mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (08/13/85)
[The mightly hunter strides along, checking his many traps. Lo! He has caught something!] In article <540@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes: [But first, a quote from our sponsor] >> The oldest notion seems to be of souls: beings of pure will. I think that >> at this time we can reject this hypothesis, or at least set it aside until >> there is better evidence. I put this in the original article because I knew at least one perosn would fall into this trap. And here we have: >If you do not accept the existence of souls, why do you bother with the >new testament, christianity, and things like god? I was >under the impression that the whole thrust of christianity was >salvation. What's to be saved if there is no soul? How about the person? People throughout the ages have erroneously gone from "There is life after death" to "Something of the person must survive death." This idea is strongly associated with spiritualism, in particular, and can be traced back to ancient Egypt. Even if we allow the possibility of life after death (resurrection, whatever), however, I think it's safe to say that we know essentially nothing about what it is like, or, more importantly, the method taking us from this life to the next. Even if you accept all manner of spiritualist evidence, or all of the Bible as Fact, I don't think you need souls as an explanation. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe "Better get used to those bars, kid."
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (08/14/85)
> >If you do not accept the existence of souls, why do you bother with the > >new testament, christianity, and things like god? I was > >under the impression that the whole thrust of christianity was > >salvation. What's to be saved if there is no soul? > > How about the person? People throughout the ages have erroneously gone from > "There is life after death" to "Something of the person must survive death." > This idea is strongly associated with spiritualism, in particular, and can > be traced back to ancient Egypt. Even if we allow the possibility of life > after death (resurrection, whatever), however, I think it's safe to say that > we know essentially nothing about what it is like, or, more importantly, the > method taking us from this life to the next. Even if you accept all manner > of spiritualist evidence, or all of the Bible as Fact, I don't think you > need souls as an explanation. > > Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe SOUL: The spiritual or immortal element in a person. [Oxf. Am. Dict.] You say we know nothing about "the method taking us from this life to the next". Implicit is the concept of something that survives us after death. This has been traditionally identified with the soul. You can't have it both ways. You cannot say that the soul does not exist, and then say that something survives us after we die and goes into the next life. Now you may have a new definition of "soul" that is completely different from anything like the above, but this is just pussyfooting around. A rose by any other name is still a rose. Padraig Houlahan.
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (08/14/85)
In article <542@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes: >> >If you do not accept the existence of souls, why do you bother with the >> >new testament, christianity, and things like god? I was >> >under the impression that the whole thrust of christianity was >> >salvation. What's to be saved if there is no soul? >> How about the person? People throughout the ages have erroneously gone >> from "There is life after death" to "Something of the person must survive >> death." This idea is strongly associated with spiritualism, in >> particular, and can be traced back to ancient Egypt. Even if we allow >> the possibility of life after death (resurrection, whatever), however, >> I think it's safe to say that we know essentially nothing about what it >> is like, or, more importantly, the method taking us from this life to >> the next. Even if you accept all manner of spiritualist evidence, >> or all of the Bible as Fact, I don't think you need souls as an >> explanation. >SOUL: The spiritual or immortal element in a person. [Oxf. Am. Dict.] >You say we know nothing about "the method taking us from this life to the >next". Implicit is the concept of something that survives us after death. >This has been traditionally identified with the soul. You can't have it both >ways. You cannot say that the soul does not exist, and then say that >something survives us after we die and goes into the next life. Wrong, wrong, wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How about NOTHING survives???? How about we die completely? Why is there this need for continuity? That's precisely the point! It's YOUR assumption that life after death implies survival of death. On what metaphysical basis do you intend to prove this? Charley Wingate
jim@ISM780B.UUCP (08/15/85)
[padraig] If you do not accept the existence of souls, why do you bother with the new testament, christianity, and things like god? I was under the impression that the whole thrust of christianity was salvation. What's to be saved if there is no soul? [wingate] How about the person? [balter] Saved from what? Salvation in Christian theology has a specific meaning: saved from eternal damnation, which is presumably an unpleasant state (so it gets down to Christians being afraid of long-term pain). If there is no soul, there is no point to salvation. (How did we get back to religious themes?) [padraig] You say we know nothing about "the method taking us from this life to the next". Implicit is the concept of something that survives us after death. This has been traditionally identified with the soul. You can't have it both ways. You cannot say that the soul does not exist, and then say that something survives us after we die and goes into the next life. [wingate] Wrong, wrong, wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How about NOTHING survives???? How about we die completely? Why is there this need for continuity? That's precisely the point! It's YOUR assumption that life after death implies survival of death. On what metaphysical basis do you intend to prove this? [balter] Metaphysical basis? What about simple semantic coherence? What in the world does it mean to have "life after death" without "survival of death"? Life of *what*? If not life of that which died, then you are being incredibly silly; of course after my death there will be some other life, not necessarily mine. But if we are to identify something following a death with that which died, then certainly the something that died survived in order to be identified; if you deny that then you are using some bizarre and unacceptable notion of "survive". You define a soul as the immortal portion, and then say a soul isn't necessary, and say continuity isn't necessary, but this is just semantic confusion. If I die completely, there is no continuity, but I am later reconstructed (resurrected somehow), then I have *survived*; continuity is irrelevant. But this whole discussion is silly from the point of view of net.philosophy; there is no philosophical basis for presuming life after death. Some New Age types talk about dying and then becoming part of the ALL. But just what does this *mean*? If my *ego* does not survive my death, then just what is it after my death that we are identifying with *me*? Those who claim remembrance of past lives at least have some means of identifying the continuity; others are just playing word games. -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/17/85)
