Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!decwrl!spar!ellis
From: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: More Atheistic Wishful Thinking
Message-ID: <521@spar.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 17-Sep-85 03:16:50 EDT
Article-I.D.: spar.521
Posted: Tue Sep 17 03:16:50 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Sep-85 03:47:58 EDT
References: <1522@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1668@pyuxd.UUCP> <1552@umcp-cs.UUCP> <701@utastro.UUCP>
Reply-To: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA
Lines: 94

>Padraig  >>Charley

>> ..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.

    Agreed -- Charley's analogy between a person's identity and an easily
    copiable song or computer program has difficulties. Nonetheless I find
    his analogy most valuable anyway.
    
    One point which you have not addressed is that songs are indeed 
    entities which are not strictly material -- rather, they are relationships
    that appear within any kind of lower level carrier whatsoever.
    
    Another point is that WE are the determiners of the identity of a song,
    regardless of the varying qualities of the reproduction equipment,
    instrumentation, performers -- even when another composer, intentionally
    or otherwise, steals the essence of someone else's original idea.

>>..The only proper conclusion is that you can draw no conclusion...  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.

    I agree that there is little or no scientific evidence for resurrection.
    For that matter, even the idea of physical identity between successive
    moments of time seems to disintegrate under scientific examination.

    But Charley has presented convincing and nonreligious arguments that
    identity does not require physical continuity [re -- reappearing quantum
    particles]. 

    Whatever does it mean for an intelligence to perceive a deep sameness
    in things that on superficial examination appear to be different?
    Do identities have objective existence? Or are they subjective phantoms
    perceived only by intelligent awareness?

    If so, then a higher awareness than we possess is required to ascertain
    any identity that transcends our own subjective and objective knowledge
    of things. 

>>>> 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.

    And how many times have you turned your ear closer to a loudspeaker so
    that you might more closely hear the song being played? Does that mean
    that the identity of the song physically resides IN THE PHYSICAL
    EQUIPMENT ITSELF? Personally, I think of the song as an abstraction that
    exists nowhere, but requiring a physical representation so that I may
    hear it.

>> 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.

    The subject strikes me as an investigation into the nature of identity
    of self, and it has brought many nonreligious comments into this
    newsgroup -- star-trek transporters, cloning, and so on.

-michael

    What if there were a living agency beyond our everyday living world --
    something more purposeful than electrons? Do we delude ourselves in
    thinking that we possess and control our own psyches, and that what
    science calls the "psyche" is not just a question mark arbitrarily
    confined within the skull, but rather a door that opens upon the human
    world from a world beyond, allowing unknown and mysterious powers to act
    upon man and carry him on the wings of night to a more than personal
    destiny? -- CG Jung