Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!dual!mordor!ut-sally!utastro!padraig
From: padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: More Atheistic Wishful Thinking
Message-ID: <739@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 19-Sep-85 09:47:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: utastro.739
Posted: Thu Sep 19 09:47:19 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Sep-85 05:34:48 EDT
References: <1522@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1668@pyuxd.UUCP> <1552@umcp-cs.UUCP> <701@utastro.UUCP> <664@mmintl.UUCP>
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 29

> I think you are making the mistake of assuming that "shares identity with"
> is an equivalence relation.  Just because a copy of you shares identity with
> the you as of and before the copy was made (which the current you also shares
> identity with) does not mean that it shares identity with you.  In order for a
> murder not to have taken place, the copy must have been made at or after the
> time of the murder.  Again, a *perfect* copy is not required, since a perfect
> copy would be dead.  The boundary between a copy good enough to share
> identity and one not good enough is fuzzy, like all real world boundaries.

All of this indicates that the word "identity" is being used in at least
two different ways here; one as a statement of likeness, and another as 
a statement of "selfness". The copies are identical with the original in
the former sense at least. I see a problem with the resurrection claim
in that if multiple copies are allowed, and in principle they are if
identity is defined only by structure and organization to the exclusion
of the need for a soul, then there is no way that the copies can be 
identical with the original in the second sense. 
> 
> >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.
> 
> If someone else sings the song, it is still the same song.

Yes, in at least the first sense. The problem still remains that killing
one of a set of identical twins is usually considered murder although
by the song analogy his identity still exists. This is the absurdity.

Padraig Houlahan.


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com