> SOUL: The spiritual or immortal element in a person. [Oxf. Am. Dict.] > > You say we know nothing about "the method taking us from this life to the > next". Implicit is the concept of something that survives us after death. > This has been traditionally identified with the soul. You can't have it both > ways. You cannot say that the soul does not exist, and then say that > something survives us after we die and goes into the next life. > > Now you may have a new definition of "soul" that is completely different > from anything like the above, but this is just pussyfooting around. > > A rose by any other name is still a rose. > > Padraig Houlahan. This is actually a reverse case of the seemingly standard "take a word ("xxx") that doesn't describe something real or that is rooted in a fallacy and just use it to describe an existing phenomenon so that "xxx" will magically exist---only the word is now pointing to a different thing and no one told the speakers of the language". The reverse is "take a word ("yyy") that has negative connotations in some field of study and use another word to describe the same phenomenon (or a long explanation without a specific word), whilst denying that you are referring to "yyy" at all. -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (08/17/85)
In article <2451@mit-hermes.ARPA> Christopher Roberson writes: >> Wrong, wrong, wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How about NOTHING survives???? How >> about we die completely? Why is there this need for continuity? >> That's precisely the point! It's YOUR assumption that life after >> death implies survival of death. On what metaphysical basis do >> you intend to prove this? >I don't have any problem with 'nothing survives'; I don't even have a problem >with a Christian proclaiming that 'nothing survives' (see Charles Hartshorne >for a Christian view of mortality -- incidentally, are you a Unitarian, >Charley? Just curious); but I do wonder what 'life after death' means if it >doesn't mean that we survive death. Could you please explain further? It means just "life after death". It doesn't mean that we survive death, it means that we get resurrected. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe (member of the Episcopal Mafia)
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (08/17/85)
> It means just "life after death". It doesn't mean that we survive death, it > means that we get resurrected. > > Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe (member of the Episcopal Mafia) Charley, this is a crock of soup. If "we" get resurrected, then that implies continuity of something that characterizes the "we" through the death- resurrection phase. Padraig Houlahan.
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (08/18/85)
In article <27500099@ISM780B.UUCP> jim@ISM780B.UUCP writes: >>> I was >>>under the impression that the whole thrust of christianity was >>>salvation. What's to be saved if there is no soul? >>How about the person? >Saved from what? Salvation in Christian theology has a specific meaning: >saved from eternal damnation, which is presumably an unpleasant state >(so it gets down to Christians being afraid of long-term pain). >If there is no soul, there is no point to salvation. (How did we get back >to religious themes?) I suggest that your knowledge of Christian theology and doctrine is rather limited. >Metaphysical basis? What about simple semantic coherence? What in the >world does it mean to have "life after death" without "survival of death"? >Life of *what*? If not life of that which died, then you are being >incredibly silly; of course after my death there will be some other life, >not necessarily mine. But if we are to identify something following >a death with that which died, then certainly the something that died >survived in order to be identified; if you deny that then you are >using some bizarre and unacceptable notion of "survive". You define a soul >as the immortal portion, and then say a soul isn't necessary, and say >continuity isn't necessary, but this is just semantic confusion. If I >die completely, there is no continuity, but I am later reconstructed >(resurrected somehow), then I have *survived*; continuity is irrelevant. >But this whole discussion is silly from the point of view of >net.philosophy; there is no philosophical basis for presuming life after >death. BIG fallacy here. Jim as much as admits that there need be nothing connecting an after-life to the current one, yet he still insists you need a soul to give you the connection between the two. That's just the point; it's all well and good to talk about souls as being the essential and unique identity of a person. It's a useful construct, as long as you do not confuse it with truth. What people are doing that is incorrect, however, is going from there to the assertion that this implies the existence of souls as real supernatural entities. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about what the function of philosophy is here, something that is echoed in the next passage: >Some New Age types talk about dying and then becoming >part of the ALL. But just what does this *mean*? If my *ego* does not >survive my death, then just what is it after my death that we are identifying >with *me*? Those who claim remembrance of past lives at least have some >means of identifying the continuity; others are just playing word games. It's exactly as relevant to ask what Jim means by "ego". How is different from his concept of a soul? How is it different from MY concept? On what basis could any of these be said to exist? These ARE word games, and they are of fundamental importance to philosophy. At the moment, the free will discussion has collapsed because of a fight over what "free will" means. The morality discussion has finally gotten around to the really important question: what characterizes morality and distinguishes it from other things? As someone else has pointed out, there's too much discussion in this group which revolves around people denying a particular meaning to a word, and then (incorrectly) asserting that the denied meaning is therefore false. The proper response would be to differentiate the two by assigning the rehjected meaning to a different term. This whole line of argument about souls is a clear example of this. I'm quite willing to allow the word "soul" to carry the meaning of something supernatural. But as soon as you do that, you can no longer use it to mean "the identity of a person". In the same way, people are using the word life to mean something analogous to human life in this world; but the precise analogy changes from place to place. Jim intuits that life implies a certain continuity, and defines a soul to be "the immortal portion of a person". This can only be an intuition from our life, and is certainly something which could be argued about. If you use no analogy at all, but take life to be literally like our current life, then his whole argument collapses immediately. It is quite absurd to talk about "the immortal portion" of a person, if we all die. The point of all this meandering is that most of us (myself included) tend to be rather uncritical of our formulations and definitions. On of the purposes of this newsgroup should be to broaden our field of vision. As it is, people are showing entirely too much faith in the power of words. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe "We are followers of Peter, dressmaker to the Lord."
