2k insists there is \\\"no basis in fact\\\" while simultaneously admitting that the body \\\'\\\'does\\\'\\\' replenish dead cells for much of its makeup.

This makes the urban legend a half-truth, not a complete fabrication--especially since, with respect to Real Life examples of this trope, \\\'\\\'there are multiple examples of objects which are debated to be examples of this paradox even when they still contain a significant amount of their original material\\\'\\\' (see the wooden-hulled ship examples--in fact, before I made my edits, the original example discussing the USS \\\'\\\'Constitution\\\'\\\' was right above his addition).

Because the Ship of Thesus Paradox is invoked and discussed with respect to real-life objects which haven\\\'t had \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' of their parts replaced, it stands to reason that the paradox could be invoked when discussing the human body if we recognize that yes, \\\'\\\'much\\\'\\\' of the human body \\\'\\\'does\\\'\\\' get replaced over time.

So, I modified his entry to be less problematic ...

-->21st Aug \\\'14 3:58:21 AM \\\'\\\'\\\'@/TrevMUN\\\'\\\'\\\'
-->This is not an aversion. The body is still replacing old cells with new ones, so it plays the trope straight regardless of the urban legend.
-->[-\\\'\\\'\\\'Changed line(s) 50 (click to see context) to:\\\'\\\'\\\'-]
-->* A popular urban legend has it that the human body replaces all of its cells (in some versions, all of its atoms) every seven years. While not strictly true, it \\\'\\\'does\\\'\\\' have a basis in fact despite what some may tell you. With the exception of certain types of cells (such as neurons in the brain), cells of the human body continually die off and are replaced with new ones at different rates. Given enough time, most of the tissues in a person\\\'s body will not contain any of the cells from a previous point in their life.

... only for hbi2k to swoop right in four hours later and add his example back into the article (but not replace the original that I modified):

-->5th Aug \\\'14 1:43:03 PM \\\'\\\'\\\'@/{{hbi2k}}\\\'\\\'\\\'
-->No, it IS an aversion, because there are some parts of the body that are never replaced, therefore there is an unbroken continuity between your physical self all through your life up to your death. This trope is about instances where ALL of an object\\\'s parts are replaced at one point or another.

I\\\'m going to say it again, hbi2k: your example is \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' an aversion, especially with respect to how this paradox is used when discussing real life objects. TV Tropes did not invent the Ship of Thesus Paradox.

I did give you the benefit of the doubt when modifying your initial example by noting that only \\\'\\\'most\\\'\\\' of the human body is continually replacing dead cells with new ones, but I \\\'\\\'could\\\'\\\' challenge your claims about, say, the human brain being a static organ by reminding you what neuroscience has learned of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity neuroplasticity]] in recent decades.

There are multiple problems with this claim--first among these, that hbi2k insists there is \\\"no basis in fact\\\" while simultaneously admitting that the body \\\'\\\'does\\\'\\\' replenish dead cells for much of its makeup.

This makes the urban legend a half-truth, not a complete fabrication--especially since, with respect to Real Life examples of this trope, \\\'\\\'there are multiple examples of objects which are debated to be examples of this paradox even when they still contain a significant amount of their original material\\\'\\\' (see the wooden-hulled ship examples--in fact, before I made my edits, the original example discussing the USS \\\'\\\'Constitution\\\'\\\' was right above his erroneous claims).

Because the Ship of Thesus Paradox is invoked and discussed with respect to real-life objects which haven\\\'t had \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' of their parts replaced, it stands to reason that the paradox could be invoked when discussing the human body if we recognize that yes, \\\'\\\'much\\\'\\\' of the human body \\\'\\\'does\\\'\\\' get replaced over time.

So, I modified his entry to be less problematic ...

