Replies

But how can you say that there is “no line to be drawn” respecting Mr. Bin Laden, which is what would seem to next follow from your argument: that the law must recognize an “artificial line” where none naturally exists?

This is really beneath you, BB. No one is arguing, and you know this well, that the categories of 'clearly alive' and 'clearly dead' don't exist. Please do me the credit of not treating me like an idiot. Just because some corpses have rotted for centuries, doesn't mean that there aren't cases like Ms. Schiavo.

Life and death just ain't that clear. If we could see a winged soul flitting, like a bat, from the corpus, maybe it would be easier, but it ain't.

This is really beneath you, BB. No one is arguing, and you know this well, that the categories of 'clearly alive' and 'clearly dead' don't exist.

That is not what I'm arguing about, RWP. What i am arguing about is the inanity of the so-called "fallacy of quantizing the continuum." To me, the fallacy implies that state vector collapse can never occur. But if we observe one anyway, then we are mistaken. As a friend has assured me, even a child can effect state vector collapse. For a child can decide; and any decision represents the "collapse" of a probability amplitude. This seems to be true both for quantum and "real-world" systems. The other thing that goes down the flush with this so-called fallacy is intentionality. For intentionality is what lies back of decision. With intentionality gone, thus goes free will.

You don't have to be a Christian or a Platonist to find such reasoning disagreeable.

Thanks for writing, Prof!