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (08/18/85)
In article <573@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes: >Charley, this is a crock of soup. If "we" get resurrected, then that implies >continuity of something that characterizes the "we" through the death- >resurrection phase. Well, then... perhaps we should stop using the word life then, and call it something else. This argument relies entirely on an intuition about the nature of Life: that it enjoins a certain continuity of existence. I would like to see the nature of this continuity explicitly stated (in a way that holds up in an atheistic world too), and then maybe we can start discussing how we can apply this to something we of necessity know no details of. Charley Wingate
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (08/19/85)
> In article <573@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes: > > >Charley, this is a crock of soup. If "we" get resurrected, then that implies > >continuity of something that characterizes the "we" through the death- > >resurrection phase. > > Well, then... perhaps we should stop using the word life then, and call it > something else. > > This argument relies entirely on an intuition about the nature of Life: that > it enjoins a certain continuity of existence. I would like to see the > nature of this continuity explicitly stated (in a way that holds up in an > atheistic world too), and then maybe we can start discussing how we can > apply this to something we of necessity know no details of. > > Charley Wingate You are the one making the claim that something continues through the life-death transition. The onus is on you to explicitly state the nature of the "continuity". Padraig Houlahan.
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (08/20/85)
In article <577@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes: >>> If "we" get resurrected, then that implies >>> continuity of something that characterizes the "we" through the death- >>> resurrection phase. >> This argument relies entirely on an intuition about the nature of Life: >> that it enjoins a certain continuity of existence. I would like to see >> the nature of this continuity explicitly stated (in a way that holds >> up in an atheistic world too), and then maybe we can start discussing >> how we can apply this to something we of necessity know no details of. >You are the one making the claim that something continues through the >life-death transition. The onus is on you to explicitly state the >nature of the "continuity". Apparently you still do not understand what I am saying here. In the absolute bare minimum statement of Christian belief in an afterlife, we believe that we do die, and will be resurrected and live again. This says nothing about what happens in the meantime. This whole business got started because someone was apparently bothered that without a soul, there is no place to 'put' the person while he's dead. This is only a problem if you believe that life must be continuous somehow. My point is that, since we have no way of getting solid evidence on the subject, there's no reason to take our intuitions about the *nature* of the afterlife or about the *processes* which get us there very seriously. The concept which we label as life may in fact be seriously defective (since we're applying it to something we know almost nothing about, even through scripture). Charley Wingate
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (08/21/85)
{Just a reminder of how this topic evolved:
Charley claimed that one can be christian and not believe in the existence
of a soul, while at the same time believes that we will be resurrected
after we die. I claim that this is a contradictory position to maintain}
> In article <577@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes:
>
> >>> If "we" get resurrected, then that implies
> >>> continuity of something that characterizes the "we" through the death-
> >>> resurrection phase.
>
> >> This argument relies entirely on an intuition about the nature of Life:
> >> that it enjoins a certain continuity of existence. I would like to see
> >> the nature of this continuity explicitly stated (in a way that holds
> >> up in an atheistic world too), and then maybe we can start discussing
> >> how we can apply this to something we of necessity know no details of.
>
> >You are the one making the claim that something continues through the
> >life-death transition. The onus is on you to explicitly state the
> >nature of the "continuity".
>
> Apparently you still do not understand what I am saying here.
That remains to be seen. Maybe I do, and see a blatent contradiction in
your position that you turn a blind eye to so that you can hold
on to your christianity.
>... In the
> absolute bare minimum statement of Christian belief in an afterlife, we
> believe that we do die, and will be resurrected and live again. This says
> nothing about what happens in the meantime.
No one said that it did. The issue is whether one can believe in resurrection
and not in the soul simultaneously.
> This whole business got started because someone was apparently bothered that
> without a soul, there is no place to 'put' the person while he's dead. This
> is only a problem if you believe that life must be continuous somehow.
This just about sums it up.I feel I am wasting my time repeating the criticism
that statements such as "we do die, and will be resurrected and live again"
imply continuity, since I have already done this. You are denying that
this implication exists. There is nothing else that can be said until you
learn how to read english. The last sentence is worded strongly because
the problem here is not even one of semantics, or of which axioms
should be accepted, but of correctly interpretting the above quote.
>...My
> point is that, since we have no way of getting solid evidence on the subject,
> there's no reason to take our intuitions about the *nature* of the afterlife
> or about the *processes* which get us there very seriously. The concept which
> we label as life may in fact be seriously defective (since we're applying it
> to something we know almost nothing about, even through scripture).
>
> Charley Wingate
This statement blows my mind; that you can say this, and at the same time
talk about resurrection, all the while knowing that "the concept which
we label as life may be seriously defective...", amazes me.
Resurrection implies continuity of something. The continuity
is contained in the "we" that is resurected, since the "we" was there
before, and after, resurrection. There's no way out of this. All
this talk about our lack of understanding of life, and whether or not
to take our intuition seriously is a bunch of horsefeathers that is
going off on a tangent from this issue.
