Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mmintl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
From: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Souls
Message-ID: <638@mmintl.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 5-Sep-85 21:32:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: mmintl.638
Posted: Thu Sep  5 21:32:45 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 8-Sep-85 11:24:24 EDT
References: <581@utastro.UUCP> <1322@umcp-cs.UUCP> <588@utastro.UUCP> <621@mmintl.UUCP> <1626@pyuxd.UUCP>
Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT
Lines: 14
Summary: 


In article <1626@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes:
>> Neither side seems to me to have focussed on the key point here.  It seems
>> to me that what is being proposed here is that the "resurrection" consists
>> of the reconstituting of the body more or less exactly like it was just
>> before death.  Presumably the health will be improved, but at a minimum
>> the memories and attitudes will be the same.  Clearly this does not require
>> that anything of the person exist in the interrum (sp?).
>
>If you do what
>Frank suggests, improving the health in some way, you have altered the
>person's chemical structure, and thus it is clearly NOT the same person.

The key point was that the memories and attitudes be the same.  If this
is the case, it is not CLEAR that it is not the same person.