Buddhism - Christianity Compatibility

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Yes, my assertion still holds. Note that those things would only be in the list if you considered them as constituent parts of the body. Regardless of what you put in the list, my assertion holds. It is a formal one, with no dependence on any particular notion of the body.

Then clearly you would not assert that you have the same body now that you did 5 minutes ago, right?

Can I apply this argument to the mind as well?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Then clearly you would not assert that you have the same body now that you did 5 minutes ago, right?

Only if we're operating under the list that you constructed containing cellular components of the body. In that case, yes my body now is different than that of 5 minutes ago because it is comprised of different things that you have said are components of a body.

Again, my assertion is a formal one, so it can apply to the mind as well.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Only if we're operating under the list that you constructed containing cellular components of the body. In that case, yes my body now is different than that of 5 minutes ago because it is comprised of different things that you have said are components of a body.

Again, my assertion is a formal one, so it can apply to the mind as well.

So, whether two bodies/minds are the same or not depends on what list the person comparing them uses? If one thinks of the self as body and mind, then I would be correct in saying that you have never posted a word on RHP prior to today?

You keep saying your assertion is a formal one. What does that mean? Does it mean you don't expect it to apply to the real world?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
So, whether two bodies/minds are the same or not depends on what list the person comparing them uses?

Of course, for the list defines what constitutes a body. There obviously is no one true list, so we much choose one under which to operate, which then becomes the defining one.

Originally posted by lucifershammer


You keep saying your assertion is a formal one. What does that mean? Does it mean you don't expect it to apply to the real world?

It means that it is true due to its form rather than due to any particular content of its terms.

It doesn't mean that I don't expect it to apply in the real world. Rather, it means that I expect every instance of it to be true, regardless of the details chosen to instantiate it.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Of course, for the list defines what constitutes a body. There obviously is no one true list, so we much choose one under which to operate, which then becomes the defining one.

Since your argument is a formal one, I should be able to apply it to the list as well, right? So, depending on what items I include on my list-of-the-list, I can say that the lists used to compare the two bodies were, in fact, different? How can we then speak of "one" defining list?

EDIT: Thanks for the clarification post on formality. I guess the question above is valid?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
How can we then speak of "one" defining list?

EDIT: Thanks for the clarification post on formality. I guess the question above is valid?

I asked you to construct one list of the constituent parts of your body. This would serve as the one standard of what constitutes your body.

I asked you to construct one list of the constituent parts of some other body. This would serve as the one standard of what constitutes that other body.

If these lists contain different items, the bodies cannot be identical.


There is nothing preventing you from applying this analysis to the lists.
That is, you could create a list of the constituents of the first list, and another list of the constitutents of the second list, and then compare them to determine whether the lists are identical. This exercise has no bearing on the original one, for I have used the idea of two lists there as a convenient abstract mechanism; I could have formulated it algorithmically such that it would produce no two things which would be subject to comparison or an arbitrary level of discrimination.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I asked you to construct one list of the constituent parts of your body. This would serve as the one standard of what constitutes your body.

I asked you to construct one list of the constituent parts of some other body. This would serve as the one standard of what constitutes that other body.

If these lists contain different items, the bodie ...[text shortened]... duce no two things which would be subject to comparison or an arbitrary level of discrimination.

Even if you formulated them algorithmically, you would still have two things that can be compared; i.e. you would have to assume that the object that is to be compared and the object the algorithm actually compares are the same.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Even if you formulated them algorithmically, you would still have two things that can be compared; i.e. you would have to assume that the object that is to be compared and the object the algorithm actually compares are the same.

I don't understand the objection. The algorithm by definition would correctly compare anything that it is supposed to.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I don't understand the objection.

Suppose you had to compare two sets:

{1,3,4,6}

and

{1,2,4,6}

The algorithm would have to take as first input a set {1,3,4,6} - but is that the same set as the one mentioned on the third line of this post?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Suppose you had to compare two sets:

{1,3,4,6}

and

{1,2,4,6}

The algorithm would have to take as first input a set {1,3,4,6} - but is that the same set as the one mentioned on the third line of this post?

Unless you're going to redefine "set" like you did "literal" and "body," those sets are the same. You can't even attach the indefinite article to the latter without admitting that it fully characterizes the set in question.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
What's the difference between philosophy and religion, according to you?

Pretty loose; philosophy is here and now, religion is something later, after death. There is of course overlap.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
You are claiming literal resurrection of the body, yet the body is not that which is resurrected.

That is, is the amputee's body resurrected? If so, it will still have a missing limb. If the body doesn't have a missing limb, it is a different body.

"In my Father's house are many abiding places." Some translate it as "mansions" but I think this is a better translation. Perhaps some will be wheelchair accessible.

Originally posted by kirksey957
"In my Father's house are many abiding places." Some translate it as "mansions" but I think this is a better translation. Perhaps some will be wheelchair accessible.

I can now understand why you do not believe in the resurrection of the body, Kirk ..... it saves you a lot of time and trouble ...... 😀 🙄

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Then clearly you would not assert that you have the same body now that you did 5 minutes ago, right?

Can I apply this argument to the mind as well?

You can't step into the same river twice.