Padraig Houlahan.polard@fortune.UUCP (Henry Polard) (08/21/85)
In article <542@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes: > >SOUL: The spiritual or immortal element in a person. [Oxf. Am. Dict.] > >You say we know nothing about "the method taking us from this life to the >next". Implicit is the concept of something that survives us after death. >This has been traditionally identified with the soul. You can't have it both >ways. You cannot say that the soul does not exist, and then say that >something survives us after we die and goes into the next life. > >Now you may have a new definition of "soul" that is completely different >from anything like the above, but this is just pussyfooting around. > >A rose by any other name is still a rose. > There are many notions of what happens after death. According to some Buddhist traditions, for example, there is no such thing as a "soul"; rather there are components of a personality which may disintegrate at the time of death and behave differently from each other. The Oxford American Dictionary, while an excellent guide to conversational English, is a poor guide to religious and philosophical usage. I think a dictionary of philosophy would have a more interesting definition of the word "soul". In any case, the way we describe the universe may not have much to do with the way the the univers actually is. -- Henry Polard (You bring the flames - I'll bring the marshmallows.) {ihnp4,cbosgd,amd}!fortune!polard N.B: The words in this posting do not necessarily express the opinions of me, my employer, or any AI project.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/22/85)
>>Charley, this is a crock of soup. If "we" get resurrected, then that implies >>continuity of something that characterizes the "we" through the death- >>resurrection phase. [HOULAHAN] > Well, then... perhaps we should stop using the word life then, and call it > something else. > > This argument relies entirely on an intuition about the nature of Life: that > it enjoins a certain continuity of existence. I would like to see the > nature of this continuity explicitly stated (in a way that holds up in an > atheistic world too), and then maybe we can start discussing how we can > apply this to something we of necessity know no details of. [WINGATE] Charlie, for the last time, when you refer to any "something" that exists beyond the end of life, you are implying that there is something more to us than our physical bodies, i.e., souls. You may not want to call it that (perhaps because of the baggage you seem to admit that the word carries), but you are referring to a soul nonetheless. Denying that an applicable word may be used to refer to a concept (choosing to use another word and DENYING that the applicable word applies) is just as silly as taking a word with an existing definition and tacking on totally different meaning to it for the purpose of "getting" something to "exist". One (erroneously) "gets" you something that doesn't apply, the other denies that the original term applies just because you're using a different word (perhaps specifically to avoid using the original). -- Meanwhile, the Germans were engaging in their heavy cream experiments in Finland, where the results kept coming out like Swiss cheese... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (08/22/85)
In article <581@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes: >{Just a reminder of how this topic evolved: >Charley claimed that one can be christian and not believe in the existence >of a soul, while at the same time believes that we will be resurrected >after we die. I claim that this is a contradictory position to maintain} >> This whole business got started because someone was apparently bothered >> that without a soul, there is no place to 'put' the person while >> he's dead. This is only a problem if you believe that life must be >> continuous somehow. >This just about sums it up. I feel I am wasting my time repeating the >criticism that statements such as "we do die, and will be resurrected >and live again" imply continuity, since I have already done this. >You are denying that this implication exists. There is nothing else >that can be said until you learn how to read english. The last sentence >is worded strongly because the problem here is not even one of semantics, >or of which axioms should be accepted, but of correctly interpretting >the above quote. If you would quit repeating it, and set out exactly how you get from "resurrection==live again" to "resurrection=>souls", I might be happy. For one thing, the continuity argument fails to deal with the possibility of all sorts of transformations at death. What prevents a person from being tranformed from a material being to something supernatural at death? THis doesn't require souls, but gives you continuity. And besides, what's the justification for this intuition of continuity? >This statement blows my mind; that you can say this, and at the same time >talk about resurrection, all the while knowing that "the concept which >we label as life may be seriously defective...", amazes me. >Resurrection implies continuity of something. The continuity >is contained in the "we" that is resurected, since the "we" was there >before, and after, resurrection. There's no way out of this. All >this talk about our lack of understanding of life, and whether or not >to take our intuition seriously is a bunch of horsefeathers that is >going off on a tangent from this issue. I see. At A I have X, and at B I have X, so there must be a continuity of X between the two. There are so many assumptions implicit in this that it's hard to know where to start. There's quite obviously no point in continuing this discussion. Padraig seems to have absolutely unshakable confidence in his own conceptualizations. My whole problem here is that souls seem to have been introduced because people couldn't imagine how to get from this life to the next (among other dubious reasons). I for one am not so arrogant as to believe that I can fully understand something I have essentially no information about, and which promises to be radically different from human experience. It is apparent to me that others have no such doubts. Charley Wingate The wind blows where it pleases
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/22/85)
> There are many notions of what happens after death. According to > some Buddhist traditions, for example, there is no such thing as a "soul"; > rather there are components of a personality which may disintegrate at > the time of death and behave differently from each other. > The Oxford American Dictionary, while an excellent guide to conversational > English, is a poor guide to religious and philosophical usage. I think > a dictionary of philosophy would have a more interesting definition of the > word "soul". [POLARD] They may not use the same word (after all, Buddhism was not founded by English speaking people), but the concept of soul applies to some extraphysical part of the person (not the body). Whether you use that word or not, the concept applies if you are talking about something that last after the body has died. > In any case, the way we describe the universe may not have much to do > with the way the the univers actually is. Hear hear! As in "Anything's possible but..." On the other hand... -- Popular consensus says that reality is based on popular consensus. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (08/23/85)
> >Resurrection implies continuity of something. The continuity > >is contained in the "we" that is resurected, since the "we" was there > >before, and after, resurrection. There's no way out of this. All > >this talk about our lack of understanding of life, and whether or not > >to take our intuition seriously is a bunch of horsefeathers that is > >going off on a tangent from this issue. > > I see. At A I have X, and at B I have X, so there must be a continuity of X > between the two. There are so many assumptions implicit in this that it's > hard to know where to start. Well let me show you: 1) Let A be life before death, and B life after death, 2) we have X at A where X is the "we" in "we are resurrected" 3) we have X at B where X is the "we" in "we are resurrected" These assumptions are implicit in the resurrection claim. These are not being challanged here. Now X forms an uninterrupted succession, therefore it is continuous. Padraig Houlahan
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (08/23/85)
> In article <542@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes: > > > >SOUL: The spiritual or immortal element in a person. [Oxf. Am. Dict.] > > > >You say we know nothing about "the method taking us from this life to the > >next". Implicit is the concept of something that survives us after death. > >This has been traditionally identified with the soul. You can't have it both > >ways. You cannot say that the soul does not exist, and then say that > >something survives us after we die and goes into the next life. > > > >Now you may have a new definition of "soul" that is completely different > >from anything like the above, but this is just pussyfooting around. > > > >A rose by any other name is still a rose. > > > There are many notions of what happens after death. According to > some Buddhist traditions, for example, there is no such thing as a "soul"; > rather there are components of a personality which may disintegrate at > the time of death and behave differently from each other. > The Oxford American Dictionary, while an excellent guide to conversational > English, is a poor guide to religious and philosophical usage. I think > a dictionary of philosophy would have a more interesting definition of the > word "soul". Perhaps, but Charley claims he is christian, believes in resurrection while denying the existence of something that survives death, namely the soul. This is all that is meant by "soul" here; something that continues through death, to be resurrected. Padraig Houlahan.
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (08/23/85)
In article <1566@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >> This argument relies entirely on an intuition about the nature of Life: >> that it enjoins a certain continuity of existence. I would like to see the >> nature of this continuity explicitly stated (in a way that holds up in an >> atheistic world too), and then maybe we can start discussing how we can >> apply this to something we of necessity know no details of. [WINGATE] >Charlie, for the last time, when you refer to any "something" that exists >beyond the end of life, you are implying that there is something more to >us than our physical bodies, i.e., souls. You may not want to call it >that (perhaps because of the baggage you seem to admit that the word >carries), but you are referring to a soul nonetheless. Denying that an >applicable word may be used to refer to a concept (choosing to use >another word and DENYING that the applicable word applies) is just as >silly as taking a word with an existing definition and tacking on >totally different meaning to it for the purpose of "getting" something >to "exist". One (erroneously) "gets" you something that doesn't apply, >the other denies that the original term applies just because you're using >a different word (perhaps specifically to avoid using the original). Fine, then, it's for the last time. I choose not to believe your assertion, because both you and Padraig refuse to justify it. I find it amusing that two atheists seem to have so much knowledge of the possibilities of the supernatural. I'm also amused by this persistent fallacy that the existence of something at points A and B in time implies the continued existence of the thing between those times. I don't know where to begin to criticize Rich's totally spurious lesson in semantics. So, I guess that's the end of this discussion.... Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe The wind blows where it pleases
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/25/85)
>>Charlie, for the last time, when you refer to any "something" that exists >>beyond the end of life, you are implying that there is something more to >>us than our physical bodies, i.e., souls. You may not want to call it >>that (perhaps because of the baggage you seem to admit that the word >>carries), but you are referring to a soul nonetheless. Denying that an >>applicable word may be used to refer to a concept (choosing to use >>another word and DENYING that the applicable word applies) is just as >>silly as taking a word with an existing definition and tacking on >>totally different meaning to it for the purpose of "getting" something >>to "exist". One (erroneously) "gets" you something that doesn't apply, >>the other denies that the original term applies just because you're using >>a different word (perhaps specifically to avoid using the original). > Fine, then, it's for the last time. I choose not to believe your assertion, > because both you and Padraig refuse to justify it. Oh, but we have, Charles. Language. Are you aware of language, a consensus among people about what sound utterances and scrawls on paper represent. Your utterances and scrawls are represented by the word "soul". What possible reason do you have for denying this? Are you simply trying to shirk the baggage that the word entails? If so, dealing with the same CONCEPT (which is represented by that awful word "souls") doesn't let you get rid of any baggage. > I find it amusing that two atheists seem to have so much knowledge of the > possibilities of the supernatural. I'm also amused by this persistent > fallacy that the existence of something at points A and B in time implies the > continued existence of the thing between those times. I don't know where to > begin to criticize Rich's totally spurious lesson in semantics. If I got a "spurious lesson in semantics", it must have been Charles here who taught it to me. Whether or not we are atheists is irrelevant. The word soul means the part of person's existence outside of his/her physical body. Since you are saying that a part of a person survives after the body is gone, you are making reference to a thing that is very adequately and accurately described by that awful word "soul". Unless you're saying that god just rebuilds us at some time in the future. If so, what is "rebuilt"? > The wind blows where it pleases So now Charles attributes will to the wind as well as the forces of nature... -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (08/26/85)
Well, I have decided to make my small contribution to this
discussion of souls. It is interesting to see that nobody in this
discussion has actually looked into the history of the concept of the
soul. One person at least suggested using a dictionary of philosophy.
I have in fact done something similar, I have checked a Bible
dictionary. The results are very interesting. The original concept
usually translated as "soul" was quite different than the modern
popular concept. The word was used to refer to the emotional makeup
of a person, a person's feelings and reactions as opposed to his
intellect. This concept has nothing to do with any supernatural
"material" which survives death. By the time of New Testament writing
the meaning had generalized somewhat to refer to the overall personality.
Even this form has no necessary implication of supernatural existance!
In fact the word seems to have meant more or less what we mean by
"ego" or self. How the concept came to have its supernaturalistic
baggage I am not certain. Perhaps it came from Greek dualism. Thus
my concept of a soul is that it is a term for the basic personality or
character of a person.
Now how does this bear on the concept ressurection and a new
life. Obviously this implies that the ressurected person must in some
way be the same as me. That is it must have my memories and basic
personality traits. In other words, this person must in some sense be
treatable as a continuation of who I now am. All this requires is the
existance of the *information* as to who I am. Some sort of a master
backup copy of my personality would do the job. Or death could be a
sort of transition to a new type of body. Or any of a number of other
possibilities, including the idea that God simply remembers who I am
and starts me up again. Only the last mentioned form is *necessarily*
supernatural. As my father says(probably quoting someone), the person
can be thought of as the message and the body as the medium, and while
a message generally requires a medium, it is not tied to any
*particular* medium. Thus this note originated as a series of
electrical variations in a wire, then it got converted into a set of
magnetic domains on a rapidly spinning platter, then back into
electrical variations(and perhaps back and forth several times), and
then next into a pattern of glowing posphor on a CRT screen, and
ultimately into a series of electrochemical shifts in your brain.
Yet through all of this it remains the same message. Or to put it in
CS terms, the soul can be thought of as the software and the body as
the hardware. The ressurection is than a case of uploading the system
to improved hardware.
Well, anyway that is my point of view, you are now free to
comment.
--
Sarima (Stanley Friesen)
UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpafranka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (08/27/85)
In article <588@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes: >> >Resurrection implies continuity of something. The continuity >> >is contained in the "we" that is resurected, since the "we" was there >> >before, and after, resurrection. There's no way out of this. All >> >this talk about our lack of understanding of life, and whether or not >> >to take our intuition seriously is a bunch of horsefeathers that is >> >going off on a tangent from this issue. >> >> I see. At A I have X, and at B I have X, so there must be a continuity of X >> between the two. There are so many assumptions implicit in this that it's >> hard to know where to start. > >Well let me show you: > > 1) Let A be life before death, and B life after death, > 2) we have X at A where X is the "we" in "we are resurrected" > 3) we have X at B where X is the "we" in "we are resurrected" > >These assumptions are implicit in the resurrection claim. These are not >being challanged here. Now X forms an uninterrupted succession, therefore >it is continuous. 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?). The question is, in what sense is this the resurrection of the "same" person, instead of just a "copy"? To make the question more pointed, suppose two such "copies" are made simultaneously; are both the same person? This question is not of purely religious relevence; we will have the technology to make such copies soon (within 30 to 100 years, I would guess; but the time scale is not important to the philosophical argument).
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (08/27/85)
In article <1586@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >> Fine, then, it's for the last time. I choose not to believe your >> assertion, because both you and Padraig refuse to justify it. >Oh, but we have, Charles. Language. Are you aware of language, a consensus >among people about what sound utterances and scrawls on paper represent. >Your utterances and scrawls are represented by the word "soul". What >possible reason do you have for denying this? Are you simply trying to >shirk the baggage that the word entails? If so, dealing with the same >CONCEPT (which is represented by that awful word "souls") doesn't let you >get rid of any baggage. That's just the point. I am not dealing with the same concept. The existence of a person in some unknown form after death doesn't imply anything at all about his present condition. This is precisely why I reject the word "soul". It explicitly includes the understanding that this "essential human" exists supernaturally before death. I don't see any reason to believe that "essential human" is always a supernatural entity (or indeed, anything more than a convenient fiction) during life; and we have no evidence, objective or otherwise, on which to base claims about its nature after death. Simply slapping the word "soul" on my concept is flatly wrong, UNLESS it already includes all the implications. >> I find it amusing that two atheists seem to have so much knowledge of the >> possibilities of the supernatural. I'm also amused by this persistent >> fallacy that the existence of something at points A and B in time implies >> the continued existence of the thing between those times. I don't know >> where to begin to criticize Rich's totally spurious lesson in semantics. >If I got a "spurious lesson in semantics", it must have been Charles here who >taught it to me. Whether or not we are atheists is irrelevant. The word >soul means the part of person's existence outside of his/her physical body. >Since you are saying that a part of a person survives after the body is >gone, you are making reference to a thing that is very adequately and >accurately described by that awful word "soul". Unless you're saying that >god just rebuilds us at some time in the future. If so, what is "rebuilt"? Why not? And how would I know what the next life will be like? I think it's quite sufficient to point out that this whole line of discussion came about because either Rich or Padraig (I forget exactly who) asserted that Christianity needed souls to get free will (a statement I constested, and still do, but let's not go into that). I replyed that you didn't need souls in Christianity at all. If Rich is willing to stick forever to precisely to the definition he gives above, then maybe he has a point. But he persistently hangs the assertion that souls exist during our current life. That assertion I do not accept, since (to give just one counter example) the soul could be created at death. In any case, I am not convinced that you have to have "someplace" to put the "essential human" between lives. >> The wind blows where it pleases >So now Charles attributes will to the wind as well as the forces of nature... Somehow, I should have expected to see Rich rise to THAT bait. The phrase is the title of a chapter in _No Man is an Island_, by Thomas Merton. It is about the impossibility of knowing God and the supernature. This is what this argument has been about. I suppose I should have expected Rich to have the arrogance to claim to understand God. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe The rain ceases, and a bird's clear song suddenly announces the difference btween Heaven and hell. -- Thomas Merton
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/28/85)
