mustbeageek

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Monday, November 21, 2011

Arguing for Dualism: The Identity Defense (Not to be Confused with the Twinkie Defense)

Posted on 1:32 PM by Unknown
Bob Prokop wrote: Approximately one-twentieth of one percent of our bodies is replaced each day, through completely natural processes. At the end of 7 to 8 years, not a single atom remains in our physical selves that was there at the start of that period. Every particle of my today's physical self was either dirt, water, air, or another living organism 7 years ago. But I am demonstrably not a new person - I am the same Bob Prokop who was here eight, 10, or even 60 years ago, despite the fact that no trace of the original physical self remains. (I'd love to see someone try such a defense in court: "Your Honor, that wasn't me who committed that crime eight years ago. I wasn't even here. It was someone else with the same name!")

If that ain't proof of the existence of mind, or even of the soul, I don't know what is!

This is from an website entitled "Thought Experments on the Soul," by Kelley L. Ross.

If our concern then becomes personal identity, will the identity of material substance account for that? As I have argued, no. In physical terms alone, we know that there is a turnover of matter in our bodies. I believe that after 20 years or so, all the matter in our bodies is supposed to be different. A defendant in a legal case once even tried to argue that he was literally not the same person who had committed the crime, some twenty years plus in the past. His argument was not allowed as, indeed, we trace personal identity across that transformation. With the material objects, this can indeed produce some paradoxical results. The Stoics noticed that in their day the ship kept at Athens, which was supposed to have born Theseus to Crete, had finally been repaired so much that every single plank and other part of it was no longer original. Was it the "same" ship? In a way yes, and in a way no. One report is that this question was put to the Pythia at Delphi. With material objects, the less the original material, the less it is the original thing. There is no such ambiguity with people. And we can ask them.
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Posted in mind-body dualism | No comments
Newer Post Older Post Home

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • Is there a general conception of God?
    Here is some discussion on Debunking Christianity. I had been in a discussion on a prior thread with Cole, who had argued that in the absen...
  • The Naturalism thread redone
    I am trying to get rid of an unsightly mess this post caused, so I am redoing it, with the comments included “ But if naturalism is true , t...
  • Blatant ad hominem?
    Papalinton seems to be arguing as follows: 1. C. S. Lewis defended the view that there is a God, and that Christianity is true. 2. But C. S....
  • The Problem of Pain-for naturalists.
    Steven Carr wrote: I really don't think Victor understands the argument from evil. Evil and suffering occur pretty much randomly. There ...
  • A quote from me about arguments and belief: why there are no silver bullets
    “ The claim that one side or the other in some highly controversial issue as theism has a monopoly on rationality is thought by most philo...
  • The point I've been trying to make
    I put this discussion on the DC boards.  Semantics, not apologetics. I'm going try one more time to explain my beef. There is a differe...
  • The folly of scientism
    Here.  Advocates of scientism today claim the sole mantle of rationality, frequently equating science with reason itself. Yet it seems the ...
  • The hiddenness of God
    This discussion, by Loftus, explains a typical atheist response on what good evidence for theism would look like to them. What it does is r...
  • Replying to the "Who Made God" argument against cosmological arguments
    There are a couple of ways in which defenders of the cosmological argument can develop the argument so as to avoid the consequence of God ha...
  • The Rage of Unbelief
    This is in response to Alex Rosenberg's debate with William Lane Craig. Not mentioning any names, but this does seem to be a real probl...

