Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: More Atheistic Wishful Thinking
Message-ID: <1648@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 5-Sep-85 23:26:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1648
Posted: Thu Sep  5 23:26:01 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Sep-85 04:22:28 EDT
References: <1115@mhuxt.UUCP> <1473@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 35

> I was objecting the persistent refusal to admit to the possibility that the
> physical representation of the person may in fact be unimportant to their
> identity.  I don't care to argue that the mind and body can be conceived of
> in analogy to a program in a computer ( in fact, I doubt the truth of the
> assertion); the point was that such a system can be conceptualized, and
> therefore is a candidate hypothesis until it is disproven experimentally.
>  [WINGATE]

Tooth fairies can also be conceptualized.  But more importantly, when
Charles states that "physical representation of a person may be unimportant
to their identity", he is stating very clearly a belief in souls.  For what
is a soul but a "something more" than a person's physical representation that
is a part of that person?  I find it cute when people speak only of the
conceptualizations that conform (ahem) to the notions they want to believe,
rather than reasonable notions about reality.

> I brought this up in the first place because Rich and Padraig were rather
> too dead-set on the physical body being the "identity".  If the Mind is the
> identity, then one can obviously (at least in concept) execute it on some
> other "machine", or copy, store it on tape, selectively alter it without
> altering the body, and perhaps other transformations-- all this, and no
> souls either.  SInce this hypothesis is quite viable, although unproven, the
> statement that "Man is just a bunch of chemicals" can only be taken as a
> statment of religious faith, unless it is recognized for the hypothesis that
> it is (and not fact at all).

If you assert that mind is separate from the physical brain and body, you are
again talking souls.  But if perchance you're not, what would it mean
to have a disembodied mind or brain without exactly the same input and output
devices (the rest of the body)?  The experience would be completely different,
it would be a different person.
-- 
Meanwhile, the Germans were engaging in their heavy cream experiments in
Finland, where the results kept coming out like Swiss cheese...
				Rich Rosen 	ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr