Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utastro.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!padraig From: padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: More Atheistic Wishful Thinking(wishful thinking) Message-ID: <610@utastro.UUCP> Date: Mon, 26-Aug-85 12:40:09 EDT Article-I.D.: utastro.610 Posted: Mon Aug 26 12:40:09 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 28-Aug-85 11:09:25 EDT References: <599@utastro.UUCP> <1379@umcp-cs.UUCP> Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX Lines: 83 > In article <599@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes: > > >I note that an interesting consequence of Charley's view is that man is > >nothing more than an assemblage of chemicals. (Maybe some good has come > >from Rosen's and my postings!) As an analogy one could consider a stack > >of coins, say, and have some klutz knock them over. The stack is rebuilt, > >but the question is whether or not it is the "same" stack, in the same > >sense as that for a similar one that existed all the while. > > Wishful thinking: it's like saying that a robot chess player is "just a bunch > of ICs". The huge volume of stories concerning the transmission of minds > from one body to another indicates that people do not really believe that a > mind is a bunch of chemicals any more than they believe that a chess program > is a bunch of ICs (or take the reduction to an even more absurd level, a > bunch of electrical charges). Let's not forget the tooth fairy, santa claus, all legends, and why not throw in Velikovsky while we are at it. This is net.philosophy, not net.storytime. All of this is fascinating. Look how easy it is to produce something that is more than just an assemblage of chemicals. It has already been done to Charley's satisfaction in the case of robots; it is only a matter of degree to go from there to life itself. > ... The pejorative phrasing clearly indicates that > Padraig would rather have us overlook the absolute importance of the > ORGANIZATION of those chemicals. The fact that people can talk seriously > about transferring people's minds (and one assumes, the essential person) > into computers indicates that, not only can in fact say that a person is NOT > just chemicals, but even that the essential nature of a person is > immaterial-- since it is information, and not matter or energy. No. I think the organization is pretty important. Sorry if I mislead you there. > ... It it > certainly beyond contest that the information represented in the mind is an > essential component of a person, so that "just a bag of chemicals" he ain't. This is great! Each time a robot is built another is resurrected, even though its predecessors may not have already ended on the scrap heap. Imagine that. Multiple resurrections of the same object. How many times will you be resurrected Charley? Once? Twice? A hundred times? > >I have no idea why he > >opts for denying the existence of a soul since it presents a simple > >and "natural" explanation for his scenario, and is just as credible. > > Newtonian physics is also simple, and natural, and wrong. WRONG! Newtonian physics is not incorrect. Just like any other branch of physics it is valid only over a finite domain. It is more than sufficient to place men on the moon. > ...The point is not > whether or not I "accept" an explanation. The point is that Padraig is > demanding that this explanation be accpeted, AND NO OTHER. Wrong again. I don't believe in a soul either. In fact I pretty much agree with you on what you said above. Where I disagree though is over your assertion that you will be resurrected. This I find to be inconsistent with what you have said, and leads to many exotic consequences. So there is another explanation: no soul, no resurrection. > ... Since he has > absolutely no objective evidence to work from, he has no basis to either > assert or deny ANY hypothesis about "life after death", especially since the > root idea comes out of a religious domain where we readily admit that we use > the term without any precise notion of what we mean by it. I choose not to > believe in souls, but on rather different grounds, which Padraig has already > stated his lack of interest in. > > Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe Again. I am not asserting anything. You are the one claiming that the soul does not exist, while at the same time claiming that you will be resurrected. I haven't been swamped with objective evidence from you though. Padraig Houlahan.