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: <695@mmintl.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 25-Sep-85 17:14:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: mmintl.695
Posted: Wed Sep 25 17:14:09 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 1-Oct-85 06:04:15 EDT
References: <581@utastro.UUCP> <1322@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT
Lines: 51

[Not food]

In article <751@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes:
>> Or did you think I was asserting that a method for restoring memories and
>> attitudes was known?  I'm not; I'm only asserting that such a method is
>> conceivable.  If you disbelieve this, the burden of proof is on you.
>
>I agree that it is perhaps conceivable, however I have reservations about
>exotic claims, (presented as being "better" in some sense than another
>exotic set), being justified and defended purely on the basis of hypothetical
>conjecture. My comment was intended to introduce harsh reality back into
>the picture by forcing the recognition of the degree of conjecture involved.

The immediate question was whether the essence of the person is the body
(including the brain), or the information content thereof.  If it is
conceivable that the person can be transferred to another body, the answer
has to be the latter.  Whether such a transfer is really practical is
not relevant.

>Recall that the discussion concerned resurrection and the soul.

Right.  And if God is doing the resurrecting, the practical difficulties
are irrelevant.

>All I am
>saying is that in the context of the former, the latter provides tremendous
>explanatory power and self consistency. To do away with the soul, from
>my viewpoint as a non-believer, reduces the system furthermore into mere
>assemblages of assertions that don't hang together - kind of like introducing
>more of Maxwell's demons into your picture.

I don't think it provides any explanatory power and self consistency.  If,
as I believe, the essence of the person is form, not material, then
resurrection is perfectly possible without a soul; indeed, the idea of
a supernatural soul comes to look like an unnecessary complication.

Let me emphasize that I *don't* believe in God, or resurrection.

>Finally, the burden of proof lies with the claimant and not the listener.

This is not true as a general rule.  Since the claim is one of
conceivability, the burden lies the other way.  I can conceive of it;
what is wrong with my conception?

Anyway, the argument at that point was one of opposing claims, not of
claimant and listener.

Frank Adams                           ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com