>>If I got a "spurious lesson in semantics", it must have been Charles here who >>taught it to me. Whether or not we are atheists is irrelevant. The word >>soul means the part of person's existence outside of his/her physical body. >>Since you are saying that a part of a person survives after the body is >>gone, you are making reference to a thing that is very adequately and >>accurately described by that awful word "soul". Unless you're saying that >>god just rebuilds us at some time in the future. If so, what is "rebuilt"? > Why not? And how would I know what the next life will be like? I think > it's quite sufficient to point out that this whole line of discussion came > about because either Rich or Padraig (I forget exactly who) asserted that > Christianity needed souls to get free will (a statement I constested, and > still do, but let's not go into that). I replyed that you didn't need souls > in Christianity at all. If Rich is willing to stick forever to precisely to > the definition he gives above, then maybe he has a point. But he > persistently hangs the assertion that souls exist during our current life. > That assertion I do not accept, since (to give just one counter example) the > soul could be created at death. In any case, I am not convinced that you > have to have "someplace" to put the "essential human" between lives. Fine. Then you are obliged to explain what it is that makes the "person" at time A the SAME "person" at time B. >>> The wind blows where it pleases >>So now Charles attributes will to the wind as well as the forces of nature... > Somehow, I should have expected to see Rich rise to THAT bait. The phrase > is the title of a chapter in _No Man is an Island_, by Thomas Merton. It is > about the impossibility of knowing God and the supernature. This is what > this argument has been about. I suppose I should have expected Rich to have > the arrogance to claim to understand God. As opposed to a Christian claiming to understand god, his motives, his actions, etc. That, of course, is NOT arrogance... Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe The rain ceases, and a bird's clear song suddenly announces the difference btween Heaven and hell. -- Thomas Merton -- "There! I've run rings 'round you logically!" "Oh, intercourse the penguin!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/30/85)
> 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?). > > The question is, in what sense is this the resurrection of the "same" person, > instead of just a "copy"? To make the question more pointed, suppose two > such "copies" are made simultaneously; are both the same person? [ADAMS] You answer your own question (after you bring up the same question I ask in an earlier article). If you reconstruct someone as they are at the moment of death (body, brain, memory, etc.) then what will they be when you reconstruct him/her? Dead, that's what. Even assuming we're not talking about someone dying of a debilitating disease or a gunshot wound or something reasonably prolonged (I'd hate to think of that as a "reasonably prolonged" death---poor choice of words). If we're talking about someone who dies suddenly. If you reconstruct from some moment before death, you have built a copy of a person who has not died, who could not recall his/her own death because it had not yet been recorded in the brain. 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. -- "Wait a minute. '*WE*' decided??? *MY* best interests????" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (08/30/85)
_ Today, using my imaginary free will, I'll be a Wishful Spiritualist. >>>> >> [Charley] >>> > [Rich] >>>Unless you're saying that god just rebuilds us at some time in the future. >>> If so, what is "rebuilt"? > >> Why not? >> ..he persistently hangs the assertion that souls exist during our current >> life. That assertion I do not accept, since (to give just one counter >> example) the soul could be created at death. In any case, I am not >> convinced that you have to have "someplace" to put the "essential human" >> between lives. >Fine. Then you are obliged to explain what it is that makes the "person" >at time A the SAME "person" at time B. I infer from Charley's response "Why not?" that God is the determiner of a reconstituted entity's identity. Entirely logical, given the axiom of Divine Omniscience that is de rigeur in mystical metaphysics. Admittedly, Charley may diverge from garden variety Christianity on this issue, but such creativity is commendable, not to mention totally logical -- given that resurrection is also an axiom. Besides, I bet there are more definitions of "soul" than there are of "free will". Here, soul simply means one's telos or final cause, which, in this instance, only exists when needed -- perhaps due to economy of means. This stroke of genius simultaneously crucifies two devils -- the potentially hellish Malthusian heaven and the eternally cosmic boredom of having to exist! Instantiation without constipation!! >>>> The wind blows where it pleases > >>>So now Charles attributes will to the wind as well as the forces of nature. >> >> Somehow, I should have expected to see Rich rise to THAT bait. The phrase >> is the title of a chapter in _No Man is an Island_, by Thomas Merton. It >> is about the impossibility of knowing God and the supernature. This is >> what this argument has been about. I suppose I should have expected Rich >> to have the arrogance to claim to understand God. > >As opposed to a Christian claiming to understand god, his motives, his >actions, etc. That, of course, is NOT arrogance... You mean uncompromising Goedelesque logic: 6.4312 The solution of the riddle of life in space and time lies OUTSIDE space and time. (It is not problems of natural science which have to be solved). 6.432 HOW the world is, is completely indifferent for what is higher. God does not reveal himself IN the world. -Wittgenstein, _Tractatus_Logico-Philosophicus_ Anyway, for those who think Christian philosophers spend their time spewing dogma and counting angels on pins: The white man, says Laurens Van Der Post, came into Africa (and Asia and America for that matter) like a one-eyed giant, bringing with him the characteristic split and blindness which were at once his strength, his torment, and his ruin. With his self-isolated and self-scrutinizing individual mind, Western man was master of concepts and abstractions. He was king of quantity and the driver of those forcesover which quantitative knowledge gave him supremacy without understanding it, he faced his bodily self as an object which he could not comprehend though he could analyze and tamper with its every part. He submitted to passions which, though he no longer regarded as devils, were nevertheless inscrutable and objective forces flying at him from the dark outside the little circle illumined by a pragmatic and self complacent moral reason. The one-eyed giant had science without wisdom, and he broke in upon ancient civilizations which had wisdom without science. -Thomas Merton (introduction to _Gandhi_on_Non-Violence_, 1964) > The rain ceases, and a bird's clear song suddenly announces the > difference btween Heaven and hell. -- Thomas Merton [really Rich Rosen] That, of course, is NOT arrogance... The brain ceases, and a nerd's mere fingers automatically announce the difference between Real and imaginary -- Rich Rosen [really Not Rich] khronos estai ouketi -blissfully nonexistent
