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!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!ucbvax!ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: More Atheistic Wishful Thinking
Message-ID: <1590@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 15-Sep-85 15:13:49 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1590
Posted: Sun Sep 15 15:13:49 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Sep-85 03:14:54 EDT
References: <1566@umcp-cs.UUCP> <714@utastro.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 106

In article <714@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes:

>> 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.

>You claimed that "you" would be resurrected. That is a statement implying
>identity transfer. By all that you continue to say, you being resurrected
>is the same as you being generated from all the data that describes you, i.e.
>a copy is made of you. Therefore, by your own reasoning, identity is
>transferred through the copying process. The issue is not whether the copy
>has similar attributes, but whether it is "you"? You claim that it is, which
>is absurd since multiple copies can be made from the same data that the
>first one was made from.

So what?  What is absurd about it?  What is this "you" thing, anyway?  I
thought you were supposed to be a strict materialist.  All of a sudden
there's this "you" which somehow makes one copy of me unlike another.  And I
don't recall God promising to raise up "exactly one" of me.

>> >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?

>I disagree totally with this. If you have problems justifying transferance
>of identity with things that look similar, your case falls apart completely
>when attempting to apply your arguments to dissimilar items. The programs
>can be called the same because the code for them always existed, either
>on disk, tape, paper, or in someone's head, but the thing that characterized
>it never went out of existence, it was always available somewhere if needed.

I thought you were supposed to be a strict materialist; now you're talking
like some sort of Platonist, since you have rather suddenly started arguing
for the supernatural existence of things like numbers, programs, words, etc.
If you are going to make that kind of argument, then you might as well
express a belief in souls and be done with it.

>You continue to refuse to face up to the problem that there is a sense
>of identity that has to be ascribed to each object produced by a template
>on an assembly line that allows one to refer to a particular one as "it"; 

Well, of course there is, and the fact that you raise this objection
indicates that either you didn't read what I said or didn't understand it,
as evidenced by the following:

>To follow your matter transfer analogy a bit, would you say the
>guy at the other end  was resurrected? What if the machine made copies?
>Which of the copies is "him"? 

Both of them are distinct "him"s.  One is a "him" that was not
matter-transmitted, and the other is the "him" that was.  Each of them is
the person that went to the matter transmitter, but they are not each other;
they are distinct human beings, even though they are both the same person as
"him" in the past.  It is not a transitive relationship.

>>>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.

>Yes, but here's the rub: you presumably used some type of semi logical
>reasoning to reject a conventional tenet of christianity - that there
>is a soul- but now when your conclusions are scrutinized in turn you
>say that your claims are not open to scientific examination. Well that's
>fine by me. You have gone to great pains to defend your point of view,
>present them as being the result of sound reasoning, criticized me for
>my lack of knowledge about modern christianity, but what it all boils down
>to is your views are protected in the same way as the rest
>of religious thought is.

Again you have misrepresented my thoughts.  I said it was NOT NECESSARY to
believe in souls to be a Christian.  THe fact that many (even most)
christians do is of no relevance.

>>>> 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.

>Why don't we take a poll on the net (which I will do immediately) to
>see who's in tune with christian thought on the issue?

The fact that you think that in any way resolves the issue indicates that
you have no appreciation of the diversity of views within Christianity.

Charley Wingate


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com