Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/12/84; site aero.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!aero!warack
From: warack@aero.ARPA (Chris Warack)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: LAST WORD on "souls" (I hope!)
Message-ID: <394@aero.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 26-Aug-85 16:12:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: aero.394
Posted: Mon Aug 26 16:12:13 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 31-Aug-85 04:45:26 EDT
References: <581@utastro.UUCP> <1322@umcp-cs.UUCP> <588@utastro.UUCP> <1364@umcp-cs.UUCP> <599@utastro.UUCP>
Reply-To: warack@aero.UUCP (Chris Warack)
Followup-To: net.philosphy
Organization: The Discordian Society
Lines: 69
Summary: Continuity of existence


 "we" in "we are resurrected"
>> >These assumptions are implicit in the resurrection claim. These are not
>> >being challanged here. Now X forms an uninterrupted succession, therefore
>> >it is continuous.

>> CASE:
>> An electron exists at time A (7:00:00 am), and at time B (7:00:01 am),
>> but not in between.  It interacts with another particle, and both disappear
>> for one second; then both reappear.  (Physics experts, correct me if this
>> is not possible; I've read that it is.  Anyway, even if it is not physically
>> possible, it is *logically* possible [i.e. it involves no contradiction].)

>This is really ripe: "...even if it is not physically possible it is
>*logically* possible ...". This begins to stink of the problem concerning
>the amount of teeth that women have.
[omitted material]

>This is garbage. Electrons can be created in many ways through interactions
>among other atomic particles. That none are within a certain volume at
>a certain time does not preclude them forming, through decay perhaps,
> there.

>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.

>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.

The point Charley was making is that souls aren't NECESSARY for there to
be life after death.  Paul was trying to give you an example of a
discontinuous existence.  What they say is perfectly valid.  Existence
could be discontinuous.

In Star Trek, Dr. McCoy had a number of philosophical questions of this
nature, because of the Transporter.  The transporter supposedly took a
person, disassembled their components, encoded them, transmitted them,
and reassembled the person out of available materials at the
destination.  What Charley says is just like the person being
disassembled and encoded, there may be some other transformation at
death, that allows a person to be resurrected at a later date.  Maybe
even a 'temporal warp?'

I find it hard that you can argue that this possibility doesn't exist...

For your consideration,
Chris
-- 
 _______
|/-----\|    Chris Warack			(213) 648-6617
||hello||
||     ||    warack@aerospace.ARPA
|-------|    warack@aero.UUCP
|@  ___ |       seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!
|_______|         sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!aero!warack
  || ||  \   Aerospace Corporation, M1-117, El Segundo, CA  90245
 ^^^ ^^^  `---------(|=