Using that definition, everyone would die at an age of a few months, because the brain's matter is regularly replaced by new organic chemicals.
- Tom --- Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 30/06/07, Heartland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Objective observers care only about the type of a > person and whether it's > > intantiated, not about the fate of its instances > (because, frankly, they're not > > aware of the difference between the type and an > instance). But since I know better, > > I would be sad about dead instances. The point is > whether I'm sad/upset or not > > about a fact not does change that fact. > > Most people would be upset by the prospect of their > death, and if > death is interruption of brain processes, they > should be upset by > this. However, it is your definition of death which > is at issue. If > someone chose to objectively define death as > replacement of a certain > proportion of the matter in a person's brain, what > argument would you > use against this definition? > > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > > ----- > This list is sponsored by AGIRI: > http://www.agiri.org/email > To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: > http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&; > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&id_secret=10026519-d6c9bb