Categories

  • abortion (4)
  • ad hominem arguments (4)
  • AFR (7)
  • Angus Menuge (1)
  • anti-intellectualism (1)
  • anti-religious propaganda (2)
  • Aquinas (2)
  • archaeology (1)
  • argument from beauty (1)
  • argument from confusion (1)
  • argument from consciousness (1)
  • argument from design (4)
  • argument from desire (1)
  • argument from evil (4)
  • argument from intentionality (3)
  • argument from martyrdom (1)
  • argument from reason (12)
  • argument from size (1)
  • Arianism (1)
  • Athanasuis (1)
  • atheism (30)
  • atheism and rhetoric (2)
  • atheistic arguments (1)
  • atonement (1)
  • Balfour (1)
  • Barack Obama (3)
  • Bayesianism (3)
  • Benedict XVI (1)
  • Bertrand Russell (1)
  • biblical criticism (1)
  • biblical ethics (1)
  • biblical inspiration (1)
  • Bill Clinton (1)
  • Buddhism (1)
  • Bulverism (3)
  • Bulverism. (1)
  • burden of proof (3)
  • business ethics (1)
  • C. S. Lewis (21)
  • C. S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea (1)
  • campaign finance reform (1)
  • capital punishment (2)
  • capitalism (3)
  • Catholicism (1)
  • Christian apologetics (4)
  • Christian philosophy (1)
  • Christian socialism (1)
  • Christianity (2)
  • Christianity and Islam (1)
  • christianity and politics (2)
  • Chronological snobbery (1)
  • church and state (1)
  • classical theism (3)
  • comments (1)
  • communism (1)
  • conservatism (4)
  • contemporary miracles (1)
  • conversion (2)
  • cosmological argument (1)
  • cosmological arguments (2)
  • courtier's reply (1)
  • creationism (1)
  • critical rationalism (1)
  • cultural relativism (1)
  • cumulative case arguments (1)
  • Daniel Dennett (2)
  • Darwinism (2)
  • death penalty (3)
  • debates (1)
  • deficits (1)
  • defining evolution (1)
  • defining faith (4)
  • defining materialism (1)
  • defining naturalism (2)
  • divine command morality (2)
  • Doctor Logic (1)
  • Dualism (2)
  • dwindling probabilities (1)
  • EAAN (1)
  • Easter (1)
  • ECREE (6)
  • eliminativism (1)
  • embryonic stem cell research (2)
  • epistemology (1)
  • ethical relativism (1)
  • ethical subjectivism (3)
  • ethics (2)
  • ethics without god (2)
  • ethics without god. ethics (1)
  • Euthyphro (1)
  • evidence (2)
  • Evolution (8)
  • Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (2)
  • exclusivism (1)
  • fact and opinion (1)
  • faith (3)
  • Faith and Reason (2)
  • fallacy of composition (1)
  • fideism (1)
  • fine-tuning argument (3)
  • first way (1)
  • five ways (1)
  • flat earth (1)
  • Francis Collins (2)
  • free thought (2)
  • free will (1)
  • functionalism (1)
  • fundamentalism (1)
  • fundamentalist atheism (2)
  • G. K. Chesterton (2)
  • Gandhi (1)
  • gay marriage (2)
  • gnu atheism (1)
  • God and goodness (1)
  • god of the gaps (5)
  • gun control (1)
  • hallucination theory (3)
  • hard determinism (1)
  • Health Care (1)
  • heaven (2)
  • historical argument (3)
  • historical reliability of the NT (2)
  • Holy Spirit (1)
  • homosexuality (1)
  • Hume (4)
  • ideologues (1)
  • illegal immigration (2)
  • inclusivism (1)
  • indexicals (1)
  • informal fallacies (2)
  • intelligent design (10)
  • intentionality (2)
  • Islam (1)
  • J. R. R. Tolkien (1)
  • Jeffrey Jay Lowder (2)
  • Joe Biden (1)
  • John Loftus (13)
  • just war theory (1)
  • Kalam Cosmological Argument (3)
  • Kant (2)
  • Keith Parsons (4)
  • liberalism (1)
  • libertarianism (1)
  • logical fallacies (1)
  • logical problem of evil (1)
  • love (1)
  • Lydia McGrew (4)
  • lying (1)
  • materialism (5)
  • mathematics (1)
  • Mere Christianity (1)
  • metaphysical naturalism (1)
  • methodological naturalism (1)
  • mind-body dualism (2)
  • miracles (9)
  • Mitt Romney (1)
  • modalities (1)
  • moral argument (3)
  • moral objectivity (2)
  • moral relativism (1)
  • morality and religion (2)
  • morality without God (1)
  • Mormonism (1)
  • multiverse hypothesis (1)
  • Naturalism (6)
  • near-death experiences (1)
  • open theism (1)
  • outsider test (5)
  • P Z Myers (1)
  • pacifism (1)
  • paranormal (1)
  • paranornal (1)
  • Paul Ryan (1)
  • Peter Van Inwagen (1)
  • philosophy (2)
  • philosophy of mind (3)
  • physicalism (1)
  • Plantinga (1)
  • politics (3)
  • prayer studies (1)
  • pride (1)
  • probability (1)
  • problem of evil (3)
  • property dualism (1)
  • public education (1)
  • purpose (1)
  • qualia (1)
  • reductionism (1)
  • Reformed epistemology (1)
  • relativism (1)
  • religion and morality (3)
  • religion and science (1)
  • religious relativism (1)
  • Resurrection (4)
  • retributive theory of punishment (1)
  • Richard Carrier (1)
  • Richard Carrier (3)
  • Richard Dawkins (7)
  • ridicule (1)
  • Robin Collins (1)
  • Satan (1)
  • scientific realism (2)
  • Scripture (3)
  • sexual morality (1)
  • skepticism (1)
  • Social Darwinism (1)
  • socialism (2)
  • socialized medicine (1)
  • soteriological exclusivism (1)
  • St. Thomas Aquinas (1)
  • Steve Lovell (1)
  • strong rationalism (1)
  • Super Bowl (2)
  • supernaturalism (1)
  • Swinburne (2)
  • the argument from asymmetry (1)
  • the argument from evil (7)
  • the argument from reason (15)
  • the concept of God (1)
  • the definition of faith (2)
  • the new atheism (16)
  • the outsider test (5)
  • the problem of evil (3)
  • the right to privacy (1)
  • the Unmoved Mover (1)
  • theism (4)
  • theistic arguments (3)
  • theistic explanations (2)
  • Theodore Drange (1)
  • theological voluntarism (1)
  • theology and falsification (1)
  • Thomas Nagel (5)
  • Thomism (1)
  • Thomistic Cosmological Argument (1)
  • Tim McGrew (8)
  • Trinity (2)
  • Vallicella (2)
  • vitalism (1)
  • Wall Street (1)
  • William Dembski (1)
  • William Hasker (1)
  • William Lane Craig (7)
  • Winfred Corduan (1)
  • young earth creationism (1)
  • zombies (1)

