> 1)The cells that make up your body are continuously being replaced.
> That is, you might think that that hand you're typing with, well,
> that's a part of you, however 10 years ago or so, not one of the cells
> making up your body was there.
err, actually most of the body's cells are not replaced - thats why we
age. Epithelial (skin, gut) cells are continually replaced as they
interface the environemnt with the body, but neurons and muscle cells,
for example, are not.
> So, scientists and philosophers alike are stumped over this problem of
> "personal identity" through time. Well, if they thought of an
> individual as a non-material soul in a body, then you could have the
> cells in that body replaced, and the person's still there!
Again this is flawed as the cells are still there
> 2)All the matter in my body is present in a corpse, however quite
> clearly, I am not.
Allthe matter that made up my computer was there before and after it
What am I composed of? Again, this must be
> something non-physical so we can account for the presence of some sort
> of life force in a living body, and the lack thereof in a dead body.
> 3)Matter is determinate!! This is fairly obvious. Any physical
> substance mechanically obeys physical laws. It has no capability to
> desire or choose. You, quite clearly, are capable of doing so. Thus
> you are distinct from matter.
> 4)Matter can't experience. You're capable of experiencing, but the
> cells and molecules and what-not that make up your body are no
> different from the matter found in the external world (indeed they
> actually do come from the food i eat). No part of my body is not
> capable of feeling/knowing/etc., however I am (that is, that
> non-physical substance is called a soul).
The organisation of matter can clearly reflect the past - any basic
course in natural geography.
> What's silly is that you're not able to grasp the concept of things
> existing that are neither composed of matter nor energy. The problem
> is quite obvious. Let's say that I'm made of either. Well, such forms
> of energy are found in nature--are they self-conscious? Or if I'm made
> of matter, then after death, since all the matter in my body is right
> there, can I say that I'm right there.
> Yes the brain stopped functioning, but it stopped because that life
> force is no longer there. If I'm not in this body any more, why should
> it continue to function? Yeah, this requires viewing the brain as
> dependent on the soul, rather than viewing consciousness as a
> byproduct of the brain.
Your fundamental flaw is to assume that because you say 'I' it equates
to some sort of singular phenomenon/entity. You dismiss that 'I'
could be the result of process and/or organisation.