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: <701@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 12-Sep-85 10:04:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: utastro.701
Posted: Thu Sep 12 10:04:53 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 15-Sep-85 09:37:11 EDT
References: <1522@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1668@pyuxd.UUCP> <1552@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 53

> 
> No, no, no.  The question is NOT whether or not the thing is physically
> represented-- if you can even talk about physically representing it, then
> quite obviously the object in question is NOT the representation.  When I
> take an Aretha Franklin song and copy it from my record to my cassette tape,
> it remains the same song.
> 

Then if you are murdered, but a clone of yours survives, you continue to
exist? Charley A, though now in a coffin still lives and wont be resurrected?
(How can one be resurrected if one hasn't died?)
The murderer can cite as evidence that no murder has taken place the fact
that Charley is still hanging in there in the form of Charley B?

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.

> "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" (Haldane).  The only proper
> conclusion is that you can draw no conclusion.  If I sit in this room (which
> has no windows) and assert that "the car in the first parking space is
> blue," it is indeed possible for there to be a blue car in the first parking
> space.  If one does not actually examine the parking space, one is not in a
> position either to confirm or to deny my statement.  The ONLY correct
> response is "there is no evidence"; one cannot DENY the statement, because
> to do so is to make the assertion that "there is no blue car in the first
> parking space."  Since this statement is not supported by evidence either,
> the situation is quite symmetrical.  Neither statement can be claimed to be
> true; therefore neither can be claimed to be false.  All that can be said is
> "there is no evidence."

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.

> >> In contrast, Rich is asserting that in the face of near total absence of
> >> evidence and investigation, he can claim that conscious identity is purely
> >> in the body.  Now, maybe ten years from now, he will have some basis for
> >> this claim, but right now, he has none.
> 
How many times have you been introduced to someone that extended his
hand and shook the nearest table rather than your hand? If never, then
you might take this as evidence that people dont as a rule doubt that
your identity resides in your body.

> 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.

Padraig Houlahan.