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/04/85)
>>>Somehow, I should have expected to see Rich rise to THAT bait. The phrase >>>is the title of a chapter in _No Man is an Island_, by Thomas Merton. It >>>is about the impossibility of knowing God and the supernature. This is >>>what this argument has been about. I suppose I should have expected Rich >>>to have the arrogance to claim to understand God. [WINGATE] >>As opposed to a Christian claiming to understand god, his motives, his >>actions, etc. That, of course, is NOT arrogance... > You mean uncompromising Goedelesque logic: > 6.4312 The solution of the riddle of life in space and time lies OUTSIDE > space and time. (It is not problems of natural science which have > to be solved). > 6.432 HOW the world is, is completely indifferent for what is higher. > God does not reveal himself IN the world. > -Wittgenstein, _Tractatus_Logico-Philosophicus_ Oh, great. We move from Wingate's religious philosophy to Ellis' philosophical religion. (Is it anything else to say "it is not problems for natural science to solve"? What then?) >> The rain ceases, and a bird's clear song suddenly announces the >> difference btween Heaven and hell. -- Thomas Merton [really Rich Rosen] > That, of course, is NOT arrogance... No, Mike, it's you talking, attributing ideas to me. Of course that's not arrogance. > The brain ceases, and a nerd's mere fingers automatically announce the > difference between Real and imaginary -- Rich Rosen [really Not Rich] Since quotes go over better here than original thought and ideas, I'll quote from another great philosopher. "Did you do a lot of acid back in the hippie days?" --Otto, from "Repo Man" -- "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (09/06/85)
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.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/10/85)
>>>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?). [ADAMS] >>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. >>[ROSEN] > 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. [ADAMS] If you alter the person, the "memories and attitudes" of necessity will change. If you "restore" from a "backup" (oh, god, what a horrible analogy) taken before the onset of disease or death, then those experiences will not be incorporated in the restored brain. -- "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (09/11/85)
In article <1665@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >If you alter the person, the "memories and attitudes" of necessity will >change. If you "restore" from a "backup" (oh, god, what a horrible analogy) >taken before the onset of disease or death, then those experiences will not >be incorporated in the restored brain. I won't dispute the second statement, but I think the first is pretty indefensible-- unless Rich has been practicing brain mutilation in his spare hours. Charley Wingate
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (09/14/85)
In article <1665@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >> 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. [ADAMS] > >If you alter the person, the "memories and attitudes" of necessity will >change. >If you "restore" from a "backup" (oh, god, what a horrible analogy) taken >before the onset of disease or death, then those experiences will not be >incorporated in the restored brain. One can restore the memories and attitudes as of the moment of death. One cannot restore the body as of the moment of death, because it would then be dead. This does not apply to the memories and attitudes.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/14/85)
>>If you alter the person, the "memories and attitudes" of necessity will >>change. If you "restore" from a "backup" (oh, god, what a horrible analogy) >>taken before the onset of disease or death, then those experiences will not >>be incorporated in the restored brain. [ROSEN] > I won't dispute the second statement, but I think the first is pretty > indefensible-- unless Rich has been practicing brain mutilation in his spare > hours. [WINGATE] Odd that you omitted the type of alteration described. That, in fact, was the alteration of a sick person into a well one. If you do as the second statement (which you won't dispute) says, then you are altering the person from the way he/she was at the point of death. -- "Wait a minute. '*WE*' decided??? *MY* best interests????" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (09/17/85)
> > In article <1665@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: > >> 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. [ADAMS] > > > >If you alter the person, the "memories and attitudes" of necessity will > >change. > >If you "restore" from a "backup" (oh, god, what a horrible analogy) taken > >before the onset of disease or death, then those experiences will not be > >incorporated in the restored brain. > > One can restore the memories and attitudes as of the moment of death. One > cannot restore the body as of the moment of death, because it would then be > dead. This does not apply to the memories and attitudes. Would you care to prove this? Padraig Houlahan.
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (09/20/85)
In article <732@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes: >> One can restore the memories and attitudes as of the moment of death. One >> cannot restore the body as of the moment of death, because it would then be >> dead. This does not apply to the memories and attitudes. > >Would you care to prove this? I beg your pardon, I thought it was obvious. Which part do you not accept: 1) if you restore a person's body as of the moment of death, you will have a dead body? 2) if one has developed a method for restoring memories and attitudes, and use it to restore the memories and attitudes of a person at the moment of death (to a living body acquired in some unspecified fashion), the result will not necessarily be dead? 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.
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (09/23/85)
> In article <732@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes: > >> One can restore the memories and attitudes as of the moment of death. One > >> cannot restore the body as of the moment of death, because it would then be > >> dead. This does not apply to the memories and attitudes. > > > >Would you care to prove this? > > I beg your pardon, I thought it was obvious. Which part do you not accept: > > 1) if you restore a person's body as of the moment of death, you will have > a dead body? > > 2) if one has developed a method for restoring memories and attitudes, and > use it to restore the memories and attitudes of a person at the moment > of death (to a living body acquired in some unspecified fashion), the > result will not necessarily be dead? > > 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. Recall that the discussion concerned resurrection and the soul. 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. Finally, the burden of proof lies with the claimant and not the listener. Padraig Houlahan.
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (09/26/85)
[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