Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!dual!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: More Atheistic Wishful Thinking
Message-ID: <1566@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 12-Sep-85 21:45:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1566
Posted: Thu Sep 12 21:45:18 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 15-Sep-85 11:46:15 EDT
References: <1552@umcp-cs.UUCP> <701@utastro.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 78

In article <701@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes:

>> No, no, no.  The question is NOT whether or not the thing is physically
>> represented-- if you can even talk about physically representing it, then
>> quite obviously the object in question is NOT the representation.  When I
>> take an Aretha Franklin song and copy it from my record to my cassette
>> tape, it remains the same song.

>Then if you are murdered, but a clone of yours survives, you continue to
>exist? Charley A, though now in a coffin still lives and wont be resurrected?
>(How can one be resurrected if one hasn't died?)
>The murderer can cite as evidence that no murder has taken place the fact
>that Charley is still hanging in there in the form of Charley B?

Back when I was talking about this subject, I never stated that the original
after the copy and the copy itself were "the same" in any way; what I did
say was that copy and the original BEFORE the copy were the same.

>The point of all this is to demonstrate the absurdity of confusing "same"
>in the sense of "identical copy" and "same" as a statement of "identity".
>Your reference to the above song fails to make this distinction.

The confusion only arises because the song is a static thing.  Suppose
instead that I copy a computer program, and make changes to it; at the same
time, someone is changing the original.  Neither of these is an indentical
copy of anything, yet both are the same program as the original, except
changed.  Do not humans mark identity in much the same way?  And are you
willing to argue that "matter transmission", were it possible, would kill a
person?  WHat do you call the person that arrives at the other end?

>> "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" (Haldane).  The only
>> proper conclusion is that you can draw no conclusion.  If I sit in this
>> room (which has no windows) and assert that "the car in the first
>> parking space is blue," it is indeed possible for there to be a blue car
>> in the first parking space.  If one does not actually examine the
>> parking space, one is not in a position either to confirm or to deny
>> my statement.  The ONLY correct response is "there is no evidence"; one
>> cannot DENY the statement, because to do so is to make the assertion
>> that "there is no blue car in the first parking space."  Since this
>> statement is not supported by evidence either, the situation is quite
>> symmetrical.  Neither statement can be claimed to be true; therefore
>> neither can be claimed to be false.  All that can be said is
>> "there is no evidence."

>This I find surprising. That you can claim resurrection and continuity
>of identity without a shred of evidence and at the same time write the above
>is incredible.

What is incredible is your curious statement that I am trying to
scientifically demonstrate resurrection.  I have never claimed that the
claims of Christianity are scientifically verifiable; all I am claiming in
this case is plausibility.  I do expect you and Rich, however, to hew
strictly to scientific procedure.

>>>> In contrast, Rich is asserting that in the face of near total absence of
>>>> evidence and investigation, he can claim that conscious identity is
>>>> purely in the body.  Now, maybe ten years from now, he will have some
>>>> basis for this claim, but right now, he has none.

>How many times have you been introduced to someone that extended his
>hand and shook the nearest table rather than your hand? If never, then
>you might take this as evidence that people dont as a rule doubt that
>your identity resides in your body.

Ah yes, but you are using resides in the sense of "lives in", while I am
using it in the sense of "is to be identified with".

>> One of the principles of science is that the truth or falsity of a
>> statement should be independent of its subjective significance...

>Hmmm! What is the subjective significance of resurrection? Could it possibly
>be influencing your ability to tell the truth? Nah, 'course not, y'all are
>talkin' 'bout religion here anyways.

Well, you and Rich have both expressed vast ignorance of Christianity
before, and I see no reason to waste my time in futile effort to change that.

Charley Wingate


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com