This is one of those arguments that exists solely so stoned undergrads can sit around and go "whoa, man...deep!"
It's basically mental masturbation, because the way they have defined the argument automatically leads into philosophical territories that are rich in stupidity and completely fail to map to reality, thus also failing to yield any conclusions of intrinsic worth whatsoever.

To put it another way- you can always create a philosophical conundrum if you frame the issue in a loose enough way, but it doesn't mean you've discovered some new paradigm of thought- it just means you managed to completely miss the point, and you're apparently not capable of accurate analysis.