Blog Archive

  • ►  2013 (180)
    • ►  September (9)
    • ►  August (22)
    • ►  July (10)
    • ►  June (15)
    • ►  May (25)
    • ►  April (29)
    • ►  March (26)
    • ►  February (18)
    • ►  January (26)
  • ►  2012 (268)
    • ►  December (20)
    • ►  November (26)
    • ►  October (30)
    • ►  September (23)
    • ►  August (24)
    • ►  July (33)
    • ►  June (23)
    • ►  May (19)
    • ►  April (23)
    • ►  March (22)
    • ►  February (13)
    • ►  January (12)
  • ▼  2011 (52)
    • ►  December (22)
    • ▼  November (28)
      • This is Parsons' critique of Kreeft and Tacelli on...
      • C. S. Lewis on the Hallucination Theory
      • Two Jacks and an Aldous
      • A Revised Rebuttal of the McGrews on the Resurrection
      • Arguing for Dualism: The Identity Defense (Not to ...
      • Retributivism and the Similarity Requirement
      • A Question for People Who Combine Substance Physic...
      • The Death Penalty and Retribution
      • We Just Sold Things People Want
      • Cameron Todd Willingham
      • McGrew on Evidence
      • Some clarifications on my death penalty post (orig...
      • Execution Without Appeals--A Death Penalty That Gi...
      • Who are the most literal readers of Scripture? Ath...
      • Why is investment income taxed less?
      • Deficits and "Conservatives"
      • This is Balfour's Foundations of Belief
      • Cafeteria conservatism and the New Testament
      • WWJT: Who Would Jesus Tax
      • An argument against religion: the argument from lo...
      • The Stanford Encyclopedia Entry on Theological Vol...
      • On the meaning of the term "God"
      • Steve Hays on the "Genocide" theodicy problem
      • outsider tests (lower case) versus The Outsider Te...
      • An ecumenical Catholic Apologetics Page
      • The Best Skeptical Response to Resurrection Apolog...
      • On what needs to be caused
      • Why Atheists Care about Defending Atheism
    • ►  October (2)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

Unknown
View my complete profile