Re: [asa] What is life? (letters in Raleigh News & Observer)

From: PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
Date: Tue Oct 16 2007 - 11:36:27 EDT

The relevance being?

On 10/16/07, Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu> wrote:
> Suppose evolutionary theory can thoroughly explain altruism. Given that
> knowledge, what data do you need about a particular individual in order
> to predict or give the corresponding probabilities that that individual
> is an altruist or not.
>
> Moorad
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PvM [mailto:pvm.pandas@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 11:13 PM
> To: Alexanian, Moorad
> Cc: AmericanScientificAffiliation
> Subject: Re: [asa] What is life? (letters in Raleigh News & Observer)
>
> What is one to make of such ad hoc claims? Proof by assertion seems
> rather circular an approach here.
>
> Let's take the concept of altruism, surely as nonphysical as any of
> the ones claimed by Alex, and yet we can study it, and even find
> plausible evolutionary explanations for it. So what am I to make of
> such assertions? Perhaps responding to it already makes too much of
> them, but I am really attempting to understand the logic involved.
>
> On 10/14/07, Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Consciousness and rationality are purely nonphysical, since purely
> physical devices cannot detect them, and can only be "detected" by the
> self in humans. In addition, life cannot be reduced to the purely
> physical, so living beings are both physical and nonphysical.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Oct 16 11:37:36 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Oct 16 2007 - 11:37:36 EDT