-->21st Aug \\\'14 3:58:21 AM \\\'\\\'\\\'@/TrevMUN\\\'\\\'\\\'
-->This is not an aversion. The body is still replacing old cells with new ones, so it plays the trope straight regardless of the urban legend.
-->[-\\\'\\\'\\\'Changed line(s) 50 (click to see context) to:\\\'\\\'\\\'-]
-->* A popular urban legend has it that the human body replaces all of its cells (in some versions, all of its atoms) every seven years. While not strictly true, it \\\'\\\'does\\\'\\\' have a basis in fact despite what some may tell you. With the exception of certain types of cells (such as neurons in the brain), cells of the human body continually die off and are replaced with new ones at different rates. Given enough time, most of the tissues in a person\\\'s body will not contain any of the cells from a previous point in their life.

... only for hbi2k to swoop right in four hours later and add his example back into the article (but not replace the original that I modified):

-->5th Aug \\\'14 1:43:03 PM \\\'\\\'\\\'@/{{hbi2k}}\\\'\\\'\\\'
-->No, it IS an aversion, because there are some parts of the body that are never replaced, therefore there is an unbroken continuity between your physical self all through your life up to your death. This trope is about instances where ALL of an object\\\'s parts are replaced at one point or another.

I\\\'m going to say it again, hbi2k: your example is \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' an aversion, especially with respect to how this paradox is used when discussing real life objects. TV Tropes did not invent the Ship of Thesus Paradox.

I did give you the benefit of the doubt when modifying your initial example by noting that only \\\'\\\'most\\\'\\\' of the human body is continually replacing dead cells with new ones, but I \\\'\\\'could\\\'\\\' challenge your claims about, say, the human brain being a static organ by reminding you what neuroscience has learned of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity neuroplasticity]] in recent decades.

There are multiple problems with this claim--first among these, that hbi2k insists there is \\\"no basis in fact\\\" while simultaneously admitting that the body \\\'\\\'does\\\'\\\' replenish dead cells for much of its makeup.

This makes the urban legend a half-truth, not a complete fabrication--especially since, with respect to Real Life examples of this trope, \\\'\\\'there are multiple examples of objects which are debated to be examples of this paradox even when they still contain a significant amount of their original material\\\'\\\' (see the wooden-hulled ship examples--in fact, before I made my edits, the original example discussing the USS \\\'\\\'Constitution\\\'\\\' was right above his erroneous claims).

Because the Ship of Thesus Paradox is invoked and discussed with respect to real-life objects which haven\\\'t had \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' of their parts replaced, it stands to reason that the paradox could be invoked when discussing the human body if we recognize that yes, \\\'\\\'much\\\'\\\' of the human body \\\'\\\'does\\\'\\\' get replaced over time.

So, I modified his entry to be less problematic ...

-->21st Aug \\\'14 3:58:21 AM \\\'\\\'\\\'@/TrevMUN\\\'\\\'\\\'
-->This is not an aversion. The body is still replacing old cells with new ones, so it plays the trope straight regardless of the urban legend.
-->[-\\\'\\\'\\\'Changed line(s) 50 (click to see context) to:\\\'\\\'\\\'-]
-->* A popular urban legend has it that the human body replaces all of its cells (in some versions, all of its atoms) every seven years. While not strictly true, it \\\'\\\'does\\\'\\\' have a basis in fact despite what some may tell you. With the exception of certain types of cells (such as neurons in the brain), cells of the human body continually die off and are replaced with new ones at different rates. Given enough time, most of the tissues in a person\\\'s body will not contain any of the cells from a previous point in their life.

... only for hbi2k to swoop right in four hours later and add his example back into the article (but not replace the original that I modified):

-->5th Aug \\\'14 1:43:03 PM \\\'\\\'\\\'@/{{hbi2k}}\\\'\\\'\\\'
-->No, it IS an aversion, because there are some parts of the body that are never replaced, therefore there is an unbroken continuity between your physical self all through your life up to your death. This trope is about instances where ALL of an object\\\'s parts are replaced at one point or another.

I\\\'m going to say it again, hbi2k: your example is \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' an aversion, especially with respect to how this paradox is used when discussing real life objects. TV Tropes did not invent the Ship of Thesus Paradox.