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!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Souls
Message-ID: <1291@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 18-Aug-85 11:05:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1291
Posted: Sun Aug 18 11:05:09 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 24-Aug-85 01:35:22 EDT
References: <573@utastro.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 16

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